Water should not be privatized

My opponent has taken the stance that water should not be privatized, so my argument will be quite short. If I can show an instance where water should be privatized then I have falsified his claim. People have the right to own land. Some people own land that have bodies of water in them. Therefore people have private ownership of the body of water that belong to this land. Now take for example Bob, who owns a small farm which contains a pond. If you are against private ownership of water, then I should have the right to enter Bob's farm and go to his pond and have a drink of his water if I am thirsty. I should also be allowed to go into someone's swimming pool and go for a swim otherwise they would be violating my rights. This is a clear violation of Bob's property rights so it stands that in this case Bob should have private ownership of the pond. I will now refute some of my opponents arguments: "P1: The right to dignity is inviolable" My opponent has claimed that people have a right to dignity. I agree with this this claim. I also agree with my opponents definition of dignity: the idea that people, by virtue of their humanity, have an innate right to be valued, respected, and receive ethical treatment from others P2: Dignity requires a bare minimum standard of living I agree with my opponents definition of bare minimum standard of living and I agree with P2. 1) Shelter"every person needs shelter from the environment, whether this is through clothes, a tent, house, etc. 2) Resources that satisfy biological needs"this includes things like clean air, water, and food because no one can live without these P3: Privatization of water violates dignity P3 does not follow from the definitions of dignity in P2. Dignity requires a bare minimum standard of living, as you have asserted, so people are only entitled to a bare minimum of water. The amount that they need to survive. You cannot draw the conclusion that just because people a bare minimum amount of water needed to survive should be made publicly available for those who need it, that all water should be made publicly available to everyone. A similar argument could be made for the privatization of food to conclude that all food should be made publicly available, since food is require for biological needs. So everyone should be entitled to take whatever food they like. This would lead to disastrous effects, so we cannot accept this line of reasoning. A bare minimum of water and food (and shelter) is already granted as a public right, that is why there are food banks that hand out water aswell as water fountains. There already is currently privatization of water, so clearly privatization of water doesn't violate dignity, thus P3 is false. "By privatizing water, water becomes a commodity just like any other: a resource that can be bought and sold. As a result, water will inevitably become something that people can either afford or cannot afford and those who cannot afford it will lose access to it." This doesn't follow, there is a lot of water that is currently privatized and people still have access to it. Actually it improves access to water since the average person doesn't have the means to go to far away bodies of water, nor filter water on their own. In conclusion, I have demonstrated a specific instance in which private ownership of water is necessary, falsifying Pros claim that water should not be privatized. Additionally, my opponent has failed to prove their claim that any amount of private ownership would violate a persons rights to dignity