Advantages Of Privatization Of Water

Mexico’s water supply has been dwindling since the 1980s, when Mexico’s population more than doubled. The current problem is that the water provided to the Mexican public is not clean, as 70% of Mexico’s water bodies are contaminated. The general population is forced to try and make do with the water that they are provided with or find a private supplier who might supply cleaner water at a much higher price. The government has gone on to propose that water distribution be moved to the private sector, since the reforms needed to fix the water infrastructure would be too much for the central government. This would potentially allow for cleaner and cheaper water that what is currently provided by the Mexican government. This reform has been attempted in countries across the world, with little prevail.

What we gained from this research was not a thorough understanding of the legislative measures that governments are taking to provide water to the citizens within their borders. Rather, we learned the general lesson that governments, regardless of their resources or political structure, are not the most reliable or capable entities to provide for human beings

With 1,400 miles of water and 9 states using it- water is running out fast. Farmers that use the water are saying that they have more legal rights to use the water since they are growing food to give to everyone. Although, cities are needing water to keep their people alive as well.

There is a water crisis which faces many parts of the world and it is a threat to survival of human beings since humans are primarily dependent on water. Shortage in drinking water is beginning to show its effects in first world countries, but is a current major problem facing lesser developed countries which have not taken drastic steps to harvest water and purify it to make it safe for human consumption. In developed countries the population growth has strained available water resources and stretched the ability of governments and private firms to provide safe drinking water to the vast majority of the population. Seventy one percent of

The quality of water however falls solely on humans, who are the number one hazards to the precious water we have become so addicted to. The obligation for safe, clean, drinkable water is an individual responsible; if you die or fall victim to dehydration the blame falls on the suffering individuals. That being written, no person should have the right to revoke water from anyone. If an organization has taken it upon themselves to treat, facilitate, and distribute water in return for some compensation then any persons may purchase this service so long as the required payments are being

The world revolves around water. Without it, organisms would cease to exist. With that being said, humans depend on it on a daily basis. In the documentary “Thirst”, it covers the controversy of water privatization in Bolivia, India, and Stockton. All of these regions are opposed to water privatization by the powerful corporations that operate in the area. The people living in these places believe that water privatization negatively affects their control of their water, because it a human right. On the other hand, the multinational corporations believe that water is an economic resource that should be bought and sold, for profit. I believe that water should not have the ability to be privatized.

The story Thirst reflects on how global corporations like Nestle, Suez, and Veolia are rapidly purchasing local water sources such as lakes, streams, and springs. Those companies are also taking control of public water services. While trying to privatize and turn a larger profit off of water, they have manipulated and bought politicians, have gone “under the table” to make deals and undermined the democratic process by trying to deny citizens a voice in fundamental decisions about their most essential public resource. The authors ' Thirst explain the emergence of a controversial new water wars in the United States and showing how communities here are fighting this battle, often against companies headquartered overseas. The three followed water privatization battles across the United States from California to Massachusetts and from Georgia to Wisconsin, documenting the rise of public opposition to corporate control of water resources. These towns find it hard to balance a budget, so when large companies come in and offer to control the water the town looks at it as a major way to cut costs, but what it ends up costing is much more.

According to McHarg et al. eds. (2010), in the last three decades world governments used to shed the burden of capital investment, especially in sphere of water, through privatization in order to achieve more efficiency of water supplies. This approach was developed deeply in European countries such as England, which is already famous for it’s the most highly regulated water companies. This method also enables the company to concentrate on the service, management and funding of the service, whereas the local government provides water services in developing countries and cannot afford investments in large hydraulic infrastructure. Those are the “Third World” countries and the most of them are Asian. However, I want to make a significant accent on one of the industrious world’s empires – China.

Furthermore , the government should take the responsibility manage the water supply. Farmers can find other ways to grow their crops in a more efficient way that requires less water nowadays because of technology. The citizens of towns cannot be going months without water to bathe or drink. It is for the better of the people the state and the land. Overall more good can come out of water regulation than

“Nestle in Michigan” is a video clip on YouTube about the Nestle corporations bottled water plants with a primary focus being on the plant located in Stanwood, Michigan (Menzies, 2010). Nestle has a 99 year lease on property that only cost them $63,000, “they received $10 million in tax abatements”, and they are pumping water at a rate of 218 gallons per minute (down from the original 450 gallons per minute) (Menzies, 2010). In other words, Nestle is pumping dangerously large amounts of water that is free to them as property owners, selling it for a profit, and not being subjected to the same tax as other land owners.

Court-ordered decisions of setting a maximum cap of pumping extractions were settled in the 1960’s. We can lower the maximum cap of pumping extractions again, just like we did in the 1960’s, when this problem began to occur. One of the main reasons that the land is depleting is because there is no government agency closely monitoring groundwater use in California due to it not being considered a public good. They need this groundwater to be considered a public good in order for it to be closely watched, otherwise the ground under Californians will just continue to sink. To summarize, when Californians pay their electricity bill, they are not only spending it on a third of their state’s energy to pump groundwater, but also for their property to

Many people take water for granted. Influences such as the environment and geography shape global phenomena. We are surrounded by water, but there are still many in this world that have trouble getting access to clean water. Water should not be owned in the world. Much of the world is surrounded by water, which means everyone should have access to it.

Bywater, K. (2008). Globalization, privatization, and the crisis of sustainability: Examining the global water crisis. Conference Papers -- American Sociological Association, 1.

Life springs up around water sources. It is no coincidence that some of the greatest civilizations have been build need fertile bodies of water. Known life relies on water to sustain that life. So it is no surprise when a debate arose in 2013 around comments made by Nestlé Chairman Peter Brabeck regarding privatization of water and the fundamental human right to survive from dehydration and illness from non-portal water consumption. Although the context of Brabeck’s comment was taken out of context, issues surrounding the access companies like Nestlé have been given to bottle their water when people do not have access to clean water and droughts are threatening crop production. Adding a price tag is not the answer. The market, both these companies and their consumers have a major role to play in the management of water; a role that requires a change in mindset of privilege many citizen of the United States, and other countries that do not see the direct effects that serious clean water issue have on people that do not have it.

There are basically three ways that water is privatized; bottled water, municipal services and bulk water sales. As a consumer of bottled water I wanted to research further and find out the truth about it. What I discovered was that we as consumers have been fooled by these water corporations. To begin with the cost of bottled water is two thousand times more than tap water. I found it absolutely ludicrous that we are willing to pay such a high price for bottled water considering it costs close to nothing to drink water from the tap. In reality, as I found out, most bottled water which we believe comes from some exotic spring is actually filtered tap water from a U.S. city. According to Food & Water Watch one third of all bottled water comes from a public water source. #4