The scripture is all about the living water. In this a Samaritan woman meets Christ who is the source of the living water. Jesus is a Jew and according to Jewish culture it was not right for a man to speak with a woman in public. The Samaritan woman questions Jesus why He request water from her. His disciples marveled when they found Him speak to a woman. Salvation is for all and not what is known to be for the Jews, she receives Christ and many others (Alexander & Patricia,1999).
Jesus speaks with a Samaritan woman. He puts Himself in a situation as one who needed the help to open a conversation between Him and her. The woman out of the curiosity asks Jesus where He is to get water from where Jesus informs her that He has the living water.
For Christ to build confidence with the woman He tells her concerning her life. This made her to believe in Him and she addresses Him from this point as a prophet. Christ then explains to her what the true worship is. The woman runs to the city and calls many who also received Christ (Stanton, 2008).
The incidence took place at the city of Samaria which was referred as Sychar. Samaria was found in between Jerusalem on the way to Galilee. Jesus having being exhausted on the long journey He then sat at the Jacob’s well. The well was out of the city as it is recorded in verse 28 and 30 where “the woman went into the city” and people “went out of the city to meet Him” and at this particular time His disciples had gone into the city to buy food. Jesus stayed in Samaria for two days then He went to Galilee (Alexander & Patricia,1999).
The event took place at around noon since it is recorded that it was about sixth hour of the day. It was after Christ had realized that it had come to the knowledge of the Pharisees that many accepted Him by becoming His disciples as well as being baptized. He did not want to conflict with them such that He went away from them. It is at this point the physical personality of Christ is also revealed by the fact that He became weary and His disciples had gone to look for food in the city. He was not only God but a Man also (Alexander & Patricia,1999).
Interpretation
The event took place after John the Baptist had glorified Christ as the Son of God. This was after it was reported to John that Christ baptizes many disciples and all were coming to Him. There had rose disagreements between John disciples and the Jews. John remarks that he who believes in Christ has everlasting life. He thereafter departs to Galilee where he was received by the Galileans as they had seen great thing He had done. He also healed a son of a dignified man in Galilee (Stanton, 2008).
On scriptural comparison Christ is the gift from God. In John 3:16 God gave His only begotten Son and in John 4: 10 Jesus addresses the woman as He’s the gift from God. He is also referred as a gift that cannot be described in 2 Cor 9:15. Christ talks of the living water verse 10 in Ezekiel 47: 9 speaks of the living water in that whoever takes it shall not thirst and will live forever.
In verse 16 Jesus request her to call the husband before receiving the living water. She had sins that had to be dealt with first just as in James 3: 11 who say “a spring cannot send off sweet and bitter water at the same time”. The bitter water of sin Christ had to deal with it first (Stanton, 2008).
The woman had gone to fetch water just as normal and not with other women. Jesus is on a mission to convert her into His disciple but she perceives Him at first just like any other Jew and she wonders why He’s doing contrary to the Jews.
His disciples wonder the same but even after they marveled Christ did not question even though He could perceive it. He knew why He asked water from her. A true worship to God is not in respect on buildings or mountains but in “truth and spirit”. God Himself is Spirit and them that worship Him must believe in their heart in truth (Stanton, 2008).
Christ is the gift from God that was sent to redeem mankind. He is the living water Himself and whosever drinks of Him, does not thirst ever in life. We cannot at all hide our sins from Christ as He is in a position to know them all. He is not bound by the Jewish custom or gender.
It wasn’t right for a Jew to speak to a woman in public and more so a Samaritan; He is therefore a universal savior. He is the prophesied Messiah and in Him there is the exact sense of life which the Samaritan woman received and many others (Alexander & Patricia,1999).
Application
The Samaritan woman reflects the divine thirst in the spiritual journey. Everybody knowingly or unknowingly experience spiritual thirst in that we end up searching for it within the meaninglessness practices of life but all in vain. This thirst will be satisfied in eternal completion if we only encounter with the source of living water.
Traditions, beliefs, institutions, and all sought of barriers should not limit us from attaining the living water. At the same time one should not use the barriers as a defense of not letting other people receive the living water (Stanton, 2008).
References
Alexander, D., & Patricia, A. (Eds.). (1999). Zondervan Handbook ti the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.
Stanton, E. C. (2008). The Woman’s Bible. New York: BiblioBazaar, LLC.
For a long time, ethics has been seen as the study of what comprises good and bad conduct which includes the values that influence the conduct. Generally, contemporary culture has given humans unprecedented liberty and prosperity which has necessitated the growth of the concept of ethics.
Business ethics on the other hand has existed in the form of reflection on the ethical dimensions of business exchanges and institutions whereby the concept has been understood in two distinctive ways, where one group views it from the background of philosophy while the other group views it from the background of business community (Brenkert and Beauchamp 3).
These two approaches are not exclusive, but the philosophical approach appears to be the broader of the two. In all cases, it becomes important to appreciate the fact that moral problems and the process of analyzing them invites different forms of useful analysis.
Water forms an essential commodity that ensures continuity of life, though for a long time no systematic way has been elaborated in appreciating its value (Brown and Schmidt 3). For long, people have regarded water as a renewable commodity that has potential to develop without limit. With the larger society utilizing water in different ways such as irrigation, energy and burgeoning urban centers, the reality is now clearer that like just other renewable commodities, water is a finite resource.
However, providing answers to modern water problems requires giving answers to questions of value: how should society capture, store or distribute water; at what cost; for whom; and for how long (Brown and Schmidt 4). All these questions are regarded as ethical because just like any other essential resource, determining a fair and just distribution of water has direct effects on human and nonhuman lives and also the systems that sustain them.
Commodification of water
Borgmann argues that the driving force of the contemporary society is the aspect of commodification which is described as, that vital structure of modern society of the market which conveys a sense of moral censure (Borgmann 143).
The author, in reference to Viviana Zelizer, states that, “economic prophets have frequently warned us against global commodification and the loss of the moral-emotional fiber it brings” (Borgmann 144). Using the Marx’s concept of commodification, Borgmann first sees the concept to possess the verb to commodify, which to him is “to draw something from outside the market into the market so that it becomes available for sale and purchase” (Borgmann 144).
Marx looked at the various ways in which capitalism perceived the production of things such as wheat, shoes and clothing out of the hands and circumstances of the farmers, artisan and householders, stripped them of their context of skills and persons, of exchanges and uses and made them into commodities (goods) whose importance was reduced to their price.
Moreover, Marx became critical of how labor was being converted into something that could be purchased and sold under conditions that only favored the capitalists and made the workers beggars (Borgmann 144); thus, commodification became purely and totally exploitation.
The contemporary discussions continue to see the concept of commodification as contested. In such discussions, the broader agreement has remained that, certain goods such as justice should never be for sale (Borgmann 145). But other goods have continued to draw divided opinions.
For a long time, goods at issue in this discussion have generally constituted those in Michael Walzer’s list of items which are subject to ‘blocked exchanges’:
Human beings;
political power and influence;
criminal justice;
freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly;
marriage and procreation;
the right to leave the political community;
exemptions from military service, from jury duty, and from any other form of communally imposed work;
political offices;
basic welfare services like police protection or primary and secondary schooling;
desperate exchanges;
prizes and honors of many sorts;
divine grace;
love and friendship; and
a long series of criminal sales (Borgmann p.145).
The above list can be complete if addition of certain public goods is made. These public goods are; clean air and clean water, safety from crime, basic health care and public lands. The main argument in disfavor of commodification of public goods is that commodification may leads to social injustice, for instance, if education is totally commodified, the children of the poor will get no education or for them, inferior education will be enough (Borgmann p.145).
Commodification of water: Public vs. Private debate
There exist two debates that continue to dominate the lives of many people concerning the issue of water. For instance, there are arguments whether water services should remain public or go private. One of the arguments “is concerned with practical issues of efficiency and economics, and the other is about principle” (Snitow, Kaufman and Fox p.10).
Privatizing water in a country like USA has been a hard venture to undertake. Those opposed to such move include personalities such as Barlow of the Council of Canadians and Tony Clarke of Canada’s Polaris Institute (Snitow, Kaufman and Fox 10). The two have opposed the move to privatize water in principle and they are convinced that private companies should only get involved in narrow areas of infrastructure development but not allowed to have ownership, control or delivery of the basic service.
