Is access to potable water a right?

[Nintendesert]

Prodigy1: why so mad and defensive? Unless I am mistaken, you are usually a well mannered poster. But in this thread you seem to be taking things very personally and are quite defensive.

Just curious....

Maybe he's thirsty. :sneaky:

 

[CLite]

I think public water companies could actually achieve good conservation by using a progression pricing scheme in which the amount I pay increases marginally for each additional increment of water I use. This will ensure cheap water for the bare essentials while charging significantly more for large volume users.

Yeah that's a pretty efficient way to do things. Let's say we need X gallons a day to live set that at some minimum pricing tier, and let the price ramp up. It would probably be rather dramatic price increases during droughts because the marginal cost of water is so ridiculously low that traditionally only strict enforcement helps conservation. It would be interesting to see what price point actually matches the reduction in consumption that enforcement leads to during droughts.

Such an agency assuming it had monopoly control, either privately or publicly, would need fairy stringent guidelines to operate within to prevent ratcheting when transitioning from drought back to normal conditions.

 

[sandorski]

Is Breathable Air a right?

 

[a777pilot]

Is Breathable Air a right?

NO!

 

[nehalem256]

And regardless, it's largely irrelevant. You gain nothing by 'bulk processing' seawater to make drinkable water through distillation. It takes a little more energy than boiling fresh water, but there is still a linear increase in energy requirement to go from 1 gal to 100 gal. That's to say nothing of energy expenditure of gathering fuel, pollution, effects of cutting down trees, energy loss to the environment when you're boiling....

Processing a large amount is more efficient.

For one it allows you to use a larger container for the boiling. As volume increases more than surface area you will lose less heat into the environment.

And I have to imagine an industrial seawater processor is going to have more efficient means of heating than the pan on your stove.

 

[shira]

Yes, I'm completely ignorant about what is needed to survive. As it turns out, so is the US Army, which states on page 38 of its survival manual, "In some areas, your need for shelter may take precedence over your need for food and possibly even your need for water."

You're not "completely" ignorant, but you're pretty darn close. Who else but a moron could read that sentence from the survival manual - which clearly implies the shelter is almost never more important for survival then water (hint: see those words "possibly even"), and is usually less important for survival than food (hint: see those words, "in some areas . . . may take precedence") - and conclude that shelter is THE most important requirement for survival?

I agree with Moonbeam. The right-wing brain is just not constructed for rational thought.

 

[Oric]

The law here is that if you dont pay your (clean) tap water the utility company can reduce your inflow to 20 liters / day, just enough to drink and cook but not wash, can not cut it altogether? Therefore basic access to potable water is granted but nothing more.

 

[Moonbeam]

You're not "completely" ignorant, but you're pretty darn close. Who else but a moron could read that sentence from the survival manual - which clearly implies the shelter is almost never more important for survival then water (hint: see those words "possibly even"), and is usually less important for survival than food (hint: see those words, "in some areas . . . may take precedence") - and conclude that shelter is THE most important requirement for survival?

I agree with Moonbeam. The right-wing brain is just not constructed for rational thought.

But the conservative brain is well designed to see danger even if not always real. It seems fitting therefore, natural if you will, that a conservative would worry about a time when a capacity to supply health care, like the capacity to supply water, reached it's natural limits. But oddly, while screaming about death panels making rational decisions as to who is fit to drink and who must be sent over a cliff in their wheel chair, the equally cold notion that nature must take its course seem to have appeal. Maybe we could just split the difference and have a lottery. That way, as the rich favor, the greatest burden will fall on the poor as it always does, but, to the joy of all others, some of the rich won't have a buy out. This shared sacrifice, if I can call it that, should propel all interested parties to extend the limits of when this plan must be implemented. While the blessings of God may provide incentive for those who see the value of such things, the fear of death seems to be universal.

 

[CycloWizard]

You're not "completely" ignorant, but you're pretty darn close. Who else but a moron could read that sentence from the survival manual - which clearly implies the shelter is almost never more important for survival then water (hint: see those words "possibly even"), and is usually less important for survival than food (hint: see those words, "in some areas . . . may take precedence") - and conclude that shelter is THE most important requirement for survival?

I agree with Moonbeam. The right-wing brain is just not constructed for rational thought.

Being contradicted on survival theory by the US army isn't enough to convince you that you're wrong, yet I'm the one incapable of rational thought? Any time you want to come to southern Texas and spend a day in the desert you can tell me whether you would have been better off lugging around more water or finding some shade. Surely an engineer of your caliber understands osmosis well enough to know that you can't simply keep drinking more and more water to offset extreme temperature, or aren't you familiar with hyponatremia?

 

[QuantumPion]

Is Breathable Air a right?

Actually yes, since breathable air is free, practically unlimited, and obtaining it requires no burden on another person to provide it for you.

 

[sandorski]

Actually yes, since breathable air is free, practically unlimited, and obtaining it requires no burden on another person to provide it for you.

..but Water isn't? The "Burden" is really just a matter of degree. It is quite conceivable that at some point in the future Air may not be as readily available as it is today. Then what, does it cease to be a Right simply because of "Burden"?

 

[xj0hnx]

..but Water isn't?

No, it's not. Pretty much at anytime, in any place air is freely available without anyone having to provide it, water on the other hand is not. It has to be pumped, processed, and pumped again, routed to, have pipes laid for, etc, etc ...Trying to compare the two is retarded unless you live on the bank of a nice, clean river.

 

[shira]

Being contradicted on survival theory by the US army isn't enough to convince you that you're wrong, yet I'm the one incapable of rational thought? Any time you want to come to southern Texas and spend a day in the desert you can tell me whether you would have been better off lugging around more water or finding some shade. Surely an engineer of your caliber understands osmosis well enough to know that you can't simply keep drinking more and more water to offset extreme temperature, or aren't you familiar with hyponatremia?

