Water scarcity is a major problem faced in many places across the world. Texas, like many other areas, lacks the quantity of water necessary to support the water needs of its inhabitants. Many Texans help conserve water by reducing the amount that is typically consumed in activities such as watering and car washing. However, another solution proposed by the public sector is to privatize water. According to Madeline Baer, ​​assistant professor of Political Science at San Diego State University, the term water privatization describes a contract or agreement between a public body and a non-public institution (Baer 144). Proponents of water privatization argue that water privatization is a good solution to ending water scarcity in Texas, from the companies' perspective. Baer states, “Water privatization has proven to be an unpopular policy in much of the developing world as it has failed to deliver on promises of improved access to water” (Baer 145). While water privatization might be good for the consumer, water privatization has a downside. Texans must look beyond the benefits typically cited by advocates and consider the downsides that water privatization brings to the state. Ultimately what private companies promise are nothing more than words to please the ears. Water privatization allows these companies to create their own set of rules, meaning government involvement is limited. Private companies can decide how much they want to earn from their investment, then the company sets the price the consumer has to pay for the water. Texas should not privatize water because privatization leads to corruption, increased rates, and decreased access to clean water for citizens. the poor. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Water privatization, in many cases, leads to corruption. Since the government has limited involvement in the activities of businesses, they tend to abuse their power. Baer states that “privatization reduces the role of the state, which is primarily responsible for respecting human rights” (Baer 142). Private water companies in other countries have been caught engaging in corrupt practices. According to Susan Pronk, writer for Upside Down World News, “SEMAPA has gone from one crisis to another in Bolivia. Since the company returned to public hands after the 2000 water war, two general managers have been fired for acts of corruption” (Pronk 6). Some places in Latin America have been riddled with acts of corruption that have led to the unpopularity of water privatization. Countries like Bolivia with high levels of poverty are driven by corruption, as people have to do something to bring this race to the table. Baer states that “many public companies in Latin America were buckling under the weight of corruption, inefficiency, and lack of funding for public services, which had dried up since the 1980s” (Baer 144). Even though Texas is a strong state, there is no way to prevent corruption from occurring. Private water companies see water only as a profitable commodity and seek nothing more than citizens' money. According to Robert Glennon, the Morris K. Udall Professor of Law and Public Policy at Rogers College and a member of the Water Resources Research Center at the University of Arizona, “multinational corporations [are] exploiting the terribleeconomic situation of the poor. Corrupt political regimes, often corrupted by these corporations, pay no attention to the complaints of citizens” (Glennon 1890). Although companies receive large sums of money, the money ends up in their pockets instead of maintaining safe water lines for their customers. Glennon states that “if corporations own water, they may distribute it unequally, favoring the rich who can pay more and the politically powerful who can help in other ways” (Glennon1893). Water privatization leads to tariff increases. According to Nicole Fabricant and Kathryn Hicks, authors of the Radical History Review for Duke University Press, “the sudden and dramatic increase in prices of this critical resource… unleashed intense political organizing. Popular mobilizations in and around Cochabamba began in early November 1999” (Fabricant 135). Private companies invest millions to buy the public sector and keep its facilities in good condition. However, the private company must recover the money invested in the purchased water system and the only way to do this is to increase the price of water. If the water is owned by the private company, the company can decide the price for the consumer. Glennon explains the enormous costs involved: “a subsidiary of the Bechtel Corporation increased water rates by 35%” (Glennon 1890). Private companies can provide clean water, but companies tend to fail to provide clean water. The reason is obvious, the costs of the materials needed to update water plans are high. Glennon states that “to have a company propose the enormous amount of capital needed to upgrade the aging and decaying infrastructure of municipal water and sewer systems. By one federal estimate, $1 trillion will be needed over the next 20 years to replace old sewer lines and treatment plans” (Glennon 1892). Of course, this is why private companies raise rates and prefer to serve the rich and the poor. politicians. Water privatization will certainly affect the ability of low-income Texas families to afford water services. Many Texans cannot afford to pay more for water services as oil companies have laid off many of their workers. The cleaner the water, the more expensive water becomes for companies and consumers, which is why companies sometimes fail to provide clean water. Glennon says: “When it comes to water quality, private companies are often reluctant to undertake expensive monitoring programs for low levels of pollutants. Businesses fear, often reasonably, that it will be difficult to recover these costs through rate increases” (Glennon 1894). Third, water privatization leads to poor people not being able to access clean water. According to Sebastian Galiani, a contributor to the University of Chicago Press et al., privatization could be achieved at the cost of excluding the poor from access to water services (Galiani et al 84). As rates rise, poor communities cannot afford clean water. The increase in the rate leads these families to look for water in other places, such as rivers and lagoons. Water privatization could also result in the poor going without water, or being unable to receive adequate services from their communities. Baer states, “Rate increases, poor water quality, cutbacks to poor customers, and lack of transparency have plagued numerous contracts in Latin America, Africa, and Asia” (Baer 141). Provided that places in Latin America have been hit by their rate increases, poor water quality and customer cuts. Texans could become vulnerable to the same problems related to?.