JW asked me to elaborate on the right to water, so here are some thoughts (see also these earlier posts):

I agree that “right” is thrown around too much. I think the word’s appropriate GIVEN the public ownership of water. Further, what would you say about a public policy that did NOT provide such a quantity? That it was a bad policy, sad even — or that it was an unfair violation of “rights”?

OTOH, I have not supported the “human right” to water as a UN mandate. Perhaps I am trying to have it both ways, but I am mostly coming from the property rights (give me MY water) perspective…

So, yes, I sound confused (and perhaps I am), but it’s only because government is obliged to deliver on rights, and these rights have been given out in many different ways, in many places (probably too many places).

Here’s how I would prioritize them:

1. Every person, everywhere has a right to some water as a basic necessity, i.e., for cooking, drinking, bathing. This amount is somewhere from 50-200 liters/capita/day — mostly depending on lifestyle/expectations/capacity/climate.
2. After this, additional rights to use water as a commodity (e.g., agriculture, industry, urban landscaping) belong to those who have them, no matter their matter of acquisition (purchase, gift, theft)
3. New “rights” (e.g., for the environment) cannot be created if they interfere with existing rights. Those rights can be claimed through eminent domain, i.e., forced sale at market prices.

That’s the best I can come up with. Suggestions for improvement?

Bottom Line: “Right” is an important, powerful word. Let’s be careful that our demand for its use does not exceed its supply.