Water Should Be Owned And Supplied By The State

People pay to eat, to have a roof over their heads, to get a marriage license, My point is human rights include a right to own property, to get food, to get married. Sadly many people confuse, for example, Number 17 of the universal declaration of human rights, the right to own property, [[http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/]] with having the right to get a free house. What this right really means is a right to procure or build a house, and keep it if they legally purchased it, and for it not to be taken arbitrarily.

Is very important here to make the distinction between ownership and supply. Since the motion asks that the prop. prove both should be had by the State, it’s important to say that one thing is an entity (company or state) closing up every access to natural water supplies (by fencing up a river for example) or tainting it (poisoning a well), and a very different one is this same entity investing money on pipes and the technology needed to take it right to someone’s tap. The first entails ownership and the second supply.

I want to say that no entity should have ownership of the water supply. They should only have the stewardship of it. They should have the right to charge others for the service of supply citizens clean, safe water right to their house tap. Citizens in turn should have the right to sue a State or company in a fair trial if and when their own right of procuring water is violated. An example of this principle in action is the lawsuit brought against the Argentinian State by the Paynemill Community. “In this case, the water supply of an indigenous community, the Paynemil Mapuche Community, in Neuquén, Argentina, had been polluted with lead and mercury by an oil company.”[[http://www.righttowater.info/code/legal_4.asp]] The case shows that the government shouldn’t be trusted to own the water.

I congratulate the prop. on correctly identifying the problems with water supply. But the analysis of why this problem can be only resolved by the State is sorely lacking. Prop. stated that governments are more capable to provide water, that only states are big enough, but fail to give evidence.

40% percent of the world’s water supply is brought to people by two corporations [[http://www.righttowater.info/code/legal_4.asp]]. They are in every sense bigger than the water supply capabilities of many small countries. Evidently they are very capable as well since they are still open for business.

Saying that people need water is of course not proof that government need to tax citizens to get water to every part of the land and be the sole provider. Just as need it’s not an justification for forcing everyone to have only socialized medicine and forcing part of the population to pay for others.

There is nothing natural about a monopoly. It entails the use of force. The opp. of this debate hates monopolies, be them of the state or state sponsored.

They say that people can’t wait for a business to start or for a company’s decision to go to remote locations. We agree, but to create a state monopoly doesn’t help these people and in fact it does them a disservice. No matter how much prop says things like “production must be guaranteed”, creating a monopoly doesn’t guarantee anything. On the contrary it pretty much raises the possibilities that if the government won’t /can’t do it no other interested party will be there to provide service.

It would be like closing private schools to ensure education. Absurd.

<!– /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:”Cambria Math”; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-536869121 1107305727 33554432 0 415 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-469750017 -1073732485 9 0 511 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:””; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:8.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:107%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:”Calibri”,sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; color:#954F72; mso-themecolor:followedhyperlink; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-family:”Calibri”,sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:8.0pt; line-height:107%;} @page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} –>
It tend to agree with the UN: there is enough water for everyone. And there will be enough water for everyone. I do not dispute their evidence of a 30% decrease in 20 years time (but it sure would have been nice to get a quote) it sounds right since the population is going to grow and with it the demand for water. But this only means that the current sources of water are going to experience a decrease. This leaves out desalinization. An article on Scientific American [[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-impacts-of-relying-on-desalination]] states: “To date there are about 300 desalinization plants in the United States, with 120 in Florida and less than 40 each in Texas and California. Some 20 additional plants are planned for the coast of California in the coming years…” It also leaves out taking the water from the air. What? From the air? Yes, there is an Israeli invention that: “works in three steps: first is the absorption of air’s humidity, then the removal of water from a solid desiccant (silica based gel granules) which holds the water, and third, condensation.” [[http://www.haaretz.com/news/israeli-company-creates-drinking-water-out-of-thin-air-1.256540]]
Even if these alternatives didn’t exist, creating a state monopoly on water would fail to magically create water and it would make fresh water sources more strained. The prop says you cannot subject water to a play of supply and demand. This leaves either giving it away or heavily subsidizing it. But when people get something for free o extremely cheap tend to use it less judiciously. Its precisely the relationship between your demand and how much you pay what make a person less wasteful. Caracas is one of the most expensive cities in South America. Except when it comes to utilities [[http://www.caracaschronicles.com/node/2432]]. Venezuelan’s also use more electricity per capita than any other country except Chile. The conclusion is: “The underlying picture is clear enough: as power gets cheaper relative to other goods and services, people use power ever more recklessly”. [[ http://www.caracaschronicles.com/node/2423%5D%5D So the prop. idea would cause water to be wasted, just like it happens with electricity. And since we have 20 years to create widely used and cheap alternatives, it’s a good idea to reduce waste.

