神马文学网译言网 | 【新闻周刊】水资源，像石油一样珍贵
来源：百度文库 编辑：神马文学网 时间：2024/05/03 07:09:25
【新闻周刊】水资源，像石油一样珍贵
van c
于2010-10-11 20:19:39翻译 | 已有514人浏览
私人公司控制我们最珍贵的自然资源应不应该？个人认为不应该，但弹性的价格是必须的，当然仁者见仁智者见智。翻译了不少文章了，也算初步了解的英语文章的结构了。这篇是典型的英语文章。文章提到中国有钱，窃喜中。。。
Tags:中国 |美国 |俄罗斯 |水 |私有化
The New Oil水资源，像石油一样珍贵
Should private companies control our most precious natural resource?
私人公司控制我们最珍贵的自然资源应不应该？1
Jeneen Interlandi With Ryan Tracy;October 08, 2010 杰恩•因特兰蒂和瑞安·特雷西 2010/10/08
Sitka,Alaska, is home to one of the world’s most spectacular lakes. Nestledinto a U-shaped valley of dense forests and majestic peaks, and fed bysnowpack and glaciers, the reservoir, named Blue Lake for its deep bluehues, holds trillions of gallons of water so pure it requires notreatment. The city’s tiny population—fewer than 10,000 people spreadacross 5,000 square miles—makes this an embarrassment of riches. Everyyear, as countries around the world struggle to meet the water needs oftheir citizens, 6.2 billion gallons of Sitka’s reserves go unused. Thatcould soon change. In a few months, if all goes according to plan, 80million gallons of Blue Lake water will be siphoned into the kind oftankers normally reserved for oil—and shipped to a bulk bottlingfacility near Mumbai. From there it will be dispersed among severaldrought-plagued cities throughout the Middle East. The project is thebrainchild of two American companies. One, True Alaska Bottling, haspurchased the rights to transfer 3 billion gallons of water a year fromSitka’s bountiful reserves. The other, S2C Global, is building thewater-processing facility in India. If the companies succeed, they willhave brought what Sitka hopes will be a $90 million industry to theircity, not to mention a solution to one of the world’s most pressingclimate conundrums. They will also have turned life’s most essentialmolecule into a global commodity.
位于阿拉斯加西特卡（Sitka）的湖泊是世界上最壮丽的湖泊之一。依偎在峰峦叠翠的U型山谷之中，享受着雪场、冰河的滋养，因深蓝色的湖水而得名的蓝湖（BlueLake，一座蓄水库）拥有数万亿加仑无需任何处理的纯净水源。西特卡人口稀少（只有不到一万人，散落居住在5000平方英里的地方），如此丰富的水资源都不知该怎么利用。每年，正当世界上众多国家为满足市民的饮水需要而煞费苦心的时候，西特卡却有62亿加仑的蓄水未得到利用。这样的状况可能会很快改变——如果一切按计划进行，几个月后，8千万加仑的蓝湖水将被抽进通常用来装石油的油罐中，运送到孟买（Mumbai）附近的一家装瓶厂里，然后从孟买再发往中东的一些饱受缺水困扰的城市。这项计划源于两家美国公司。其一True AlaskaBottling公司购买了西特卡蓄水每年30亿加仑的使用权，另一家公司——S2CGlobal正在印度建设水处理设备。如果这两家公司的计划成功，将会带给西特卡人所希望的价值9千万美元的产业，更不用说也解决了一个最紧迫的气候问题。同时，两家公司也让生活最需要的物质成为全球性的商品。1
Thetransfer of water is nothing new. New York City is supplied by a web oftunnels and pipes that stretch 125 miles north into the CatskillsMountains; Southern California gets its water from the Sierra NevadaMountains and the Colorado River Basin, which are hundreds of miles tothe north and west, respectively. The distance between Alaska and Indiais much farther, to be sure. But it’s not the distance that worriescritics. It’s the transfer of so much water from public hands to privateones. “Water has been a public resource under public domain for morethan 2,000 years,” says James Olson, an attorney who specializes inwater rights. “Ceding it to private entities feels both morally wrongand dangerous.”
调运水资源并不是什么新鲜事。纽约的供水管道一直向北延伸到125英里远的卡茨基尔（Catskills Mountain）山；南加州的水源来自北边的内华达山脉（Sierra NcvadaMountain）和西边的科罗拉多河流域（Colorado RiverBasin），都有数百英里远。可以肯定的是，阿拉斯加到印度的距离要远的多。但是，受争议的不是距离的问题，而是将如此大量的公共水资源转为私人公司所有。“2000多年以来，水资源一直归大众所有”，詹姆斯•奥尔森（JamesOlson，一位致力于用水权的律师）说，“转为私人所有既不道德也很危险。”1
Everyoneagrees that we are in the midst of a global freshwater crisis. Aroundthe world, rivers, lakes, and aquifers are dwindling faster than MotherNature can possibly replenish them; industrial and household chemicalsare rapidly polluting what’s left. Meanwhile, global population isticking skyward. Goldman Sachs estimates that global water consumptionis doubling every 20 years, and the United Nations expects demand tooutstrip supply by more than 30 percent come 2040.
我们正陷入全球淡水资源危机之中已成为共识。全世界的河流、湖泊和含水土层的减少速度超过了大自然循环水资源的速度；工业和生活用化学物质正迅速污染仅有的水源。同时，全球人口剧增。高盛投资公司（GoldmanSachs）估计全球的用水量每20年翻一番，而且联合国预计在2040年用水量要高出可供应的30%。4
Proponentsof privatization say markets are the best way to solve that problem:only the invisible hand can bring supply and demand into harmony, andonly market pricing will drive water use down enough to make a dent inwater scarcity. But the benefits of the market come at a price. Bydefinition, a commodity is sold to the highest bidder, not the customerwith the most compelling moral claim. As the crisis worsens, companieslike True Alaska that own the rights to vast stores of water (and havethe capacity to move it in bulk) won’t necessarily weigh the needs ofwealthy water-guzzling companies like Coca-Cola or Nestlé against thoseof water-starved communities in Phoenix or Ghana; privately owned waterutilities will charge what the market can bear, and spend as little asthey can get away with on maintenance and environmental protection.Other commodities are subject to the same laws, of course. But withenergy, or food, customers have options: they can switch from oil tonatural gas, or eat more chicken and less beef. There is no substitutefor water, not even Coca-Cola. And, of course, those other things don’tjust fall from the sky on whoever happens to be lucky enough to beliving below. “Markets don’t care about the environment,” says Olson.“And they don’t care about human rights. They care about profit.”支持水私有化的人认为市场是解决用水难题最好的方式：只有市场这双无形的手才可以使供求平衡，而且只有市场定价才能促进节约用水，缓解用水短缺问题。但是，市场的作用归结到一点——价格，按照定义，商品会出售给出价最高者而非正义之士。水资源危机的加剧，而像TrueAlaska这样拥有广阔水资源储备的公司不必要去权衡像可口可乐或是雀巢这样财大气粗的公司和菲尼克斯（Phoenix）或是加纳（Ghana）那些严重缺水的社区之间的需要；私有的水处理设备的价格在市场可承受的范围内，维护保养这些设备以及环境保护的投入都尽可能的减少。当然，其他商品都遵循同样的市场法则。但是，能源、食物消费者可以有所选择：可以用天然气取代石油或者多吃些鸡肉少吃些牛肉，而水，甚至可口可乐，却无可替代。并且其他的东西不会从天上掉下来，即使再幸运也不可能。“市场才不会关心环境问题”，奥尔森说，“也不关心人权，关心的只有利益。”
Inthe developed world—America especially—it’s easy to take water forgranted. Turn on any tap, and it comes rushing out, clean and plentiful,even in the arid Southwest, where the Colorado River Basin isstruggling through its 11th year of drought; in most cities a month’ssupply still costs less than premium cable or a generous cell-phoneplan. Many of us have no idea where our water comes from, let alone whoowns it. In fact, most of us would probably agree that water is tooprecious for anybody to own. But the rights to divert water—from a riveror lake or underground aquifer—are indeed sellable commodities; so tooare the plants and pipes that process that water and deliver it to ourtaps. And as demand outstrips supply, those commodities are set toappreciate precipitously. According to a 2009 report by the World Bank,private investment in the water industry is set to double in the nextfive years; the water-supply market alone will increase by 20 percent.
