New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | March 22, 2005

Celebrate World Water Day with Fredrik Segerfeldt's argument for water privatization.

Comments

sage|3.22.05 @ 4:15PM|#

Hey, if people get thirsty, let's just piss in their mouth.

|3.22.05 @ 4:23PM|#

Tim Cavanaugh,

Do you really think that some Americans will drink water provided by Suez? :)

|3.22.05 @ 4:35PM|#

Yep. Water water every where and not a drop to drink. At least not without paying for it. The hell of it is that in much of the Tampa By area tap water tastes so bad that most people either install water purification systems or buy drinking water.

There has been alternating periods of water shortages here caused by the explosive population growth on one hand and a cycle of drought years. During the past three years we have had at least average rainfall and there is not a water shortage. But, the population continues to grow in leaps and bounds and a couple of dry years will cause a serious water problem.

Much of the water shortages of the world is caused by overpopulation. A dude named Malthus addressed this issue about 200 years or so ago. Seems that he wrote something about the environment would take care of overpopulation. Maybe millions dying from bad water was what he was talking about.

|3.22.05 @ 4:41PM|#

GARY: coundn't taste any worse then the Tampa water! I moved to the country and drilled a well as much because of the water problem as anything.

|3.22.05 @ 5:08PM|#

Sook! Soooooooook!

|3.22.05 @ 5:22PM|#

Where are the knowledgable people who can debunk Malthus? Isn't the world's population stabalising?

|3.22.05 @ 5:33PM|#

"There may be a solution to what had been an insoluble problem."

LOL!

Nice wordplay, especially for the topic at hand.

|3.22.05 @ 5:52PM|#

World population might be stabilizing, but that doesn't mean areas with limited water resources aren't seeing massive population growth. There's plenty of fresh water in Lake Superior, but I don't see any metropolises like Las Vegas, Phoenix, or Los Angeles popping up on its shores.

Larry A|3.22.05 @ 8:05PM|#

GUYK: [A dude named Malthus addressed this issue about 200 years or so ago.]

And since then an unbroken line of "scientists" have predicted disaster from the problem du jure, usually culminating in mass death forecast about ten years after the prediction.

So far they're batting zero.

Given that the last cycle's predictions of mass starvation have given way to complaints about third-world obesity, we need to start teaching those without adequate water how to to swim.

|3.22.05 @ 8:21PM|#

I do believe that they didn't understand what Malthus wrote. As I remember, and it has been some years since I read it, Malthus claimed that when an environment is overloaded it will recover because those overloading the environment will cease for various reasons to overload the enviroment. Now think about starvation , genocide, wars,disease, and other killers of mankind in some overpopulated areas. I do not believe that Malthus meant the earth as a whole but in areas where the environment couldn't support the overload.

Actually,it appears to me that all of nature fits this mold. When the nuts are scarce the squirrels migrate or die or some of both. In areas where deer are over populated they soon become inbred, stunted and begin to die off. Call it survival of the fittist maybe but this is the way nature works. The only difference between humans and the rest of nature is that instead of accepting nature we wind up either trying to change it are kill it. It just stands to reason that when there are more people than there is water to support them,somebody is gonna get thirsty

|3.22.05 @ 8:25PM|#

GUYK,

I dunno if you got my joke or not, but Suez is the world's largest water company; they're French in origin. Certain persons will be pouring their water down storm drains! :)

|3.22.05 @ 8:52PM|#

GUYK,

The problem with Malthus was that he ignored technological progress. Humans are not like other species in that we use technology to decrease our vulnerability to the environment. Think of oil, for example. Oil is nothing but a death-trap for animals, and it was pretty useless for people as well until we learned to refine it and use its energy. Malthus thought that feeding and educating "the masses" was useless because we'd always outgrow our resources anyway. He was wrong, at least so far. (Nature cannot possibly support anything like 6+ billion people. This is due entirely to technology. In our natural hunter-gatherer state, humans in tribes with as few as 150 members need huge ranges to feed themselves.)

|3.22.05 @ 9:00PM|#

Do you really think that some Americans will drink water provided by Suez? :)

Many already do.

|3.22.05 @ 9:07PM|#

Here's a little piece I wrote on Slashdot a while back about water. I think I posted it at Hit&Run a while back, but in my narcissism, I feel it's best you all read it again. :)

Regarding usage and waste of water, and how to properly value a vital natural resource.

The answer is not to require water saving measures through legislation but to make people respect the water they have through prices. It's the perfect incentive for people to consider just how important water is to them.

