The Issue of Water Privatization

By the year 2020, we are expected to be in a water crisis because "Two-thirds of the world is expected to be without access to clean water if the current development continues" ("Water Privatization Backgrounder", 1). While debates about how to resolve water shortages have been raging for years, solutions have not come easy. The debate over what should be done to our water supplies has been an ongoing debate. A tiny fraction of the planet's water is drinkable since; "less than one half of one percent of the earth's water is able to support human life" ("Water Privatization Backgrounder", 1). Both private and public control of water has had negative consequences. Needless to say, neither has been effective enough to stop the looming water crisis. It is clear that this issue needs to be resolved, because if we do not resolve it soon, we could find ourselves facing extinction.

Supporters of privatization of the water source are concerned with making the service "gain on quality, less water will be wasted, and it will increase the well being of the people in general" (Earlham College, 2). Their argument is that privatization: increases efficiency, improves the quality of service, and brings much needed professional expertise. The efficiency is increased because the company that manages the water supply specializes in this business, and has experts to help maximize operations. In Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada, the city has "estimated cost savings of over $12 million in its P3 contract with Veolia to deliver and operate 25 million gallons per day water treatment facility for 20 years" (Hodgson, 1). Examples like this one show how cities can benefit from privatization, especially in the money aspect where huge amounts such as $12 million can be saved over the lifetime of the contract. With the money that they save, they can put it right back into improving and expanding their services for the citizens. At the same time, the government does not have to spend money and time on managing the water supply, which could prevent other important projects from happening. Supporters of water privatization also stress that "non-performers fail to thrive" (Hodgson, 1). This works as a safe guard for the people. Those companies that make errors while servicing a particular area probably won't remain around for very long. The reason is simply because everyone depends on water for many basic needs, and no one will stand for poor quality. Most of the projects in Canada are still under contract, "delivering value to ratepayers" (Hodgson, 1).

Although privatization has been successful in some cases, it is largely dependent on the government's actions that determine the outcome of their water privatization experiments. Although Atlanta was indeed saving roughly $10 million a year, they were using it for "general fund expenses, rather than for the sewer fund as it had promised" (Moore, 1). In this case, the government was partially to blame for the failure of the privatization experiment because they did not uphold their promise. Had they done so, there might have been a different outcome. The key for water privatization succeeding is in the government still playing a role. If the government cleans their hands there responsibility of taking care of the water supply, then failure of the system is very likely.
Regulations need to be placed on companies, just as there are in every other sector of the economy.
The other side of the water control issue comes from those individuals that favor a publicly controlled entity. They believe that everyone should be able to access fresh water, whether or not they are able to pay for it. The ideal of the unalienable right to water is the basis of their argument. It is believed that corporations should not control the water source, because their main motive is profit and not necessarily in giving everyone access to water. This belief however, only holds weight when the corporation is not regulated by the government that gave them their contract. The opposition to water privatization has been divided into ten reasons by the World Prout Assembly, which is the organization the public water supporters have used to show their views. Their first one is "Privatization leads to rate increases" ("Topic 2: Water Privatization"). This has been true in many areas, throughout the history of water privatization. In France, customer fees "increased 150 percent while the water quality declined," while at the same time "in a French government report, it was revealed that over 5.2 million people had received "bacterially unacceptable water"" (VanOverbeke, 3). It can be inferred, that these rate increases were the product of the corporations drive for profit, and not to improve quality. In England, water rates "increased by 450 percent while company profits soared by 692 percent" (VanOverbeke, 3). This quest for profit can be seen as a clear byproduct of the capitalist society that we live in. A government's main objective is not to make a profit, but to provide good quality water at the lowest possible cost. The government, or public sector, is merely covering their costs to provide a service to the public.

Privatization can also lead to worse water quality than the public sector provides. As quoted by Dustin VanOverbeke in his article Water Privatization Conflicts, "private companies most often violate standards of operation, and engage in price fixing without many consequences." One reason this happens is when a government hands over the day-to-day operations of the water supply to the corporation, they 'wash their hands' of it. The government does not intervene when the corporation is not providing the kind of service it should be, unless they hear this message loud and clear from the public. If the government keeps control of it, they are held responsible and are not able to pass the blame on to someone else. This makes the government work harder to ensure that the water quality remains good, so that the elected officials want to remain in office.
Companies, whose main drive is to make profits, "are accountable to shareholders, not the Consumers" which is bad if you are the consumer (Earlham College, 2). This makes the people who can't afford to pay get pushed to the side in the hunt for profits to please the shareholders. This in turn causes people who cannot afford the price of clean water to turn to any other water source that they can find in order to live. Termed 'water stress,' many people are forced "to find alternative, and usually unsafe, water sources" (Krisberg, 1). This search for water has caused many people to get sick, and even die. In South Africa, many people obtained water from streams, causing a cholera outbreak that caused 200 deaths. The reason that they had turned to the streams was because many of them could not afford to pay for water that had been free before it became privatized. Public water is provided to everyone as a safety measure, so that they do not need to turn to unsanitary water sources that can cause fatal diseases.