To them, the process or actions of commodifying water is generally wrong in terms of ethics, environmental and social (Snitow, Kaufman and Fox p.10). They are on the view that the process will, “insure that decisions regarding the allocation of water would center on commercial, not environmental or social justice considerations; privatization means that management of water resources is based on principles of scarcity and profit maximization rather than long-term sustainability” (Snitow, Kaufman and Fox 10).
Contrary to this position, there is a divergent view which has been adopted by Peter Cook of the National Association of Water Companies who is convinced that if market principles are applicable to other products in the market, then water as a commodity cannot be exceptional.
Cook sees nothing wrong or unethical in making profits from water since the money which has been pumped into the business by the investors is used to benefit customers and provide them with services. Cook sums up his position by quoting the bible by stating that, the bible and especially the Ten Commandments have no provision that prohibits people from making profits, and utilities need to be operated as enterprises (Snitow, Kaufman and Fox pp.10-11).
To this extent, “the practical debate over who can provide water better focuses on the issues of transparency, efficiency, rates, and sustainability” (Snitow, Kaufman and Fox pp.11).. Indeed, most of these values are possible in public controlled enterprises but far more difficult in private owned enterprises or corporations.
Ethical dilemma
The essence of water being a commodity that sustains life has drawn conflicting debates and reactions on whether it is ethical to commodify and therefore subject it to market competition principles.
This particular confusion has been precipitated by the actions of United Nations to declare that water is a human right that should be accessible to everyone. The question that arises is; are their moral consequences that arise as a result of commodifying water and hence its availability and accessibility largely become determined by market mechanisms?
Ethical lapse
In most cases, ethical lapse can be categorized into three groups: deception, stealing and harming (Howard and Korver 13). There exists many variants to these but the mentioned three have come out as the most wrongdoings which people commit.
Lying has been described in many ways that include: doctor, cover up, overstate, understate, misinform, misguide or stretch the truth (Howard and Korver p.14). additionally, the act of lying has psychological costs, for example, when individuals lie there is always a clash between their values and who they are; lying also creates barriers in relationships and soils self-image of an individual (Howard and Korver p.15).
Moral reasoning
The contemporary society is faced with a situation where people are facing dilemma on various ethical decisions and as a result there have been numerous methods of moral reasoning.
Moral reasoning has taken center stage in various social issues as people continue to debate on what is right and what is wrong or what ought to be or not be done. In most cases many people are convinced that it is not necessary the principles which determine what is right or wrong, but the consequences produced by the actions in question (Rae p.81). When a particular course of action or decision produces the best set of consequences, then to majority such actions need to be allowed and accepted.
In other words the action(s) that produces the greatest balance of benefits over harms is the one that is considered as the most moral. Generally actions considered right or wrong (morality) should depend on the situation and also on what the cultural consensus of right and wrong is at that time. In the case of commodifying water, if the society and hence culture reaches consensus that water commodification is wrong then it would be morally wrong to commodify or privatize water.
Ethical approaches
Utilitarianism ethics
Utilitarianism ethics postulate that morality of an act is determined by the end result. From this observation, utilitarianism conviction is that the moral choice is the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people or at the same time the moral choice is the course of action that produces more good consequences than harmful ones.
Utilitarianism sometimes is regarded as consequentialism ethics due to its emphasis on the consequences of an action. Jeremy Bentham, one of the philosophers credited to utilitarianism believed in hedonistic utilitarianism which postulates that “the most moral acts are those that maximize pleasure and minimize pain” (Rae p.85).
On the other hand John Mill, another believer of utilitarianism ethics established his approach which differed from that of Bentham which was general concept of maximizing the general happiness, or what he termed as the greatest good for the greatest number. Hence ethics can be seen as the art of directing the actions of people so as to bring about the greatest possible happiness to all those who are concerned with these actions.
As a result, Bentham observed that the interests of the community are simply the sum of the interests of its members. In sum the utilitarianism principle hold that, “an action is right from an ethical point of view if and only if the sum total of utilities produced by that act is greater than the sum total of utilities produced by any other act the agent could have performed in its place” (Fernando p.34).
Water commodification can be analyzed within the precepts of utilitarianism ethics where business principles can take a backseat to consequences, if on balance, commodification of water provides more beneficial consequences for more people then utilitarianism ethics consider it to be the most moral choice.
Evaluation of actions needs to be made on the basis of benefits or harms the action(s) will bring upon human beings. The morality of the theory is that, individual or an organization performing particular actions need to impartially take into account interests of everyone on equal basis.
Kantian ethics
Kant was convinced that morality should be derived from recognition that people share a common human condition and what makes humans valuable and special is their ability to reason and that moral rules based on reason should govern human behavior.
To Kant moral rules need to be based on tradition, intuition, desire, conscience, emotion and sympathy and that free will among humans comes from their ability to reason and prompts them to develop rules for moral behavior which in turn can be applicable universally disregarding utilitarianism consequences.
The moral rules established needs to recognize the fact that all people have a certain human dignity and therefore they should be accorded respect as autonomous beings (Fernando p.35). According to Kant moral ethics, an action is only moral for an individual in a certain situation if, and only if, the individual’s reason for carrying out the action is one that he or she would be willing to have every person act on in any similar situation.
At the same time moral worth would not be attached to an action motivated singularly to promote individual interests or for pleasure and that if an action is wrong for other people, it is wrong for any one person. For Kant an action is regarded morally worth if it reflects a good will and it is only when individuals act from duty that their actions are regarded to be moral worth. As a result Kant believes that ethics should be grounded in reason alone and not on human nature (Fernando p.35).
Ethicality in commodifying water
On November 27 2002, United Nation declared water to be a human right for the first time and went a head to require states to adopt key legal mechanisms that would ensure this fundamental right is achieved (Sierra Club par. 1). From UN observation, the conviction was that privatizing water could not be achieved since it is impossible to marry the profit motive of a private enterprise and the necessity and importance of a commodity like water which many people require in order to survive (utilitarianism).
The conclusion is that the issue of rendering water as a private thing should be done away from the market place since water belongs to earth, to all species, to the future generation and in this regard no one has the right to commodify water for personal (deontological) or corporate gain (Sierra Club par. 1).
On advancing this claim, the Cochabamba Declaration of December 8, 2000, which brought together interested parties aimed at ensuring the privatization of water, was not achieved (welfare concern). To cement and solidify their claim the group came up with key points to be observed which turned out to constitute the Cochabamba Declaration (Sierra Club par. 4).
To the group access to water is the fundamental right of every human and all humans are required to respect nature as they use water given by the earth. The three main points formulated were:
Water was described to belong to the earth and also to all species of the world and that water need to be regarded as sacred to life, and from this view the water of the world needs to be conserved, reclaimed and put under adequate protection in order to ensure the future generation is safe;
Water was described as fundamental human right and also as a public trust that needs to be guarded by all structures of the government and as a result it should not be commodified, privatized or commercially traded; lastly
Water can be best protected by local communities and people and who must be given equal respect as partners of various governments in the process of protecting and regulating water (Sierra Club par. 5).
Conclusion
Water ethic has developed in many societies as a result of continued efforts by enterprises and corporation to commodifying water. As a result, in most societies specifically the developed ones, water ethics commodification and privatization with marginalized access to water continue to raise key questions such as:
Can water be sustainably managed while the global financial institutions and transnational corporations possess the means to do so? How can the empowerment of public and rights of people over water be restored? How can global skills, capital and user practices are reconciled with the need and desire for control over water of local people? Such questions give an impression of how fundamental ethics has become essential in addressing the issue of water commodification. Ethical reasoning in regards to water will ensure proper, efficient and sustainable use of water despite its scarcity in nature.
Water is a human right to all mankind. However, over 1.1 billion people in the poor nations lack access to safe and clean water. A shortage of water results in the perpetuation of diseases, an escalation of poverty, and even early deaths.
Among the poor countries, the public sector is charged with the responsibility of managing ninety-seven percent of all the water (Segerfeldt para. 1) and as such, the sector is largely responsible for failing to provide the more than one billion individuals with clean and safe water. Privatization of water leads to better incentives and superior competencies. Attempts to privatize the waters of the world have however elicited strong resistance, not to mention stirring strong emotions and feelings among those affected.
