178

CHAPTER VIII PRIVATIZATION OF WATER – HOW FAR IT AFFECTS THE AVAILABILITY OF SAFE DRINKING WATER Introduction

Humanity is polluting, diverting and depleting the wellspring of life at a

starting rate. With every passing day, our demand for freshwater out spaces its

availability and thousand more people are put at risk. Already, the social, political and

economic impacts of water scarcity are rapidly becoming destabilizing force, with water

related conflicts springing up around the globe. Quite simply, within the next quarter of

the century two-third of the human population will be facing severe water shortage.

Faced with the now well documented fresh water crisis, Governments and international

institutions are advocating a “Washington Consensus”1 solution, the privatization and

commodification of water. Price water; put it up for sale and let the market determine its

future. Water according to the World Bank and the United Nations, is a human need and

not a human right. A human need can be supplied in many ways, especially for those with

money. But no one can sell a human right.

When water was defined as a commodity, at the second ‘World Water

Forum’ in The Hague in March 2000, Government representatives at a parallel meeting

did nothing to contravene this statement2. Instead the Government has helped to pave

way for Private Corporation to sell water, for profit, to the thirsty citizens of the world.

So a handful of transnational corporations backed by the World Bank and the

International Monetary Fund are now aggressively taking over the management of public

water services, thus raising the price of water and profiting especially from the Third

179

World’s desperate search for its solution to the water crisis.3 The agenda is clear, water

should be treated like any other commodity, its use and distribution determined by the

principles of profit.

So far, most of the activity, has taken place without public consultation or the

public input. The assumption has been made by the powerful forces of Governments and

the corporate sector that the debate is over: ‘everyone’ agrees to the commodification of

water. And yet no one has given the world’s citizen a real opportunity to debate the hard

political questions about water: Who owns it? Should anyone own it? If water is

privatized, who will buy it for nature? How will it be made available to the poor? Who

gave the transnational corporations the right to buy whole water systems? Who will

protect water resources if they are taken over by the private sector? What is the role of

the government in the stewardship of water? How do those in water rich countries share

with the water poor countries?

The World Bank – an instrument for Corporate Control over Water

Not only the World Bank played a major role in the creation of water

scarcity and pollution; it is now transforming that scarcity into a market opportunity for

water corporations. The World Bank currently has outstanding commitments of about

$20 billion in water projects, $4.8 billion of which are for urban water and Sanitation,

$1.7 billion for rural water schemes, $1.7 billion for hydropower, and $3 billion for water

related environmental projects.4

The Bank estimates the potential water market at $1 trillion.5 After the

collapse of the technology stocks, Fortune Magazine identified the water business as the

most profitable industry for the investors.6 Large Corporations, such as biotech giant

180

Monsanto, is currently into this water business and is anxiously eyeing the funding

available from the development agencies.7

Monsanto estimates that the safe drinking water market is worth billions of

dollars. In 2000, the business of safe water provision was estimated to reach $300 million

in India and Mexico. This is the amount spent by the non governmental organizations

(NGOs) for water development projects and local government water supply schemes;

Monsanto hopes to tap these public finances for providing water to the rural

communities. Where the poor cannot pay, the company plans to create ‘non traditional

mechanisms, targeted at building relationships with local government and NGOs as well

as through innovation financing mechanisms, such as microcredit.8

Monsanto has now entered the Indian Market for safe drinking water by

establishing a joint venture with Eureka Forbes/ TATA, a firm involved in water

purification. The venture will help Monsanto control water delivery and distribution

systems. The joint venture is ideal because it will allow Monsanto to ‘achieve

management control over local operations but also have legal consequences due to local

issues’.9

Water Privatization – It’s Meaning

Water Privatization is a short hand for the privatization of water services,

although more rarely it refers to privatization of water resource themselves. Privatization

is related to:

1. the ownership of the water source and

2. decision making on whom to give it and whom not to give it to, ie,

how to distribute it.10

181

Therefore, privatization of a service function is not privatization.

However, when the private companies come to the scene with a profit motive some

problems do arise when privatization is regarding water services or water resources.

Types of Water Privatization

The system of water privatization is often distinguished as the ‘British

model’ as well as the ‘French Model’. The British model consists of privatizing both the

assets and the operation of the assets, whereas in the ‘French model’ the assets remain

publically owned.

Privatization, conceived as the opening of state sector services and operations

to private entities can occur through a range of forms representing a progressive degree of

state withdrawal from direct provisioning roles.

Management contract is one of the major forms of water privatization. Under

this type, the private operator is responsible only for running the system in exchange for a

free investment which is typically financed and carried out by the public sector, but

implementation may be delegated.

In the second form, the state remains the custodian of the water resources and

the private companies will have all other powers. They will have the right to set tariffs

and rates for water supply. Here, the state exercises a regulatory role.

Lease contract is another important form under which the assets are leased to

the private operator. Here, the ownership shifts to the private entities who try to extract

the cost form the users. DBOT (Design Build Operate Transfer) contracts are also those

in which the private company builds some component of the infrastructure. They inform

long term agreements of 20-30 years.

182

Privatization of Water – A Global Perspective.

Today, intellectuals, scientists, politicians and hydrological experts around

the world are in an agreement that the world faces a grave water crisis. Using

mathematical modeling they predict that by 2025 at least 40% of the world population

may face serious problems if they rely solely on natural endowments of fresh

water.11Water Privatization is therefore suggested as a global policy. With the help of

national governments, a vigorous and dynamic agenda to privatize the world’s water

supplies is being pursued. In this regard the role played by the International Agencies and

the Conferences are significant.

Dublin Principle

It was the UN that started the world thinking of water in terms of money.

The 1992 International Conference on Water and the Environment held in Dublin was a

precursor to the UN Rio Conference on Environment and Development. Five hundred

participants, including government designated experts from a hundred countries and

representatives of eighty international, inter governmental and non governmental

organizations attended the Dublin Conference.12At its closing session, the Conference

adopted some principles known as the Dublin statement. The fourth principle of the

Dublin Statement held that water has an economic value in all its competing uses and

should be recognized as an economic good. The statement went on to add that within the

principle it is vital to recognize first the basic right of all human beings to have access to

clean water and sanitation at an affordable price.13

183

Public – Private Partnerships: International Aid for Water Privatization.

Privatization project funded by the World Bank and other aid agencies are

usually labeled ‘public-private partnerships’. The label is powerful both because of what

it suggests and what it hides. It implies public participation, democracy and

accountability. But it disguises the fact that public private partnership arrangements

usually entail public funds being available for the privatization of the public goods.

