The problem is that any 'fee' is subject to political economy. The government may begin by charging the monopoly rent, but will soon grant exceptions to favored groups. After that, the government will raise fees on disfavored groups, and redirect revenue to 'where it is most urgently needed'. The locks will then fall into disrepair, users will find other alternatives, and by the time the government goes on another infrastructure-repairing frenzy, it will be much too late.
I'd rather resources be managed privately but I just don't river traffic being managed privately in this country. Even if a private company managed it by contract, there would be the inevitable kickbacks to the pols making the decision.
Which is why I also advocate reducing the concentration of power our system has created. Specifically, I'd like to see proportional representation replace winner-take-all elections, even in the executive branch.
The issue with proportional representation is that it may reduce the concentration of power amongst the parties, but it will make political parties more important than individual representatives, and promote a hyper-partisan attitude. When turning out 'your side' is more important than convincing the median voter, the parties will focus on their bases, and the candidates will be dependent on the party, which means there will be less room for compromise. This is not so important in multi-party parliamentary democracies such as Italy which have a history of 'minority governments', but will make the executive branch of the USA even more partisan.
> The issue with proportional representation is that it may reduce the concentration of power amongst the parties, but it will make political parties more important than individual representatives, and promote a hyper-partisan attitude.
What you say is arguably a valid concern for one particular method of achieving proportional representation (the Party List Proportional method), but there is no clear reason it would be for other methods of promoting proportionality (such as multimember districts with candidate-centered elections using Single Transferrable Vote.)
> When turning out 'your side' is more important than convincing the median voter, the parties will focus on their bases,
That's already exactly the case with the US system, where elections are won more by turnout and less by conversions. The duopoly naturally produced by FPTP makes efforts to depress turnout of the other sides likely voters (whether by targeted propaganda or actual suppression) a strong tactic.