Privatization ends up treating water as a commodity, and not a human right and so in the long-run, the poor have no access to it. On paper, water is regarded as a basic human right but still, one has to pay for it. To gain a further insight into the issue of privatization of the world’s waters, the paper shall examine three articles.
First, Joshua Ortega’s article, “water wars: bottling up the world’s supply of water” shall be explored. The article, “private water saves lives” by Fredrik Segerfeldt shall also be assessed and finally, Jeff Fleischer’s article, “Blue Gold: An interview with Maude Barlow” will also be examined.
As Segerfeldt (para. 1) notes, over 1 billion people globally, a majority of them from the poor nations, lacks access to safe and clean water. This is despite that fact that only about 8 per cent of all the water available globally is sued for purposes of human consumptions.
This is an indication that the inability of the more than 1 billion individuals globally to access clean and safe water is not as a result of water shortage, but is due to bad policies. For example Segerfeldt (para. 1) observes that Cherrapunji, India often regarded as the world’ wettest place, also suffers from periodic water shortages.
The public sector manages about ninety-seven percent of the entire water distribution channels in the poor countries and as such, it could be held responsible for the lack of access to clean and safe water by the more than 1 billion individuals in these countries. Those poor nations that have decided to privatize the water sector have witnessed an increasingly higher number of the citizens accessing water, in comparison with the other nations in which water is still managed by the public sector.
Privatization the water sector results in an improved scope of distribution and quality of water. This has culminated in violent demonstrations and protests globally. International trade agreements have also played a pivotal role in the commercialization and privatization of the world’s water.
For example, the definition of a good, as provided for by GATT, also included water. Initially, NAFTA sought to include water as a good and then later on, changed it into an investment. This therefore gave the members countries the impetus to privatize it.
The issue of scarcity has also played a significant role in helping to facilitate the privatization of water (Fleischer para. 3). This has effectively resulted in a mushrooming of companies that are involved in the bottling and sale of water. For example, nowadays, we have come to accept bottled water as part of our lives and for this reason you will find it on planes and in restaurants. Therefore, because access to safe and clean water has become hard, people have now turned to drinking bottled water.
A lot of people hold the perception that compared with tap water, bottled water tends to be more pure and healthy. However, as Ortega has noted, this is nothing more than a marketing illusions (para. 1). As he has further reported, a 1999 study by NRDC (National Resources Defense Council) revealed that one out of every five samples of bottled water that the four-year study had sampled contained such carcinogens and neurotoxins as toluene, xylene, and styrene.
Tap water is regulated more stringently in comparison with bottled water, in spite of popular misconceptions. As a matter of fact, bottled water may contain certain levels or fecal coliform of Escherichia coli under regulations, unlike tap water. Furthermore, it is not mandatory to disinfect bottled water for Guardia or cryptosporidium.
One wonders then how contaminated tap water finds its way into the U. S. market. It is important to note that the bottled water industry enjoys very relaxed regulations, not to mention that the standards for bottled water are less-stringent in comparison with those of tap water. As a public resource, it is important to ensure that the consumer has access to extensive documentation in the content and quality of tap water (Ortega para. 5).
On the other hand, because bottled water is treated as a soft drink, as opposed to a public resource, this could help explain the less-stringent regulations. If the global public water resources are to be commercialized through a privatization process, would we be faced with a relaxation of the hitherto stringent regulations that characterizes public water? If this were to happen, then we can no longer be guaranteed of clean and safe water and this culminate in a rising epidemic of water borne disease and deaths.
It is not just the poor third world countries who are confronted with the issue of access to clean and safe water. Even the industrialized countries in Europe, Canada and the U. S have a limited control over their own water resources, much less than they can imagine. To start with, the high rates of pollution has resulted in mining of ground water at a faster rate that they can actually be replenished (Fleischer para. 8).
This is an indication that we could in fact be faced with a water crisis in the years ahead. Faced with this grave reality, the governments in the developed nations have begun questioning about who needs to pay for the water, and who needs to access it. This has only acted to enhance the commoditization and water through privatization.
Conclusion
Most of the water supply systems in the poor nations are under the management of the public sector and due to poor mismanagement individuals in these countries are faced with the problem of accessing clean and safe water. On the other hand, in those countries whereby the water sector has been privatized, there has been an improvement in terms of quality and service delivery of the water. However, it is important to note that the privatization of water has turned it into a good first, and then a service.
As a result, the stringent rules and regulations that characterize the treatment of tap water often meant for public consumption, faces being jeopardized, as can be evidence by the mushrooming of bottled water companies. Scarcity of clean and safe water is also a problem in the developed nations due to pollution as a result of such human activities as mining. Threes need to find a balance between access to clean and safe water, and a determination of whether to privatize or publicize the world supply of water.
Works Cited
Fleischer, Jeff. Blue Gold: An Interview with Maude. 2005. Web.
Ortega, Joshua. Water wars: Bottling up the world’s supply of H2O. 2005. Web.
In 2000, many efforts were made to privatize Bolivia’s sewerage together with its drinking water services. This led to the emergence of the famous water war that was commonly termed as Guerra Del Agua (Perreault 150). The war attracted international criticisms while thousands of people who felt offended by the move went on strike stopping their daily chores to engage in streets demonstrations.
Consequently, “the government declared a state of siege, and at least one demonstrator was killed by the military…forcing the government to rescind the concession made by foreign owned firm Aquas De Tunauri” (Perreault 150).
Bolivia water war challenged the way neoliberals’ economic policies were being applied in the context of managing natural resources, which a community feels that it has the right of ownership.
From the perspective of being a modernism and neo-liberalism critic, and with the case of Bolivia water war in mind, this report, which is meant for Bolivia government agencies, focuses on investigating the effects of modernization and neoliberal policies. The aim is to point out the defects in the assumptions of science and the aftermath of the commoditifying nature of privatization of environmental resources.
Neo-liberalism and Modernization Theories
Neo-liberalism covers economic beliefs that, when market forces operate freely by putting in place strategies of limiting the interference of the government in the business of organizations, a path towards the growth of the economy is acquired.
This implies that projects such Bolivia water project act as a product so that the market forces can act on it in the effort to provide the most favorable values of prices that ensure that demand and supply conditions are at equilibrium.
The danger of this approach in the context of management of public resources such as Bolivia water utilities is that use of the neoliberal beliefs would mean limiting those individuals who are incapable of paying for the commodity at prices, which the market is willing to offer in accessing the resources.
Put otherwise, the only persons who would access services are those who have the buying power equivalent to the prices determined by the market forces. On the other hand, the modernism theory insists, “low income societies develop economically only if they give up their traditional ways to adopt modern economic institutions, technologies, and cultural values that emphasize savings and productive investment” (Munck 23).
From the neoliberals’ governance perspective, privatization is one of the ways that are used to enhance service delivery in situations where public institutions have failed (McCarthy 276).
In particular, “in 1990s, there were pressures by the World Bank to privatize water supply services in major cities as a condition of debt relief and further lending in the water sector” (Rich 20). Thus, global institutions are also good supporters of the ways of enhancing the efficiency of supply of public goods. Hence, they are immense advocates of theories of modernization and neo-liberalism.
Relationship between modernization and neo-liberalism theory in the case of Bolivia water war
The Aguas Del Tunauri’s moves to increase the rate levied on water lead to Bolivia water war. According to Alurralde, groups of residents of Cochabamba protested, “the plans of Aguas Del Tunauri to increase water rates, an action that could have doubled or tripled the prices citizens would pay for this necessity of life” (37).
While UNDP recognizes that availability of clean and hygienic water is one of the fundamental human rights (Rich 20), the company had acquired control of Bolivia water utilities in the World Bank together with IMF’s recommendation to privatize the water utilities of the Cochabamba to enhance the quality of service delivery.
Resulting from the definition of neo-liberalism and modernism offered in the previous section, the circumstances leading to the recommendation of the World Bank and the international monetary fund have clear differences of modernism and neo-liberalism in them.
Arguably, Bolivia water war rose from the modification of the organizational structures of the water utilities to bring in the perspectives of forcing the community to adopt new approaches that would transform the utilities into investments that are more productive.
