GEOG 1200: Assignment 1

Water As a Human Right

Introduction

Water is priceless. There can be no value great enough, attached to something so essential to life. And therein lies the solution to the problem; water is a human right. Just as people have the right to breath, they have the right access clean water. Unlike the other resources that maintain a fixed location, water is always flowing, ignoring political

boundaries. It is for this reason, water is a publicly owned commodity and no one can profit from its distribution or sale.

Human Dependence on Water

Water is entrenched in every society’s culture as it forms a vital component for life. Water serves two roles in sustaining human life. Water keeps humans hydrated, allowing their organs and internal systems to function, it also sustains plants and animals that humans require for nutrition. Water is the root of life and controlling water represents social and political power, anywhere in the world (Lahiri-Dutt, 2008). Whoever controls the fresh water supply, holds the power to prioritize the use of water.

It is clear that the growing global population will demand agriculture to produce greater amounts of food. This growing need for agriculture will require greater irrigation and water supplies (UN World Water Development Report, ch7, 2006). A conflict arises when water must be negotiated between so many complex political, social and economic sectors, despite water’s fundamental role of sustaining life. The conflict is accentuated when water priorities clash, as different groups fulfill their own agendas.

Through direct displacement, earmarking water supplies to large corporations will deny people something, which is so vital to local economies. Direct displacement means the increase in one use of water reduces or devalues the availability of water to another activity (ECONorthwest 2007). Agriculture, manufacturing and the service sector all depend on access to available water. The needs of a corporation to make a profit should never interfere with people’s rights. While the sale of water may yield a profit in the short term, other economic sectors deprived of water begin to fail. There is little research on the interconnectedness of aquifers (Guelph Field Naturalists, 2008), and therefore poor speculation on the watershed they sustain. The large area of agricultural land, dependant on Guelph and surrounding area’s aquifers, would be drastically reformed if another source of water had to supplement existing well supplies.

Water fills many roles in the sustainability of societies. Globally, water is used as means of sanitation. Clean water is a human right that separates people from a cannon of deadly diseases and pathogens that would otherwise be fatal, without medication (Gleick, 2008). Providing free clean water to the periphery is the first step in ensuring good health, and is often more cost effective than other methods of medical charity. Providing access to clean water is a form of preventative medicine.

The World Health Organization ranks the benefit to cost ratio for supplying clean drinking water and sanitation systems globally; they have found in every case, the return on the investment of intervention was positive. Costs were determined to be the full cost of the intervention and benefits encompassed economic productivity and time saving. For example, the benefit to cost ratio of providing disinfectant at water’s point of use, in South East Asia was 9.41 (UN World Water Development Report, ch 12, 2006). The economic result of providing disinfectant was a 9.41 times return to the economy based on the initial cost of providing disinfectant.

2.78 percent of Earth’s water supply is fresh water, and of that, 99 percent is frozen in glaciers (Marsh and Grossa, 2004). This leaves less than 1 percent of total fresh water, available for human consumption and use. The resulting consequences of freshwater scarcity are magnified when private corporations gain possession of a vital water supply.

The rate at which groundwater is replenished to an aquifer can range from a 100 years to 10 000 years (Marsh and Grossa, 2004). When private corporations plunder aquifers to extract water, there are severe environmental consequences. These consequences then backlash humans, who are dependant on aquifers for water supply. Nestlé Corporation is a prime example showing the environmental and societal damage that can occur very close to home. Nestlé Corporation pumps approximately 4.7 million liters of water from the Galt aquifer (Guelph Field Naturalists, 2008). Due to the global nature of the bottled water market, these bottles of water are shipped nationwide. Currently the city of Guelph draws fourteen times more water than Nestlé (Guelph Civic League, 2008), so there is no direct competition for water, but there is little research on the rate of replenishment for local area ground water. If the rate of depletion exceeds the rate of replenishment, it would be disastrous for local economies. Especially in Guelph, a growing town with an expected population of 169 000 by the year 2031 (City of Guelph, 2008), water resources will be more important in the future.