在发达国家，尤其是美国，人们很容易认为水来的理所当然。打开水龙头，纯净的用水喷涌而出，即使在严重缺水的西南部——面临第11个缺水年头的科罗拉多河流域，也是如此。大多数城市一个月用水的花费比有线收费电视或是某项手机推广计划还少。而大多数人却不知水从何而来，更不用说水源归谁所有。事实上，我们可能都会认为水资源太珍贵，不应由任何个人拥有。然而从河流、湖泊或是地下含水层调运的水确是真真正正的商品;水处理设备和把水送到我们家的水管也是如此。随着供不应求，这些商品的价格会急剧上涨。根据世界银行2009年的报告，供水行业的私人投资在未来五年内会增长一倍；而市场供水增长量只有20%。2
Unlikethe villain in James Bond’s Quantum of Solace who hatched a secret plotto monopolize Bolivia’s fresh-water supply, the real water baronscannot be reduced to a simple archetype. They include a diverse array ofbuyers and sellers—from multinational water giants like Suez and Veoliathat together deliver water to some 260 million taps around the world,to wildcatter oil converts like T. Boone Pickens who wants to sell thewater under his Texas Panhandle ranch to thirsty cities like Dallas.“The water market has become much more sophisticated in the last twodecades,” says Clay Landry, director of WestWater Research, a consultingfirm that specializes in water rights. “It’s gone from parochialtransactions—back-of-the-truck, handshake--type deals—to a seriousmarket with increasingly serious players.”
不同于詹姆斯•邦德量子危机（Quantum ofSolace）中那个密谋控制玻利维亚淡水供应只有一个恶人，现实中控制淡水的巨鳄不可能像电影原型中那样只有一个。其中包括各种各样的买家和卖家——从苏伊士（Suez）和威立雅（Veolia）这样的供水跨国公司（两家公司一共向世界上大约2亿6千万家庭供水）到像T.布恩•皮肯（T.BoonePicken，意欲出售他德克萨斯狭长的农场的地下水给达拉斯（Dallas）这样的缺水城市）这些人。“供水市场在过去二十年变得更加复杂了”，Westwater Research（一家专注于用水权的咨询公司）的主管克莱•兰德里（ClayLandry）说。“市场从小型交易—装车，握手合作愉快—传统的交易流程发展成为由一群严肃认真的玩家参与的正规市场。”文
Eventually,Olson worries, every last drop will be privately controlled. And whenthat happens, the world will find itself divided along a new set ofboundaries: water haves on one side, water have-nots on the other. Thewinners (Canada, Alaska, Russia) and losers (India, Syria, Jordan) willbe different from those of the oil conflicts of the 20th century, butthe bottom line will be much the same: countries that have the means toexploit large reserves will prosper. The rest will be left to fight overever-shrinking reserves. Some will go to war.
奥尔森担心水资源最终会完全被私人控制。当那天来临的时候，世界格局会重新划分：有水的一方，无水的一方。胜方（加拿大、阿拉斯加、俄罗斯）和败方（印度、叙利亚、约旦）将不同于20世纪的争夺石油的国家，但是结果会很相似：大肆开发储备水资源的国家会富裕，其余的国家会争夺不断锐减的储蓄水。有些国家还将发动战争。
Untilrecently, water privatization was an almost exclusively Third Worldissue. In the late 1990s the World Bank infamously required scores ofimpoverished countries—most notably Bolivia—to privatize their watersupplies as a condition of desperately needed economic assistance. Thehope was that markets would eliminate corruption and big multinationalswould invest the resources needed to bring more water to more people. By2000, Bolivian citizens had taken to the streets in a string of violentprotests. Bechtel—the multinational corporation that had leased theirpipes and plants—had more than doubled water rates, leaving tens ofthousands of Bolivians who couldn’t pay without any water whatsoever.The company said price hikes were needed to repair and expand thedilapidated infrastructure. Critics insisted they served only tomaintain unrealistic profit margins. Either way, the rioters sent thecompanies packing; by 2001, the public utility had resumed control.
直到最近，水资源私有化几乎成为第三世界所特有的问题。在20世纪90年代后期，世界银行做了一件不光彩的事——要求几十个贫穷的国家，特别是玻利维亚，将供水转为私有化作为刺激经济增长急需的手段，意在让市场化消除腐败现象并让大型跨国公司投资能够带给更多人用水的领域。到2000年，玻利维亚市民已发动了一系列的暴力抗议活动。贝克特尔（Bechtel，出租管道、设备的跨国公司）将供水价格上涨两倍多，使得数万无力承担的玻利维亚人无水可用。公司称价格上涨是为了应对修理、增加基础设备的需要；批评者坚称这是为了保持它不切实际的边缘利益。最后，抗议者赶走了这些跨国公司；到2001年，公共事业重归公共部门管理。
Thesedays, global water barons have set their sights on a more appealingtarget: countries with dwindling water supplies and aginginfrastructure, but better economies than Bolivia’s. “These are thecountries that can afford to pay,” says Olson. “They’ve got hugeinfrastructure needs, shrinking water reserves, and money.”