Although these two stances may seem to be at the opposite side of the spectrum, they actually share common ideologies. Both sides are striving to provide access to water for everyone. Neither side is looking to abandon those people who can't afford water. They both are also looking for less expensive solutions to high quality water. No one wants the skyrocketing prices that have been associated with some privatization experiments. The main motive for looking for an alternative solution is to get better service at a high quality. Since it appears that the two sides are actually looking for the same thing, why not collaborate?
I believe our best solution would be to nationalize the water systems of all countries so that they are run like government corporations such as the post office is. There could then be university experts to monitor the water quality. They can help assume the role of overseeing the government's work. I came up with the idea partially from Luis Bazan's statement "What we want is a public company managed by workers, consumers, and the provincial government, and monitored by university experts to guarantee water quality and prevent corruption" (Barlow, 2).The definition of a government corporation could be defined as government providing a service, usually at a cost, that could be provided by the private sector. This way, there would be a fee for the water, but it would merely be so that the service could maintain good quality, and so that the network could be expanded and maintained. Theoretically, the fee would be low, because it would be owned by the government. Most people should then be able to afford it. Being a government owned entity; those who could not afford the service would get water as a part of a social service program such as the welfare system. Not being a private corporation, this entity would not be driven by profits, thus price fixing and inequality of service would not be present. In this aspect it would be able to much better service the people's needs. In today's world, you need to look no further than the United States Post Office to see a successful government corporation at work. While the price of postage does continually increase, it is amazing how little time and money it takes to deliver mail. The Post Office has been around since 1775, when it was established by the Second Continental Congress. These many years of success by a government corporation surely pave the way for our most precious resource to follow suit.Since countries themselves would still be competing for water with each other, in this proposal a worldwide organization would have to be created in order to settle disputes and write a doctrine for all nations to follow. It could be fashioned after the United Nations, in that it would be a governing body, with real authority. All nations would be represented, and all nations would have to provide something to the organization in order to be included in the protection of the doctrine. In this manner, potential problems with nations sucking aquifers of other nations dry would have a source of remedy. If carefully fashioned, a world of nationalized government corporations, with a worldwide governing body, could bring equilibrium to the world in terms of water.

As you can see, the majority of us are really supporting the idea of water equality. We merely have been taught that one of today's two solutions is the right one. In reality,
we have the same vision; to bring good quality water to everyone. Since that is the case, I think that it only makes sense that we use only the positive parts from both of these partially faulty solutions that are in place today. We can use them to create a system modeled after a government corporation, which will ensure that the water crisis does not diminish anyone's life.

Barlow, Maude."Water Warriors." March 28, 2008. Agence Global. 4/5/09 .
Hodgson, Mark, and Kathy Corrigan.. "To Privatize or Not? THE CASE FOR."
Canadian Consulting Engineer 46.1 (Jan. 2005): 26-28. Advanced Placement Source. EBSCO. Dundee Crown High School Library, Carpentersville, IL. 20 Apr. 2009 .
Klein, Michael. "Analysis:The Cost of Water." June 2, 2003. BBC News. 4/19/09

Krisberg, Kim. "Privatizing water systems draws mixed reviews." Nation's Health 33.2
(Mar. 2003): 15. Advanced Placement Source. EBSCO. Dundee Crown High School Library, Carpentersville, IL. 20 Apr. 2009 .
Ngwane, Trevor. "Water Privatization: The Case Against." June 3, 2003. BBC News. 4/19/09
.
VanOverbeke, Justin"Water Privatization Conflicts." Spring 2004.
University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire.4./5/09.
.
"Commission on Substainable Development." December 4, 2008. Earlham College Model United Nations. 4/5/09
< http://www.earlham.edu/~modelun/content/committees/csd/water.html>.
"The Privatization Mode." Public Citizen. 4/5/09 .
"Water Privatization Backgrounder." Public Citizen. 4/4/09 .
"Water Privatization." September 25, 2004. State Enviromental Resource Center. 4/19/09