I'm not sure about how your project will work out. However, I can comment on how it works where I live.
Quickly looking over the article, the author mentions how water is provided free in nature and thus should not be sold. The government authority here that provides water to my home sends a bill requiring me to pay, or else I'll lose my water supply.
What natural rights to sustenance exist? If water is agreed to as a free resource because it is vital to life, how about food? Shelter? Land? The opposition to privatization seems to rely solely on this "natural right" in the face of greater utilization to the consumer. The author also places water distribution as the highest of government functions. How about defense, keeping the peace, and so on?
Remember that nature provides water with all manner of metals, parasites, bacteria and viruses. The author's resistance to profit is borne out of ignorance. I can go on about the profit mechanism, how if water yields great profits than more individuals will choose to become suppliers and so on. If water prices tripled after privatization, were government subsidies keeping the price down? If so, how did that affect water quality and distribution? Subsidization imposes economic costs on your water consumers anyway. If the company simply raised prices independent of any idea of costs, are competitors allowed to supply water as well?
Is the current method in which water is distributed good? Will this company have government protections if it does a bad job, thereby jeopardizing the competitive drive to produce a good product? Are mechanisms in place for others to join in water treatment and distribution?
If the company enjoys government protections that change its incentives to do anything other than compete for its survival through providing superior service, this would cause many quality and other issues. If a water market can work, I'm all for it -- yay.