时下，跨国巨头正物色新的目标：那些缺乏水资源，基础设备老化但是比玻利维亚有钱的国家。“这些国家有力支付”，奥尔森说。“他们基础设备极缺，水资源储备严重不足，但是不差钱。”
Nowhereis this truer than China. As the water table under Beijing plummets,wells dug around the city must reach ever-greater depths (nearly twothirds of a mile or more, according to a recent World Bank report) tohit fresh water. That has made water drilling more costly and watercontracts more lucrative. Since 2000, when the country opened itsmunicipal services to foreign investment, the number of private waterutilities has skyrocketed. But as private companies absorb water systemsthroughout the country, the cost of water has risen precipitously.“It’s more than most families can afford to pay,” says Ge Yun, aneconomist with the Xinjiang Conservation Fund. “So as more water goesprivate, fewer people have access to it.”最好的例证就是中国。随着北京地下水位不断下降，城市周边的水井必须到更深的地下（根据世界银行近期报告，大约三分之二英里甚至更深）才能打到淡水。这使得钻井取水花费巨大，供水合同更加有利可图。自从2000年中国向外国投资开放市政服务市场后，私人投资供水工程数量迅猛增长。但是，因为私人公司利用了遍布全国的水源，水价陡然上涨。“价格超过了大部分家庭所能负担的范围”，葛云（新疆自然保育基金的一位经济学家）说。“因此越多的水归私人控制，越少的人能支付得起。”
Inthe U.S., federal funds for repairing water infrastructure—most ofwhich was built around the same time that Henry Ford built the firstModel T—are sorely lacking. The Obama administration has secured just $6billion for repairs that the EPA estimates will cost $300 billion.Meanwhile, more than half a million pipes burst every year, according tothe American Water Works Association, and more than 6 billion gallonsof water are lost to leaky pipes. In response to the funding gap,hundreds of U.S. cities—including Pittsburgh, Chicago, and Santa Fe,N.M.—are now looking to privatize. On its face, the move makes obvioussense: elected officials can use the profits from water sales to balancecity budgets, while simultaneously offloading the huge cost ofrepairing and expanding infrastructure—not to mention the politicallyunpopular necessity of raising water rates to do so—to companies thatpromise both jobs and economy-stimulating profits.在美国，用于修理供水基础设施（大多建于亨利•福特推出第一辆T型车的时期）的联邦资金极度缺乏。奥巴马政府的投资只有60亿美元，而美国环境保护署（EPA）的估算高达3000亿美元。同时，据美国水工程协会（American Water WorksAssociation）报告，每年有超过五十万根管道发生爆裂，并且由此导致的泄漏有60多亿加仑。为了应对如此大的资金缺口，数百美国城市——包括匹兹堡（Pittsburgh），芝加哥（Chicago）以及圣达菲（SantaFe），新墨西哥（N.M.）正求助于私有化。表面上这项措施效果明显：政府官员可以利用从供水获得的利润去平衡政府预算，同时将修复、增加供水基础设施的的巨大花费，更不用说供水涨价等等一系列不受民众欢迎的决策通通转嫁到承诺提供工作岗位和刺激经济增长的公司身上。
Ofcourse, the reality doesn’t always meet that ideal. “Because waterinfrastructure is too expensive to allow multiple providers, the onlyreal competition occurs during the bidding process,” says WenonahHauter, executive director of the nonprofit, antiprivatization groupFood and Water Watch. “After that, the private utility has a virtualmonopoly. And because 70 to 80 percent of water and sewer assets areunderground, municipalities can have a tough time monitoring acontractor’s performance.” According to some reports, private operatorsoften reduce the workforce, neglect water conservation, and shift thecost of environmental violations onto the city. For example, when twoVeolia-operated plants spilled millions of gallons of sewage into SanFrancisco Bay, at least one city was forced to make multimillion-dollarupgrades to the offending sewage plant. (Veolia has defended itsrecord.)当然，现实并不总是遂人愿。“因为供水设施太过昂贵不允许多人共同承包，所以真正的竞争只发生在竞标阶段”，反对私有化的非营利性组织“食物和水观察”（Food Water Watch）的执行理事维诺纳•豪特（WenonahHauter）说。“竞标成功之后才成为事实上的垄断。并且因为70%到80%的的水和排水设施都在地下，因此当局很难监督承包商的工程。”据一些报道，私人承建者经常减少工人，忽视水源保护，并且将破坏环境的代价转移到政府身上。例如，两家威立雅下属的工厂向旧金山湾（San FranciscoBay）排放了数百万加仑的污水，至少导致一个城市要被迫花费数百万美元更新设备以应对工厂排出的污水。（威立雅已为此做出声明。）
Evenas many U.S. cities look toward ceding their water infrastructure toprivate interests, others are waging expensive legal battles to get outof such contracts. In 2009 Camden, N.J., sued United Water (an Americansubsidiary of the French giant Suez) for $29 million in unapprovedpayments, high unaccounted-for water losses, poor maintenance, andservice disruptions. In Milwaukee a state audit found that the samecompany violated its contract by shutting down sewage pumps to savemoney; the move resulted in billions of gallons of raw sewage spillinginto Lake Michigan. And in Gary, Ind., which canceled its contract withUnited Water after 12 years, critics say privatization more than doubledannual operating costs. “It ends up being a roundabout way to taxpeople,” Hauter says. “Only it’s worse than a tax because they don’tspend the money maintaining the system.”虽然许多美国城市需求城市供水设施私有化，也有城市不惜代价想要跳出合同。在2009年，新泽西洲卡姆登市（Camden，N.J.）起诉联合水务公司（法国巨头苏伊士的一家美国子公司），要求涉及未批准的付款（译者按，怎么译贴切？），过多不能合理解释的水流失，保养不善和供水中断共计2900万美元的赔偿。在密尔沃基（Milwaukee），一位政府审计人员发现上述公司为了节约资金关闭了抽污水的泵，违反了协议；这导致了数十亿加仑未经处理的污水排向密歇根湖（Lake Michigan）。在印第安纳州加里（GaryInd.，中断了和联合水务公司12年的合同），批评者称私有化致使每年的运营费用增长一倍还多。“到头来还是要迂回向民众征税”，豪特说。“连设施维护都不做，比征税还过分。”
Representativesof United Water point out that 95 percent of its contracts are in factrenewed and say that a few bad examples don’t tell the whole story. “Weare dealing with facilities that were designed and built at the end ofWorld War II,” says United Water CEO Bertrand Camus. “We have plenty ofhorror stories on our side, too.” The Gary facility, to take oneexample, went private only after the EPA forced the public utility tofind a more experienced operator to solve a range of problems.“Individual municipalities don’t have the expertise to employ all thenew technology to meet the new standards,” Camus says. “We do.”联合水务公司的代表指出，事实上已有95%的合同恢复有效，一些负面的例子不能说明全部。“我们正在处理那些二战后设计、修建的设施”，联合水务公司首席执行官伯特兰•加缪（BertrandGamus）说。“当然我们也发生了许多骇人听闻的事。”举个例子，加里的基础设施在被环境保护署（EPA）强迫寻求一个更有经验的管理团队去解决一系列难题之后转为私有化。“单靠市政当局无法运用新技术达到新标准的要求”，加缪说。“我们可以。”
