“Can I get a cup of water with that?”
I ask this question every time I get a meal. And almost every time, the worker naturally hands me a cup of water at no cost. I mean, it is just water. Restaurants, shopping malls and even libraries often provide free water for everyone—albeit not the quality found in an Evian.
Free access to water is actually a human right. In July of last year, the United Nations General Assembly explicitly established the indispensible right to clean drinking water and sanitation for every human being, making it possible for me to confidently ask for my free cup of water.
However, discourse on whether or not this decision is universally beneficial still remains. Many still argue that water should not be overlooked as an essential commodity.
According to Investopedia author James McWhinney, what marks water as a potential commodity is its scarcity. Despite the fact that 70 percent of earth’s surface is covered with water, merely three percent can actually be used for drinking, irrigation and additional industrial purposes. McWhinney views water’s scarcity as a viable market for investment, encouraging readers to look into the profits they may gain from investing in different water-related businesses.
Others like The Huffington Post’s Marc Gunther argue that, although dismissing water as a commodity may have its good intentions, it essentially becomes counter-productive. He questions the possibility of providing hundreds of millions of people sustainable water when no one, even those who are able, are willing to pay for it.
If the United States can own up to any of our weaknesses, it’s probably that we are a nation of waste. According to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, an average family of four can use up to 400 gallons per day, almost double the amount necessary.
Despite their well-founded proposals, both McWhinney and Gunter fail to clearly define the next step. The execution, not the solution itself, is what causes United Nations and other policy makers to stumble.
These faltering steps can be seen even in our vicinity. In 2009, the City Council of Raleigh established a three-tier water rate structure for residents in hopes of stirring active water conservation. If a household surpasses 3,000 gallons of water per month, the rate of water raises to a new price. The same occurs when the household further surpasses 7500 gallons. (An average Raleigh family household uses 6000 gallons per month).
This was supposed to have been in effect that December, according to The News & Observer.
The three-tier water rate has yet to be implemented.
Lori Leachman, professor of economics,said that perhaps rationalization of water may not be the best idea.
“My own views are strict limits and rationalization are not going to get us where we want to be,” Leachman said. “I think appropriate pricing is the right option, but then the question is how do you appropriate the price? That is the tricky thing.”
Raleigh plans on enforcing the new system beginning in December. I would be lying if I said I had high hopes in its success. Placing a higher price on water undoubtedly evokes an overflow of complaints and conflict. There is also a possibility of encouraging a black market for those who want more water are continually refused.
If future policy results in my having to pay a few extra cents for my water cup, I will be more than glad to do so—that is, if we are able to even handle water as a new commodity.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.