Arguably, it is possible to realize from the reasons resulting to the privatization of Bolivia water utilities that there was the need to increase the efficiency of the water allocation mechanisms even though it would have implied rising costs of the necessary resources of the human life.
This was done using modernism and neoliberal theories, which would support such a move provided it leads to the root of economic growth through minimization of government restrictions and or if it leads to the dismissal of the traditional ways of resource allocation to embrace the perceptive of the modern economy such a privatization.
Consequently, Bolivia water war has inflexible ties with the modernism and neoliberal economic beliefs.
Critique of neoliberal policies in the case of Bolivia water project
The effort to privatize Bolivia water utilities may be seen as an attempt to concentrate the power of governance within a single entity perceived as having the best mechanisms of implementing economic ideologies that would result to the optimization of service delivery.
This claim in line with the neo-liberalism policy of making approaches, which have only the power of reviving economic policy theories developed by Smith, as well as the like-minded intellectuals who lived in the 19th century. Essentially, these theories lead to the creation of capitalistic models of making economic policies within nations.
By capitalism, it means that organizations are driven in the future by their attempts to increase their levels of profitability through an optimal allocation of limited resources. The allocation of resources is guided by market dynamics in which the best combination is the one, which produces the utmost good.
Arguably, since there is a link between the neo-liberalism perspective and the consequences of the decision to privatize Bolivia water utilities, it is also clear that such a move has the effect of neglecting the role of communities in regulating their environmental resources.
This argument is in agreement with Alurralde’s argument that policies developed in the case of Bolivia water project “failed to legally recognize the indigenous populations’ rights to the life sustaining important resource: water” (38).
Worse still, assuming that the application of free market forces would lead to the most optimal way of allocation of Bolivia water resources, as neoliberals and modernists would prescribe, leads to segregation of the allocation of Bolivia water resources based on economic endowments.
The argument is true because market forces would set the price or rate level to a certain amount such that only those who can afford the rate at which the market would manage to offer would actually utilize the water resources. In the end, this truncates into the deprival of the poorest persons’ rights to use the water resources based on their economic status.
Putting it differently, Funder et al. lament that the conflicts resulting from the differences in economic status between the rich and the poor leads to “dependency relations between the poor and wealthy households, something that can reduce the scope of action for the poor in water conflicts” (20).
In this sense, the modernism and neo-liberalism-inspired economic policies are adversaries to enhancement of the efforts of the poor to fight for their right to use water resources equally with the wealthy.
The above argument implies that the allocation of essential services such as water utilities through inspirations of neo-liberalism and modernism reasoning has the net implications of making projects such as Bolivia water project not to deliver and achieve goals for which it was established.
Indeed, privatization of institutions delivering public goods and essential services as a means of increasing their efficiency has failed in other parts of the world in some instances.
For instance, according to Rich, “in France, the home of private water giants, some 40 cities have de-privatized their water systems including Paris” (20). Additionally, evidence also suggests that the modernization and neo-liberalism-inspired policies’ assumption that market solutions together with privatization are the only ways of reviving public utilities, which are misused especially in the developing world, are not always true.
For example, in addition to the intense promotion of privatization by the IMF and World Bank as the main way of enhancing efficiency in the allocation of water utilities in Brazil, some 27 capitals principally receive their water services through public utilities. Surprisingly, these utilities are far better managed in comparison to similar utilities in the developed world (Rich 20).
One of the biggest worries of depending on the market forces and permitting them to operate freely to bring economic growth from the angle of allocation of water utilities in the case of Bolivia is what would happen in case of droughts.
From the discussions of modernism and neo-liberalism, it is possible that the resource would be allocated depending on how the market forces would shape the free market thus controlling forces of demand and supply. This means that, in case of drought, additional families would suffer from limited accessibility to water utilities.
In neo-liberalistic mind, this is acceptable as the prevailing condition and no other regulation mechanism can apply if the market forces were to be obeyed and allowed to operate freely without interference. On the other hand, “water deficits are traditionally borne by all community members with individual families expected to share the burden” (Alurralde 39) in Bolivia.
Therefore, application of neo-liberalism and modernism policies in the allocation of water utilities in Bolivia remains bad and discriminative based on the economic status of Bolivia’s communities.
Conclusion
The report paper discussed the decision to privatize Bolivia water project from the point of being inspired by the theories of modernism and neo-liberalism. While the policies developed are in agreement with the beliefs of these two theories, their proponents think of them as being the best ways of allocating public utilities.
The report paper has suggested that they lead to discrimination of people served by the utilities in terms of their social economic status. Arguing in the context of Bolivia water project, the report paper has held that allocating resources from approaches directed by concerns of modernism and neo-liberalism theories produces differences in resource utilization among communities who are to be served equally by the resource.
Works Cited
Alurralde, Juan. “Crisis in Cochabamba: a highly inclusive process draws community solutions to a decade’s long water conflict.” Alternatives journal 32.4-5 (2006): 37 -39. Print.
Funder, Martin et al. “Strategies of the poorest in the local water conflict and cooperation-evidence from Vietnam, Bolivia and Zambia.” Water alternatives 5.1(2012): 20-36. Print.
McCarthy, James, and Scott Prudhum. “Neoliberal nature and the nature of neo-liberalism.” Geoforum 3.5 (2004): 275-283. Print.
Munck, Ronaldo. Neo-liberalism and Politics, and the Politics of Neo-liberalism (pp. 60-69) in Alfredo Saad-Filho and Deborah Johnston: Neo-liberalism – A Critical Reader. London: Pluto Press, 2005: Print.
Perreault, Thomas. “From the Guerra Del Agua to Guerra Del Gas: Resource governance, neo-liberalism and popular protest in Bolivia.” Antipode 38.1(2006): 150-172. Print.
Rich, Bruce. Rights to water and privatization. Washington, DC: Environmental Laws Institute, 2011. Print.
This essay focuses on advanced interrogation with specific reference to water boarding as a form of criminal interrogation in the US. It shows that usages of torture and other advance techniques in order to obtain information from suspects are matters of debate even among people who oppose them. They claim that such approaches may be useful for obtaining information from suspects who have knowledge of impending and devastating crimes.
Advanced interrogation
According to Homeland Security, advanced interrogation “helps in enhancing the skills of law enforcement criminal investigators as they conduct interviews of victims, witnesses and suspects” (Homeland Security, 2012). Advance interrogation techniques are some of the techniques law enforcement officers apply during their interview sessions with suspects. Water boarding is among advanced interrogation techniques the CIA and the US military officers apply during interrogation of suspects.
For instance, the Bush administration allowed the use of water boarding in order to obtain information from terror suspects who were uncooperative. However, such methods can only appeal to both psychology and physical aspects of the suspects through severe pains and psychosomatic damages.
The US media introduced confusion whether to use to the term torture or advanced interrogation techniques to describe water boarding. However, they did not use the term torture while describing the use of water boarding. This implies that water boarding had new definitions from water people had known previously.
Water boarding
Water boarding is a method of torture where the interrogator pours water over the face of the suspect in order to divulge useful information. According to Rejali, water boarding actually refers to “two different interrogation techniques” (Rejali, 2009). The first method involves pumping of water directly into the stomach of the prisoner. It creates severe pain. The other method involves blockages of the nose and mouth, which restrict breathing (Rejali, 2009). This method is ‘slow-motion drowning’. It is the most common method since 17th century during the period of Dutch traders and British rivals.
This method causes the victim to suffer sensation that is similar to drowning. The method has the following effects on the victim:
Severe pain
Lung damages
Brain injuries
Dry drowning
Physical injuries due to struggling against restraints
Death
Mental damages
Some forms of physical effects may appear several months later after the ordeal and can last for many years.
According to Safire, the water board torture featured in 1970s reports (Safire, 2008a). Though interrogators use a range of specific methods in water boarding, they normally cover the victim’s face with nylons, cloth, or some other thin material (Safire, 2008b). The interrogator then pours water to the captive’s air passage. This creates an immediate gag reflex and results into a condition of drowning.
Water boarding has a long history in major conflicts. However, in 1800s, a number of countries in Europe abolished the use of water boarding as a form of interrogation because it was morally repugnant. However, this did not mark the end of water boarding. Countries continued to apply it in secrecy, and it became widespread in 20th century.