This point says that you cannot trust private companies. I do not call for users to blindly trust anyone.It’s better when the public pressures suppliers, to get them to publish lab tests of their water and that the consumer groups double check them. But even state mandated test could work, maybe. I would be glad if my own state-owned water company would publish the results of the water going into my building’s pipes. Many barrios in Caracas illegally connect water from the pipes to their houses, and many times the paying costumers get contaminated water because of this. Since my government needs the votes it does nothing about it. I use a filter to feel good enough about the water I pay (very little) for. The people that get contaminated by food in the US is not really of relevance. Most of those cases are of bacteria and parasites linked to the consumption of meat and the bad preparation of foods. The cases that are related to companies being irresponsible should be punished by civil suits as harshly as possible, instead of protected by lobbies.

I’m delighted that Prop. brought the example of PG&E (or for moviegoers, Erin Brockovich). In the movie you could see how Erin (Julia) goes to the Water Board of the area and how, despite sitting on documents that evidence foul play, the State employee does nothing; he is being payed to keep his mouth shut. Another infuriating thing: when the lawyers filed a suit against PG&E there were regulations that kept each victim from being able to sue the heck out of the company on his own. 300$ millions was too little. And some PG&E people should be in jail. But they’re protected by the State.

On the DMZ example: sorry, but that it’s about a private water bottling company, whose angle is that the water is so pure it should be on the most expensive-bottled-water list. At best this phrase: “We worked it all with the military” signals that sometimes there is need for minimal state intervention, for securing the workers’ life (as it’s their duty) as they work perilously close to North Korea.

About “the great country of Scotland” loving it’s state owned Scottish Water, I lament prop didn’t look for evidence. A short search turned out the fact that Scotland is now very less happy with it than 10 years ago [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3566939.stm]], that they are arguing about semi-privatizing it and that “The current situation is probably unsustainable for Scottish Water.” [[http://www.heraldscotland.com/business/corporate-sme/futures-trust-argues-for-3-5bn-privatisation-of-scottish-water-1.1041921]]

Regarding this example of Afghanistan, followed by this explanation

Proposition

After a war, many of the corporations that provide water for the citizens suffer from the attacks and fall into disrepair and it is the government that have to provide because in many cases will be the only standing up at the very end.

I don’t think that the reconstruction was made at all by a) the Afghan state, but the US and b) that it was free from using Private companies in the reconstruction. [[http://www.afghanrc.com/]]
It’s not true that Prop. Privatization has not been a solution for promoting capacity expansion.
but in any case, is the prop. saying it has been a solution for promoting other good things? I wonder.
The fact that there is some resistance to privatization in some countries has no bearing on the subject of it being a good idea. And it doesn’t make total state ownership a thing to do. In fact when in a country there is a small or big majority that forces all to do something, like have only one water supplier, that is called the tyranny of the masses. Of course I’m sure that if the prop. takes another look at their point they will see that it’s arguing that what if everyone dislikes something it shouldn’t be done. In fact it’s pretty expected that if a State promises that everything will be given to you pretty much for free (if you are poor), there will be a resistance to changes in the policy.
Prop says there could be employment reductions in privatization. This is only the case of jobs that prove to be unnecesary for the company. This salaries went out of tax payer’s pocket, so it’s great that those cuts happen. As the prop says this frees up government resources for investment.

