I fully agree with increased ratepayer fees for normal wear and tear, and some major projects. It gets a bit shady for me, however, when you are talking about huge public works projects that place an undue burden on rateholders, when the benefit to the nation as a whole probably outweighs the cost to the taxpayer.
It gets even more complicated when you are talking about private utilities (since municipal utilities have a certain built-in advantage to both the rateholder and the utility when it comes to major projects of this sort).
In this case, should we fall on the side of it being solely a NYC responsibility, or should we consider the importance of a safe water system to our biggest city, which is also a planetary commerce center?
In the bigger infrastructure picture, where do you draw the line? We are facing this in Seattle, as we contemplate the replacement of a vital bridge across Lake Washington and a downtown waterfront highway. In these instances, I'm all for tolls, since they are state highways, but if they were interstate highway links, I'd feel differently (since the interstate is a federal program)
And what about programs like the Bonneville power administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority? True, they are regional in scope, but the energy they provide benefits the whole nation - both in terms of economic activity, and the tax base. Shouldn't we, as a nation, accept some of the liability, along with the benefit?
Admittedly, I'm an infrastructure and politics geek. Otherwise, why would I be posting something like this on a Friday night? But it is a question for society to ponder: Our forebearers built the infrastructure on which we have structured our lives and our livelihood. What do we owe our offspring?