water be considered a public good and not be privatized

My opponent centers his argument on the fact that water doesn't come free and the fact that privatization does not pose any economic difference from public ownership. In this round, i will try to prove my opponents argument wrong and try to defend my own case. "For water to be fit for human consumption, it must be purified to remove all the toxins and parasitic creatures that inhabit it. This purification process is not free of charge, and thus we do not get our water free of charge whether we get our water from the government or from a private business" I agree with the term that water does not come free due to purification; however, my opponent failed to realize that the money we pay to the government does not go to the governments pocket rather it is used to help the public in every way possible. If water were to be privatized, we would have to pay about three times as much money as we pay the government and the money we pay go straight to the shareholder and not for the benefit of the public. The fact that this water needs to be purified, adds more money to the bill that we have to pay these companies thus making the bills inconstant to the water usage of the individuals. "Murray Dobbin. 'COUNTERPOINT: Water: right or commodity? " The National Post. February 8, 2001 - "In February, 1999, the World Bank told the mayor of Cochabamba that if the city did not privatize its water system it would not receive another cent of financial assistance for local water development. Then, after judging the resulting Misicuni privatization project financially unviable, the Bank proceeded to back it anyway, insisting on water pricing that would cover the excessive costs, and guarantee that Bechtel would earn a 16% profit. Water prices for many locals tripled, meaning some people were paying 20% of their income for water. In a scenario impossible to parody, people not even hooked up to the system were told that they would have to put metres on their private wells and pay Bechtel for the water they drew. (. http://www.mindfully.org...) (. http://news.bbc.co.uk...) Contention two: private companies will continuously better purifying technology "Private companies are motivated by economic profit. One of the best ways to ensure economic profit is to make one's product better than the competition's. " This might be true but the money used to improve these technologies still comes from the public. By advancing there technologies, they are moving forward but they also need the budget needed for the advancement; budget that comes from the high bills payed by the consumers. Not to mention the fact that there is no need to improve the purifying technology used by the government, it has served the United States citizen for quite a while and is very efficient if you ask me. Contention three: water is affordable My opponent provides me with a case in which privatization of water resolved to the corruption of the company. My opponent; however, failed to provide me with a scenario in which the privatization of water showed a positive outcome. CX 1. if water were to be privatized, will its price be low enough for all citizen of the United States to afford? 2. where does the income made by companies go (please give me a source)? 3. Will the bills payed by the public be consistent with their water usage? (please cite) 4. what are the environmental benefits of the privatization of water (please cite) Thank you.