During the World War II, the Japanese and the US soldiers applied this method in Philippines. The Khmer Rogue of Cambodia also used water boarding to punish its own fellow citizens. The British applied water boarding in 1930s against Arabs and Jews in Palestine. In the 1970s, the dictators of Latin America found out that water boarding was the best method to punish political rebels.
It is also necessary to note that the UN banned water boarding and other extreme forms of torture. As a result, governments do not admit the use of water boarding during interrogation. However, some countries have changed their water boarding techniques and claimed that such new methods do not amount to torture.
The US Law and Water boarding
According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, any form of torture is illegal. Thus, in the past, the US has regarded water boarding as appropriate for water crimes as was the case of Yukio Asano. Water torture was among other forms of punishment Asano received.
After the 9/11 twin attacks, the US reviewed its usages of various methods of advanced interrogation techniques. This resulted into the modern ‘torture memos’. They include and support the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. The US argued that such techniques were necessary in prosecuting serious criminals. In this sense, the US reviewed its definition of torture, which deviated from the normal international definition.
In 2005, the US acknowledged the use of water for torture and submersion of heads into water as forms of examination during interrogation among terror suspects. Both methods applied the use of water on the victim. However, in 2006, the US released an intelligence manual following a series of criticism of its torture method. The new Human Intelligence Collector Operations abolished the use of water boarding by military officers during torture.
However, this new manual only applies the US military officers, but does not account for actions of CIA in use of water boarding techniques. However, some of the US officers argued that the Justice Department did not clarify whether the use of water boarding was illegal under the current laws.
According to War Crimes Act and international law, the usages of lethal methods during interrogation sessions are illegal. This suggests that officers who apply such techniques are liable for prosecutions under the war crimes. Such officers bear the responsibility for their actions of using lethal and illegal methods of interrogation.
In 2008, the Justice Department of the US started to investigate officers who permitted the use of advanced methods of interrogation under their watch. In the same year, the US Congress approved a bill that eliminated the application of water boarding and other adverse forms of interrogation techniques. As a result, President Bush supported the new law.
During 2009 when Obama administration took over, the President allowed the US officers to use the Army Field Manual as the only source of reference when dealing with criminals during interrogation. This deviated from the approach Bush had used.
International law and advanced forms of interrogation
States, which are signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, have agreed to prohibit torture under any circumstance (Human Rights Watch, 2006). According to internal law, there is no exception to torture. The treaty declares, “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture” (United Nations, 1948). In addition, the treaty highlights, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” (United Nations, 1948).
It is imperative to note that a number of signatories like the US have made special reservations and interpretation of what constitutes torture. This implies that the enforcement of such advanced interrogation techniques are difficult based on the State laws. On the contrary, the UN Human Rights Watch believes that water boarding falls under torture, and any State that violates provisions of human rights should face international laws. The UN believes that water boarding meets all the four methods of classifying torture under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT).
The UN definition of torture recognises that the CIA forces water into the lungs of prisoners, which cause severe pain. Such effects can cause immediate deaths and severe horror. In addition, the consequences may even cause a heart attack due to injuries and stress to the lungs and shortage of oxygen to due inhalation of water. The point is that water boarding has significant physical pain and mental damages to the victims. Therefore, according to the UN, CIA’s water boarding techniques meet three conditions under the provisions of the treaty that classifies torture.
It is an intended act
It has a specific purpose
Performed by a State officials, in this case the CIA or other military officers
Therefore, we can concur that water boarding and other advanced interrogation techniques violate the human rights provision under international law.
In this sense, the use of water boarding technique as a form of interrogation makes officials involve liable for prosecution under war crime. On this note, we can argue that the US subjected Abu Zubaydah and other terror suspects under torture.
The Bush administration did not consider water boarding as a crime against human. The administrative lawyers have argued that water boarding did not constitute violate international law on human rights provisions because it did not constitute cruel human treatment.
After the term of President Bush in the office, others started to argue that President Bush had lost immunity and was liable for investigation and subsequent trial for the adoption and use of torture against terror suspects (Tushnet et al., 2006).
Classification of water boarding as torture
The use of water boarding as an advanced interrogation technique became a matter of public debate in the US after two serious claims to the DAIG team about practising such techniques and procedures (Greenberg and Dratel 2005, p. 725). It is important to note that politicians, war veterans, legal experts, human rights activists, intelligence officers, and judges believe that water boarding is a form of torture. Consequently, some States like the UK condemned the use of torture in 2008 through David Miliband (a former Foreign Secretary) (Rejali, 2009).
However, based on emerging arguments, some claim that it is not torture in some cases. The US also acknowledged that the “submersion of the head in water was a torture in other circumstances” (McCoy, 2006). In this regard, the UN responded that the USA should abolish the use of “any interrogation techniques, such as water boarding, which constitutes torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” (McCoy, 2006).
However, in 2002, the US (the Office of Legal Counsel) released a report that claimed that water boarding was not torture and was appropriate during interrogation. The US maintained that water boarding did not cause any severe physical or mental pain. Thus, it did not meet methods of classifying torture, which required that any torture must be severe. Following such debates about torture, water boarding, and other advanced interrogation techniques, the Bush administration started to review some memos involving torture and water boarding.
Some scholars such as Professor Wilson Huhn claimed that water boarding amounted to torture. Such people have claimed that they underwent voluntarily water boarding and suffered pain and psychological injuries due to the experience. On the contrary, some commentators have claimed that water boarding was not torture while those who experienced the ordeal concluded that it was torture.
Water boarding training
The US uses water boarding training among its military officers and CIA divisions a form of advanced psychological preparation in cases of capture by opposing forces. However, some authors believe that the use of water boarding is dysfunctional culture among the US officers and CIAs (Jones, 2010). Before deployment to Iraq in 2008, many soldiers underwent water boarding as a part of Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) training.
The training became intense after the 9/11 attacks. The US soldiers used the methods applied in SERE training in Guantanamo Bay and other places in order to interrogation terror captives. According to experts, these soldiers “took good knowledge and used it in a bad way” (Williams, 2006). The soldiers applied same methods used in SERE training during interrogation of terror suspects. However, the US justified its stand on water boarding and stated that it used water boarding and other advanced techniques by the use of different techniques from those used in SERE training. These methods of water boarding concentrated in obstructing of breathing in different ways from those applied in SERE programmes.
The CIA and the use of water boarding
In the past (1981), the US punished a Texas Sheriff and his deputies under conspiracy to force admission from suspects. These people applied water boarding as a form of torture in order to obtain confessions for suspects. The method involved the use of towel in which these officers poured water over the towel placed on the nose and mouth of the victim. They watched for signs of movements, jerking, or signs of suffocation or drowning. The Court ruled that the sheriff and his deputies were guilty of using water boarding. Thus, water boarding was a form of cruelty (Rejali, 2009).
However, the CIA applies in water boarding among uncooperative terrorist prisoners like Abu Zubaydah (McCoy, 2006). They found out that suitable forms of interrogation tactics for such prisoners were advanced interrogation techniques, including the use of water boarding. As a result, in 2004, the Bush administration supported these methods. In 2005, the use of water boarding techniques made the CIA to claim that it used “a modern form of water boarding, along with five other enhanced interrogation techniques against suspected members of al Qaeda” (Paust, 2007).
However, in 2007, President Bush banned the use of torture when interrogating terror suspects. However, this executive order drew mixed reactions because it did not state water boarding specifically. The executive order referred to “torture as defined by 18 USC 2340, which includes the threat of imminent death as well as the US Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment” (Paust, 2007). As a result, the Human Rights Watch argued that “specific techniques banned were in the classified companion document and that the people in charge of interpreting that document did not have a good track record of reasonable legal analysis” (Human Rights Watch, 2006).
According to some CIA officials, the use of water boarding in the US during interrogation of terror suspects was legal. They maintained that the technique was relevant and lawful under the presidential findings of 2002 (Welch, 2006). During 2007, some former members of the CIA openly admitted that they used water boarding as advanced interrogation method against some terror suspects who were uncooperative. After these revelations, in 2008, on the use of water boarding on terror suspects, the Justice Department begun to probe the use of water boarding and its legality when dealing with al Qaeda terror suspects.