Water Privatization and the Periphery

The privatization of water has had adverse effects on the poor and disadvantaged; the people in the periphery that cannot afford to pay for something that should be free. The problem arises when the goal of a multinational company conflicts with the needs of the people. It has been shown that lack of planning and conscience on behalf of Suez, a multinational development company, has devastated several communities and the environment. Under pressure by the World Bank, who provided that water privatization be a prerequisite for foreign aid, Bolivia signed an agreement allowing foreign investment into their water infrastructure. The World Bank’s good intentions claimed private companies were better suited to handling water infrastructure, because local municipalities were plagued with corruption (Jim Schultz, 2005). Suez, the French multinational put in charge of La Paz’s water supply, neglected the water needs of approximately 200 000 people, and poisoned the environment. The exorbitant cost of hooking up water resulted in, only a small portion of the population that could afford to pay (Maude Barlow, 2008). This resulted in widening the gap between rich and poor, as a once free water supply was now financially unavailable to an already disenfranchised group. To add further injury to the Bolivian people, the privatization of water caused detrimental environmental damage. To save money on water treatment facilities Suez built a series of canals that emptied untreated sewage, garbage, and slaughterhouse effluent in lake Titicaca (Maude Barlow, 2008). Suez’s conflict of interest between increasing revenue and providing a vital resource showed that water privatization marginalizes people living in the periphery.

The Unknown Consequences of Water Privatization

Water privatization in the form of bottled water passes many externalities on to society. The purchase price does not even begin to encompass the environmental and social costs of producing a bottle of water. Extra costs associated with the consumption of bottled water are transferred to many different sectors in society. One such problem associated with bottled water is the disposal of the container. Empty plastic water bottles decompose over hundreds of year, becoming societies’ problem. Societies expend tax dollars to deal with empty bottles, which often degrade slowly in landfills. The unscrupulous act of selling a public resource is made worse when a society must, collectively, pay for a companies misdoing.

Source pollution of freshwater supplies, in the United States alone, has resulted in millions of tax dollars being spent on environmental remediation, and infrastructure development. In Orange Country, California, ground water pollution of nitrates, selenium and VOCs, resulted in 54 million dollars spent on remediation, enhanced treatment and replaced ground water supply (UN World Water Development Report, ch2, 2006). Corporate activities are hurting the space in which humans live and depend, but also cause millions of dollars in damages. Despite the economic revenue these companies generate, a large amount of capitol must be spent on undoing the damage they exact on the environment.

Conclusion

Water is an essential human right. Just like the air humans breathe, water is vital to sustain life. Since the dawn of humans, water has been interwoven into the fabric of our lives and culture. Humans respect water for its many roles and applications and its ability to heal. But with a respect for water comes many different agendas for its use. The finite supply of water means the negotiation of who uses it must be a shared responsibility. It is a shared responsibility because water belongs to everyone; it is in a constant state of recycle, always shifting, moving, ignoring man made boundaries, following its own agenda. Ultimately, the conflicting interests of water as an economic resource and a human right are intertwined. When access to clean fresh water is free, it has been shown to improve local health and also improve economies. There can be no excuse for the despicable actions of corporations denying people the right to water. Privatizing water is a clear example of how economic greed marginalizes people, and does not benefit the economy as a whole. Water is a fundamental human right and nothing less.

Word count: 1, 501 words

References:

1. Human Right to Water. Water Policy [1366-7017] Gleick yr: 1998 vol:1 iss: 5 pg 487 -503
2. Water Warriors: Declaring Water a Right, Not a Commodity, a Global Water Justice Movement is Growing. The Nation [0027-8378] Barlow yr: 2008 vol: 286 iss: 14 pg 18-22
3. The 2nd UN World Water Development Report: 'Water, a shared responsibility' Rep.No. 2. United Nations Educational and Scientific Cultural Organization, United Nations. 2006.
4. The Quest for Water: Rethinking Water Scarcity. Development [1011-6370] Lahiri-Dutt yr:2008 vol:51 iss:1 pg. 5-11
5. Lee, Kristan, Cleo Neculae, Ernie Niemi, and Sarah Reich, comps. The Potential Economic Effects of the Proposed Water Bottling Facility in McCloud. Rep.No. ECONorthwest. Eugene, OR: ECONorthwest, 2007. 12-12.
6. "Guelph Field Naturalists respond to Nestle’s Water Taking." Ward 2 Guelph. 12 May 2007. City of Guelph. Sept. 2008 <http://ward2guelph.wordpress.com/2007/05/12/guelph-field-naturalists-respond-to-nestles-water-taking/>.
7. Marsh, William M., and John Grossa. Environmental Geography : Science, Land Use, and Earth Systems. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2004.
8. "Water: The BIGGER Picture." Guelph Civic League. Sept. 2008 <http://www.guelphcivicleague.ca/archive/20070510-1.html>.
9. "City Council Highlights - June 23, 2008." City of Guelph. 23 June 2008. City of Guelph City Council. Sept. 2008 <http://guelph.ca/cityhall.cfm?itemid=75822&smocid=2167>.
10. Schultz, Jim. "The Politics of Water in Bolivia." The Nation. 28 Jan. 2005. Sept. 2008 <http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050214/shultz>.