This is most noticeable in countries where the government is directly involved in owning, operating and maintaining the water supply facilities. Political interference manifests itself in several ways. In some cases for political reasons water is free or is not charged according to the costs of operation and maintenance and to cover capital costs. This decision not to charge properly for water makes it difficult to run a self financing viable system, even if government provides funding. When governments are short of cash, often it is the water supply facilities which are soft targets and experience the greatest budget cuts.
Political interference is often evident in the choice of technologies.
Government officials may for one reason or another support the purchase of a particular technology or system which may not be the best or most appropriate selection. Equipment suppliers and ESA's frequently hinder the wise choice of a technology by lobbying politicians or through restrictive policies of tied aid. The contracts awarded for building even small rural water supply facilities are significant and there is considerable competition between contractors to be selected. In some cases the job may be awarded for political reasons rather than on the basis of performance with the result that the completed facilities may be shoddily constructed. A possible alternative for the better management of water supply facilities is to devolve the responsibility of managing systems from government to autonomous agencies which will manage the facilities under technical, financial and administrative guidelines from the government.