However, some sources claimed that in 2008, the Bush administration endorsed the use of water boarding and other advanced interrogation techniques against terror suspects by the CIA. These authorisation followed many requests from the CIA to adopt these methods. The CIA wanted a written permission from the White House in order to use such advanced techniques on terror suspects. It was only after such revelations that people believed that the CIA used water boarding as form of torture against al Qaeda terror suspects.
In 2009, Cheney acknowledged “the use of water boarding to interrogate suspects and stated that water boarding had been used with great discrimination by people who knew what they were doing, and it produced a lot of valuable information and intelligence” (Bentham, 2009). Some CIA officials did not believe that water boarding and other advanced interrogation techniques discouraged or disrupted several attacks as the Bush administration claimed (Welch, 2006).
In 2009, the US announced that it would delay the release of non-classified report on the CIA’s application of water boarding on terror suspects due to an ongoing civil lawsuit. However, there was doubt on the effectiveness of such a report based on advanced techniques the CIA used on terror suspects.
Conclusion
Advanced interrogation techniques are severe forms of interrogation used on prisoners in order to obtain useful information. Such forms of interrogation techniques have severe physical and psychological pain. In addition, they can result into immediate deaths of the victims.
The use of water boarding as a form of advanced interrogation method continued to be controversial in the US. However, the UN regards such techniques of interrogation as torture. Therefore, they are war crimes punishable by international law. From the UN perspective, we can argue that water boarding and other advanced interrogation techniques, which cause severe physical suffering and mental anguish, are forms of torture.
However, various states like the US have their diverse views on what constitutes torture, and the US claimed that water boarding was a legal means of interrogation. However, in 2008, the US approved laws than banned the use of water boarding as a form of interrogating terror suspects.
Given such varied perspectives on the use of water boarding, it is equally important to view from the perspective of the US Constitution. The US inherited the practice of water boarding from the history of Spanish Inquisition. However, this approach may not yield any favourable result because various administrations have various interpretations of water boarding and other advanced interrogation techniques. For instance, Bush favoured water boarding on terror suspects while Obama administration banned it.
Reference List
Bentham, J 2009, The Rationale of Punishment, Prometheus Books, New York.
Greenberg, K and Dratel, J 2005, The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib, Columbia University Press, Columbia.
Human Rights Watch 2006, Human Rights Watch World Report 2006 (Human Rights Watch World Report), Seven Stories Press, New York.
Jones, I 2010, The Human Factor: Inside the CIA’s Dysfunctional Intelligence Culture, Encounter Books, New York.
McCoy, A 2006, A question of torture: CIA interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror, Metropolitan Books, New York.
Paust, J 2007, Beyond the Law: The Bush Administration’s Unlawful Responses in the “War” on Terror, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Rejali, D 2009, Torture and Democracy, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.
Safire, W 2008a, ‘On Language: Waterboarding’, The New York Times, no. 3, pp. 3-4.
Safire, W 2008b, Safire’s Political Dictionary, Oxford University Press, Cambridge.
Tushnet, M, Martin, F, Stephen, S, Wilson, R and Simon, J 2006, International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law: Treaties, Cases, and Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
United Nations 1948, United Nations Convention Against Torture Articles 2 & 5: Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN, Geneva.
Welch, M 2006, Scapegoats of September 11th: Hate Crimes & State Crimes in the War on Terror (Critical Issues in Crime and Society), Rutgers, New Brunswick, NJ.
Williams, K 2006, American methods: torture and the logic of domination, South End Press, Boston.
Water is one of the fundamental elements that supports life and forms part of the resources that influence human economic development. Water is not readily available in some parts of Malaysia and its abundance is largely determined by climatic changes, geographical positions and political environment to some extent (Yong, 2004).
The world today is facing a serious fresh water crisis due to the pressure exerted on water catchment areas of the ever-growing population. Research shows that the majority of highly populated regions have a high water shortage (Renganathan, 2000).
In Malaysia, the Integrated Water Resources Management, IWRM was introduced in the early 1990s being the sole water management initiative in the country (Global Water intelligence, 2003). It led to the formation of management groups later in 1997 such as Malaysia water partnership My WP, and later the Malaysia capacity building network for IWRM, MyCapNet (Clark, 1991).
Water sustainability in Malaysia is very well covered in a number of policies. In Sabah, the local authorities have put in place plans to enhance and mange forest sustainability such as the integration of the river basin management plans (Chan, 2000).
These will greatly improve the quality of the state’s water supply as well as enhance sustainable water management, hence, stabilizing water supply. Integration of the river basin will also ensure that land, water, and biodiversity are protected for the benefit of the locals. Borneo, an island in the state, is characterized by biodiversity.
The state has formed platforms to engage the non-governmental organizations as well as the locals to address the issues that affect the environment. All the measures are aimed at protecting and preserving natural resources to avoid extinction, which can have adverse effects on the livelihood of the locals.
These initiatives also have improved the quality of life for the locals hence increasing the life expectancy. The management plan includes guidelines on how to return wastewater to the environment (Chan, 2000). It also engages protecting and rehabilitating water catchment areas.
To show its commitment, Malaysia is a signatory to a number of environmental conservation declarations. One of them is the international conference on water and the environment in Dublin in the year 1992 (Renganathan, 2000). Others include the earth summit, world water forums to mention but a few (Global Water intelligence, 2003).
The department of drainage and irrigation is the major custodian of the IWRM implementation working together with the My WP (Yong, 2004). The country has made remarkable progress in implanting their initiative and the benefits are immense.
The local villagers can take an opportunity provided by the water conservation programs and increase their economic activities through agriculture. With a sustainable water supply, farmers in the village will not have to depend on seasonal rains to farm.
To enhance the village’s life expectancy requires a full implementation of the water management policies and innovative economic activities that take advantage of the available water. Protecting water catchment areas and forest increases the life expectancy by a reasonable percentage since fresh and clean water enhances good health.
Water is the source of life even for a crop, creating a cycle of dependency between plants and animals. Therefore, sustainable farming can be well supported by these initiatives hence improving the economic status of the locals. Farming is one of the most feasible economic activities for them.
References
Chan, N. W. (2000c) Current Environmental Issues in Malaysia. Web.
Clark, R. (1991) Water: The International Crisis. Web.
Global Water intelligence, (2003). The Malaysian government to manage water supply projects. Market-Leading Analysis of the International Water Industry, 4 (9), 1.
Renganathan, M. (2000). Taking Care of Water, the Responsibility of All. Web.
Yong, F. T. (2004). Water Engineering. Bulletin Ingenieur, 22 (01), 56-86.
Water is the chief consumption in relation to human life. Humans can survive without food for up to seven days but if deprived of water they can only live for a maximum of three before they die of dehydration. It has been a world goal therefore to supply all humans with reliable water services. To achieve this goal, individual persons, counties, states and governments are responsible for taking action. Maryland State has not been left behind. To begin with, we look at the geography of Maryland. Maryland is one of the States of the United States located in the Mid Atlantic region. It is located North of the District of Columbia, South of Pennsylvania while to its East is Delaware and Virginia to its West. According to the US census bureau population estimates of 2009, Maryland is estimated to have a population of about 5,699,478 people.
Discussion
History of water in Maryland
The history of water in Maryland draws us back to the 18th century. Government was realizing the need to set up systems to fulfill the necessity of its people concerning water. The private sector was not left behind. Today, Maryland goes down in history as the state that authorized the first water service company in the United States in 1787. The company’s name was Baltimore Insurance Company. However, the effort did not turn out successful. There was still no giving up though. In 1797, Maryland saw the erection and maintenance of water pumps which was not entirely successful as well. In the early eighteen hundreds however, the face of water services took a new look when the then Baltimore water company was formed and given land and water privileges. The company in its mandate was able to construct reservoirs such as the one in South East Calvert, receiving its waters from the Jones falls.
Water services in Maryland today
Today with an estimated population of 5,699,478 people, Maryland’s residents need clean drinking water, safe water for domestic use, water for industrial use and water for emergency response such as fire fighting. This situation is well handled by the well over twenty registered water service companies today. All these companies rely on rain, river and groundwater. The pumps of 1797, reservoirs of 1854, Ronald dam of 1862 not forgetting Druid reservoir (Lake Chapman) of 1873 among other more recent sources are the basic water harbors in Maryland.