Public private partnerships have mushroomed under the guise of attracting

private capital and curbing public sector employment. The World Bank, working on the

assumption that the Third World will urbanize by 2025, estimates that $600 billion of

investment infrastructure projects will be required .14

The erosion of water rights is now a global phenomenon. Since the early

1990s, ambitious, World Bank driven privatization programs have emerged in Argentina,

Chile, Mexico, Malaysia and Nigeria. In Chile, it has imposed a loan condition to

guarantee a 33% profit margin to the French Company Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux.15

Not only does privatization affects people’s democratic right to water, it also

affects the livelihoods and employment rights of those who work in municipalities and

local water and sanitation systems. Public systems worldwide employ five to ten

employees per 1000 water connections, while private companies employ two or three

employers per 1000 connections.16

Privatization arguments are mainly based on the poor performance of the public

utilities17. The fact that poor public sector performance is most often due to the utilities

lack of accountability is hardly taken into account. Private companies most often violate

operation standards and engage in price gouging without much consequences.18

184

The WTO and GATS

Several years ago, Dr. Ismail Serageldin, Vice-President of the World Bank,

said that the wars of the 21st century will be about water18a. To respond to the increasing

crisis, the World Bank has adopted the policy of water privatization. On March 16, 2001

the WTO presented a defense of GATS in the press conference it called: ‘GATS: Facts

and Fiction’. It argued that GATS does not violate right to water, health and education

because it excludes ‘service supplied in the exercise of the governmental authority’.

But, on a close examination of the WTO claims reveals a different and

contrary reality. While GATS appears to exempt ‘services supplied in the exercise of

governmental authority’, it also mandates that such services be ‘supplied neither on a

commercial basis, nor in competition with one or more service suppliers’. Since

‘commercial basis’ is not clearly defined, governments charging any tax or fees could be

interpreted as engaging in commercial activity and essential services could be dragged

into a free trade ambit. Further, since most societies have pluralistic service providers,

governments can be accused of being in competition with one or more service suppliers.19

Water services have always been on the GATS agenda. At the heart of the

environmental industry and of these services is of course water. The centrality of water to

this field has been of interest not only to the WTO but also to the European Community,

reported that the environmental services amount to $280 billion and are expected to reach

$640 billion by 2010, placing this sector roughly the same sector as the pharmaceutical

and information technology industries.20

The European Community has expanded the coverage of ‘water services’ to

include ‘water collection, purification and distribution’.21And of course, as Ruth Caplan

185

of the Alliance of Democracy points out, ‘collection’ could include the ‘withdrawal of

water and the extraction from groundwater and aquifers’.22The proposals by the European

Community could therefore have a major impact on the community rights to water

resources. At the Doha meeting, of the WTO in November 2001, the United States

sneaked water trade into a Ministerial Declaration.23

The WTO refers to GATS as the ‘first multilateral agreement on investment’.

Corporate trade rights granted by the NAFTA and GATS apply to cases of corporate

water ownership and control. NAFTA explicitly lists, ‘waters, including natural, artificial

waters and aerated waters’ as tradable goods. And of course a US trade representative

Mickey Kentor pointed out in 1993, ‘when water is traded as a good, all provisions of the

agreements governing trade in goods apply.24

Privatizing the Human Right to Water.

Adam Smith, the Father of Economics, in his “Paradox of Diamonds and

Water” observed that water which is very useful, indeed necessary to sustenance of life

itself is very cheap, while diamonds, which are mainly used for ornamentation having

little utility is very costly. This is Smith’s Paradox i.e., if demand depends on the

usefulness of the product, then the more useful product, water was to command the

higher price. However, it is the diamonds which is very costly.25

Global consumption of water gets doubled every twenty years, this being more

than twice the rate of human population growth. If this trend persists, then by 2025 the

demand for freshwater is expected to rise to 56% above the quantity currently available.

This would mean that nearly two-third of the world population does not have access to

clean drinking water.26 Taking this increased demand and acute scarcity as an

186

opportunity, the transnational corporations have begun to spread their tentacles with a

view to controlling this precious life sustaining resource. Water is fast becoming a

globalize corporate industry , the last infrastructure frontiers for private investors, with

the World Bank placing the value of the current water market at close to $1 trillion.

Transnational water corporations are taking over the urban water supply

services in different parts of the world for profit.27 In this endeavor, they are assisted by

the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and a myriad of regional banks, such

as European Investment bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian

Development Bank, the African Development Bank etc., Corporations are now involved

in the construction of massive pipelines to carry freshwater along distances for sale while

others are transporting vast amounts of water across oceans to paying customers. As the

World Bank puts it, “One way or another, water will so on be moved around the world as

oil is now”.28

Selling bottled mineral water has also become a money spinning venture for

private corporations. As drinking water gets degraded, the bottled water is promoting

‘boutique water’ as the solution. However, bottled water is not adequately regulated and

has been found not meeting the required quality standards.29 Water companies taking

advantage of outmoded legal principles, purchase large tracts of lands solely for

indiscriminately abstracting groundwater for sale, destroying wells and water sources on

which the local communities depend on.30

Nevertheless, the fact is that drinking water crisis in Indian cities has reached

volatile proportions. Not a day passes by without witnessing a water riot between close

neighbourhoods.31 Today most water supply systems are badly maintained and grossly

187

inefficient. Lack of adequate finance, myopic planning and perverse corruption has held

up modernization plans, with the result that the transmission losses are mounting up.32 In

the overwhelming majority of Indian cities, supply is limited to just a few hours a day for

an entire week.33

As a result people are already depending on an unorganized private sector

who charges high prices for even a pot of water. In areas, where there is an interface

between sewerage networks and water pipes, there is a cross contamination leading to

frequent outbreaks of epidemics like cholera.34 Further, water is grossly under priced, in

many cities there are absolutely no water charges.35 The subsidy system, which was

intended to provide water at lesser costs to the urban poor, has resulted in supplying

water at ridiculously low prices to the urban rich. All this led to the little development of

a water usage culture with the result that there is large scale squandering of the resources.

Thus, the urban water supply system is in total chaos.

It is believed that , privatization of urban water supplies is the only panacea to

the above outlined problems.36 Protagonists of water privatization mouth the usual

rhetoric i.e. it can help in obtaining efficiencies in managing water resources and that

private sector initiatives and market oriented behavior improves performance and

efficiency, particularly in service delivery. Increased revenue through rising of tariffs

would not only help the water service providers to recover their operational costs but will

also enable them to improve and expand networks.