The prop complains about companies being after money. I say of all the interests an entity may have in treating a user well, the best reason is money. The reason is mathematical. If a state owned water company treats a user badly (bad service, bad quality) it looses something he really cares about: votes (in the case of democracy) or maybe popularity. The thing is both democracies and dictatorships can afford to loose votes up tol a threshold of a majority or a number of people needed to overwhelm others. A democratic leader will still be in power with a small majority, which can leave out a lot of people. A dictatorship can ignore people´s needs even further (like North Korea’s leader) as long as he has a monopoly of power. A company that is motivated by money and looses dollars (because of bad service, quality or too high prices) doesn’t say: “well, I still have the majority with me”. It’s regarded as a complete loss. The CEO is fired and replaced with someone else if he shows ineptitude or contempt for profits. A bureaucrat is left on as long as he doesn’t create a huge political problem for his bosses. Recently Venezuela’s government inept lack of investment in the last years caused water and electricity shortages. [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8339247.stm]] Only after Chavez felt the impending deep drop in popularity, that he felt the necessity to intervene. [[http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1960538,00.html]]

The idea of ownership by the State of such an important thing is simply fear-inducing. Water sources property of the State! This is a bad idea if only for the mentality it would create. A better one is that natural resources are every citizen’s. The State is a server and has the minimum power it needs to protect citizens from violence, not an owner of anything. The image of a State having the power to give and take away water is one that shouldn’t be encouraged amongst citizens, they should feel that the power is in their hands. The ownership-of-water concept could end up in the government giving away a country’s water to another in other to gain influence and recognition. Of course the example that illustrates this is the way Venezuelan Government, because they “own” the oil resources, feel free to give it as a gift to the poor citizens of the world’s only super-power. [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4461946.stm]] All the while, in Venezuela there is no money to invest to prevent water shortages. I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be any State involvement, but it should be limited by necessity. For example a country’s army needs to insure some stock of water for an emergency, a war, a natural catastrophe. I will develop more about the mixing of systems on another point. If a State is the “owner” it could forbid the uses of water that it considers frivolous, like a swimming pool. But the bureaucrats of a state are far from able to decide on what is needed or not by millions of people. A swimming pool can be both a frivolous luxury or a necessity if a wounded person needs physiotherapy. Or be the place were children spend all the extra calories from eating too much fast-food. Or a place to relax after a long day’s work. Lastly if you can give and take you can use that power for political gain. This runs the gamut from using water investments to gain popularity, to castigating opponents. For years in Venezuela, you couldn’t get a job with the government if you had voted “no” in the referendum on Chavez: “At a cabinet meeting, Chavez said his government had been using a list to determine who to hire and fire and called for an end to the practice. “There are still places that use Tascon’s List to determine who gets a job and who doesn’t,” Chavez told his ministers that day…“That’s over. Bury Tascon’s List. Surely it had an important role at one time, but not now.’”'[[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=abASlsAyXgoE&refer=latin_america-redirectoldpage]]. It would be terrible to have someone’s service removed because he appears on the list.

Monopolies have many drawbacks specially when they are state monopolies. Time after time it has been shown, with few exceptions, that when the state is the sole supplier there tends to be no choice of product, no great quality service. Competition is a great thing and a way to kill it is to have only one competitor. Innovation, in service an in technology is absent from state monopolies as well. Many governments that like centralized planning, aren’t keen on innovation, since a change in the markets can upset that same planing. In a recent comparison between the websites of leading U.S. corporations and state and national governments, the researchers concluded that: “Public sector agencies generally do not have competitors and lack sufficient incentives to learn from other agencies. As a result, public agencies are largely unable to adapt to changing circumstances and unlikely to adopt new practices.” [[www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/…/06_technology_west.pdf ]] A monopoly won’t necessarily mean that it’s a successful endeavor, just that it’s the only supplier available. People in remote places won’t be necessarily helped by a monopoly, in fact by promoting the formation of many companies besides the State, you are upping the chances that they will be covered by one.