These sources are able to quench the thirst of Maryland dwellers. They provide domestic water to households and industrial water to companies. Institutions and organizations as well tap their waters from these sources.
Water treatment
Water though being one of the only compounds that are pure in their natural state also has its impurities. To make it suitable for human use, treatment measures are taken. Their aim is to solve water problems such as bacteria infections and undesirable chemical contents such as nitrates, lead, radium, radon, acid, iron among others. Hard water also needs to be softened and this is done through treatment. There is pressure on companies providing water services to treat their water before supply.
Standard regulation
There is a need to keep suppliers on toes if quality services are expected. The people of Maryland are able to pressurize the responsible system of water delivery through organizations such as the Maryland’s Office of People’s Counsel. Through regulatory activities such as interventions and communication, such organizations are able to ensure quality in consumer services including of course, water services.
Piping system in Maryland
The channels used to deliver water in Maryland are entirely piping. Copper piping is the main type of piping in Maryland. Copper is produced in different forms to suit the different destinations, either light copper for domestic supply or rigid copper for industrial supply. Due the copper pipe diversification, they have been chosen over other types not only in Maryland but actually in the entire US over the past half century. To help fight the misdoings of copper piping, the state has set a standard code. The Maryland 2009 National Standard Plumbing code adapted in 2009 gives the standard requirements for any pipe installation procedure.
Fire fighting in Maryland
One commonly ignored utility of water is in fire fighting. In Midland however, this hasn’t been taken for granted. As a caution against fire tragedies, Maryland the state awarded Maryland Forest Service a state fire Assistance Hazard Mitigation grant. In the grant, one of the key mandates was installation of dry hydrants. By 2007, 114 new dry hydrants had been successfully installed. These were placed on the basis of county. Consideration was prioritized on population density which saw Carroll County, the highest populated county in Maryland State scoop 45 dry hydrants.
Literary, all counties in Maryland have hydrants. However, in case of long distances, fire fighters have to rely on tankers to fight fire.
Hydrant standard regulation
For efficiency and effectiveness, Maryland Public pools and Spas association has set regulations that govern piping layout. During constructions, engineers and architects join in drawing system plans as they differ from one location to another on the basis of topography and terrain.
Maps of hydrant distribution in Maryland
To see a map of hydrant distribution in Maryland. The pattern formed by this layout creates a web referred to as the tree grid.
Conclusion
To ensure that standards of water services and hydrants are not compromised by the dealer companies, ISO tests are conducted occasionally.
Water service is an integral part of civilization and comfort. In fact, it is needed for hygiene, food preparation, medical needs, trade, having fun etc. Water service may be reasonably regarded as the key significant element of contemporary society. The aim of this paper is to review the history of water service in the UK, as well as analyze the water sources, the volumes of water daily usage, and how the data is treated. The pressurizing practices are also important for analyzing the traditional approaches of water services. Type of piping, placement of hydrants, layout and other parameters should be analyzed for providing the proper image of the water services quality.
History of Water Service in the UK
In fact, the official history of water supply in the UK may be counted from 1944 when the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act was adopted by the parliament. It was required for the water supply in England Scotland and Wales, as well as for regulating the water supply payments and guarantees. As for the matters of water supply history in general, it should be stated that the first instances of piped water supply were registered in the XIX century. The primary aim of this supply was the struggle with cholera, and for increasing the comfort of aristocracy.
From now on, the government had control over the quality of the water supply; however, it had not been legally regulated up to 1944. The next step for the legislation of water supply took place in 1989, when OFWAT organization was created. This step emphasized the importance of high quality water supply for the UK.
Sources of Water Supply and Usage
The key source of fresh water and water services are rivers and lakes, as well as rainwater (depending on the region of the UK). In accordance with the official information associated with water supply services, it should be emphasized that the sources of water supply are changing depending on the requirements and needs of the population. Water sanitation principles also depend on the sources, as if water is taken from rivers, it should be filtered and processed with sanitation chemicals.
As for the matters of usage, it is stated that the daily usage of water is 16,406 megaliters. Hence, the annual consumption totals 5.988,190 megalitres. These consumption rates are steadily but slowly growing due to the population increase. Additionally, water is required for medical purposes, as well as for sanitation measures.
As for the matters of alternative sources, the information is lacking. UK is not resorting to collecting water from the ocean surface; however, some regions are using rainwater for supplying it for the communal needs. Additionally, some filtration stations use underground sources, as the water from these resources is often clearer and requires fewer processing measures. In fact, the usage of underground sources is not widely spread, and it is mainly used by private structures, nevertheless, the quality of water supply services is rather high in the UK.
Treatment
The treatment of the community towards the water supply services generally defines the quality of the services in general. Hence, if the consuming culture is high, consumers prefer accurate metering of the consuming volumes, as well as practice saving principles in order to minimize the consumption level, and preserve the environment.
From the perspectives of environmental protection, it should be emphasized that the hygiene approach towards this aspect explains the epidemiological perspective of water supply and consumption. Hence, the higher-level o consuming culture improves biologic and socio-economic wellbeing of the society. In accordance with the official statistics for the UK, it should be stated that the actual importance of high consuming culture is emphasized by the fact that water saving technologies are widely implemented, and the population is aiming to decrease the water consumption levels.
System Pressurizing
The pressurized systems are generally used for decreasing water consumption levels, as the losses are minimized, and for improving the supply quality. In general, it is explained by the fact that water reaches farther regions, and the infrastructure may be simplified that inevitably causes the decrease in system service costs. In the UK, water pressure is maintained in various ways. The modernized systems are based on special pumps which maintain the required pressure in the urban system, while pressure lowering equipment is installed before entering each house, as the pressure is high, and may cause essential damages. Additionally, a pressurizing tank may be used. It stores the required amount of water which is supplied to a particular region.
In regions where the pumping system is not improved, the water is pumped into special tanks that are located above the ground, and the gravity is used instead of pumps that supply water to houses. In fact, some municipalities prefer the combined system, which allows to decrease supply system service costs, as well as maintain the supply services on a high level.
Type of Piping
The piping that is used defines the quality of the water supply system. In fact, the UK organizations are aiming to change the systems and use ecologically safe materials, as the existing infrastructure needs modernization and improvement. Metal pipes are subjected to liming and rusting, while plastic, if of low quality, may cause soil contamination and even cause harm to health of water consumers. Hence, OFWAT is aimed at controlling the quality of the pipes used for the piping system. In fact, the generally accepted pressure for the UK system is 4-5 bar for the urban regions. Nevertheless, the drawbacks and damages of the piping system, some people may get over 8 bar, while the others below 1 bar.
Type of Hydrants
The type of hydrants that are used for firefighting and included into the urban piping system depends on the location and concentration of the population in the region. Another parameter is the closeness of the easily flamed materials, hence, the classification of hydrants may range from 0 to 5000 gallons per minute. The pressure that is maintained in operating hydrants is close to 350 kPa. UK is mainly using “dry barrel” system of hydrants in order to prevent freezing, however, the pressure and capacity depend on the region.
Additionally, it should be stated that the actual position and usage of hydrants is closely linked with the availability of water sources. Some of them are not linked with the common water supply system and are included into a separate fire fighting system. However, if no hydrants are available, the water is totally secured from firefighting, and the emergency teams will have to use other means for firefighting, including their own reservoirs and chemicals.
Piping Layout
The layout principles are closely linked with the highest efficiency of water supply. In fact, these principles are the outline of the basic engineering practices as well as traditional representations of the human needs. The actual necessity of observing the piping layout principles is closely linked with the principles of equal water supply to the households and flats independently on their location and height. As for the actual layout of the piping system in the UK, the information is unavailable, as every city or group of cities have their own piping systems. However, the main water supply system of London is given in Figure 1. This schematic representation emphasizes the importance of keeping the center under the highest fire safety, while the remote districts are maintained by reserve water supply system.
Figure 1. Map of piping.
Hydrant Testing
Testing is generally performed regularly, while the periods of testing depend on the capacity and pressure that is maintained in the water supply system. This may vary from 6 months to 3 years. The equipment that is needed is as follows:
Two 0-200 p.s.i. pressure gauges with garden hose connections
Two 2S” to garden hose reducing caps
One 4S” to 2S” reducing cap
Two pitot gauges;
0-30 p.s.i.