I work in the water treatment business, and I've visited water treatment plants all over North America. The thing that is common to all water supplies is that the customers think they have some sort of a "right" to unlimited clean water without sacrifice. They grumble and complain and write woefully misinformed letters to their newspapers when the local water company attempts to raise rates to cover infrastructure improvements or cost-of-living salary increases.

What people don't see is that treating water to make it drinkable costs money. If you could see the way water infrastructure in the U.S. and Canada is degrading and how the water industry (especially production and distribution companies) are being forced to ignore staffing and capital improvement needs just because their customers vote for the government to force low rates, you'd understand.

If water prices were allowed to fluctuate more realistically, people wouldn't waste so much of it. Really, in the U.S. and Canada, people pay over US$1.00 for a silly little bottle of water that isn't even guaranteed to have as good quality as tapwater, and then they balk at rate increases of a few pennies per thousand gallons!

If water prices more accurately reflected the true costs of production and distribution, people would think twice about watering their desert lawns. They'd go out and buy water saving appliances on their own, since it would directly translate into savings on their next water bill.

The only thing compulsory water conservation accomplishes is building a bloated bureaucracy of bill checkers, house inspectors and intrusions into the private lives of citizens. Realistic water rates encourage conservation, reduce the load on local governments who have to redirect resources from fire departments, roads, etc., to enforcement of water use regulations, and above all, give consumers more respect for the vital natural resource they've been pouring down the drain ever since Roman times.

|3.22.05 @ 9:28PM|#

Gary: ZIP it went right over my head. Nope, I didn't know that Suez was a French water company. But I still bet it beats drinking the tap water in tampa which tastes and smells of chlorine. hell, my dog wouldn't even drink it unless it had set in the toilet bowl overnight.

|3.22.05 @ 9:31PM|#

Real Bill-thanks. I understand what you are saying. But, we want really know if he was right unless it happens, huh? six billion people is a lot of folks to feed and salt water ain't too good to drink.

|3.22.05 @ 9:42PM|#

db : yep. the public and government generally work in concert to fuck up the laws of supply and demand. Something about belief in the free lunch.

Not too long ago in my area an elderly man decided that he wanted an enviromental friendly and water conservation yard around his home. he contacvted the State of Florida authorities who advised him how to landscape in this manner. he did so over a period of one winter. He planted flora that didn't require irrigation, used mulch and trees and some rocks for decoration. Problem was that his homeowners association complained becuase he didn't meet the deed restriction requirements. His deed agreement required that he have x square of green grass! After a court fight and many articles supporting him in the local news rag he won the fight. But he still had to pay the legal fees to defend his right to be a water conservationalist!

But there is another side to supply and demandof water. Some years ago I read about a city water manager in Southern Cal who requested customers to conserve water because of a projected shortage. Most of the residents did so and cut demand in half. However, their water rates were raised because of lack of demand! Seems as if it takes the same amount of dollars in this city to treat and supply water regardless of consumption. So, with reduced consumption there was reduced income and no money to pay the employees. Go figure--

|3.22.05 @ 10:33PM|#

Sook! Soooooooook! -Akira MacKenzie

Kull wahad!

|3.22.05 @ 11:06PM|#

I was waiting for someone to get the reference, Muad'dib.

|3.22.05 @ 11:42PM|#

for those that don't know what Akira and MayDay72 are talking about, read Dune by Frank Herbert

it's an excellent fictionalized commentary on human ecology, religion, politics, and society in general, in my opinion

|3.22.05 @ 11:47PM|#

"it's an excellent fictionalized commentary on human ecology, religion, politics, and society in general, in my opinion"

I loved the first book, but the rest of them got really weird.

|3.23.05 @ 2:15AM|#

GG,

So true.

GUYK,

Good point, but I'm really not worried about the water problem. Many might think me a fool, but we've put men on the moon, communicate across the world in an instant, and this computer/internet stuff is purty 'mazin too! When necessary, we will find a reasonably affordable way to desalinate seawater. Most tech development only needs $$$. Unless an idea violates the laws of physics, it (probably) can be done.

|3.23.05 @ 2:48AM|#

"for those that don't know what Akira and MayDay72 are talking about, read Dune by Frank Herbert" -biologist

Yeah...The cry of the Fremen water-seller seemed pretty appropriate for the subject at hand. Pretty fast thinking on Akira's part.

