Is access to potable water a right?

[wirednuts]

Laws do not protect anyone's rights, they set the frame work in which society protects people's rights.

oxymoron of the day!

 

[xj0hnx]

oxymoron of the day!

Hypocrisy, and oxymoron, any other words you don't fully understand the usage of?

 

[Texashiker]

where does ground water come from

Some aquifers have been trapped for tens of thousands of years, maybe million of years.

Here in southeast Texas a man drilling a well on his land hit saltwater. We are about 100 miles from the gulf of mexico. That salt water could have been trapped since the last ice age.

 

[Moonbeam]

Here is the definitive word on water from God:


What Islam says about water

Written by Sheikh A.B.Muhhamad Friday, 25 June 2010

“Just tell Me, if the source of your water becomes dry, who, besides Allah, is capable of giving you another source of water?” —Qur’an 67: 30.

PRAISE be to Allah, our Lord and Cherisher,the Lord of goodness, the Praiseworthy. It is He alone Who provides abundance of water for human consumption.

Water is so vital to human existence to the extent that without it, life will be unbearable. Allah (SWT) made water sufficient for our day-to-day use in such a way that it is not in excess that it will give us problems. Our response to the above verse of the glorious Qur’an is none, except Allah alone, the Almighty.

We always show our gratitude to Allah for His mercies over us. Why shouldn’t we be grateful? We might have seen or heard about places where scarcity of water has become their daily headcahe, as people have to travel long distances before getting water. We might have seen or heard as well, where excessive water turned to flood, diseases, damages to properties, death and destruction. Indeed, we have to show appreciation to Allah.

Contrary to the practice these days that people sell water to others, giving water to those in need of it free of charge is an act of charity, which attracts the greatest reward from Allah. This is what the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) taught Muslims.

Allah says in the Qur’an: “And We send down pure water from the sky.” Qur’an 25: 48.

The Prophet (SAW) was reported to have told one of his wives, Ai’shah (RA): “The day you give water to people out of charity, and especially if it is the time when people are in dire need of water, or during the dry season when people are greatly suffering from scarcity of water, you will have the reward of one who sets a slave-girl free.”

If a person fills a tank with water and puts by the road side for passers-by to drink, free of charge, he will have lots of great rewards from Allah; and in addition, Allah will be looking at him twice every day with the eyes of mercy.

SOME QUESTION AND ANSWER ABOUT WATER
Assuming that two persons have a little water, which is so little that it is not more than what only one of them can consume, either for taking bath or for doing other things, and they don’t have more than it. The questions are:

*If one of them is to take ritual bath of Janabah (i.e. after sexual intercourse) and the other is dead. A dead person needs ritual bath before burial. Who among them should use the water, the one with janabah or the dead?

*If the two persons are a man and a woman. The man is to take ritual bath of Janabah and the woman is also to take bath of Haydah (i.e. after her menstruation). Who among them is to use the water?

*If the two die simultaneously, who among them should the water be used for?
The answers to the questions are as follow:

*The little water belonging to both should be used for the ritual bath of the dead. The other man with Janabah should perform tayammum.

*The woman should use the little water for the ritual bath of her haydah, while the man performs tayammum.

*As the two who died at the same time, the water should be used for the one who died first. If it is after their simultaneous death that water is found, the water should be used for the one with more knowledge, more devotion and the most religious. Tayammum should be performed for the other one.

If they look to be the same religiously and it is difficult to know the one that is more pious, more devoted or more religious among them, it comes to matter of voting for them. The water should be used for the one who wins, and the tayammum for the other.

If it happens that one of them needs ritual purification and the other needs ordinary purification, water should be used for ritual bath and tayammum for the other. .

If it’s time for worship and it is only one of them that can use the little water for ablution, the one with ordinary purification is to use it for ablution. If the water remains a little after his ablution, the one in need of ritual bath can use the remainder; but if nothing remains, he should make tayammum.

 

[wirednuts]

Originally Posted by xj0hnx
Laws do not protect anyone's rights, they set the frame work in which society protects people's rights.

you do realize youre saying laws dont protect anyones rights theyre just helpful in protecting anyones rights?

 

[wirednuts]

Some aquifers have been trapped for tens of thousands of years, maybe million of years.

Here in southeast Texas a man drilling a well on his land hit saltwater. We are about 100 miles from the gulf of mexico. That salt water could have been trapped since the last ice age.

but some of it came from the sky.

 

[CLite]

Research continues to show[/URL] that simply allowing market forces to increase water prices results in more judicious use of water, thereby keeping the prices lower for everyone.

Water management spans across multiple counties, states, and sometimes countries. I suppose I have two questions for the "market force" scenario.

1) Who ultimately regulates the leasing of land, is this done via leases or true sales? Additionally, who tells the person who leases a plot of land upstream that they can't intrude on the rights of people downstream (if this is something you envision worth doing). Will there still be some sort of federal oversight on such activities?

2) Do you believe in market controls on monopolies?