Increased tariffs would also act as a deterrent among the urban populace

prompting them to conserve water.37

188

However, hard one frowns upon the idea of Privatization of water supply,

with nearly thirty cities across the country gearing up to hand over their municipal water

supplies to private entrepreneurs, 38if ‘aqua robbery’ by these corporates are to be

prevented, effective steps will have to be crafted in for the same. This is necessary, since

right to safe drinking water is the basic human right and the privatization of the basic

human right raises many critical issues.

It mainly relates to the nature of the water privatization contract.39

Generally, it would be advisable to retain the element of public ownership in respect of

assets while the other elements, namely, capital investment, commercial Risk, operation

maintenance should be left to the private initiative. Although this is far fetched in the

Indian psyche with its ‘free water’ way of life40 managing water as an economic good is a

feasible way of achieving efficient and equitable use of water and encouraging

conservation and maintenance of water resources.

Accordingly, as a condition precedent, before undertaking a compromise

exercise between these diametrically opposite views, a strong regulatory framework has to

be put in place in every state which permits private participation. This regulatory body

should be headed by a sitting or a retired judge of the High Court and should reflect public

interest. Rate fixation is to be done by this body and while doing so the private

entrepreneur should be made to provide the basic water requirement necessary to satisfy the

human right to water free of cost41. Water requirements over and above the minimum

quantity should reflect the true costs involved in supplying the water, thereby enabling the

private entrepreneur to make a ‘decent profit’. With consumers being forced to pay the

actual price, people would be forced to adopt water conservation strategies like rain water

189

harvesting to meet needs other than the basic ones. Provision could also be made to provide

water over and above the minimum quantity to the poor at subsidized rates with cross

subsidization from the rich and even the government being made a third party in the bill.

The quality of the water supplied should be of such a nature that it could be

consumed directly from the tap with no further treatment. Here the regulatory body in

consultation with the Pollution Control Boards should lay down the guidelines relating to

the water quality should be maintained. Constant quality monitoring has also to be

undertaken and the reports are to be made public. In fact, transparency at all levels has to

be maintained. In case of failure to maintain quality, stringent action like termination of

the contract and imposition of huge penalties should be resorted to. As the private sector

focuses more on supplying water and is generally averse to pump money to develop

infrastructure, legal obligations should be imposed on these water companies to take up

measures to overhaul and maintain infrastructure.

Privatization has become a dominant economic policy recommended by the

international financial institutions, such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund,

and other multinational corporations. Water is an essential service, vital to the health and

wellbeing of the community. Thus the privatization of water without taking into

consideration the basic human right issues can be a perilous issue. The privatization of

municipal water services is said to have a terrible record that is well documented.

Customers rates doubled or tripled; corporate benefit rose as much as 700%; corruption

and bribery were rampant, water quality standard dropped; sometimes drastically and

overuse was promoted to make money; and the customers who were unable to pay were

cut off.42

190

Privatization of Drinking Water in India.

India is the tenth largest bottled water consumer in the world. In India, the

percapita bottled water consumption is less than five litres a year as compared to the

global average of 24 litres. However the total annual bottled water consumption has

arisen rapidly in recent times – it has tripled between 2004 an 2009 from 2.5billion litres

to 7 billion litres.42a

Following the structural adjustment policies in India since 1991, the Eighth

Five Year Plan (1992-1997) made a significant departure from the past in giving a thrust

to the privatization of water sector. The main thrust and strategies were to manage water

as a commodity in exactly the same way as any other resource; encourage private sector

for construction and maintenance of drinking water projects and mobilize them to the

maximum extent feasible; and ensure that in urban areas, municipalities are free to levy

and raise appropriate user charges for drinking water and sanitation facilities in order to

strengthen their financial position. The Tenth Plan (2002-2007) also further stressed the

philosophy of liberalization in water sector. As per Tenth Five Year plan water needs to

be managed as an economic asset rather than a free commodity in the same way as any

other source…Supply of water to consumers should normally be based on the principle of

effective demand that should broadly correspond to the standard of service which the

users as a community are willing to maintain, operate and finance. The Tenth plan

however, advocated special provisions to the poor who have less capacity to pay. Thus

from the Eighth Plan on wards water has come to be treated as an economic good like

any other commodity in India’s official Planning Commission documents.

191

Even though, the right to safe drinking water is implicitly mentioned in our

Constitution, India is also affected by the global trend of water privatization. In India

private participation in water emerged in early 1990s. Since then there has been a severe

attempt to privatize water sector.

National Water Policy, 2002 – Agenda of Privatization

The Eighth Five Year Plan (1992-1997) of the Government of India outlines a

key principle for this sector: water being managed as a commodity and not a free service.

Following that the National Water Policy, 2002 favors widespread private sector

participation in the country’s water management.43

The National Water Policy, 2002 gives priority to the drinking water and at the

same time deals with the water privatization, which is against the well established norms

of equity and social justice. It has proposed a ground for the transition towards water

privatization, by promoting the concept of private sector participation in building,

operating, owning, leasing and transferring of water resource facilities.

Para 13 of the National Water Policy, 2002 states that Private Sector Participation

should be encouraged in planning, development and management of water resources,

projects for diverse uses, wherever feasible.

Water Privatization in Various States of India

1. Chennai’s Metro Water – Chennai’s Metropolitan Water Supply and Sanitation

Board, popularly known as Metro Water was an early reformer in India. In Metro water,

192

the process of commodification of water has been in operation since the early 1980s

when the newly formed negotiated its first big loan from the World Bank.

In Metro water, pressure to achieve full cost recovery and tariff reform

has translated into punitive effects for clients as well as front line service providers.

Clients are denied service until they meet all arrears, even if they have not received

water for several months.

Chennai’s Metro Water entrusted with protecting the region’s ground

water resources has emerged as the greatest culprit in depleting the aquifers of river

basins near the city through highly unsustainable extraction over the past 10 years.

2. Water Supply in Delhi - Delhi, India’s Capital has been sustained for centuries by

the River Yamuna. Two decades of industrialization have turned the Yamuna into a

sewer and a toxin drain. Instead of stopping the pollution, the World Bank wanted to

push the Delhi Government to privatize Delhi’s water supply and get water from Tehri

Dam on Ganges, which is hundreds of miles away.

The privatization of Delhi’s Water Supply is centred on the Sonia Vihar

Plant. The Sonia Vihar Plant was inaugurated on 2002 on a Build on Transfer (BOT)

basis. The contract between Delhi Jal Board, the Water Supply Department of Delhi

Government and the French Company Suez is supposed to provide safe drinking water to

the Delhi city.