The notion that the prop. presents, that the only way to insure that people don’t die of thirst is to create a monopoly is preposterous. I don’t deny that there are some people that need water very much and can’t afford it, but most people over the world is getting along at the very least with their basic needs. The State can certainly provide vouchers to very poor and disadvantaged people, so they can use it to pay the company. If there is a remote village that is not being covered by a water company, there are many solutions. The State could help find a solution for very sparsely populated areas. The best solution wouldn’t be to force the private water company to get them a connection to the main supply, it doesn’t matter if we are talking about a private or state owned company, to take water pipes to 10 cabins at the top of the mountain would be a waste. Maybe there is a nearer water source available. For a bigger but still remote area, the inhabitants could create a Co-op to find underground aquifers and such. In cases of a war or a natural catastrophe, there is indeed a place for State emergency intervention. The State should have an emergency water supply. We would still have the competition drive, the innovation of private companies and they could pay a tax on their revenues, making it easier for the State to actually give vouchers to people that sorely need them.

Not all state owned are terrible at providing water (Canada seems to be quite content, despite recently having in Walkerton “Seven people dead. More than 2,300 people sick. More than 64 million dollars in hard costs” [[http://environment.probeinternational.org/publications/water-and-wastewater/socialists-are-all-wet-why-privatizing-water-utilities-good-public]].
Not all private companies are are perfect about it eather, when a State owned company is bad the SQ is worse if there are no alternatives. It’s possible for a privately owned company (BP) to do bad things. So, you ask: if there are examples of both being sometimes bad, isn’t it better to at least choose the state, because they really, really have the citizen’s interest at heart instead of money? In short, nope. There are two reasons why not.

First, it´s numerically more common for countries where there is a bias for state ownership and control of water to have sub-par service and quality of water. In a study of the historical performance of public monopolies[[http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.19.6087]] it was found that
George Clarke And , George R. G. Clarke , Scott J. Wallsten
The results demonstrate the massive failure of state monopolies to provide service to poor and rural households everywhere except Eastern Europe.

This is because of a myriad of factors, some I have explained already, as innovation, lack of interest as long as they can continue in power, wasteful hiring practices, and the harm of subsidized prices causing wasteful consumers. In most

Secondly, everything that goes badly both with state and private water companies in the SQ is related to big government, so to add to it’s size by making it the owner and supplier of the water is a mistake. When a state owned goes bad its because government has the power to use water like a political pawn, as I explained in a previous point. Or because the public gets bad quality and can’t compare because lack of competition. When a private water company does bad things it’s caused by protectionism policies. The BP disaster gives us an example. BP is protected by the US government, in the sense that there is a negociated ammount of how much BP would pay for each gallon of oil leaked into the Gulf. BP knew that there was a top on how much it would have to pay, and probably decided to take the risk since the price 25 $, isn’t as high. I say this is shameful. If victims of BP should have been able to sue for whatever they though was fair, and a jury would decide on it. Instead BP lobbyist agreed beforehand with the government on a cap. When a private actor feels protected by a government that works with lobbies and interest groups, it feels it can do as it pleases. When a smaller company can’t compete because a bigger one has a lobbyist the problem is big government.

But, you ask, who will care then. Who will be there to ensure the quality and accsess to water_? Tho see that there is choice and a fair market? The consumer. He should have the power to choose.

Of course children dying of water related diseases is a tragedy. This doesn’t mean that creating a water monopoly of the State in all countries, from developed to developing is any kind of a solution. In many countries, even though prices could be higher with a privatized system people will be still be able to afford the water they need. In exchange they can be taxed lower. People forget that water priced can be kept low by forcing citizens to pay high taxes.

I fully support efforts that improve conditions for poor people except those that have amongst other consequences the lowering of quality for all consumers and a hike in water consumption.