Thebottom line is this: that water is essential to life makes it no lessexpensive to obtain, purify, and deliver, and does nothing to change thefact that as supplies dwindle and demand grows, that expense will onlyincrease. The World Bank has argued that higher prices are a good thing.Right now, no public utility anywhere prices water based on how scarceit is or how much it costs to deliver, and that, privatizationproponents argue, is the root cause of such rampant overuse. If watercosts more, they say, we will conserve it better.我们最基本的共识是：水是生活所必须的物质；获取，净化和运送水的代价只高不低。没有什么可以改变水的供给减少，需求增加的事实，花费只可能增长。世界银行认为价格高并不是坏事情。目前，任何地方的供水价格都不是根据有多么缺水或是送水的代价多大而制定的，这正是支持水源私有化的人们的观点所在，也是引起滥用水资源现象的根源所在。支持者们认为，如果水价提高我们能更好的保护水资源。
Themain problem with this argument is what economists call priceinelasticity: no matter what water costs, we still need it to survive.So beyond trimming nonessential uses like lawn maintenance, car washing,and swimming pools, consumers really can’t reduce water consumption inproportion to rate increases. “Free-market theory works great fordiscretionary consumer purchases,” says Hauter. “But water is not likeother commodities—it’s not something people can substitute or choose toforgo.” Dozens of studies have found that even with steep rate hikes,consumers tend to reduce water consumption by only a little, and thateven in the worst cases, the crunch is disproportionately shouldered bythe poor. In the string of droughts that plagued California during the1980s, for example, doubling the price of water drove householdconsumption down by a third, but households earning less than $20,000cut their consumption by half, while households earning more than$100,000 reduced use by only 10 percent.这其中的主要问题在于经济学家所称的价格缺乏弹性：不论水多么贵，我们仍然赖以生存。因此除了削减用于草坪维护，洗车和游泳池这样的不必要的用水，消费者实在不能再减少哪些部分的用水，即使水价上涨。“自由市场理论最能说明消费者的肆意消费行为”，豪特说。“但是水不像是其他的商品——它无可替代，不可或缺。”数十项研究发现，即使用水价格高度增长，消费者也没有少用一点的意思，而且最不好的结果是这样的局面却没有道理地要让穷人来承担。例如，在20世纪80年代加利福尼亚饱受一连串干旱困扰的时期，水价翻倍致使生活用水量下降了三分之一，但是那些收入低于2万美元的家庭的使用量减少了一半而那些收入超过10万的家庭却只减少了10%。
Infact, critics say, private water companies usually have very littleincentive to encourage conservation; after all, when water use falls,revenue declines. In 2005 a second Bolivian riot erupted when anotherprivate water company raised rates beyond what average people couldafford. The company had dutifully expanded the city’s water system toseveral poor neighborhoods outside the city. But the villagers there,accustomed to life without taps, were obsessive water conservers andhadn’t used enough water to make the investment profitable.事实上，如批评人士所说，私人水务公司通常很少鼓励节约用水；毕竟，用水量下降营业收入会减少。在2005年，由于另一家私人水务公司把价格提高，超出了普通人承受范围，玻利维亚爆发了第二轮抗议。责任在于公司——公司扩建了城市供水系统，服务延伸到城市外围的几个贫穷的社区，而那里习惯了没有自来水生活的村民是坚定的节水人士，他们的用水量没能让公司的投资获利。
Thebiggest winners of a sophisticated water market are likely to be thevery few water-rich regions of the global north that can profitably movemassive quantities across huge distances. Russian entrepreneurs want tosell Siberian water to China; Canadian and American ones are vying tosell Canadian water to the Southwestern U.S. So far, such bulk transfershave been impeded by the high cost of tanker ships. Now, thanks to theglobal recession, the tankers’ rates have dropped significantly. If theSitka plan succeeds, other water-rich cities may soon follow.如此复杂的供水市场中，最大的赢家很可能是少有的几个水源丰富的北半球国家。俄罗斯的商人意欲将西伯利亚的水卖给中国；加拿大人和美国人争相将加拿大的水卖给美国东南部地区。目前，如此大批的运输收到油轮运输价格的制约，承蒙全球经济危机的影响，油轮运输的费用大大降低了。如果西特卡的计划成功，其他的多水城市会争相效仿。
Butin between the countries that will profit from the freshwater crisis,and those that will buy their way out of it, are the countries that haveneither water to sell nor money with which to buy it. In fact, ifthere’s one thing water has in common with oil, it’s that people will goto war over it. Already, Pakistan has accused India of diverting toomuch water from rivers running off the Himalayas; India, in turn, iscomplaining that China’s colossal diversion of rivers and aquifers nearthe countries’ shared border will deprive it of its fair share; andJordan and Syria are bickering over access to flows from a dam the twocountries built together.除了那些从淡水危机中获利的国家和那些买水度过危机的国家，剩下的是那些既没水又没钱买的国家。事实上，如果说水和石油有共通的地方，那就是人们会因其而战争。巴基斯坦指责印度引下过多喜马拉雅山脉流下的河水；相应的，印度抱怨中国在两国边界附近引下大量河水和含水层会有失公允；还有，约旦和叙利亚在为两国合建水坝的下游水使用争执不休。
Sowhat do we do? On the one hand, most of the world views water as abasic human right (the U.N. General Assembly voted unanimously to affirmit as such this July). On the other, it’s becoming so expensive toobtain and supply that most governments cannot afford to shoulder thecost alone. By themselves, markets will never be able to balance thesecompeting realities. That means state and federal governments will haveto play a stronger role in managing freshwater resources. In the U.S.,investing as much money in water infrastructure as the federalgovernment has invested in other public-works projects would not onlycreate jobs but also alleviate some of the financial pressure that hassent so many municipal governments running to private industry. That isnot to say that industry doesn’t also have a role to play. With theright incentives, it can develop and supply the technology needed tomake water delivery more cost-effective and environmentally sound.Ultimately both public and private entities will have to work together.And soon. Unless we manage our water better now, we will run out. Whenthat happens, no pricing or management scheme in the world will save us.那么，我们该怎么办？一方面，世界上普遍视用水为一项基本的人权（今年七月的联合国大会一致决议通过）。另一方面，找水和供水的代价政府无力一人承担。只靠政府，市场永远不可能缓和残酷的现实。这意味着各州和联邦政府要在淡水资源管理中扮演更重要的角色。在美国，供水设施的投资与联邦政府在其他公共事业的投入一样多，这不仅创造了工作岗位，而且由于许多政府管理的行业交由私人企业运营而缓解了一些财政压力。这并不是说企业没有一席之地，只要有良好动机，企业可以开发并提供满足运水过程划算并环保要求的技术。最终，公众将和私企协作共赢，而这很快会成为现实。除非我们现在可以更好的管理我们的水资源，否则水资源将被我们消耗殆尽。当那天来临的时候，就算涨价或是全球统一管理也救不了我们。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
van c
于2010-10-11 20:19:39翻译 | 已有514人浏览
私人公司控制我们最珍贵的自然资源应不应该？个人认为不应该，但弹性的价格是必须的，当然仁者见仁智者见智。翻译了不少文章了，也算初步了解的英语文章的结构了。这篇是典型的英语文章。文章提到中国有钱，窃喜中。。。
Tags:中国 |美国 |俄罗斯 |水 |私有化
The New Oil水资源，像石油一样珍贵
Should private companies control our most precious natural resource?