The survival manual points out there are environments where shelter is more important to survival than food and "possibly even" water. Somehow, you read that and conclude that shelter - without any qualifications - is more important to survival than food and water.

Let's use your so-called "logic" and apply it to, say, the issue of abortion:

There are situations where the desire of a woman to obtain an abortion is more important than the life of her fetus. Therefore, the desire of a woman to obtain an abortion is more important than the life of her fetus.

Now, go back to school and work on your reading comprehension.

 

[sandorski]

No, it's not. Pretty much at anytime, in any place air is freely available without anyone having to provide it, water on the other hand is not. It has to be pumped, processed, and pumped again, routed to, have pipes laid for, etc, etc ...Trying to compare the two is retarded unless you live on the bank of a nice, clean river.

Water, like Air, is absolutely necessary.

I put to you that Water is so much a Right, that those listing Rights didn't even think they needed to mention it.

 

[xj0hnx]

Somehow, you read that and conclude that shelter - without any qualifications - is more important to survival than food and water.

Where did he say that?

Now, go back to school and work on your reading comprehension.

You probably should start throwing your stones just yet.

 

[xj0hnx]

Water, like Air, is absolutely necessary.

I put to you that Water is so much a Right, that those listing Rights didn't even think they needed to mention it.

You have a right to all the water you can get, either by getting your own from a stream/river/homemade still, but you do not have the right to someone else's time and labor to do it for you. You can't come to my house and demand that I give you water, you can't use the city water free of charge, but you can stand on the sidewalk out front and breath all the air you want. The idea that you can't differentiate between the two, and how they relate in this conversation is pretty sad.

 

[DCal430]

You'd have to have a LOT of salt per gram of water to significantly (greater than 1C increase.

Using some math you learn in high school chemistry, you can actually calculate the change deltaT=iKm, where deltaT is the increase in temperature, K is the molal boiling point in degC*kg/mol (0.51 for water), and m is the molality in mol/kg, you'll find that 1 mole of sodium chloride (table salt, 58.44 g = 1 mol, which is a lot of salt) and 2 liters of water will have an increase of 0.5 degC.

And regardless, it's largely irrelevant. You gain nothing by 'bulk processing' seawater to make drinkable water through distillation. It takes a little more energy than boiling fresh water, but there is still a linear increase in energy requirement to go from 1 gal to 100 gal. That's to say nothing of energy expenditure of gathering fuel, pollution, effects of cutting down trees, energy loss to the environment when you're boiling....

There is closer to 1.5 mol of NaCl in 2 liters of water.

 

[Jadow]

If potable water means someone would have to work to provide it for you then no, you do not have a right to it. You have a right to have it, as in no one can tell you you can not take naturally occurring water, or pay for potable water provided by someone else, but you can not force someone else to provide you with it.

agree

 

[sandorski]

You have a right to all the water you can get, either by getting your own from a stream/river/homemade still, but you do not have the right to someone else's time and labor to do it for you. You can't come to my house and demand that I give you water, you can't use the city water free of charge, but you can stand on the sidewalk out front and breath all the air you want. The idea that you can't differentiate between the two, and how they relate in this conversation is pretty sad.

Disagreed. Clearly you can't demand any Water as your Right, but you can claim that having potable Water is your Right. That Right doesn't necessarily mean "Free of charge", but you must be given access to it. It also extends to Environmental concerns, protection of quality of Water and the like.

 

[xj0hnx]

Disagreed. Clearly you can't demand any Water as your Right, but you can claim that having potable Water is your Right. That Right doesn't necessarily mean "Free of charge", but you must be given access to it. It also extends to Environmental concerns, protection of quality of Water and the like.

Yea, that's what I said in my first post, so what are you "disagreeing" with?

 

[DCal430]

Disagreed. Clearly you can't demand any Water as your Right, but you can claim that having potable Water is your Right. That Right doesn't necessarily mean "Free of charge", but you must be given access to it. It also extends to Environmental concerns, protection of quality of Water and the like.

Sadly the U.S government has decided having potable water isn't actually a right, as it allows private companies to charge consumers what ever they want for that water. Consumers are subject to wims of large corporations here for water.

 

[DCal430]

You have a right to all the water you can get, either by getting your own from a stream/river/homemade still, but you do not have the right to someone else's time and labor to do it for you. You can't come to my house and demand that I give you water, you can't use the city water free of charge, but you can stand on the sidewalk out front and breath all the air you want. The idea that you can't differentiate between the two, and how they relate in this conversation is pretty sad.

Potable water should be provided at a reasonable cost. Private companies and charge and arm and leg for it in the U.S.

 

[spittledip]

Is Breathable Air a right?

No. Who should provide that all air is breathable and why should they? What is the motivating factor for a government to ensure that all air is breathable?

 

[sandorski]

No. Who should provide that all air is breathable and why should they? What is the motivating factor for a government to ensure that all air is breathable?

Srsly?

 

[davmat787]

Sadly the U.S government has decided having potable water isn't actually a right, as it allows private companies to charge consumers what ever they want for that water. Consumers are subject to wims of large corporations here for water.

Surely any rate increases first have to submitted, along with justification, for approval with the appropriate government agency? If Comcast has to do this, surely your privatized water company has to right?

I do agree that it is BS that one can't collect rainwater on their own property, that is pure BS. Doing so is a great way to save water for your garden, plus it will not have any chemicals added to it. That is way over the top.

As for wells on your own property, I think one should be able to AS LONG as it is built by a licensed company, along with any permits required. On the downside, any well is a potential vehicle to damage a shared water supply, assuming the water table the well draws from is used by more than one well.