Water scarcity is a major problem encountered in many regions of the world. Texas, like many other regions, lacks the amount of water needed to meet the water needs of its residents. Many Texans help conserve water by reducing the amount typically consumed in activities such as irrigation 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 agency and a non-public institution (Baer 144). Proponents of water privatization would argue that water privatization is a good solution to ending the water shortage in Texas, from a business perspective. Baer mentions: “Water privatization proved to be an unpopular policy in much of the developing world when it failed to deliver on its promises to improve access to water” (Baer 145). Although water privatization can be beneficial for the consumer, water privatization has a negative side. Texans need to look beyond the benefits usually cited by its proponents and examine the downsides that water privatization brings to the state. Ultimately, what private companies promise is nothing more than words to please the ears. Water privatization allows these companies to develop their own set of rules, meaning government involvement is limited. Private companies decide how much they want to recoup from their investment. It is therefore the company which sets the price that the consumer must pay for water. Texas should not privatize water because privatization leads to corruption, increased rates, and decreased access to clean water. the poor. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Water privatization, in many cases, leads to corruption. As the government has little involvement in the activities of companies, they tend to abuse their power. Baer mentions 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 committing acts of corruption. According to Susan Pronk, editor for Upside Down World News, “in Bolivia, SEMAPA has moved from one crisis to another. Since the company returned to public ownership after the 2000 water war, two general managers have been fired for corruption” (Pronk 6). Parts of Latin America have been victims of corruption which has led to the unpopularity of water privatization. Countries like Bolivia, which have high levels of poverty, are driven by corruption because people have to do something to bring this breed to the table. Baer mentions that “many state-owned enterprises in Latin America were buckling under the weight of corruption, inefficiency, and underfunding of public services, which had dried up since the 1980s” (Baer 144). Even though Texas is a strong state, there is no way to stop corruption from occurring. Private water companies view water only as a profitable commodity, seeking nothing more than citizens' money. According to Robert Glennon, Morris K. Udall Professor of Law and Public Policy at Rogers College and member of the Water Resources Research Center at the University ofArizona, “multinational corporations [exploit] the dire economic situation of the poor. Corrupt political regimes, often bribed by these companies, pay no attention to the complaints of citizens” (Glennon 1890). Even though the companies receive a large amount of money, the money goes into their pockets rather than keeping the water lines safe for their customers. Glennon mentions that “if corporations own the water, they may distribute it unequally, favoring the wealthy who can pay more and the politically powerful who can help in other ways” (Glennon1893). Water privatization leads to an increase in prices. According to Nicole Fabricant and Kathryn Hicks, editors of the Radical History Review for Duke University Press, “the sudden and dramatic rise in prices of this essential resource… sparked intense political organizing.” Popular mobilizations in Cochabamba and its surroundings began in early November 1999” (Fabricant 135). Private companies invest millions to buy out the public sector and keep its facilities in good condition. However, the private company must recoup the money invested in the purchased water plant, and the only way to do this is to increase the price of water. If the private company owns the water, it can decide the price for the consumer. Glennon explains the enormous costs involved: “a subsidiary of the Bechtel Corporation raised water rates by 35 percent” (Glennon 1890). Private companies can provide clean water, but they tend to fail at this task. The reason is obvious, the cost of materials needed to update water bodies is high. Glennon notes that “it takes a corporation to provide the enormous amount of capital needed to modernize the outdated and dilapidated infrastructure of the municipal water and sewer systems. According to a federal estimate, it will take $1 trillion over the next 20 years to replace aging sewer pipes and treatment plans” (Glennon, 1892). Of course, this is the reason why private companies increase their prices and prefer to serve both the rich and the poor. politicians. Water privatization will surely affect the ability of low-income Texas families to afford water services. Many Texans can't afford to pay more for their water services because oil companies have laid off many of their workers. The cleaner the water, the more expensive the water becomes to the company and the consumer, this is the reason why sometimes companies fail to provide clean water. Glennon says, “When it comes to water quality, private companies are often reluctant to undertake costly monitoring programs for low levels of pollutants. Businesses fear, often rightly, that it will be difficult to recover these costs by raising prices” (Glennon 1894). Third, water privatization leads the poor to no longer have access to drinking water. According to University of Chicago Press contributor Sebastian Galiani et al, privatization could be achieved at the cost of excluding the poor from access to water services (Galiani et al 84). Since prices have increased, poor communities can no longer afford drinking water. The increase in prices leads these families to look for water elsewhere, such as rivers and lagoons. Water privatization could also deprive the poor of water or prevent them from receiving adequate services from their communities. Baer says: “Rate hikes, poor water quality, cutoffs for poor customers and lack of transparency have plagued many.