Prop uses the protest’s over the privatization of in Cochabamba, Bolivia one of South America’s poorest countries, as proof that water should be a monopoly of the state. They didn’t read the whole report. In fact it was the municipality’s failing to “launch an information campaign to inform the population of the changes that were to be implemented.”[[http://www.bechtel.com/assets/files/PDF/Cochabambafacts0305.pdf]] that contributed to the unrest. As well as theCochabamba Facts
number of other local, regional, and national economic difficulties, from widespread unemployment to spiralling prices for gasoline and other products. The government’s crackdown on coca-leaf production added to the turmoil.

But the reason the government moved to privatization was that Cochabamba Facts evidence presented by prop the municipal water company, was never able to fully serve the population. What water SEMAPA supplied often did not meet public health standards. Service was irregular. SEMAPA’s revenues were not covering the costs of operating the system, forcing SEMAPA into a downward spiral of declining service.

Prop doesn’t seem to understand the importance of the new technologies driven by capital. They sayProp. The desalination plants are not creating new water sources for helping other people, but trying to keep up with the demand that exists in countries like the United States.
But in Algiers, the Algerian capital, GE constructed in 2005 a huge desalination plant [[www.gewater.com/pdf/pr/20050623PR.pdf ]] that serves 25% of the city’s population. On the Israeli invention, they focused instead of it being inspired by a method used in biblical times and asked: “how come it isn’t available yesterday” Because dear prop, it’s only inspired by the past and the technology to do it today is recent. The importance of these technologies is that as things stands today demand on fresh water is increasing and in some countries is scarce. So no matter who owns the water there is a need for innovation and as Brookings foundBrookings
public agencies are largely unable to adapt to changing circumstances and unlikely to adopt new practices.

That is dangerous specially for the developing countries in the Middle East and Africa.

I already said I was in favor of vouchers to be used with private companies, or any other kind of help for those who need it, children and the elderly being the first on that list. But I support a help that keeps government small. Of course we can’t forget the power of charity. Many people would be happy to help the poor get water and there are many private organizations that do that. Thirdly I’m in favor of richer countries collaborating with poorer ones with knowledge. This is the way to go.

The motion in debate calls for the proposition to defend that in general, the sole owner of and provider for water should be the state. They have failed.

There is no piece of evidence they presented that I didn’t either successfully debunk or accepted and then used against the motion. Some of their points weren’t supported by analysis or evidence. They said companies can’t be trusted to justify the proposal but in their rebuttal they accepted that governments, like Venezuela’s, can’t be trusted either. They said that the government is the only proper agent because of having the budget and the political support. I demonstrated that there are huge private companies and that there is growing discontent with state monopolies and growing acceptance of privatization (like in Scotland) and that a policy’s popularity is different than it’s quality. They proved that fresh water is dwindling, but failed at explaining why that means the motion should be approved. I countered by showing how by giving away water, you could cause it to dwindle faster.

They conceded that there can be some privates amongst suppliersProp
We stand that the state should CONTROL the process in those cases where private industries supply the resource, to avoid speculation in emergency situations.


Prop. contradicted itself. First they said thatprop
one cannot play with supply and demand with something as important as water. Privatize water would be like privatize air. We need them equally and the state should provide enough for everyone.
And then, in another point they saidprop
We are not suggesting giving free bottle water to everyone but the company that provides this product should be owned by the state.

So on one hand water should be free or near free (no supply and demand games) and on the other they say they are not suggesting free bottled water. And does a bottled water company enter the category of need? No.

I provided a framework for analysis for the examples of both State being successful and privately owned companies failing: they’re isolated examples. I provided evidence that proves state owned is a bad idea because it usually fails. I explained why they usually fail. Political abuses, lack of innovation (when innovative technologies like desalination are crucial), too cheap prices creating a high demand. Also, I linked the examples of private failings to them being protected by the government’s dealings with lobbyists and pressure groups. Lastly I provided spaces the poor to still get water while keeping the quality for everyone else.

For this reasons, I think this policy should be opposed.