Water should not be privatized

This debate can be broken down into two key questions: My first point which still stands is that without private ownership of water, individuals property rights and rights to safety and privacy will be violated. Illistratating this point using the example of Bob the farmer. My opponent has already unsuccessfully tried to refute this point, but believes that his luck will be better this time. In order to do this my opponent has tried to make the claim that property rights should not extend to water making the claim: "I have shown why this is already a harm since corporations are held accountable to shareholders and not the public, meaning that there is no way to ensure accountability and responsible use of water with regards to the public." which doesn't apply in the case of Bob, since he is not a corporation and is has no intentions of making commercial profit off of his pond. Even if his argument held it would not have anything to say about individuals property rights, it would only deal with corporations that are providing commercial services by supplying water. Therefore my case for individuals rights to own water that belongs to their property, such as ponds, wells, pools and so on, still holds. My opponent then tries to subtantiate his argument with the claim that: " if property rights extend to water, Bob can randomly decide one day that he will not give any water to Tom." and as a result "his neighbor Tom, who himself has no access to water at all, can do nothing but die." Trying to draw the conclusion that if someone has rights to the water in their pond, then there is a possibility that their neighbor would die of dehydration if Bob decided to refuse to give Tom his water. This is an impossible scenario since it is inconceivable that Bob doesn't a) have a house where he could get water from his tap, b) is not in the range of any grocery stores or convenience stores with cheap water and c) is not in the range of any food banks or taps where he can get free water provided by the government (which doesn't mean the water water is public as the government buys the water from private distributors). In fact it would be cheaper and easier for Tom to get water from any of those other sources then for him to find a way to transport the water from Tom and somehow filter it himself. If he doesn't have the means to afford or obtain water from numerous free and affordable sources he clearly doesn't have the means to transport nor filter the water from Bob. Now EVEN IF this incredibly unlikely and almost impossible scenario were to occur, then even then it would not conflict with Bob's right to private ownership of the water.In that case Tom's rights to dignity are being violated and these rights trump Bob's property and privacy rights. My opponent makes the claim that: "I do support the idea that people are entitled to a bare minimum and if they are ever unable to obtain that, they are 100% justified in driving a tractor straight through Bob"s fence and getting the bare minimum they need for themselves" This however doesn't mean that Bob doesn't have property rights over the water, it simply says that in the incredibly unlikely scenario that someone would not be able to fulfill their biological need for water in order to survive, then Tom's rights to his dignity come before Bob's property rights over his water. This doesn't mean that Bob shouldn't have property rights over his water, only that Bob's property rights come secondary to Tom's right to fulfill his biological needs when the two come in conflict. So Bob's right to own his water is still there it is just temporarily violated in order to satisfy Tom's more important right to survive. To completely dead this argument (althought I think I've thoroughly refuted it enough) consider once again my food analogy - people have the right to own the food that they grow or buy, yet it isn't resulting in starvation across America. Therefore I have shown that individuals having the rights to own water that is a part of their property or for their personal use does not violate anyone's dignity and even if it did in some improbable scenario, it wouldn't come into conflict with private ownership of water. Combined with the fact that peoples right to own water as a part of their property and for their personal use ensures their property rights, privacy rights and safety rights are intact - it is clear that individuals private ownership of water should be allowed. My opponent then makes the following mistake by assuming that public food and water services come into conflict with private ownership of food and water, when this is simply not the case. The government simply buys the water and food from private food and water companies. Unless my opponent is of the belief that the food in food banks is grown and harvested by the government. Clearly public food and water services don't contradict private ownership of food and water, they actually complement each other since the public food and water can be bought from private companies for a cheaper price and better quality. My opponent then makes the claim that water is not cheap and readily available by making the claim: "there are likely people who face the same situation with water even though my opponent tries to deny this fact by saying water is cheap and readily available (if you can"t afford to buy groceries, spending an extra $2 a day on water a day on water bottles, or almost $700 on water, is not affordable)" No one has ever died of dehydration in America or any other developed country, water is probably the cheapest and most readily available resource that people require for life, much cheaper then shelter, food and medicine. Yet we have private water companies and private ownership of water. I don't know where you get these numbers from, because I pay around 50$ per month for water, and unless you are buying individual bottles of water from a convenience store, for 2$ each, I buy 10L jugs of filtered water for 5$. But even if you couldn't afford this, you could get the water for free regardless, so my opponents argument is unreasonable. I have shown that privatization of water will decrease the cost due to competition, profit incentive for technological innovation and efficiency, and specialized companies that are highly experienced and dedicated to this sector. I cited the study from independent researchers Katrina Kosec, and Scott Wallsten which found that "all else equal, households in counties with 100 percent private ownership would pay about 14$ per year less than households in counties with 100 public ownership.". My opponent then misreads my source: "http://papers.ssrn.com...; as being from the world bank, in the following quote: " My opponent has responded by claiming that privatization actually decreases prices, claiming that my source was biased. Ironic since he presents facts from the World Bank" when the study from the world bank was actually my second source which didn't even talk about price difference but instead about improved access to communities. Therefore my point that privatization decreases prices still stands. Privatization of water actually improves access, as I demonstrated with the World Bank Study, which my opponent believes is biased, after mistaking the two studies and misreading them. However according to the World Bank's website they have supported both private and public water supply and are only concerned with the best option. Additionally, my opponent believes that privatization will cause more isolated and rural areas to not get water supply, since he alleges there would be less profit. This is not the case, the private water supply companies will simply charge more for the water, which is the same thing that public water companies do anyways. The government charges you more for water if you live in a less accessible neighborhood. Thanks to my opponent for a great debate.