私人公司控制我们最珍贵的自然资源应不应该？1
Jeneen Interlandi With Ryan Tracy;October 08, 2010 杰恩•因特兰蒂和瑞安·特雷西 2010/10/08
Sitka,Alaska, is home to one of the world’s most spectacular lakes. Nestledinto a U-shaped valley of dense forests and majestic peaks, and fed bysnowpack and glaciers, the reservoir, named Blue Lake for its deep bluehues, holds trillions of gallons of water so pure it requires notreatment. The city’s tiny population—fewer than 10,000 people spreadacross 5,000 square miles—makes this an embarrassment of riches. Everyyear, as countries around the world struggle to meet the water needs oftheir citizens, 6.2 billion gallons of Sitka’s reserves go unused. Thatcould soon change. In a few months, if all goes according to plan, 80million gallons of Blue Lake water will be siphoned into the kind oftankers normally reserved for oil—and shipped to a bulk bottlingfacility near Mumbai. From there it will be dispersed among severaldrought-plagued cities throughout the Middle East. The project is thebrainchild of two American companies. One, True Alaska Bottling, haspurchased the rights to transfer 3 billion gallons of water a year fromSitka’s bountiful reserves. The other, S2C Global, is building thewater-processing facility in India. If the companies succeed, they willhave brought what Sitka hopes will be a $90 million industry to theircity, not to mention a solution to one of the world’s most pressingclimate conundrums. They will also have turned life’s most essentialmolecule into a global commodity.
位于阿拉斯加西特卡（Sitka）的湖泊是世界上最壮丽的湖泊之一。依偎在峰峦叠翠的U型山谷之中，享受着雪场、冰河的滋养，因深蓝色的湖水而得名的蓝湖（BlueLake，一座蓄水库）拥有数万亿加仑无需任何处理的纯净水源。西特卡人口稀少（只有不到一万人，散落居住在5000平方英里的地方），如此丰富的水资源都不知该怎么利用。每年，正当世界上众多国家为满足市民的饮水需要而煞费苦心的时候，西特卡却有62亿加仑的蓄水未得到利用。这样的状况可能会很快改变——如果一切按计划进行，几个月后，8千万加仑的蓝湖水将被抽进通常用来装石油的油罐中，运送到孟买（Mumbai）附近的一家装瓶厂里，然后从孟买再发往中东的一些饱受缺水困扰的城市。这项计划源于两家美国公司。其一True AlaskaBottling公司购买了西特卡蓄水每年30亿加仑的使用权，另一家公司——S2CGlobal正在印度建设水处理设备。如果这两家公司的计划成功，将会带给西特卡人所希望的价值9千万美元的产业，更不用说也解决了一个最紧迫的气候问题。同时，两家公司也让生活最需要的物质成为全球性的商品。1
Thetransfer of water is nothing new. New York City is supplied by a web oftunnels and pipes that stretch 125 miles north into the CatskillsMountains; Southern California gets its water from the Sierra NevadaMountains and the Colorado River Basin, which are hundreds of miles tothe north and west, respectively. The distance between Alaska and Indiais much farther, to be sure. But it’s not the distance that worriescritics. It’s the transfer of so much water from public hands to privateones. “Water has been a public resource under public domain for morethan 2,000 years,” says James Olson, an attorney who specializes inwater rights. “Ceding it to private entities feels both morally wrongand dangerous.”
调运水资源并不是什么新鲜事。纽约的供水管道一直向北延伸到125英里远的卡茨基尔（Catskills Mountain）山；南加州的水源来自北边的内华达山脉（Sierra NcvadaMountain）和西边的科罗拉多河流域（Colorado RiverBasin），都有数百英里远。可以肯定的是，阿拉斯加到印度的距离要远的多。但是，受争议的不是距离的问题，而是将如此大量的公共水资源转为私人公司所有。“2000多年以来，水资源一直归大众所有”，詹姆斯•奥尔森（JamesOlson，一位致力于用水权的律师）说，“转为私人所有既不道德也很危险。”1
Everyoneagrees that we are in the midst of a global freshwater crisis. Aroundthe world, rivers, lakes, and aquifers are dwindling faster than MotherNature can possibly replenish them; industrial and household chemicalsare rapidly polluting what’s left. Meanwhile, global population isticking skyward. Goldman Sachs estimates that global water consumptionis doubling every 20 years, and the United Nations expects demand tooutstrip supply by more than 30 percent come 2040.
我们正陷入全球淡水资源危机之中已成为共识。全世界的河流、湖泊和含水土层的减少速度超过了大自然循环水资源的速度；工业和生活用化学物质正迅速污染仅有的水源。同时，全球人口剧增。高盛投资公司（GoldmanSachs）估计全球的用水量每20年翻一番，而且联合国预计在2040年用水量要高出可供应的30%。4
Proponentsof privatization say markets are the best way to solve that problem:only the invisible hand can bring supply and demand into harmony, andonly market pricing will drive water use down enough to make a dent inwater scarcity. But the benefits of the market come at a price. Bydefinition, a commodity is sold to the highest bidder, not the customerwith the most compelling moral claim. As the crisis worsens, companieslike True Alaska that own the rights to vast stores of water (and havethe capacity to move it in bulk) won’t necessarily weigh the needs ofwealthy water-guzzling companies like Coca-Cola or Nestlé against thoseof water-starved communities in Phoenix or Ghana; privately owned waterutilities will charge what the market can bear, and spend as little asthey can get away with on maintenance and environmental protection.Other commodities are subject to the same laws, of course. But withenergy, or food, customers have options: they can switch from oil tonatural gas, or eat more chicken and less beef. There is no substitutefor water, not even Coca-Cola. And, of course, those other things don’tjust fall from the sky on whoever happens to be lucky enough to beliving below. “Markets don’t care about the environment,” says Olson.“And they don’t care about human rights. They care about profit.”支持水私有化的人认为市场是解决用水难题最好的方式：只有市场这双无形的手才可以使供求平衡，而且只有市场定价才能促进节约用水，缓解用水短缺问题。但是，市场的作用归结到一点——价格，按照定义，商品会出售给出价最高者而非正义之士。水资源危机的加剧，而像TrueAlaska这样拥有广阔水资源储备的公司不必要去权衡像可口可乐或是雀巢这样财大气粗的公司和菲尼克斯（Phoenix）或是加纳（Ghana）那些严重缺水的社区之间的需要；私有的水处理设备的价格在市场可承受的范围内，维护保养这些设备以及环境保护的投入都尽可能的减少。当然，其他商品都遵循同样的市场法则。但是，能源、食物消费者可以有所选择：可以用天然气取代石油或者多吃些鸡肉少吃些牛肉，而水，甚至可口可乐，却无可替代。并且其他的东西不会从天上掉下来，即使再幸运也不可能。“市场才不会关心环境问题”，奥尔森说，“也不关心人权，关心的只有利益。”
Inthe developed world—America especially—it’s easy to take water forgranted. Turn on any tap, and it comes rushing out, clean and plentiful,even in the arid Southwest, where the Colorado River Basin isstruggling through its 11th year of drought; in most cities a month’ssupply still costs less than premium cable or a generous cell-phoneplan. Many of us have no idea where our water comes from, let alone whoowns it. In fact, most of us would probably agree that water is tooprecious for anybody to own. But the rights to divert water—from a riveror lake or underground aquifer—are indeed sellable commodities; so tooare the plants and pipes that process that water and deliver it to ourtaps. And as demand outstrips supply, those commodities are set toappreciate precipitously. According to a 2009 report by the World Bank,private investment in the water industry is set to double in the nextfive years; the water-supply market alone will increase by 20 percent.