On December 2004, water tariffs were increased in Delhi. The increase is to

lay down the ground for the privatization of Delhi’s water and to ensure super Profits for

193

the private operators.44 The four likely players in the final stage of the bidding are:

Manila Water, Vivendi, Sour and Degremont.

Water privatization is going on under the alluring name of 24/7 by creating an

illusion that 24 hours supply of water will be available to all the people of Delhi.

Unfortunately, “24*7” or round the clock water supply is more myth than a reality.45 The

consultants have not only presumed that the gap between supply and demand will never

be bridged, but have also projected a deficit of 246 million liters per day (MLD) by

2011, once the water reforms are complete. So the real issue of 24*7 water availability

has to be addressed by means other than mere privatization.

The new privatization scheme entails zero risk for the managing operator or the

private player and involves just the distribution of the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) water in the

zone it operates in. However, the private operator’s obligation is only to offer water

supply to a District Metering Areas (DMA) and not to individual households. This leaves

room for misuse, for water can well be diverted from residential areas to a more paying

commercial consumer like a hotel or a restaurant or an industrial unit within the DMA.

Worse, the contract between French Company Degremont and the DJB for the treatment

plant has a clause that states that, “in the event of non availability of raw water to the

facility, the responsibilities of the contractor stands suspended. During such period of

suspension, the board shall be liable to pay to the contractor the basic service charges and

the contribution towards reserve fund. The board shall be liable to pay inventory holding

charges to chemicals and consumables.46

194

3. Chattisgarh – Privatization of the Sheonath River.- The Chattisgarh Government

had framed the Water Resource Development Policy, 2000 which clearly directs water

privatization as the viable and the only alternative for water use and management.47

In Chattisgarh, there are two instances of privatization. The first one is

privatization of the Sheonath River. Water supply from a semi-perennial Sheonath River

was handed over to the local entrepreneur Radius Water Limited under a BOOT

agreement.

The move was met with protests from almost 15 villages situated along the

river banks. Activists from all over the country condemned the government for selling a

common property resource.

The extraction of water by Jindal Steel and Power Limited (JSPL) from the

river Kelu is another instance of private party usurping the common property resources.

The JSPL is also proposing to build a dam on Kurkut River which will in effect make the

river a private property.

Privatization of Drinking Water in Kerala

The majority of the bottling plants whether they produce bottled water or

soft drinks, are dependent on ground water. They create huge water stress in the areas

where they operate because ground water is the main source of drinking water in India.

This has created huge conflict between the communities and bottling plants.

Private companies can exhaust and exploit ground water free because the

ground water law in the country is archaic and not in tune with the realities of modern

capitalist societies. The existing law says that ‘the person who owns the land owns the

ground water beneath’. This means that a person can buy some land and take all the

195

ground water of the surrounding areas and the laws of the land do not object to it. This

law is the core of the conflict between the community and the companies and the major

reason for making the business of bottled water in the country highly profitable.

The case study in Kerala is a clear case of water being exploited

undemocratically. While the democracy provided the statutory framework and the

judicial power to ensure that the local people’s right to water are enforced, there is often a

lack of will within the authorities to enforce these principles against large multinational

corporations. Water privatization results in the conflict at the core of the democracy – a

struggle between the economic development and the need of the people.

To examine the nature of the crisis, one need to look no further than the

Coco-cola plant that was built in Plachimada in Palakkad district. With in six months,

villages saw the drop in the level of their water quality and the water they drew was

filthy. It was found that Coco cola had been illegally extracting 1.5 million litres of water

a day, an amount greatly exceeding that had been allowed on the conditional licence

issued by the Panchayat. Not only did Coco cola appropriated more water that had been

allowed under the terms of their development, the transnational Corporation had been

pumping waste material out side the factory, which often resulted in the water pollution.

In 2004, as a result of testing it had been found that there was improperly disposed waste

that had more than 50mg/kg cadmium content. As a result of water misappropriation, the

panchayat filed a PIL in Kerala High Court and the Court in Perumatty Grama

Panchayat v. State of Kerala48 directed the Coco-cola plant to find alternative sources of

water and held that it would be wholly unjustified to make groundwater under the subject

of private ownership. Referring to the decision in M.C.Mehta v. Kamalnath49 the court

196

affirmed that the doctrine of public trust. The Public trust doctrine primarily rest on the

principle that certain resources like air, water and forest etc should be made freely

available to every one. Such resources are held by the Government in trusteeship for the

free and unimpeded use of the general public. Therefore the Government cannot grant

these properties to private owner if the effect is to interfere with the public interest. But

on appeal the division bench of Kerala High Court in Hindustan Coco-cola Beverages

Pvt v. Perumatty Grama Panchayat50 the court directed for the closure of Company for

several reasons such as pollution, failure in supply water etc., but made it clear that

company can make use of ground water based on common rule. Here the Court held that

ground water is a private water resource and accepted the preposition of law that the land

owner has a ‘proprietary right over the water resource’. In effect this limited the

Panchayat’s power and the division bench failed to recognize the public trust doctrine

merely focusing on the traditional notions of property rights.

The problem that Plachimada raises is not the ineffectiveness of democratic

structures such as courts, legislature and executive – it is the inefficiency of the system in

dealing with profound social problems and the influence of transnational corporations,

i.e., pressure from outside the traditional state – centric model of international relations,

which cause the sustainability crisis. Coco-cola was irresponsible in its mis appropriation

of water resources, insensitiveness of customary ideas of water and did not engage in

communication with the communities on which they have started the plant. This kind of

behavior represents the worst aspects of globalization where the multinational

exploitation of the poor of the third world at a unsustainable pace. The Plachimada case

197

shows us that the top down democracy can fail the people and that Governments are

influenced by the multinational corporations.

Effect of Water Privatization

Company’s like Coco-cola are fully aware that water is the real thirst quencher

and are jumping into the bottled water business. Coco-cola has launched its international

label Bon Aqua and Pepsi has introduced Aqua fina. In India Coco-cola’s water line is

called Kinley.

In March 1999, in a study of 103 brands of bottled water, the Natural

Resource Defense Council found that bottled water is no safer than tap water.51 A third of

the brands contained arsenic and E.coli and a fourth merely bottled tap water. In India, a

study conducted by the Ahmedabad based Consumer Education and Research Centre

discovered that only three out of the 13 known brands conformed to all bottling

specifications.52 None of the brands were free of bacteria, even though some claimed to

be germs free and 100% bacteria free.

