Water being a human right and not business property

A discussion of water ethics keeps tying social customs and hydrological limitations to actual water needs. The quandary around water has sparked a discussion over whether it should be made available to people as a public good or utilised for commercial purposes. Lambooy (2011) claims that the normative foundation for decisions impacting water is water ethics. Water ethics are a topic of discussion due to the issues in governance and the increasing global interconnectedness of water management. Water has been turned into a tradeable good by businesses in order to make money. Water, according to those who favor this approach, is a precious and vital commodity because of the rising demand for it and the variety of uses for which is important commodity (Morrison et al. 2009). The use of water and human rights on it are faced by contests and issues across a range of policies, from integrated water management to justice, economics, and human rights. The emerging ethics dilemma challenges traditional and water management values and conventional approaches to water management. Despite the dilemma in the management and use of water, human dependence on it remains constant. It has no substitute and plays a role in the maintenance of human life. Water is, therefore, is a human right and not a business property.

Counter Argument

One of the arguments against the use of water as a public product states that people will use it irresponsibly. The former CEO of Nestle, Peter Brabeck Letmather has vehemently opposed the argument that water is the human right. His claims that water resources are scarce, hence their control and management come at a cost. He states that there is a need to price water accordingly and prevent irresponsible use.

The argument against the public use of water supports the market valuation and privatization of water. Supporters of this argument suggest that water is a foodstuff best distributed and valued by free market. Companies who believe in this claim restrict water access to poor communities. Moorthy (2012) refers to water as “blue gold” that can be bought and sold just like corn, gold, and oil. As the demand grows, the world may run out of drinking water. Commodity gurus believe the solution to this problem to team up with the government to price water.

Billions of people have no access to water as argued by those who oppose the use of water as a public right (United Nations General Assembly, 2012). Nestle does not save the environment by extracting ground water for their business that is lucrative and provides huge profits. Its partnership with others in the private sector would deny the poor people access to water. Water is a commodity with limitless demand but sharply diminishing supply. The planned market distortion by companies who wish to partner with the government in pricing it may ultimately deprive the billions of needy people who need this most critical resource.

Argument in Favor of the Thesis

Right to Water is Universally Accepted

The right to water is an accepted principle. In 1977, members of the United Nations at the Mar del Plata conference assured all people the access to drinking water despite their stage of development and economic conditions (Moorthy, 2012). Water should, therefore, be available without any discrimination. Valuing and Pricing of water denies billions of people access to drinking water. The United Nations protects people from those w interfere with their right to water. Besides the United Nations, the governments of individual states have the responsibility to protect their citizens from companies, which try to commoditize water.

The right to water is accepted because water is life and not a normal product. Humans ultimately depend on water, and no other asset can fit its description. It is, therefore, wrong to compare water to gold, corn, oil and other highly demanded products. Although food is equally important to human existence, no food cannot be substituted by another. Water is, therefore, more unique that the food eaten by human population in different parts of the globe. The fact that water has no substitute shows that it cannot match with other commodities; it had a special place in human life. The right to human life is dependent on the individual access to water. This argument, therefore, supports the claim that water should be enshrined as a human right.

Water Fluidity and Mobility makes it Impossible to Commoditize

While commodities and products have owners and producers, no one has the right to own water. Its fluidity and mobility make it impossible to commoditize it. Water resources such s mountains, hills, and lakes naturally occur. Markets have different commodities and products depending on the needs of the people within the market. However, the amount of water and the types of rains and experienced in various places depending on the evaporation and river flows. Companies such as Nestle who extract water to maintain their bottled water business only have the ability to claim a portion of the land in which they obtain water. They cannot claim ownership of the water they extract from the ground.

The extraction and supply of water involve many externalities because of its fluidity and mobility that make water a no-normal right. Water is a fluid found majorly in rivers, oceans and streams. The government should protect against the activities involved in the extraction of water such as dangerous and irresponsible drilling to access underground water. Unlike common commodities, mass drilling on bare land and collection of sea and river water can cause mass causalities human and wildlife (Morrison et al. 2009). Other commodities can be produced in large quantities and supplied with minimal effect of nature. Irresponsible depletion of water can result in scarcity and broader economic shock.

The Challenges of Water Access are Manageable

There are roadblocks to achieving the goal of increasing human access to water. One of the challenges is water scarcity caused by climatic conditions. Corruption, graft and weak governments allow activities that cause climate change and affect the use of water in agricultural activities. The United Nations declarations of human rights do not address these realities. The business corporations need to have a massive change in paradigm by practicing corporate social responsibility rather than commoditizing water (United Nations General Assembly, 2012). Companies should recycle the water used to avoid imminent depletion. The government has a responsibility to use available resources to build pipelines and ensure water is not wasted but tapped and transported to regions where people need it.

The Constitution recognition of the right to water presents a serious attempt to bring a solution to the debate of water use. However, the service-provision cost is high. Human rights organizations should put more efforts to ensure that water is free everywhere to everyone. The constitution has not provided for the discussion on the cost of service provision which may scare away financial capital critical in the delivery and supply of water (Syme, Nancarrow, & McCreddin, 1999). The stakeholders including producers, suppliers, and consumers of liquid products should pay the costs involved in extracting water and suing it for economic purposes. The companies that should bear these costs include fast food restaurants such as McDonald's, water bottle producers such as Coca-Cola, Nestle, and other Agricultural farmers. However, drinking water should be free to everyone.



Conclusion

In conclusion, water is a human right and not a business property. Business property can be valued and priced depending on the needs of the consumers in the market. However, water is a fundamental human need that man cannot live without it. It has no value or price tag but has an increasing demand. An argument against the use of water as a public product is that people would misuse water if given freely. Those who argue that human beings cannot control the use of water waste it in the process of their businesses. The government has the responsibility to protect activities that affect access to water to ensure that it is available to all people in need of it. Unlike the process that is taken to reduce goods and commodities, water extraction involves externalities that can harm the environment. While products can be produced and supplied in bulk, water use should be regulated to ensure every person access it.

References

Lambooy, T. (2011). Corporate social responsibility: sustainable water use.Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(8), 852-866.

Moorthy, R. (2012). Ethics and sustainability: a review of water policy and management. American Journal of Applied Sciences, 9(1), 24-31.

Morrison, J., Morikawa, M., Murphy, M., & Schulte, P. (2009). Water Scarcity & climate change. Growing risks for business and investors, Pacific Institute, Oakland, California.

Syme, G. J., Nancarrow, B. E., & McCreddin, J. A. (1999). Defining the components of fairness in the allocation of water to environmental and human uses. Journal of environmental management, 57(1), 51-70.

United Nations General Assembly, 2012: General Assembly Adopts Resolution Recognizing Access to Clean Water, Sanitation as Human Right, by Recorded Vote of 122 in Favour, None against, 41 Abstentions, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/ga10967.doc.htm (accessed 9 April, 2012)