在发达国家，尤其是美国，人们很容易认为水来的理所当然。打开水龙头，纯净的用水喷涌而出，即使在严重缺水的西南部——面临第11个缺水年头的科罗拉多河流域，也是如此。大多数城市一个月用水的花费比有线收费电视或是某项手机推广计划还少。而大多数人却不知水从何而来，更不用说水源归谁所有。事实上，我们可能都会认为水资源太珍贵，不应由任何个人拥有。然而从河流、湖泊或是地下含水层调运的水确是真真正正的商品;水处理设备和把水送到我们家的水管也是如此。随着供不应求，这些商品的价格会急剧上涨。根据世界银行2009年的报告，供水行业的私人投资在未来五年内会增长一倍；而市场供水增长量只有20%。2
Unlikethe villain in James Bond’s Quantum of Solace who hatched a secret plotto monopolize Bolivia’s fresh-water supply, the real water baronscannot be reduced to a simple archetype. They include a diverse array ofbuyers and sellers—from multinational water giants like Suez and Veoliathat together deliver water to some 260 million taps around the world,to wildcatter oil converts like T. Boone Pickens who wants to sell thewater under his Texas Panhandle ranch to thirsty cities like Dallas.“The water market has become much more sophisticated in the last twodecades,” says Clay Landry, director of WestWater Research, a consultingfirm that specializes in water rights. “It’s gone from parochialtransactions—back-of-the-truck, handshake--type deals—to a seriousmarket with increasingly serious players.”
不同于詹姆斯•邦德量子危机（Quantum ofSolace）中那个密谋控制玻利维亚淡水供应只有一个恶人，现实中控制淡水的巨鳄不可能像电影原型中那样只有一个。其中包括各种各样的买家和卖家——从苏伊士（Suez）和威立雅（Veolia）这样的供水跨国公司（两家公司一共向世界上大约2亿6千万家庭供水）到像T.布恩•皮肯（T.BoonePicken，意欲出售他德克萨斯狭长的农场的地下水给达拉斯（Dallas）这样的缺水城市）这些人。“供水市场在过去二十年变得更加复杂了”，Westwater Research（一家专注于用水权的咨询公司）的主管克莱•兰德里（ClayLandry）说。“市场从小型交易—装车，握手合作愉快—传统的交易流程发展成为由一群严肃认真的玩家参与的正规市场。”文
Eventually,Olson worries, every last drop will be privately controlled. And whenthat happens, the world will find itself divided along a new set ofboundaries: water haves on one side, water have-nots on the other. Thewinners (Canada, Alaska, Russia) and losers (India, Syria, Jordan) willbe different from those of the oil conflicts of the 20th century, butthe bottom line will be much the same: countries that have the means toexploit large reserves will prosper. The rest will be left to fight overever-shrinking reserves. Some will go to war.
奥尔森担心水资源最终会完全被私人控制。当那天来临的时候，世界格局会重新划分：有水的一方，无水的一方。胜方（加拿大、阿拉斯加、俄罗斯）和败方（印度、叙利亚、约旦）将不同于20世纪的争夺石油的国家，但是结果会很相似：大肆开发储备水资源的国家会富裕，其余的国家会争夺不断锐减的储蓄水。有些国家还将发动战争。
Untilrecently, water privatization was an almost exclusively Third Worldissue. In the late 1990s the World Bank infamously required scores ofimpoverished countries—most notably Bolivia—to privatize their watersupplies as a condition of desperately needed economic assistance. Thehope was that markets would eliminate corruption and big multinationalswould invest the resources needed to bring more water to more people. By2000, Bolivian citizens had taken to the streets in a string of violentprotests. Bechtel—the multinational corporation that had leased theirpipes and plants—had more than doubled water rates, leaving tens ofthousands of Bolivians who couldn’t pay without any water whatsoever.The company said price hikes were needed to repair and expand thedilapidated infrastructure. Critics insisted they served only tomaintain unrealistic profit margins. Either way, the rioters sent thecompanies packing; by 2001, the public utility had resumed control.
直到最近，水资源私有化几乎成为第三世界所特有的问题。在20世纪90年代后期，世界银行做了一件不光彩的事——要求几十个贫穷的国家，特别是玻利维亚，将供水转为私有化作为刺激经济增长急需的手段，意在让市场化消除腐败现象并让大型跨国公司投资能够带给更多人用水的领域。到2000年，玻利维亚市民已发动了一系列的暴力抗议活动。贝克特尔（Bechtel，出租管道、设备的跨国公司）将供水价格上涨两倍多，使得数万无力承担的玻利维亚人无水可用。公司称价格上涨是为了应对修理、增加基础设备的需要；批评者坚称这是为了保持它不切实际的边缘利益。最后，抗议者赶走了这些跨国公司；到2001年，公共事业重归公共部门管理。
Thesedays, global water barons have set their sights on a more appealingtarget: countries with dwindling water supplies and aginginfrastructure, but better economies than Bolivia’s. “These are thecountries that can afford to pay,” says Olson. “They’ve got hugeinfrastructure needs, shrinking water reserves, and money.”