The consequences of bottled water extend beyond price hikes and it is unsafe

also. Environmental waste is a major cost incurred by the bottling industry. In the 1970s,

300 million gallons of bottled water were sold in non renewable plastic water

containers. By 1998, this number has exceeded 6 billion. In India, leading bottled water

producer Parle Bisleri accounts for 60 percent of the market share. It is expanding its

$835 thousand business and hopes to earn more than $208.8 million by 2008.53 It is hoped

that Bisleri would overcome the Cola companies54 within two to three years. Currently,

the bottled water accounts for 14% of the soft drink industry. Bisleri’s one liter bottle

sells for Rs.20 and the five liter bottle costs five times higher.55

198

Bisleri, Pepsi and Coke are not the only players in the bottled water market.

Britannia Industries and Nestle are also pushing their products, Perrier, San Pellegrino

and Price Life respectively. Britannia markets Evian, which sells at $2 per liter, is nearly

double the hourly minimum wage of a common man. Evian is promoted as ‘an alternative

beverage for life style and fitness needs’.56 More than 500 rich families in India spend

approximately $20 to $209 a month on Evian water. The Australian Company Auswater

Purification Limited is promoting its brand, Auswater. Smaller Indian companies like

Tirupathi, Ganga, Oasis, Dewdrops, Miniscot, Florida, Aqua cool, and Himalayan have

entered the market. These small firms account for 17% of the market share.

Global Corporation are taking full advantage of the demand for clean water, a

demand which has resulted from environmental pollution. Even though clean water

resources in non industrialized, unpolluted regions, they refer to their bottling practice as

‘manufacture of water’. Nestle has a plant in Samalka in Haryana. In 1999, Pepsi started

its Aqua fina bottling plant in Roha, Maharashtra and is now setting up new plants in

Kosi, Baspur, Kolkata and Bangalore.

Coco-cola bottle Kinley is setting up its new factories at Delhi, Mumbai and

Bangalore. The Indian packages, water market are estimated at $104.4 million, with a

growth of 50 to 70% per year.57 In other words, bottled water products are expected to

double every two years. Between 1992 and 2000 sales had increased from 95 million

liters to 932 million liters.

The growth of bottled water market is predicted upon the failure of the

governments to provide clean drinking water to the citizens and the increase in demand

for clean water due to the environmental pollution. The Government estimated that by the

199

end of March 2012, about 8540 million cold drink bottles were sold annually, which

means a percapita of the 8 bottles for the Indian population.58

As quickly as water market is expanding in India, so is the traditional

practice of giving water to the thirsty is disappearing. For thousands of years, water was

offered as a gift of road sides, temples and market places. An earthen pot known has

ghadas and surais cooled the water during the summer for the thirsty, which would drink

water from their cupped hands. These pots have been now replaced by plastic bottles and

the gift economy has been supplemented by the water market. No longer do all people

have a right to quench their thirst, this is the right held exclusively by the rich. Even the

President of India laments this misfortune: ‘The elite guzzle bottles of aerated drinks

while the poor have to make with the handful of the muddied water’.59

Pani Panchayat /Swajal

Pani Panchayat is a World Bank assisted project being implemented in some

parts of India. The World Bank’s Pani Panchayat does not represent the entire

community, but are formed with those who have financial, social and political power.

Here, the users have to repay the capital cost over a period of time and have to pay

immediately in full for the operation and management. Thus, through this scheme the

World Bank is undermining the concept of community control over water. In Uttaranchal

and UP, this scheme of water privatization is known as ‘Swajal’.

Role of Private Sectors in Providing Drinking Water Supply

Water tariffs shape the access to water of poor households. Most

governments regulate tariffs to achieve a range of equity and efficiency objectives. They

are designed to provide water that is affordable to households and to generate enough

200

revenues to cover part or all of the costs of delivery. More typical is the block tariff

system, in which prices rise on a hired basis along with the volume of water used. But

this block tariffs can create structural disadvantages to the poor. This is because the

private operators and intermediaries that supply households without private connections

typically purchase water in bulk at the top price. Stand pipe operators, water vendors and

truckers are thus reselling the highest cost water sold by utilities.

Most poor rural households get their water from a variety of sources.

Unimproved sources like lakes, streams, rivers and prominently village wells are the most

common improved water sources. Efforts to expand coverage have focused on boreholes

and pumps. More than in urban areas, success depend on the willingness and capacity of

communities to contribute labour and finance for maintenance and on the responsiveness

of the service providers to demand for appropriate technology.

Introducing competition for the right to operate the main water network has

been central to reform in many developing countries. However, private involvement

stretches across a far broader spectrum. The diversity in public-private partnerships

cautions against lumping all private sector involvement under the heading of

‘privatization’.

The term on which the private sector enters the water market is important on

several levels. The arrangements have implications for ownership only in the case of full

privatization. More broadly, the terms on which Government contract with the private

sector influence management structures, investment patterns and distribution of service.

So what went wrong? When private companies entered developed country

markets as providers they inherit a large infrastructure (paid by past public investments)

201

that provides universal access in a market defined by fairly high average incomes. In

developing countries, a narrow and even dilapidated infrastructure, low levels of

connection and high levels of poverty heighten tensions between commercial viability

and delivery of affordable water to all. Three common failures, linked to regulation,

financial sustainability and transparency in contracting can be traced to these constraints.

1. Network Expansion: - A primary objective of Governments entering

concessions is to expand networks.

2. Tariff Renegotiation: - Water tariffs are intensely political. From a commercial

perspective revenues from tariffs generate profits for share holders and capital

for future investment. But tariff policies designed to optimize profits can

minimize social welfare and generate political unrest.

3. Financing: - The lumpiness of capital investments in water makes credit critical

for network expansion.

Perhaps, the most obvious lesson from any review of public and private

provision is that there are no hard and fast cross- country blue prints for success. Many

publically owned utilities are by any reasonable criteria, failing the poor – and that failure

is linked to under financing and poor governance. But the idea that public sector failures

can be swiftly corrected through the presumed efficiency, accountability and financing

advantage of the private concessions is flawed, as found in many countries. Without a

coherent national plan and financing strategy for achieving water for all, neither the

public sector nor the private sector will break out the current enclave model.60

While the bottled water business is conducted by the private sector, supply of

raw water is made by the State through agreements by allowing the private companies to

202

extract ground water in large quantities, leasing of certain stretches of rivers or some

reservoirs, and directly providing water from the municipal supplies.

The primary justification for privatization that it makes profit funds available

for infrastructure investments have proved false. In large number of cases, the private

company asserts and seeks to expand monopolistic control over local water resources61

The structure of liability of MNC’s and their size carry serious implications

for their accountability to people and to governments, as seen in cases where companies

have broken their contracts and left, often as a result of public protest against their

services. The companies have then proceeded to sue the Governments for millions of

dollars.

