Both Segerfeldt and Barlow also emphasize that the crisis especially affects the developing world. Poor people are dying from dirty water, both Barlow and Segerfeldt claim. Barlow cites the World Health Organization, claiming that "every eight seconds, a child dies from drinking dirty water," (299). Segerfeldt agrees that "the shortage of water helps to perpetuate poverty, disease, and early death," (294). Finally, Barlow and Segerfeldt both acknowledge that technically the earth does not "run out" of water (Barlow 299). Segerfeldt similarly claims that there is "no shortage" of water, "at least not globally," (294). Segerfeldt and Barlow disagree on what causes the water crisis and most importantly, on what to do about it. Although Barlow and Segerfeldt both agree that water is a potentially renewable resource, only Barlow notes that "there is a finite amount of available fresh water on the planet," (299). The earth cannot run out of water, but the earth also cannot create new water. The problem with the finite amount of water is that it is being polluted and diverted for capitalist and industrialist endeavors worldwide. Segerfeldt does not mention the problem that pollution poses to the water crisis. Instead, Segerfeldt focuses on bad public policy and poor water resource management by governments as the main culprits. Segerfeldt's solution to the water crisis is to encourage effective privatization efforts worldwide. Barlow's suggestion is to reject privatization, unlimited economic growth, and globalization in favor of cooperative community-based stewardship of water resources (300).

Barlow's argument is stronger than Segerfeldt even though Segerfeldt makes some valid points. Segerfeldt is correct that governments do not manage water resources well and that poor people -- some of the most important stakeholders...

However, part of the problem is that governments are more concerned with creating partnerships with big business. Privatization would make the problem worse because then governments and private water companies would be working together to regulate such things as access to water; the prices of water; how the water will be used and diverted; and how water will be managed for pollution. Thus, only a small minority of primary stakeholders would benefit from privatization. Private corporations and governments work in collusion and are often corrupt. Neither are valid stakeholders in the issue because the point is to save lives, not make profits. The only genuine long-term solution to the water crisis for all stakeholders is to bypass both corrupt governments and private corporations by establishing water collectives or partnerships. Communities need to be able to own and have access to their own water supplies. To have a private company own a local water supply would devastate communities worldwide, as residents would have no say over the quality or the price of the water. Instead, communities should own and control their own water resources.
Both Barlow and Segerfeld describe the water crisis as a humanitarian issue and offer possible solutions to the problem. Segerfeldt argues in favor of privatization, because governments are ineffective in getting water to their poorest citizens. Barlow argues against privatization because of how capitalism has created the crisis in the first place. The key is to blend the approaches of Barlow and Segerfeldt so that governments and the private sector work together to create more ethical standards in water management. This can only be accomplished by establishing watchdog groups that oversee both the private and the public sector.

Works Cited

Barlow, Maude. "Where Has All the Water Gone?" Chapter 6: Protecting the Environment.

Segerfeldt, Frederik. "Private Water Saves Lives."…