0-100 p.s.i.
Adjustable hydrant spanner
Other equipment includes:
Diffuser basket
Hydrant sock
Rope to tie off end of hydrant sock
Conclusion
Finally, it should be emphasized that the actual quality of water supply depends on numerous factors, while the key ones are listed and analyzed in the paper. Considering the fact that they may vary depending on the region, the principles of high quality water supply, and firefighting system that is integrated in it, are studied properly.
New York City has several water supply sources to fulfill the water requirements for its population. Among the sources include the Lower Manhattan Lake (Water Network, 1). It is important to note that the rising population of the City continuous to exert pressure on water resources to meet the rising demand for different applications. That has compelled relevant departments to explore other sources to incorporate into its water supply system.
These sources include sunken wells, Aqueduct Systems from Croton River, and upstate watersheds among others. Notably, New York City’s municipal water supply system responds by extensively identifying new sources to capture more water to satisfy domestic, industrial, and fire protection needs. To meet these needs, water tunnels are extensively used in the city’s water supply system to transport the commodity from source to destination.
These tunnels include the New York City Water Tunnel No. 1 that links Hillview reservoir to the east river via tunnel two (Water Network, 3), Water Tunnel No. 2 that forms a link with tunnel two at the Hillview reservoir completing one of the largest water supply systems in the world. New York City Water Tunnel No. 3 is also in the supply chain and is projected to provide a third water supply line for the city upon its completion due in 2020.
It is important to note that the New York water supply falls into government managed projects, private contracts particularly during the construction process to optimize resource utilization and cost-effectiveness, and under public trusts (Bloomberg & Lloyd, 1).
The average daily consumption of water in New York is estimated to be 1.086 billion gallons. However, the average consumption is projected to rise due to droughts and other needs such as fire protection, industrial and domestic uses. It is vital to note that due to the shortage of clean water, treatment facilities provide another alternative source of water to meet the ever-rising needs for water in New York City. Typically, the two sources include ground and surface water.
Function of Water Treatment Facilities
Water treatment facilities play a critical role in ensuring the quality of water is appropriately maintained for a variety of purposes such as for drinking, fire fighting, and other applications. These facilities play a role in the filtration process where the treatment processes occur in multiple steps in the multiple-barrier process. These filtration elements ensure that the sources of the city’s water are appropriately protected and the quality of water appropriately maintained to the desired standards.
Notably, filtration is much easier to carry out on groundwater than is possible with surface water. It is also important to note that surface water has a smaller amount of mineral, bacterial infection, and other impurities while groundwater has more impurities in the form of suspended solids that are removed by water treatment facilities.
New York’s water treatment programs incorporate sedimentation, filtration, coagulation, and chemical treatment techniques to disinfect drinking water. That is typical of Croton Water Filtration Plants and other underwater water filtration plants. The filtration process exploits the use of gravity to minimize the use of energy in the filtration process, though, in various instances, pumping is one of the mechanisms used in the disinfection process (Water Network, 3).
Three Basic Mechanisms of Moving Water
However, several mechanisms are used to transport water from the source to the supply points. Direct piping is one of the methods used to transport water in New York City. However, gravity is occasionally used, but a combination of both direct pumping and gravity contributes to the transportation process. Gravity relies on changes in the gradient of the piping system to allow the use of gravity to enable water to gain some propulsion force under gravity.
However, this method is least relied upon. On the other side, direct pumping is the next most commonly used water transportation method. The method relies on the use of a series of pumps at different points to appreciate the water pressure. Here, electric water pumps are commonly used though diesel pumps are at times used in the network (Bloomberg & Lloyd, 2). That enables water to achieve sufficient pressure to flow through a network of pipes that serve New York City.
Piping System
New York’s water piping system integrates the looping system, the tree system, and the grid system. That is typical of the three water supply sources besides other smaller sources such as wells. Typically, the tree system is characterized by distribution lines or pipes that are connected to water treatment plants which act as a primary feed (Bloomberg & Lloyd, 2). In other areas, a loop system is rarely used in the supply chain from a water treatment plant to the destination. The pipes are characteristically made of steel and plastic and rarely, the use of concrete. Each of the pipes incorporates the use of valves to control the flow. These valves at various points are non-indicative while others provide readings.
Works Cited
Bloomberg, Michael, R. & Lloyd, Emily. New York City’s Wastewater Treatment System. Cleaning the Water We Use • Protecting the Environment We Live In. n.d. Web.
Water Network. Develop critical backup systems for our aging water network to ensure long-term reliability. n.d. Web.
Water Names by Lan Samantha Chang is the story about a grandmother, Waipuo, telling her three granddaughters about a young woman, captivated by the idea of the river. The girl fell in love with the prince living under the water and disappeared after a flood; the grandmother’s story does not have an ending. This paper addresses the thematic concept in Water Names and explains how it is incorporated into the narrative.
Thematic Concept in Water Names
It is possible to say that the tale can be interpreted in several ways because there is an open ending. Waipuo’s narrative finishes with the words that the girls’ family tried to find her for a long time but never did. Like the narrator, a reader may think that the story presents a happy ending, as the young woman “went to join the kingdom of her beloved” (119). Notably, it seems like her granddaughters do not understand how adverse the consequences of a desire may be, as they view it as a positive or a neutral issue. Waipuo does not say that this interpretation is wrong, but she offers an alternative perspective to her granddaughters, saying that the girl was probably seduced by a water ghost and “lost her mind to desiring” (119). The woman wants the girls to find the answer to the question themselves and understand the morale of her story.
These words allow the reader to identify the possible thematic concept in the tale, which is the dangers of a lure. The story says that being encaptivated by the image of something may be dangerous and lead to adverse consequences. Waipuo starts her narrative to help the girls to help them practice their Chinese, which shows that for her, it is significant that her granddaughters remember are connected to their cultural background. The old woman reminds her American-Chinese granddaughters about their ancestors, who “ran together, like raindrops” and had “the spirit of river” in them (116). Waipuo paints a picture of great women and men who lived together, and nothing could break them apart. She wants her granddaughters to understand the significance of being consolidated in the face of hurdles.
By explaining how the girl from the tale dreamed about farewell places, the woman tries to draw parallels with her granddaughters leaving China for America. It is possible to say that the grandmother is not pleased that her family has preferred a foreign land over their home. Her words about the beautiful ring that “would only be a bauble” in a different world refer to the popular image of America, where people are rich, and all dreams can come true (118).
Waipuo warns her granddaughters from being overly obsessed with this perception and desiring more than they can have. She addresses the feelings the girl had, saying that “yearning … filled her heart with sorrow and fear” and “put a spell on her heart” (118). Her story tells the girls that sometimes the lure is not always a good thing, even if people’s minds tell them the opposite, and that the outcomes of a frantic desire may be adverse.
One of the notable aspects of the story is that the young woman’s name is unknown. Waipuo introduces her as Wen Zhiqing’s daughter, but no other information about her is available. It is possible to say that it is done with the purpose of showing that once people are overly captivated by their desires, they are left alone and can be soon forgotten. The grandmother may want to make her granddaughters reflect on the fact that they have each other and should hold together, as, this way, they are stronger. Waipuo may be worried that the girls fight with each other and are “sisters in name only” and wants to convey the significance of being a family (115). The fact that the young woman from the tail became lonely in her desires is designed to transfer the grandmother’s idea.
Notably, the topic of lure leading to destruction does not seem evident when the audience reads the story for the first time. The reason for it is that no one, even Waipuo, criticizes the girl for falling in love and being captivated by the river directly.
At first, the fact that she liked the river was not presented as a negative one; the father protected her from dangers associated with the dark waters. This point may be linked to the fact that Waipuo’s granddaughters are still young, and their parents protect them from possible risks associated with their life in a new country. All they can see now is its beauty and people that are kind to them. As a result, the girls become more and more captivated with the image that may be untrue.
Conclusion
The Water Names is a notable short story presenting the thematic concept of the dangers of a lure. The story says that people’s desires may lead to destruction and loneliness, as the beautiful images individuals may imagine are not always true. The tail has an open ending, allowing the readers to decide whether the girl’s fate is a positive or negative one and find the morale of the narrative themselves.