Private Water Management - Essay Example

?Khalaf Alzaaq Melissa Carrion ENG 1100-02 Nov 27 Argument D3 Public or Private Water Management Outline Introduction Argument for public water management Counter argument Conclusion Introduction Water is an important issue. Most people do not understand that water is a very important issue. Climate change has made people more aware of the problem. This year many droughts and wildfires in the United States and in other parts of the world have been discussed on the news. Climate change has been shown to have a negative impact on the quality of life of people everywhere. Dry weather caused the bad droughts and the wildfires. When people have enough water they do not think about water. But when people do not have water they suffer. When people do not have water they do not have a good life. In some countries business is in charge of water. Privatization is when a business is in charge of the water in a community. Public water management is when the government has control of the water in a community. Some communities have a combination of business and government in charge of water management. Governments cannot control climate change but they should manage water because then water will not be too expensive, it will be easy for people to find, and people will be healthier. This paper argues for government management of the water industry. the paper identifies the need for affordability, hygiene, and equitable distribution as the major reasons why government should manage the industry because the private sector cannot guarantee the factors. Argument for public water management One of the arguments in favor of public water management is that with public management, water will be cheaper to the consumer. Shah Anup argues that water is the most fundamental of all human rights and should not be treated as a commodity. Private companies should not manage water because they have self-interest in making profits than fulfilling the public’s interest. Consequently, accessibility to water, under privatized management, will be limited to the rich because demand and the market forces of demand will drive distribution and supply to increase prices. This corresponds to Shah’s observation that privatization of water management “has instead led to reduced access for the poor around the world as prices for these essential services have risen” (Shah 1). Essie Solomon from Environment Probe shares the opinion that water is essential and is a fundamental right. The author explains that water is one of the “inalienable rights”; and “do not come from a government” but must be protected by the government (Solomon 1). Consequently, the government must take the responsibility of water management to ensure that people’s right to access water is protected. Such protection ensures availability and a subsequent affordability of water to all economic classes of people (Solomon 1). Macdonald Nancy argues that it has a great success story, with increased efficiency, quality, reliability, and affordability. She explains that “privatizing water services is bad for the poor, bad for the environment, and leads to inequitable distribution of water” (Macdonald 1). This is because the poor becomes the most vulnerable due to the profit orientation of the private sector that focuses on delivering quality services to the rich who can promote the sector’s profit motive. According to industry’s track levels, privatization has often led to private companies’ violation of operational standards of water services. These have resulted in high prize fixations which often lead to the poor people consuming contaminated water. In Britain, for example, after privatization, water and sewage bills increased by 67% and water disconnection because of lack of payment rose by 177%. A report by the French government showes that consumer fees increased by a whopping 150% after privatization (Shah 1). Currently, 90 per cent of the world’s water distributions are controlled by the state and records indicate that they are well managed. The government should also manage water distribution because of the associated quality of delivery such as hygienic conditions that guarantees people’s health. Past research has proved that privatization of water management has resulted in poor water quality. In South Africa for example after Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux in Johannesburg took over water services, cholera infections increased significantly and forced disconnection of thousands of residents’ water supplies. In Canada, records show that after privatization to A&L Labs, seven people died as a result of E. coli bacteria in Ontario, which they had contracted from drinking water. In Australia, a test done on water after privatization showed that the water was contaminated with high levels of cryptosporidium and giardia (Shah 1). Another reason why water management should be left for the government is the guaranteed service delivery from the governments to the people. This is because the government’s role is neither commercial nor limited to moral obligations, but is often constitutional. This means that regardless of barriers to delivery such as involved costs, the government will always ensure that water is equitably available to all citizens. Such a guaranteed delivery is essential to the predicted changes in the market of water. In the next forty years from now, according to Macdonald, “water use is expected to triple as the world’s population grows by a predicted three billion people” (Macdonald 1).. At the same time, adverse weather are expected with the emergence of global warming that will increase the level of water scarcity, especially in areas that are already dry. The government’s role in water management is also necessary in ensuring delivery because as Eckstein explains, , scarcity of water is not a quantity issue but a distribution issue. The amount of water in the world is enough to fulfill everyone’s needs a hundred times over but its distribution is the problem. Privatization of water management may improve distribution due to profit orientation but there are concerns that such a move would result in humanitarian crises of the poor not having access to water. Privatization will therefore worsen the problem of distribution of water that is reported in even societies where governments manage water. According to Ashok Gadgil, even with state owned distributions, water is preferably distributed to industries, agriculture and the elites. The poor living in slums and rural areas are cut off already and they do without running water. . A close review of the issue of water distribution and the consequential cost shows that the poor already spend expensively to access water, more that thrice the value, and ten times higher in some cases. While this happens even under government management, privatization of the industries creates more wories (Macdonald 1). Counter arguments A number of opinions however support privatization of water management. While a significant proportion of the world’s population cannot access water, those who access water courtesy of government’s efforts wastes the resource. Privatization of water will also result to realistic pricing and as a result lead to reduction of waste, and better distribution. It is also argued that the water industry should be liberalized into a free market with government control to ensure market efficiencies and avoid disadvantages of monopolies (Holland and Christine 146). Research has also identified benefits of privatizing the water industry such as the reduced child mortality rates in Argentina between the year 1991 and the year 1997. This is because privatization increased access to water among the poor (Vandana 65). Counter arguments Conclusion Water is essential to life . It is one of the most important resources and it needs to be safeguarded if at all human beings and animals are to live a fruitful life. Even though privatization of water management has identified some advantages such as reduced wastage and isolated cases of improved accessibility, these cannot override the immense advantages of government management that the private sector cannot achieve. These include equitable distribution, fair prices, and hygiene. While government management may have identifiable weaknesses, its advantages are more than the disadvantages and covers potential advantages that the private sector management may offer. The government, and not the private sector, should therefore manage the water industry. Works Cited Nancy, Macdonald. “Is the privatization of water the right thing to do?” Macleans.ca, 3 Sept 2009. Web. 26 Nov 2012. Sjolander, Holland and Ann Christine:The Water Business: Corporations versus People, Zed Books, 2005. Print. Shah, Anup. “Water and Development.” Global Issues. 06 Jun. 2010. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. Shiva, Vandana. Water Wars: Privatization, Pollution, and Profit.South End Press. 2002. Print. Solomon, Essie. “Don't bottle 13-year-old's water wisdom” National Post (f/k/a The Financial Post, Canada), 23, Aug. 2012 Web. 5 Nov. 2012. Read More