The findings that Coco-cola and Pepsi are contaminated with pesticides

have challenged the myth that the MNCs are safe and reliable61a.

There is a massive imbalance of bargaining power when it comes to

privatization contracts. The private bodies are not democratically accountable and yet

they hold extensive influence in most countries. While most governments may

themselves now express pro-privatization positions, the policy has not been subjected to

open debate, discussion and scrutiny by the affected parties.

Those who assert that access to safe drinking water is a human right, no just

a human need, believe that it must remain in public hands. “Water is part of the earth’s

heritage and must be preserved in the public domain for all time and protected by strong

local, national and international law”, argues Maude Barlow, the Author of Blue Gold. 61b

Recently, the People’s World Water Forum (PWWF), which comprises of

60 NGOs from across the world, launched a campaign in Delhi, attacking MNCs like

203

Coco-cola and Suez for exploiting the ground water resources. PWWF members

debunked the World Bank theory that the poor would benefit once water is privatized.

Fortunately, in some countries, opinion is about the state to retain the possession of water

resources that affects people’s life so fundamentally. Even the World Bank is coming to

this view and advocates public-private partnership instead.62

However, few developing countries have the skill to negotiate such contracts

and monitor them. It does seem that such privatization of water services will increase in

the current era of economic liberalization around the world.

Conclusion

Right to adequate access to safe drinking water, in quality and quantity is a

fundamental right and need to be treated as a part of right to life. The issue is whether

privatization is a means to achieve that goal.

Though the question of water privatization are extremely polarized between

pro and against, there is also a third position – a position that says that water is both a

social and economic good.63 This position essentially argues that there could be different

mechanisms of service delivery but under the over all regulatory mechanism of the state.

In principle, all public utilities should be publically owned and managed.

Only if the Government is incapable of effectively and efficiently managing the public

utility privatization can be resorted to and only if privatization is able to reduce to cost

incurred by the public.

The crux of the issue is that the state should never transfer resources

ownership under the grab of privatization. In any form of privatization, the Government

has to play an important role. It has to set the conditions and standards. There must

204

always be a strict contractual arrangement operating on the basis that water as a public

utility must be made available to all without any exclusion.

Considering the nature and content of this basic human right, any change in

the existing system is bound to have far-reaching social connotations and water supply

should ideally remain within the domain of ‘public welfare’. However, as experience in

this sector reveals, the system has been managed inefficiently and at considerable cost to

the common man. The situation is indeed grave, and the Government will have to adopt

an extremely cautious approach to water privatization. The private players engineered by

the profit motive discriminate between consumers in matters of distribution, cost and

quality. Although there are doubts about the viability of water privatization, it is the

absence of any other workable and cost effective alternative, that privatization however

limited, has to be reluctantly accepted as the best modus operandi for the present. In

conclusion, it must not be forgotten that whatever be the potential benefits, privatization

in a sector as crucial as water has to be within socially acceptable parameters. If not it

may become a roaring business for some exploitative corporates in this water scarce

earth.

The main Advantages of Water Privatization are:

1. Basic advantage in privatization is accurateness and commitment towards the

service as the private organizations are very much concerned with the profits they

make, ultimately which depend upon the quality of service being provided by them

and the public response to it.

205

2. Privatization generates more revenue compared to Government enterprises, thus

Government can indirectly earn a bit more by leasing out enterprises to private

organizations.

3. Customer support and satisfaction is of much interest in private enterprises.

The main Disadvantages are:

1. The biggest threat is reliability. There is nothing that backs up the private

organizations, where as Government can back up its enterprises easily in term of

funds.

2. As a basic human need, water services should be a responsibility of Governments.

Transfer of control of Private entity that seeks to maximize profits reduces public

accountability and can adversely affect the quality and equity of services.

3. Water privatization can negatively impact low income communities by unfair rate

increase and poor services.

4. Many privatization agreements fail to include adequate public participation which

ultimately results in denial of basic rights to the communities.

As water privatization increased, it has become a matter of making

profits and ensuring a decent return on capital. Meeting human needs and providing water

to those who need water are no longer the driving force. In India, reforms in water sector

are taking place through two modes. The first mode is outright privatization of water

services through either BOT (Build on Transfer) projects or management contracts. This

mode is being used for industrial water supply and urban water supply projects. The

second mode is more insidious and will have far reaching impact on the eater sector

reforms. This include BOT projects, concessions, management contracts, Private Hydro

206

power projects etc., While the water sector in the country desperately needs reforms, in

the World Bank led prescription, they invariably mean only three important things. They

are

1. Transformation of Water sector into commercial operation.

2. Changing the basis from social responsibility to a commodity which is brought

and sold.

3. Allocation of water to highest value through market mechanism.

The Union Government has begun consultation on a new National Water

Policy,2012 that calls for the privatization of water-delivery services and suggest that

water be priced so as to ‘fully recover’ the costs of operation and administration of water

projects. The Draft National Water Policy suggests that the Government should withdraw

from its role as a service provider in the water sector, and instead, communities and

private sector should be encouraged to play this role. This may results in the rise of cost

of water in both urban and rural areas. The policy suggests that it may help in the misuse

of the precious natural resources.

While India’s new draft National Water Policy, 2012 proposes few

institutional mechanisms to support the prioritization of basic human needs and

ecosystem needs, it does suggest various mechanisms to strengthen the current treatment

of water as an economic good. The draft National Water Policy proposes a limited role

for the state in public services. The new policy purposes that the state should function

simply as a regulator or facilitator, and that service delivery should be handed over to the

local communities or private sector, instead of exploring how to make 24/7 delivery

possible by strengthening the capacity of public sector64.

207

The draft policy recommends the ‘full cost recovery of water ‘used as a

means of achieving the efficient use of water. While full cost recovery will help to meet

the costs of water delivery, it does not deter water use among those who can afford to

pay. In that sense it works particularly against low income groups and groups that have

low economic returns. Full cost recovery need to be accompanied by protection of the

right to water for basic needs, including that for basic livelihood strategies. The new draft

policy gives importance to ‘water pricing’ and emphasize water as an economic good and

therefore, may be priced to promote efficient use and maximizing value from water.

‘Water pricing’ is a broad term and has got many connotations. There is a need to

distinguish between price of water (as a resource) and charges for water related prices

(like domestic water supply, irrigation water supply etc) While the first could consider

the resource cost, the second concern the cost of appropriation and supply. In the case of

ground water the resource is mostly in the private domain only ‘resource cost’ need to be

considered. Whereas in the case of surface water from public irrigation schemes, both

cost of appropriation, distribution and delivery and the resource cost is to be considered.

