Well, is water a basic human right? Or should it be allowed to be privatized.
http://earthweareone.com/nestle-ceo-water-is-not-a-human-right-should-be-privatized/

I'll wait a while before tossing in my 2 cents.

This is actually a very hard decision to make. If water was privatized then basically some (Not all) rich people might (May or may not) just horde it all and use it to control people (You know like in those movies with the sciencey resources and stuff). But if it was still a human right/free then people may (or may not) Just continue to waste (Can you waste water i'm not entirely sure) water. Then again this could change the world (Obviously) and may (or may not) start causing cities to have riots and such over water supplies within them (Again like those scienecy resource movies). Though this stuff happens in movies, there's nothing saying that it would happen in real life if something as important as water was only allowed to the rich/higher ups. Then again there's also nothing saying that it wouldn't happen. I don't really know... *Edit: I didn't actually read the entire article, i read the first two paragraphs :3*--*Edit Again* normally i'd just delete all this stuff then i remembered that you can't delete posts xD so to answer the question after actually reading the article my answer is that water shouldn't be privatized... Yeah xD*

Yes water is a basic human right. If you purchase water it is yours and you do not have to just give it to people. There is no one in hell anyone can keep a price on water that would keep people from getting it. That's when everyone will get together with their guns and revolutionize that shit. Plus you would see people digging their own wells and stuff like they did when the settlers first came to america. I don't think society would let itself go in reverse in that aspect.

Firstly I have to point out that privatization is a very general term. It may denote a company's complete control over everything such as maintaining the infrastructure, control of the resource, etc. Or perhaps it may refer to a contract where the company's responsibilities are much more limited. This suggests that if you were to have multiple private companies in control of water, there will be more added complexity without consistency which can indeed be a headache. To deliver water effectively you need planning. And with multiple private companies out trying to control the water source, I see lots of difficulty and possible mishaps. Plans will clash and conflict, and in the end it may just end up a colossal waste of cash.

There have been reports that some companies may choose to withhold or provide very limited data on their actions. This lack of transparency will give these companies a chance to exploit the people. They may say "we are raising the water bill for maintenance". Well we can't prove that this is true or false due to the fact they are in control of the information they deliver to us. In order to allow for privatization, there must be some tight regulations in place, and even then the company may find ways to exploit it. They may choose to engage in projects outside of the governments permission, and once it is started there's not much you can do to stop it. In India for example there was an incident where a privately funded project engaged in illegal activity.

Now one of the arguments for privatization is that it will help improve the quality and accessibility of water and water related services. This can be true. But usually the cost of private water would be more then public for two main reasons:
. The lack of competition which means that there is no need to lower prices.
. These private companies are not eligible for tax-free bonds.
But more expensive does not guarantee goodness. In the last link I provided it used an example of how Atlanta privitized water in 1990 but due to the shitty job of that company, they had to retake control. Another example they used was of Illinois American Water Co which increased their prices by 30% just because. According to this source, private companies have a failure rate of 34%. While it is not a majority, those numbers raise some red flags.

Of course, this is not to say that the government are immune from fucking up. There are indeed instances where privatized water is necessary. According to this paper, they found that "integration works best in developing countries when it is integrated into a broader development framework." But from my personal standpoint, I just can't trust them. The goal of a business is to make more money which would ultimately lead them to fuck up something for someone. Those from lower socio-economic backgrounds will be screwed hard while those with lavish lifestyle continue living with minor hindrances.

Water is essential for living. You can even argue that it has even greater significance compared to electricity or even food if you are taking into account how long you can live without it. In addition to consumption, it is also used for sanitation. You need it to clean yourself, clean your home, take a dump, etc. By restricting access to this resource, essentially you are sticking your middle finger to the those who can't afford it and say that you deserve to dwell in your filth and die of thirst because you aren't paying me enough. You are promoting poor health and hygiene in the community, which is something that I can't agree with.

This is liking whether air is a basic right or not. You need it for life then it's basic and everyone should have open access to it.
HOWEVER I think there should be regulations against water WASTING. Like if a person or corporation are heavily polluting or overusing water without justification, they should be fined for it, since by wasting it you could be denying it from others.

Water is a basic human need. Your rights depend on where you live. There are no universal basic rights. The United Nations has a list of basic rights, but not every country is part of the UN. Besides that, UN basic rights are violated everyday- especially, here in America :D

If there's a law that takes away my ability to drink water, that is a f*cked up law. If you think about it for a moment, let's say i was a king or something and i said only 10% of the people can drink water. If people followed that, than in less than a week, all the people who didn't drink water would be either dead or really dehydrated. In a month they'd be dead. Hopefully that answers your question.

Quote from Escarioth

Water is a basic human need. Your rights depend on where you live. There are no universal basic rights. The United Nations has a list of basic rights, but not every country is part of the UN. Besides that, UN basic rights are violated everyday- especially, here in America :D

The human right to water has been recognized in international law. However, why is there a law for something we need to survive? I agree with Salt, it's like making a 'law' that every human has a right to breathe, OF COURSE THEY DO. We need water to survive, why do we need a LAW to ensure this?
I think everyone should have a right to use water, however, limited quantity. Enough for amply drinking, bathing, washing ..etc, no useless water wasting.

Quote from Exxonite

The human right to water has been recognized in international law. However, why is there a law for something we need to survive? I agree with Salt, it's like making a 'law' that every human has a right to breathe, OF COURSE THEY DO. We need water to survive, why do we need a LAW to ensure this?
I think everyone should have a right to use water, however, limited quantity. Enough for amply drinking, bathing, washing ..etc, no useless water wasting.