"it's an excellent fictionalized commentary on human ecology, religion, politics, and society in general, in my opinion" -biologist

It was FICTION?!? Now I feel cheated. Not to mention stupid.

"I loved the first book, but the rest of them got really weird." -Akira MacKenzie

I liked the first three (Dune, Dune Messiah and Children of Dune) which are kind of a trilogy since Paul Atreides plays a role in all of them and they all occur within several decades of each other...Unlike the forth (God Emperor of Dune) and subsequent books (Heretics of Dune and Chapterhouse: Dune) which take place millennia later. Though I do agree that the first book was the best.

|3.23.05 @ 2:50AM|#

biologist, thanks for explaining that reference - I just assumed that battling all the religious madness in those 150+ comment threads of the last few days had finally driven Akira over the edge. :-)

|3.23.05 @ 8:28AM|#

...Suez is the world's largest water company...

I may be misinformed, but I understand there is a certain irony here. They own no water systems in France because French law does not allow private ownership of water supplies.

Also I believe Vivendi(?) (the co that controlled Universal for a while) is a primarily a water company.

Correction called for if appropriate. :)

|3.23.05 @ 8:43AM|#

the best line from Dune:

"The highest function of ecology is understanding consequences."

if more people would take that kind of thinking to heart, it would probably solve a lot of problems

|3.23.05 @ 11:32AM|#

biologist - "understanding consequences" is exactly how everyone needs to think about everything, all the time. Impossible to do, I know, but necessary.

|3.23.05 @ 1:44PM|#

Isaac Bertram,

There may be some grandfathered private ownership, but I believe that is correct.

Vivendi is a lot of shit. Its mostly a media company though (and correct me if I am wrong). They had their first good quarter in a couple of years last quarter, so I think they've turned the ship sucessfully around.

|3.23.05 @ 2:00PM|#

Gary Gunnels

I'd understood they started as a water or engineering company or somesuch and then diversified into communications and entertainment.

I gues I erred is typing "primarily a water company." I think most of their holdings are now primarily communications and entertainment.

It might be the other way around though. It's not really important enough to me to do the research to get the right answer tho. :)

With respect to the topic here, I seem to be going against the trend. My water supplier of over ten years was privately owned but has recently been taken over by the County Government.

|3.23.05 @ 3:29PM|#

Biologist & Akira MacKenzie,

A couple of years ago they reprinted three or four of the other non-Dune works by Frank Herbert. I haven't had the time to read more than one of them: "The Dosadi Experiment". It deals with many of the same themes as "Dune": politics, ecology, religion, technology, law, etc...And the implications of mixing these various areas of human action and understanding. It's scope and range aren't quite as vast as the Dune stuff of course...But it still a good book.

I've been thinking of re-reading the first Dune book...But I loaned it to a female acquaintance (who is pretty hot and a Libertarian!). Along with my VHS copy of "Ghost in the Shell"...Which is not quite as big a deal since I now have it on DVD. But I haven't seen her for almost a year...And she won't return my calls...And she now has a boyfriend...

...But...As Stevo Darkly has said before: I think that I've already said too much...

|3.23.05 @ 9:32PM|#

Vivendi divested itself of most of its entertainment assets in the last two years. It is once again, primarily a water/utilities company. I think they still own USFilter and a bunch of other water treatment equipment concerns.

|3.23.05 @ 10:01PM|#

Real Bill--

A chemist colleague of mine keeps telling me that researchers are thisclose to developing a cheap, effective reverse osmosis membrane for desalination. If membrane materials can be found that make large scale desalination economically feasible, it will have a big impact on the fresh water problem, especially in developing countries. Disclaimer: I'm no chemist and have not attempted to evaluate his claims.

GUYK--

I somewhat agree with you (especially about the awful taste of Florida water, having grown up with it), but I think one additional aspect where humans differ from animals is that we can and do *deliberately* lower our reproductive rates in response to various factors. The connection between fertility rates and economic development is well-established.

|3.24.05 @ 10:21AM|#

Chuck--

I work in the water treatment equipment business, and have extensive experience with membrane filtration systems. There are certain physical realities that cannot be overcome when using RO membranes to desalinate water. The mathematical equations describing the behavior of solutions are derived from thermodynamics. Even in an ideal membrane (i.e. one that does not foul), the energy costs are still extremely high for desalination.

What your chemist friend is probably referring to is membrane materials that are highly resistant to fouling. While there is certainly room for improvement in membrane material chemistry and cleaning procedures, the simple facts of RO as a process mean it will always be expensive to operate.