Abstract
Currently, there is a worldwide water crisis that not only affects citizens of the United States but also citizens in other parts of the world, particularly the under privileged. In response, many have debated over the resolution. There are many controversies on whether who should have distribution rights and control over Mother Nature's water resources: the public or the private? While many argue that privation takes away human rights to Mother Nature’s natural resource, others claim that without the aid of privatization, there would be no clean water available. This document addresses both pros and cons of water privatization. In the end, the consensus is anti-privatization. Alternatively, developing mutual relationships between private companies and the local governments would provide a means of check and balance.
Public or Private?
World Bank has predicted that by the year 2025, two-thirds of the world's population will have a water shortage. Currently, over 31 countries worldwide face water scarcity with over 1 billion people without access to clean drinking water for basic living and survival ("Water Privatization Overview", n.d.). As water resources grow scarcer, the struggle over the necessities of life begins the warfare over what the Fortune magazine calls the "oil of the 21st century" ("The ABCs," 2003). Then comes the question of the century: to privatize or not privatize.
In the event of a water shortage, the natural response is to collectively preserve and protect existing supplies, redefine water consumption, improve or implement conservation efforts, aid vulnerable populations, and spread public awareness of the impeding crisis that quite possibly could threaten the livelihood of billions of people. As awareness becomes widesprea ...