Argument: Water is not a public right
From Debatepedia
]Parent debate
]The use of water is not always for "essential" purposes
While it is often claimed that water is "essential" to human life, and, therefore, it should be a right, it's end-use is certainly not always "essential". Pools, hot-tubs, washing machines, dishwashers, sprinklers are all examples of non-essential use. It is not possible to argue that people have a right to these kinds of non-essential discretionary uses of water. The problem, therefore, in calling water a "right" is that it appears to be conditioned on the end-use. It might be a "right" when it is for health and life, but not a "right" when used for the above non-essential purposes. But, such a conditional offering of "rights" to citizens is not really possible, particularly when it is not clear how a determination could be made about the end-use of water. It is not really possible for governments to distinguish accurately between essential and non-essential uses unless they put monitors of some kind on devices in homes, obviously highly invasive and infeasible. This makes it difficult to call water a "right" in any circumstance. At a minimum, water should not always be considered a right, making it possible to conclude that there is certainly some room for private companies to have an appropriate role in the supply of water.
]Supporting articles
- Hanemann, W.H. (2006) "The economic conception of water", In: "Water Crisis: myth or reality?" Eds. P.P. Rogers, M.R. Llamas, L. Martinez-Cortina, Taylor & Francis plc., London.
- "Treating Water in Irrigated Agriculture as an Economic Good." Petra J.G.J. Hellegers , Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI). June 15-17, 2002.