Water is essential to the survival of mankind. However, despite the fact that 71 percent of the planet is covered with water, only 3 percent of fresh water is suitable for use. While some people argue that unlimited use of fresh water is a basic human right, others object and instead argue that governments should restrict its use. Although I see merit in this restriction, I equally believe that one cannot be denied the right to use fresh water, as it is among the most basic needs of the human race. The benefits of both positions will be demonstrated in this essay.
Firstly, fresh water is not a renewable resource and thus requires government control to prevent its exhaustion. For example, human activity has led to both the melting of the polar ice caps and a significant drop in the percentage of annual rainfall. As these two resources are considered humanity's main suppliers of fresh water, it is clear that their excessive use for purposes such as filling swimming pools and carrying out domestic chores must be guided by a comprehensive government plan. Thus, the merits of government intervention in human water use can be seen.
On the other hand, because fresh water is a basic human necessity, restricting its access could be argued a human rights infringement For example, in most of the cities in India the fresh water supply to the community through the public irrigation system is made available for limited hours only, whereas hotels and restaurants are given a 24 hour water supply. As this division in water access patterns the buying power of the people, it is clear that the rights of the poor are being marginalized. Thus, one cannot deny the right to fresh water.
Although there are heated debates for and against the use of fresh water, I affirm that a proper water supply system should be established in all major cities to provide fresh water to the public. A fair usage policy must be applied by the government and subscribed to by the people to save both the human race and the planet.
Water
is essential to the survival of mankind.
However
, despite the fact that 71 percent of the planet
is covered
with
water
,
only
3 percent of
fresh
water
is suitable for
use
. While
some
people
argue that unlimited
use
of
fresh
water
is a basic
human
right
, others object and
instead
argue that
governments
should restrict its
use
. Although I
see
merit in this restriction, I
equally
believe that one cannot
be denied
the
right
to
use
fresh
water
, as it is among the most basic needs of the
human
race. The benefits of both positions will
be demonstrated
in this essay.
Firstly
,
fresh
water
is not a renewable resource and
thus
requires
government
control to
prevent
its exhaustion.
For example
,
human
activity has led to both the melting of the polar ice caps and a significant drop in the percentage of annual rainfall. As these two resources
are considered
humanity's main suppliers of
fresh
water
, it is
clear
that their excessive
use
for purposes such as filling swimming pools and carrying out domestic chores
must
be guided
by a comprehensive
government
plan.
Thus
, the merits of
government
intervention in
human
water
use
can be
seen
.
On the other hand
,
because
fresh
water
is a basic
human
necessity, restricting its access could
be argued
a
human
rights
infringement
For example
, in most of the cities in India the
fresh
water
supply to the community through the public irrigation system
is made
available for limited hours
only
, whereas hotels and restaurants are
given
a
24 hour
water
supply. As this division in
water
access patterns the buying power of the
people
, it is
clear
that the
rights
of the poor are
being marginalized
.
Thus
, one cannot deny the
right
to
fresh
water.
Although there
are heated
debates for and against the
use
of
fresh
water
, I affirm that a proper
water
supply system should
be established
in all major cities to provide
fresh
water
to the public. A
fair
usage policy
must
be applied
by the
government
and subscribed to by the
people
to save both the
human
race and the planet.