The Threat of Privatizing Water By Reed Szymanski

A mysterious, wealthy businessman flies into Bolivia with a dark suitcase handcuffed to his wrist. He plans on meeting with a high-ranking general. What are they meeting about? A coup d’état. The businessman represents the Quantum organization that desires a long-term contract granting them a monopoly over Bolivia's water supply. In order to achieve the monopoly, the Quantum organization is willing to use all means necessary, including bribery and murder.

Does this sound familiar? If you're a James Bond fan or someone who has seen the 2008 James Bond movie “Quantum of Solace,” it should.

It would be an exaggeration for me to say that mysterious businessmen are flying into countries all around the world trying to establish monopolies over fresh water supplies via bribery and the like, but it is true that there have been pushes in recent years to privatize water both domestically and internationally. The World Bank -- a component of the United Nations that provides loans and financial support to third world countries-- discussed their support for the privatization of water last Saturday, April 12 at the annual IMF/World Bank Spring Meeting in Washington DC. The World Bank provides loans through the International Finance Commission for water privatization projects in developing countries around the globe.

However, is privatizing an essential resource like water a good idea?

Many claim that it's not, and the records show that water distribution services and water quality in places with privatized water are poorly developed. This is not only true in developing cities such as Nagpur, India, but also in developed cities like Atlanta, Georgia.

So, why should water be privatized?

Well, there are several answers to that question. In the U.S, local city and state governments are having difficulty repairing and upgrading sewage systems. Due to the high costs of new water projects and sewage maintenance, local city and state governments enter into joint contracts with private firms. This is done with the hope that the firm will be able to absorb the costs of upgrading and maintaining sewage systems. In developing countries with inefficient governments, many people favor the privatization of water because the government often isn't able to create the necessary infrastructure for an adequate and consistent supply of fresh water.

But why would private business be so benevolent as to absorb the costs of improving sewage systems, building infrastructure, and providing water to the public?

For profits of course! The Monsanto Corporation has claimed that privatized water will be a multibillion-dollar industry in upcoming decades. Can we really trust water to private business even if we assume that private firms will absorb the many costs associated with the privatization of water? In “Quantum of Solace,” the Quantum organization tripled water rates at the end of the movie once they established their monopoly. The risk that private firms will raise price rates and restrict access to a resource as essential as water is simply too high. Impoverished people around the world have a right to live, and they have a right to sanitized water.

Water consumption is rapidly increasing around the world as the global population grows. There is a rising fear that a large number of poor citizens around the world will not be able to afford the costs of privatized water, and will thus be denied access to it altogether. The World Bank’s support of privatizing water has received widespread resentment in developing countries around the world. The resentment has been shown through political protests, riots, and, in the case of Bolivia, there have even been civilians killed by the military.

Countless examples from places that have privatized water provide evidence of bad results. The United Nations must recognize water as a fundamental human right and take action to ensure socially equitable practices in its distribution worldwide. If we do not maintain a clear distinction between public and private goods, and the proper source of their supply, we may end up having “James Bond” like schemes where high-end businessman control our right to live.