时下，跨国巨头正物色新的目标：那些缺乏水资源，基础设备老化但是比玻利维亚有钱的国家。“这些国家有力支付”，奥尔森说。“他们基础设备极缺，水资源储备严重不足，但是不差钱。”
Nowhereis this truer than China. As the water table under Beijing plummets,wells dug around the city must reach ever-greater depths (nearly twothirds of a mile or more, according to a recent World Bank report) tohit fresh water. That has made water drilling more costly and watercontracts more lucrative. Since 2000, when the country opened itsmunicipal services to foreign investment, the number of private waterutilities has skyrocketed. But as private companies absorb water systemsthroughout the country, the cost of water has risen precipitously.“It’s more than most families can afford to pay,” says Ge Yun, aneconomist with the Xinjiang Conservation Fund. “So as more water goesprivate, fewer people have access to it.”最好的例证就是中国。随着北京地下水位不断下降，城市周边的水井必须到更深的地下（根据世界银行近期报告，大约三分之二英里甚至更深）才能打到淡水。这使得钻井取水花费巨大，供水合同更加有利可图。自从2000年中国向外国投资开放市政服务市场后，私人投资供水工程数量迅猛增长。但是，因为私人公司利用了遍布全国的水源，水价陡然上涨。“价格超过了大部分家庭所能负担的范围”，葛云（新疆自然保育基金的一位经济学家）说。“因此越多的水归私人控制，越少的人能支付得起。”
Inthe U.S., federal funds for repairing water infrastructure—most ofwhich was built around the same time that Henry Ford built the firstModel T—are sorely lacking. The Obama administration has secured just $6billion for repairs that the EPA estimates will cost $300 billion.Meanwhile, more than half a million pipes burst every year, according tothe American Water Works Association, and more than 6 billion gallonsof water are lost to leaky pipes. In response to the funding gap,hundreds of U.S. cities—including Pittsburgh, Chicago, and Santa Fe,N.M.—are now looking to privatize. On its face, the move makes obvioussense: elected officials can use the profits from water sales to balancecity budgets, while simultaneously offloading the huge cost ofrepairing and expanding infrastructure—not to mention the politicallyunpopular necessity of raising water rates to do so—to companies thatpromise both jobs and economy-stimulating profits.在美国，用于修理供水基础设施（大多建于亨利•福特推出第一辆T型车的时期）的联邦资金极度缺乏。奥巴马政府的投资只有60亿美元，而美国环境保护署（EPA）的估算高达3000亿美元。同时，据美国水工程协会（American Water WorksAssociation）报告，每年有超过五十万根管道发生爆裂，并且由此导致的泄漏有60多亿加仑。为了应对如此大的资金缺口，数百美国城市——包括匹兹堡（Pittsburgh），芝加哥（Chicago）以及圣达菲（SantaFe），新墨西哥（N.M.）正求助于私有化。表面上这项措施效果明显：政府官员可以利用从供水获得的利润去平衡政府预算，同时将修复、增加供水基础设施的的巨大花费，更不用说供水涨价等等一系列不受民众欢迎的决策通通转嫁到承诺提供工作岗位和刺激经济增长的公司身上。
Ofcourse, the reality doesn’t always meet that ideal. “Because waterinfrastructure is too expensive to allow multiple providers, the onlyreal competition occurs during the bidding process,” says WenonahHauter, executive director of the nonprofit, antiprivatization groupFood and Water Watch. “After that, the private utility has a virtualmonopoly. And because 70 to 80 percent of water and sewer assets areunderground, municipalities can have a tough time monitoring acontractor’s performance.” According to some reports, private operatorsoften reduce the workforce, neglect water conservation, and shift thecost of environmental violations onto the city. For example, when twoVeolia-operated plants spilled millions of gallons of sewage into SanFrancisco Bay, at least one city was forced to make multimillion-dollarupgrades to the offending sewage plant. (Veolia has defended itsrecord.)当然，现实并不总是遂人愿。“因为供水设施太过昂贵不允许多人共同承包，所以真正的竞争只发生在竞标阶段”，反对私有化的非营利性组织“食物和水观察”（Food Water Watch）的执行理事维诺纳•豪特（WenonahHauter）说。“竞标成功之后才成为事实上的垄断。并且因为70%到80%的的水和排水设施都在地下，因此当局很难监督承包商的工程。”据一些报道，私人承建者经常减少工人，忽视水源保护，并且将破坏环境的代价转移到政府身上。例如，两家威立雅下属的工厂向旧金山湾（San FranciscoBay）排放了数百万加仑的污水，至少导致一个城市要被迫花费数百万美元更新设备以应对工厂排出的污水。（威立雅已为此做出声明。）
Evenas many U.S. cities look toward ceding their water infrastructure toprivate interests, others are waging expensive legal battles to get outof such contracts. In 2009 Camden, N.J., sued United Water (an Americansubsidiary of the French giant Suez) for $29 million in unapprovedpayments, high unaccounted-for water losses, poor maintenance, andservice disruptions. In Milwaukee a state audit found that the samecompany violated its contract by shutting down sewage pumps to savemoney; the move resulted in billions of gallons of raw sewage spillinginto Lake Michigan. And in Gary, Ind., which canceled its contract withUnited Water after 12 years, critics say privatization more than doubledannual operating costs. “It ends up being a roundabout way to taxpeople,” Hauter says. “Only it’s worse than a tax because they don’tspend the money maintaining the system.”虽然许多美国城市需求城市供水设施私有化，也有城市不惜代价想要跳出合同。在2009年，新泽西洲卡姆登市（Camden，N.J.）起诉联合水务公司（法国巨头苏伊士的一家美国子公司），要求涉及未批准的付款（译者按，怎么译贴切？），过多不能合理解释的水流失，保养不善和供水中断共计2900万美元的赔偿。在密尔沃基（Milwaukee），一位政府审计人员发现上述公司为了节约资金关闭了抽污水的泵，违反了协议；这导致了数十亿加仑未经处理的污水排向密歇根湖（Lake Michigan）。在印第安纳州加里（GaryInd.，中断了和联合水务公司12年的合同），批评者称私有化致使每年的运营费用增长一倍还多。“到头来还是要迂回向民众征税”，豪特说。“连设施维护都不做，比征税还过分。”
Representativesof United Water point out that 95 percent of its contracts are in factrenewed and say that a few bad examples don’t tell the whole story. “Weare dealing with facilities that were designed and built at the end ofWorld War II,” says United Water CEO Bertrand Camus. “We have plenty ofhorror stories on our side, too.” The Gary facility, to take oneexample, went private only after the EPA forced the public utility tofind a more experienced operator to solve a range of problems.“Individual municipalities don’t have the expertise to employ all thenew technology to meet the new standards,” Camus says. “We do.”联合水务公司的代表指出，事实上已有95%的合同恢复有效，一些负面的例子不能说明全部。“我们正在处理那些二战后设计、修建的设施”，联合水务公司首席执行官伯特兰•加缪（BertrandGamus）说。“当然我们也发生了许多骇人听闻的事。”举个例子，加里的基础设施在被环境保护署（EPA）强迫寻求一个更有经验的管理团队去解决一系列难题之后转为私有化。“单靠市政当局无法运用新技术达到新标准的要求”，加缪说。“我们可以。”
