Well, speaking as someone who has actually enforced the Clean Water Act while in service to the public as an officer in the Coast Guard, and having traveled the globe with an eye for maritime commerce and water quality as a whitewater enthusiast, I can say that the United States does a good job compared to most of the rest of the world.

'Shared infrastructure in the hands of the public' means government or regulated monopoly.

The local government, with greater pressure from local industry failed in this case, which in my reading, is an argument for greater federal control.

What other way to implement the granting of a special privilege, oversight and judgment, is there for something like water quality? Yelp?

It's largely about massive economic churn. The population of Flint shrunk by about 1/2 since 1960 (a good portion of the decrease has happened since 1990). The infrastructure and obligations entered into by a city of 175,000 are now being serviced by a city of 98,000. That would be hard to manage even if there were no mistakes made (and not fully funding pension programs at the time the employee is working is a massive mistake, leaving today's smaller population on the hook for yesterday's municipal services.).

> Funny how well it works in most other places to put shared infrastructure in the hands of the public.

You use the word "funny" in a way that suggests it's a coincidence, but let me introduce a different explanation:

In a landmass controlled by imperialistic government, as the USA is today, "public" and "government" have little discernible overlap.

That may explain why public services (I'm thinking especially of health care) work so well in present-day Europe but not in the USA.

Indeed. Any model can work. I think clean water is potentially more dangerous in the hands of private business who must make a profit, for the cost and safety issues born by forced customers. The case in Flint is, I hope, a relative anomaly.

I'm surprised Home Depot hasn't had a run on pitchforks and tiki torches.