But these factors are not mentioned clearly in the draft National Water Policy.

Thus through the new Draft National Water Policy, 2012, the Government

is also shifting its focus to the concept of privatization of water. The water sector has

many of the characteristics of the natural monopoly. In the absence of strong regulatory

measures to protect the public resource through the rules on pricing and investment, there

are dangers of monopolistic abuse of this natural resource.

208

References:

1.’Washington Consensus’ a model of economics rooted in the belief that liberal market economics constitute the one and only economic choice for the whole world. Key to this consensus is the ‘commodification of the commons’. Everything is for sale, even those areas of life, such as social service and natural resources that were once considered as the common heritage of humanity. Governments around the world are abdicating their responsibility and giving authority away to private companies that make business of resource exploitation. (See, Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke, Blue Gold, Left Wood Books, New Delhi, xii (2003)). 2. Even in the Fourth World Water Forum held at Mexico on April, 2006 also reiterated on the same point that water is to be commodified and there should be privatization of water resources. 3. Ground water exploitation in Plachimada at Perumatty Grama Panchayat in Palghat district of Kerala can be cited as a best example. (Details in Chapter III – Right to Safe Drinking Water under the Constitution of India and Chapter VI- The role of ground water in providing safe drinking water with Special reference to State of Kerala} 4. http://www.worldbank.org accessed on 24/1/2008 at 6.00 p.m

5. Maude Barlow, Blue Gold: The Global Water Crisis and the Commodification of World’s Water Supply, San Francisco, Internal Forum on Globalization, 2001, p.15.

6. Fortune Magazine, May 2000.

7. ‘First we believe that the discontinuities (either major policy changes or major trend line breaks in resource quality or quantity) are likely, particularly in the area of water, and we will be positioned via., these businesses to profit even more significantly, when these discontinuities occur. Secondly, we are exploring the potential of non-conventional financing (non governmental organizations, World Bank, USAID etc) that may lower our investment or provides local country business building resources’.(‘Sustainable Development Sector Strategy’, (Monsanto), 1991, p.3.)

8. Ibid.

9. Vandana Shiva, Water wars, Privatization, Pollution and Profit, Indian Research Press, New Delhi, 2002, p.89. 10. Vijay Paranjpye, ‘To privatize or not to privatize water’, http://www.infochangeindia.org/agenda3.jsp accessed on 15/12/2007 at 12.30 p.m.

209

11. Susan Bryce, ‘The privatization of Water’, http://www.nexusmagazine.com accessed on 23/12/2007 at 7.00 a.m. 12. ‘The Dublin Statement on Water and Sustainable development’, http://www.wmo.ch/web/homs/documents/icwedece.html accessed on 2/1/2008 at 5.00 p.m. 13. Manoj Naukarni, ’Giants in Water Market’, http://www.infochangeindia.org/agenda3.jsp accessed on 2/1/2008 at 3.30 p.m. 14. Riccardo Petrella, The Water manifesto: Arguments for the World water Council, London, Zen Books, 2001, p.20. 15. Supra n.5 at p.15 16. Emanuel Sdelevetch and Klas Ringkeg, Private Sector Participation in Water Supply and Sanitation in Latin America, Report of the World Bank, World bank, 1995, p.9. 17. Ibid. 18. In Argentina, two of the largest private French firms, Lyonnaise des Eaux and Compagnie Generale des Eaux, two of the largest private British firms Thames Water and North West Water, and the largest public Spanish firm, Canal Isabel II, formed a consortium, to bid for a World Bank, financed water privatization project. (Vandana Shiva, Water Wars, Privatization, Pollution and Profit, Indian Research Press, New Delhi, 2002, p.91) 18a. ‘Who owns water?’, http://www.canadians.org/publications/CP/2000/CP_Summer_00.pdf accessed on 12/2/2012 at 5 p.m 19. The ‘National Transport’ rule of GATS prohibits governments from discriminating between foreign and local service suppliers, even if the local provider is a community non-profit and foreign supplies is giant Water Corporation. This also prescribes governments from requiring foreign corporations to hire or train citizens or to involve local people in management and ownership. Neither can these corporations be freed to transfer technology to local industries. (See, Vandana Shiva, Water Wars, Privatization, Pollution and Profit, Indian Research Press, New Delhi, 2002, p.95) 20. http://www,worldbank.org accessed on 2/12/2007 at 11.00 a.m 21. Ibid. 22. Ruth Caplan, ‘Alliance for Democracy’, Paper circulated at NGO, GATS meeting, Geneva, April 2001.

210

23. The section on Trade and Environment refers to ‘the reduction or, as appropriate, elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers to environmental goods and services’. See, Doha Ministerial Declaration, 2001. 24. Supra n.22. In 1998, the American Company Sun Belt water sued the Canadian Government fro $10 billion because the company lost a contract to export water from Canada to California due to 1991 ban on bulk water export imposed by the Government of British Columbia. The company claimed that British Columbia’s ban on exports violated the Protected of Investor Rights under NAFTA. The case is still under deliberation. Every level of Government, both under the regional and local is now forced to adhere to rules that it did not negotiate or agree to. Policy making is no longer in the hands of local or national governments but in the grip of large multinational corporations.

25. Julia Fletcher, ‘The water and Diamonds Paradox: A view of the systematic Gendered Repression in the Patriarchal Social Context’, http://www.givenedu/English/kaleidoscope/essaypages/essay5.htm accessed on 30/11/2007 at 7.30 p.m. 26. ‘Global Environment Outlook 3 Past, Present and Future Perspectives’, United Nations Environmental Programme, 2002, p.151. 27. See, Cities in Globalizing World, United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat), 2001, p.114. 28. Maude Barlow, ‘The fight for Liquid Assets: Transnational Corporations are taking control of the Basic Element of Life’, Toronto Globe Mail, August 16, 2000, p.9. 29. People switch over from the tap water to the bottled water on the belief that it is not contaminated. However, recent tests conducted by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) show an altogether different picture. The Pollution Monitoring Laboratory of CSE collected two bottles each of seventeen bottled drinking water brands including the top brands such as Bisleri (Aqua Mineral Ltd), bailey (Parle Agro Pvt Ltd.), Pure Life (Nestle India Ltd) and Kinley (Hindustan Coco cola Beverages Pvt Ltd) and other less popular brands and subjected them to a testing procedure for pesticides in drinking water. The Bureau of Indian Standards for packaged drinking water –IS 14543:1998 and Natural Drinking Water –IS 13428:1998 covered under the Prevention and Food Adulteration Act states that the pesticides residues ‘should be below detectable limits’. However when tested for organo chlorine pesticides and organo phosphorous pesticides the water bottled by the top brands and other less popular brands were found to be contaminated with pesticide residues. (See, Analysis of Pesticide Residues in Bottled Residues in Bottled Water (Delhi Region), Centre for Science and Environment. http://www.cseindia.org/html/lab/comments_temp.htm accessed on 6/1/2008 at 10.00 a.m; See also Y.G.Muralidharan, ‘How safe is bottled drinking water?’, The Hindu, Feb 17, 2003 at p.2.).