Thebottom line is this: that water is essential to life makes it no lessexpensive to obtain, purify, and deliver, and does nothing to change thefact that as supplies dwindle and demand grows, that expense will onlyincrease. The World Bank has argued that higher prices are a good thing.Right now, no public utility anywhere prices water based on how scarceit is or how much it costs to deliver, and that, privatizationproponents argue, is the root cause of such rampant overuse. If watercosts more, they say, we will conserve it better.我们最基本的共识是：水是生活所必须的物质；获取，净化和运送水的代价只高不低。没有什么可以改变水的供给减少，需求增加的事实，花费只可能增长。世界银行认为价格高并不是坏事情。目前，任何地方的供水价格都不是根据有多么缺水或是送水的代价多大而制定的，这正是支持水源私有化的人们的观点所在，也是引起滥用水资源现象的根源所在。支持者们认为，如果水价提高我们能更好的保护水资源。
Themain problem with this argument is what economists call priceinelasticity: no matter what water costs, we still need it to survive.So beyond trimming nonessential uses like lawn maintenance, car washing,and swimming pools, consumers really can’t reduce water consumption inproportion to rate increases. “Free-market theory works great fordiscretionary consumer purchases,” says Hauter. “But water is not likeother commodities—it’s not something people can substitute or choose toforgo.” Dozens of studies have found that even with steep rate hikes,consumers tend to reduce water consumption by only a little, and thateven in the worst cases, the crunch is disproportionately shouldered bythe poor. In the string of droughts that plagued California during the1980s, for example, doubling the price of water drove householdconsumption down by a third, but households earning less than $20,000cut their consumption by half, while households earning more than$100,000 reduced use by only 10 percent.这其中的主要问题在于经济学家所称的价格缺乏弹性：不论水多么贵，我们仍然赖以生存。因此除了削减用于草坪维护，洗车和游泳池这样的不必要的用水，消费者实在不能再减少哪些部分的用水，即使水价上涨。“自由市场理论最能说明消费者的肆意消费行为”，豪特说。“但是水不像是其他的商品——它无可替代，不可或缺。”数十项研究发现，即使用水价格高度增长，消费者也没有少用一点的意思，而且最不好的结果是这样的局面却没有道理地要让穷人来承担。例如，在20世纪80年代加利福尼亚饱受一连串干旱困扰的时期，水价翻倍致使生活用水量下降了三分之一，但是那些收入低于2万美元的家庭的使用量减少了一半而那些收入超过10万的家庭却只减少了10%。
Infact, critics say, private water companies usually have very littleincentive to encourage conservation; after all, when water use falls,revenue declines. In 2005 a second Bolivian riot erupted when anotherprivate water company raised rates beyond what average people couldafford. The company had dutifully expanded the city’s water system toseveral poor neighborhoods outside the city. But the villagers there,accustomed to life without taps, were obsessive water conservers andhadn’t used enough water to make the investment profitable.事实上，如批评人士所说，私人水务公司通常很少鼓励节约用水；毕竟，用水量下降营业收入会减少。在2005年，由于另一家私人水务公司把价格提高，超出了普通人承受范围，玻利维亚爆发了第二轮抗议。责任在于公司——公司扩建了城市供水系统，服务延伸到城市外围的几个贫穷的社区，而那里习惯了没有自来水生活的村民是坚定的节水人士，他们的用水量没能让公司的投资获利。
Thebiggest winners of a sophisticated water market are likely to be thevery few water-rich regions of the global north that can profitably movemassive quantities across huge distances. Russian entrepreneurs want tosell Siberian water to China; Canadian and American ones are vying tosell Canadian water to the Southwestern U.S. So far, such bulk transfershave been impeded by the high cost of tanker ships. Now, thanks to theglobal recession, the tankers’ rates have dropped significantly. If theSitka plan succeeds, other water-rich cities may soon follow.如此复杂的供水市场中，最大的赢家很可能是少有的几个水源丰富的北半球国家。俄罗斯的商人意欲将西伯利亚的水卖给中国；加拿大人和美国人争相将加拿大的水卖给美国东南部地区。目前，如此大批的运输收到油轮运输价格的制约，承蒙全球经济危机的影响，油轮运输的费用大大降低了。如果西特卡的计划成功，其他的多水城市会争相效仿。
Butin between the countries that will profit from the freshwater crisis,and those that will buy their way out of it, are the countries that haveneither water to sell nor money with which to buy it. In fact, ifthere’s one thing water has in common with oil, it’s that people will goto war over it. Already, Pakistan has accused India of diverting toomuch water from rivers running off the Himalayas; India, in turn, iscomplaining that China’s colossal diversion of rivers and aquifers nearthe countries’ shared border will deprive it of its fair share; andJordan and Syria are bickering over access to flows from a dam the twocountries built together.除了那些从淡水危机中获利的国家和那些买水度过危机的国家，剩下的是那些既没水又没钱买的国家。事实上，如果说水和石油有共通的地方，那就是人们会因其而战争。巴基斯坦指责印度引下过多喜马拉雅山脉流下的河水；相应的，印度抱怨中国在两国边界附近引下大量河水和含水层会有失公允；还有，约旦和叙利亚在为两国合建水坝的下游水使用争执不休。
Sowhat do we do? On the one hand, most of the world views water as abasic human right (the U.N. General Assembly voted unanimously to affirmit as such this July). On the other, it’s becoming so expensive toobtain and supply that most governments cannot afford to shoulder thecost alone. By themselves, markets will never be able to balance thesecompeting realities. That means state and federal governments will haveto play a stronger role in managing freshwater resources. In the U.S.,investing as much money in water infrastructure as the federalgovernment has invested in other public-works projects would not onlycreate jobs but also alleviate some of the financial pressure that hassent so many municipal governments running to private industry. That isnot to say that industry doesn’t also have a role to play. With theright incentives, it can develop and supply the technology needed tomake water delivery more cost-effective and environmentally sound.Ultimately both public and private entities will have to work together.And soon. Unless we manage our water better now, we will run out. Whenthat happens, no pricing or management scheme in the world will save us.那么，我们该怎么办？一方面，世界上普遍视用水为一项基本的人权（今年七月的联合国大会一致决议通过）。另一方面，找水和供水的代价政府无力一人承担。只靠政府，市场永远不可能缓和残酷的现实。这意味着各州和联邦政府要在淡水资源管理中扮演更重要的角色。在美国，供水设施的投资与联邦政府在其他公共事业的投入一样多，这不仅创造了工作岗位，而且由于许多政府管理的行业交由私人企业运营而缓解了一些财政压力。这并不是说企业没有一席之地，只要有良好动机，企业可以开发并提供满足运水过程划算并环保要求的技术。最终，公众将和私企协作共赢，而这很快会成为现实。除非我们现在可以更好的管理我们的水资源，否则水资源将被我们消耗殆尽。当那天来临的时候，就算涨价或是全球统一管理也救不了我们。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------