Air is free and impossible to regulate. Clean, drinkable water is a different story. You are free to catch rain for water or dig a well. However, beyond that, we all pay for the water we use. We don't have any right to it beyond our ability to pay for it or else somehow acquire it on our own. I would agree that actively preventing people from obtaining water for survival would be wrong, but beyond that, there are homeless people all over the world who lack basic access to water and rely on the generosity of food shelters (if even available) for survival. Nobody does anything about it - so until the people at the bottom all have inherent, government funded access to water, saying humans have a right to water is just talk. Where I come from I've seen people having to resort to drinking filthy, black, poluted water out of ditches to survive - and we are part of the UN. Rights to water - I say ha.

I'd say if you want water and you are near a company that have water taps and have empty glasses, they are obligated to give you water without charge. If they want to sell bottled water at £1000 per ml, that's their choice and they can.

Now if you wanted water to wash your car or clothes instead of enough to drink, I'd say that can't be made a human right to have- you've gone from basic survival to luxury.

However, water on taps for personal use is interesting, because that can't be free and sustainable, so companies are going to have to charge for it or get the money off tax. Water prices being too high for people to reasonably afford might be a violation of human rights?

Water is a natural product that cannot be manufactured, produced, cultivated, harvested or grown.

It's like saying access or air can be privatized and monetized.

Sure, bottled water can be privatized because it's manufactured, as well as tap water, because it's harvested, but there really aren't any grounds to stand on to prevent people from purifying their own water the same way Nestle tries to buy out farmers that grow certain crops that would compete with Nestle products.

There are many things that are a natural product that can't be manufactured, produced, cultivated, harvested or grown. Gold for example, is just that, however you may argue that it isn't essential for living. But then you can call up fossil fuels or natural gases. In this case it certainly has a greater degree of importance, I feel personally, but it won't impair your functioning within the short term (short term still has to be defined). You can't use that argument unless you draw the distinction that the resource is absolutely vital for basic human functioning. Perhaps an important term we should consider is renewable.

I've been reading on some opposing arguments. Say you have two farmers. Each need water for their crops. One happens to find a water source without the others knowledge. Should this source be considered his since he discovered it first, or should he be obliged to distribute it equally? Then again he could just keep it a secret. Another way to look at it, is you discover a lake magically on a chunk of land you just bought. You build a fence around it and you say it's your pool. Of course there are laws governing this, e.g. Riparian water rights, but I'm just trying to dissect their point of view.

Quote from Captain Cook

Water is a natural product that cannot be manufactured, produced, cultivated, harvested or grown.

It's like saying access or air can be privatized and monetized.

Exactly. You can harvest your own water if you want/have to. When you pay for water you are just paying for someone else to do it for you. A similar argument can be made for food.

Quote from Envoy

There are many things that are a natural product that can't be manufactured, produced, cultivated, harvested or grown. Gold for example, is just that, however you may argue that it isn't essential for living. But then you can call up fossil fuels or natural gases. In this case it certainly has a greater degree of importance, I feel personally, but it won't impair your functioning within the short term (short term still has to be defined). You can't use that argument unless you draw the distinction that the resource is absolutely vital for basic human functioning. Perhaps an important term we should consider is renewable.

I've been reading on some opposing arguments. Say you have two farmers. Each need water for their crops. One happens to find a water source without the others knowledge. Should this source be considered his since he discovered it first, or should he be obliged to distribute it equally? Then again he could just keep it a secret. Another way to look at it, is you discover a lake magically on a chunk of land you just bought. You build a fence around it and you say it's your pool. Of course there are laws governing this, e.g. Riparian water rights, but I'm just trying to dissect their point of view.

If it's on your land, it's your water. If the farmer wants the water for himself, he can buy it but, of course that's an asshole move.

Quote from Exxonite

The human right to water has been recognized in international law. However, why is there a law for something we need to survive? I agree with Salt, it's like making a 'law' that every human has a right to breathe, OF COURSE THEY DO. We need water to survive, why do we need a LAW to ensure this?

Because it places responsibility on governments to provide water access to its citizens and to make reasonable attempts to avoid water contamination. The fact that you think it's common sense doesn't mean it shouldn't be codified in law.

Quote from Envoy

I've been reading on some opposing arguments. Say you have two farmers. Each need water for their crops. One happens to find a water source without the others knowledge. Should this source be considered his since he discovered it first, or should he be obliged to distribute it equally?

If you want to talk hypotheticals, keep in mind that the basic right to water exists for emergencies where access to water is threatened. If that region was experiencing a severe drought, it's unlikely that a source of clean, usable water would be available for someone to randomly stumble upon, and if they chose to horde the water for themselves while people are dying of dehydration, I doubt you would defend his right to do so. Especially if you were the farmer next door.

If everyone's water needs are being met, I don't see why he should be compelled to share it with anyone. The right to water only really comes into play once it becomes a matter of life or death.

You need water to live, grow food, take a bath, have plant life. Water will always be needed. Water can be used for greed but for without water how can Earth and humans survive. Some water companies can use water they supply customers with for their corporal greed which can make it hard for people to pay their water bill but not all water companies are greedy. We do need leadership governments to help maintain water for what use it is used for. Hoarding water will only leave to evaporation or finally to an expiration date.