211

30. See Tony George Puthucheril and Lekshmi Vidyabalan,’ The Law and Practice on Ground water conservation and management- A case study with reference to State of Kerala’, Paper presented at Workshop on Water Quality Management and Conservation: Role of Legal System, August 16-17, 2002 organized by NLSIU Bangalore and DOS in Law,. Mysore) 31. In Ranganathan v. Union of India (1999)6SCC 26. In this case the court directed the Constitution of an Authority to enquire in to the claims that arise in respect of persons affected by th riots that took place in 1991-’92 as an off shoot of the Cauvery Water Dispute between the State of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The Cauvery Riots Relief Authority should comprise of three retired District Judges. 32. ‘Survey of the Environment’, The Hindu, 1994, p. 89-142. 33. Rakesh Kailash, ‘Water Midnight Nightmare’, Outlook, June 3, 2002 at p.58. 34. Supra n.32 at p. 56. 35. It is estimated that in the area where 5% of the Delhi’s elite population reside, over 450 litres percapita per day are made available at accost of 0.35 -0.70 per kilo liter. See, ‘Fact Sheet’, Down to Earth, June 2002, p.56. 36. National Water Policy, 2002 at para 13 deals with privatization of water resources. The Draft National Water Policy, 2012 treats water as an economic good and priced accordingly. 37. See, Alferedo Pascual, ‘Improving Urban Water Supply through Partnership‘, The Hindu, Jan.21, 2001, p.21. 38. S. Janakarajan, ‘Privatization of water more water, More Pollution’, Survey of the Environment, The Hindu, 2003, p.83-86. See also Binayak Das, ‘Shut and dried’, Down to Earth, Sep.15, 2002, p.18. 39. See, United Nations Human Settlement Programme, Water and Sanitation in World Cities Local Action for Global Goals, 2003, p.169. 40. As a matter of fact, water was considered as a public property subject to public administration. The elementary principle underlying the ancient Hindu Jurisprudence relating to water was that running water in rivers, streams and water courses was incapable of being the property of any person. (See, Manual on Water Supply and Treatment, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, 1999, p.526), The Laws of Manu also prescribed that tanks, wells, cisterns and fountains he built where land boundaries met , thus, in effect obviating individual monopoly of a particular source of supply, as well as ensuring a better distribution of supply. (See, The Sacred Books of the East, Ch.VIII verse 248, F. Max Muller Edition and Various Oriental Scholars Trans. (1993))

212

41. In South Africa, a life line tariff of 6000 liter of free water per house hold per month was introduced in 2000 by the Government. This was received with hostility by the Private operators. In Nelspruit, a private company, Greater Nelspruit Utility Company argued that the contract did not contain provision for free water and continued its policy of discontinuing for non payment. Finally after a local campaign, the Company conceded to the demand. (See, United Nations Human Settlement Programme for Water and Sanitation in the World’s Cities Local Action for Global Goods, 2003, p.177). 42. ‘Beyond Scarcity; Poverty, Power and Global Water Crises’, Human Development Report, 2006, p.80. 42a. Supra n. 18a 43. National Water Policy, 2002 at para 13 states as ‘Private sector participation should be encouraged in planning, development and management of water resources projects for diverse uses, wherever feasible. Private sector participation may help in introducing innovative ideas, generating financial resources, introducing corporate management improving service efficiency and accountability to the users. Depending upon the specific situations, various combination of private sector participation, in building, owning, operating, leasing and transferring of water resource facilities may be considered’. 44. The Delhi Water and Waste Water Reforms Act, 2004, the preamble spells out the agenda as follows: ‘Increase avenues for participation for the ‘private sector’ and make the operation ‘commercial’. 45. Outlook Magazine took a clear look at the various projects made by the consultants Price Water House Coopers (PWC) and GKW Consultant GmbH and found that they made it clear that the 24*7 promise would hold only if the ‘inefficient’ Delhi Jal Board (DJB) ensured sufficient supply. (Rajesh Ramachandran, ‘What price water?’ Outlook, July 2006, p.50). 46. Ibid. 47. Rifat Mumtaz and Manshi Asher, ‘Rivers for Sale: Privatization of Common Property Resources’. http://www.infochangeindia.com accessed on 5/1/2008 at 6.00 p.m. 48. 2004(10) KLT 731. 49. 1997 (1) SCC 388 50. 2005 (3) KLT 10. 51. Supra n.1 at p.8. 52. Ibid at p.28.

213

53. Insight, Consumer Education and Research Centre, New Delhi, 1998. 54. Financial Express, December 30, 2000. 55. Business Times, June 26, 2001, p.10. 56. Ibid. 57. Ibid. 58. Supra n.55 at p. 10. 59. President K.R.Narayan’s Republic Day Speech, 1999. (The Hindu, January 28, 1999). 60. ‘Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and Global Water Crisis’, Human Development Report, 2006, p.96. 61. Rajareddy, ‘Privatization of Water Sector’, http://www.downtoearth,com accessed on 8/1/2008 at 3.30 p.m. 61a. ‘Don’t drink Coke or Pepsi’, http://www.urbanlegendsabout.com/library/bl-soda-pep-terror.htm accessed on20/12/2011 at 4 p.m 61b. Supra n.5 62. Darryl D’Monte, ‘Water – For money or for people?’ http://www.peopleandplanet.net/pdoc.php?id=2331 accessed on 12/1/2008 at 8.30 a.m 63. K.J.Joy and Suhas Paranjpye, ‘Possible Solutions: The Middle Path?’ http://www.infochangeindia.com accessed on 21/1/2008 at 9.30 p.m. 64. ‘Privatizing Water –New Draft National Water Policy 2012’, http://www.iatp.org/.../corporatizing-water-india’s-draft-national-water-policy accessed on 20/3/2012 at 12 p.m.

________________________.