I personally believe that the amount of public works required to collect and distribute water does not lend itself easily to a chaotic market with multiple companies competing for distribution. For instance NYC has something like 50,000 acres of land in upstate New York that pipe water through two primary aqueducts into a number of extremely large treatment facilities with commonality in parts/operations/personnel/etc. How do you translate such an operation into a multi-company free market system?

 

[xj0hnx]

you do realize youre saying laws dont protect anyones rights theyre just helpful in protecting anyones rights?

No, that's not what I said at all. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but now I am thinking maybe you were serious when you said ...

care to explain? im pretty dumb

 

[wirednuts]

No, that's not what I said at all. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but now I am thinking maybe you were serious when you said ...

thats exactly what you said. its posted. read it again. sorry if i took it the wrong way but the way its worded, thats exactly what you said.

 

[CycloWizard]

Shouldn't that be water, food, and shelter? Pretty sure i can survive w/o shelter as long as i have food and water. Might as well throw in healthcare too.

In San Diego that's true. In many places, you will die in minutes or hours without shelter, whereas you can last days without water and weeks without food.

 

[CLite]

Additionally I feel obligated to point out that this argument can be applied to many things, for instance fire-fighting. However, in the past through trial by fire (pun intended) it became obvious that having companies competing in such services was not beneficial to the city.

 

[xj0hnx]

thats exactly what you said. its posted. read it again. sorry if i took it the wrong way but the way its worded, thats exactly what you said.

Maybe you should read it again. A law doesn't do anything, just because it's against the law to kill someone doesn't mean that you can not kill someone.

 

[nehalem256]

where does ground water come from

If ground water is entirely on a person's land then I would say they have a right to that as well.

 

[CycloWizard]

Water management spans across multiple counties, states, and sometimes countries. I suppose I have two questions for the "market force" scenario.

1) Who ultimately regulates the leasing of land, is this done via leases or true sales? Additionally, who tells the person who leases a plot of land upstream that they can't intrude on the rights of people downstream (if this is something you envision worth doing). Will there still be some sort of federal oversight on such activities?

2) Do you believe in market controls on monopolies?

I personally believe that the amount of public works required to collect and distribute water does not lend itself easily to a chaotic market with multiple companies competing for distribution. For instance NYC has something like 50,000 acres of land in upstate New York that pipe water through two primary aqueducts into a number of extremely large treatment facilities with commonality in parts/operations/personnel/etc. How do you translate such an operation into a multi-company free market system?

All good questions that I don't necessarily have answers to, at least not in this thread. You're also right in your subsequent post where similar arguments may be made about other goods/services such as fire protection. However, there are places where private fire services do quite well and are beginning to emerge in cases where government protections have failed (an example and a short article from a quick googling).

In the end, water and healthcare are scarce resources that people need on a continuous basis. As I mentioned in the OP, it's literally impossible to saturate demand when the resource is free, nor is that beneficial to anyone. Thus, there exists a logical rationale for rationing. We can therefore ration based on arbitrary protections for specific groups (e.g. elderly, poor, whatever you want), but this rationing will prove less efficient and yield poorer results for everyone - including the protected groups - than rationing by market forces.

 

[Modelworks]

Water like anything else will belong to those with the power to control it. In the cattle baron days you had small wars over streams and watering holes. Today that control is provided in the form of lobbyist and corporations. Nestle is one of the worst offenders in using up water resources . In the past communities have had to fight the company to keep them out . They enter a town, drill wells, pump them dry then move to other wells and most states do not regulate how much water can be pumped from wells, the exception is areas where water is scarce and corporations don't target those. Instead corporations target areas that have lower populations but huge aquifers where they can set up shop, drain the aquifer and move out to a new site with no cost to the company, leaving the people who live there without water.

Clean water is something everyone should have but relying on the government to enforce that is a joke.

 

[wirednuts]

Maybe you should read it again. A law doesn't do anything, just because it's against the law to kill someone doesn't mean that you can not kill someone.

if something doesnt do anything, why have them?

i think if i told you the sky is blue, you would find a way to prove me wrong

 

[herm0016]

Yes, potable water is a right. Water is also a public resource that belongs to everyone. The water utility doesn't manufacture water. It's not like healthcare at all.

agree. the city, through your taxes, provides modest water service for a fee. the opportunity to access clean water is a right in this country.

 

[xj0hnx]

if something doesnt do anything, why have them?

i think if i told you the sky is blue, you would find a way to prove me wrong

So you're what? Eight? Nine?

 

[QuantumPion]

We hear so much about "rights", a right to this and a right to that. People say they have a right to decent housing, a right to adequate health care, food, a decent job and, more recently, senior citizens have a right to prescription drugs. In a free society, do people have these rights? Let's look at it.

At least in the standard historical usage of the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people. A right confers no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech is something we all possess. My right to free speech imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. Similarly, I have a right to travel freely. That right imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference.

Contrast those rights to the supposed right to decent housing or medical care. Those supposed rights do confer obligations upon others. There is no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy. If you don't have money to pay for decent housing or medical services, and the government gives you a right to those services, where do you think the money comes from? If you said "From some other American", go to the head of the class. Your right to decent housing and medical care requires that some other American have less of something else, namely diminished rights to his earnings.

Let's apply this bogus concept of rights to free speech and the right to travel freely. If we were to apply it to my right to free speech, my free speech rights would confer financial obligations on others to supply me with an auditorium, microphone and audience. My right to travel freely would require that others provide me with airplane tickets and hotel accommodations. Most Americans, I would imagine, would tell me, "Williams, yes you have rights to free speech and travel rights, but I'm not obligated to pay for them!"

As human beings we all have certain unalienable rights. Of the rights we possess, we have a right to delegate to government. For example, we all have a right to defend ourselves against predators. Since we possess that right, we can delegate it to government. In other words, we can say to government, "We have the right to defend ourselves but for a more orderly society, we give you the authority to defend us." By contrast, I don't possess the right to take your earnings for any reason. Since I have no such right, I cannot delegate it to government. If I did take your earnings for housing and medical services, it would rightfully be described as an act of theft. When government does it, it's still theft; the only difference is that it's legalized theft sanctioned by a majority vote.

If you're a Christian or simply a moral human being, you should be against these so-called rights. After all when God gave Moses the Eighth Commandment, "Thou shalt not steal", I'm sure that he didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless there was a majority vote in Congress. Moreover, I'm sure that if you were to have a heart to heart conversation with God and asked him, "God, is it okay to be a recipient of stolen property, property that Congress has taken from another American?" I'm guessing He'd say that being a recipient of stolen property is also sinful.

Decent housing, good medical care and decent jobs are not rights at all, at least not in a free society; they're wishes. As such I'd agree with most Americans because I also wish that everyone had decent housing, a high paying job and good medical care.

--Walter E. Williams

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Some aquifers have been trapped for tens of thousands of years, maybe million of years.

Here in southeast Texas a man drilling a well on his land hit saltwater. We are about 100 miles from the gulf of mexico. That salt water could have been trapped since the last ice age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_dome

These are known as salt domes and found on the US gulf coast.

Some of the US strategic oil reserves are stored in old salt domes that have had their contents removed for other processes.

 

[wirednuts]

So you're what? Eight? Nine?

how did you know?

 

[CLite]

All good questions that I don't necessarily have answers to, at least not in this thread. You're also right in your subsequent post where similar arguments may be made about other goods/services such as fire protection. However, there are places where private fire services do quite well and are beginning to emerge in cases where government protections have failed (an example and a short article from a quick googling).

One of the articles you linked mentions Scottsdale but that's since gone public service because the private company could no longer deal with the size of the city growth.

Without side-tracking too much I want to point out that the focus private companies bring to the table (in general quarterly profits) can be quite dangerous for something like public works. For instance in the case of fire-fighting they may staff down to what is considered an averaged appropriate level, but this may leave them unprepared for the once a decade confluence of events that could lead to significant amount of fires spreading uncontrolled. Such logic can also be applied to a privatized water distribution system that may seek quarterly profits at the expense of being able to handle high-cost droughts/etc. that ultimately can happen. A final example is the incredible amount of subsidies we funnel into our farming industry, which ultimately is going to let us survive a spurt of weather comparable to and/or worse than the dust-bowl without mass starvation and panic.

In general I'm not completely sold on public works for everything, but there is an advantage to carrying higher than required costs to avoid the ultimate lows in times of extreme conditions which quarterly profit seeking companies would never prepare for.

I already know that ultimate free-market trumpeters would say that a completely unfettered market would account for such events, but free markets are driven by humans, whom are ultimately greedy & short-sighted, and I simply wouldn't buy into such a notion.

 

[spittledip]

So far the discussion has been on tap water, but what about access to water under your land?

Do land owners have a right to the water under their land?

If I want to put a well in my backyard and get off city water, shouldn't I have the right to do so?

You can't even have rain barrels in some places, let alone dig for your own wells. As much as I don't like that law, I believe the idea is that some scrooge might hog up all the water if allowed to do so.

---------
I think people get confused about what "rights" are. There are no "rights." The only right people have is to die. Using the term "right" really gets the water murky in these type if discussions. Just b/c we have some "governing" piece of paper that says all people have some type of God-given rights does not mean it is so. As soon as some clown makes up a right, another is taken away and it isn't a right anymore. Who cares about things that don't last? Rights are based on whims, and whims are based on the wind.

People don't have the right to potable water, but it is best if all people have access to potable water. People don't have the right to health care, but it is best if all people have access to health care. It is evil to deprive people of what they need, but they are not owed what they need. We should provide for the less fortunate in our society without enabling dependency. To do otherwise is evil. However, it is also evil to foster dependency.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Typical scarcity bullshit, only a current day Tea Party Republican idiot would try to sell me on the notion that a planet covered over 2/3rds of it's surface with water is a scarcity and not a basic human right. You guys have a serious wake up call coming your way if you keep up this absurd middle ages nonsense.

 

[DCal430]

The sad thing is in the U.S, much of the water is controlled by private companies, where I use to live, water to the home had to puchased from a single private company. This private company would constantly raise rates too, and their was little that we could do. Sad that something is vital as water is controled by private companies. This was in CALIFORNA of all places too.