Presented at the 13 th Annual UC Irvine Undergraduate Research Symposium By Allan Taing

1. The Effectiveness of a Human Right to Water Paradigm: A Cross-National Comparison of Nonpayment Policies Presented at the 13th Annual UC Irvine Undergraduate Research Symposium By Allan Taing May 13, 2006

2. Introduction • Water is essential for life and health • Lack of access to safe water is a cause of serious illnesses which kill over 2 million people every year. (WHO, 2003). • People should have universal access to water, regardless of wealth. • How do we translate this ideal into practice? • Some countries have attempted to solve this problem by adopting policies that treat water as a human right and forbid disconnection for nonpayment.

3. Research objective & question • Objective: What is the effectiveness of policies that treat water as a human right and restrict disconnections? • Research question: Which policy, of treating water as a human right or more traditionally as an economic good, better promotes justice and equity in developing countries?

4. Literature Review • There is disagreement among researchers as to the effectiveness of a human right to water paradigm, based on what researchers emphasize in their methodology (principles, outcomes, et cetera). • Some researchers support valuing water as a human right, based on philosophical, economic, and social frameworks. (Birdsall & Nellis, 2003; Gleick, 1999; Derman et al., 2005; Scanlon et al., 2004; Brenes et al., 2002). • Other researchers find evidence to support the pricing of water as an economic good, on economic, social, and medical grounds. (Galiani et al., 2005; Alcazar et al., 2002; Gadgil & Derby, 2003; Lee & Floris, 2003; Foster et al., 2000). • Simpson (2004) finds that people who are unconnected to water systems, the poorest of the poor in rural areas, actually pay for water at unsubsidized rates. The poor in Peru, Kenya and Dominican Republic pay from 10 to 120 times more for water than people who are connected.

5. Methods • Case study approach • Case study sites • United States • Mexico • United Kingdom • Elements to consider when comparing sites: • Laws and regulations regarding nonpayment • Billing policies of water service providers • Nonpayment/disconnection rates; other statistics

6. Case study #1 – United States • Water is treated as an economic good and not as a human right. • Sites: Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) and Santa Margarita Water District (SMWD). • Both have detailed, strict billing procedures, and policies to deal with delinquency and disconnection. • They do not have programs for low-income residents and do not consider inability to pay as a valid reason for nonpayment.

7. Case study #1 – U.S. (continued) SMWD Disconnection rates: ≈12/week from over 45,000 household accounts (< 1%). From 2002 to 2005, the average annual number of accounts disconnected was 626. IRWD Disconnection rates: ≈15/week for over 77,000 household accounts (< 1%). The figure is so low that they don’t track the data closely “because it isn’t a problem.”

8. Case study #2 – Mexico • Water is treated as a human right. • Article 121 of the General Health Law for Mexico prevents water service providers from disconnecting households for nonpayment.

9. Case study #2 – Mexico (continued) • The graph shows the cumulative cost recovery for 395 water service providers in Mexico that serve ≈ 45.3 million residents. • Compared to the U.S. sites, the lack of consequence for nonpayment may contribute to the high rate of nonpayment. • Poverty could also be a factor.

10. Case study #3 – United Kingdom • Water is treated as a human right. • The Water Industry Act of 1999 prohibits water service providers from disconnecting water supplies to residential households for nonpayment. • Since then nonpayment rates have increased while the success of cost recovery has decreased. • While poverty could be argued as a cause for the high nonpayment rate in Mexico, the same cannot account for the United Kingdom. • Some people in the U.K. take advantage of the system.

11. Case study #3 – U.K. (continued) NOTE: Orange dots represent actual figures; the black line is the regression line showing the gradual increase trend

12. Conclusions • Adopting a policy that prohibits disconnection for nonpayment of water bills may encourage some to abuse the system and avoid payment, even when financially able to do so. • While the hearts of these proponents are in the right place, forbidding disconnection for nonpayment in the name of water as a human right may harm poor people. • Treating water as an economic good may actually be better for promoting justice and equity than treating it as a human right.

13. Conclusions (continued) • Water utilities should operate in a way that promotes full cost recovery, to generate the revenues necessary to improve access to clean and safe water for the poor and prevent water waste (which impacts the environment). • Thus to promote full cost recovery, it is not advisable to adopt policies that treat water as a human right by forbidding disconnection for nonpayment. • Advocating water as an economic good and making everyone pay for water is not meant to place an unreasonable burden on the poor. Condoning nonpayment is often harmful to the poor. • When they buy water from water trucks, the poor pay much more than people connected to water systems and get tap water. • The water poor people receive may be of inferior quality than tap • Inadequate storage makes poor people more susceptible to water-related diseases. • Increasing block rates can be designed with very cheap first blocks to make water affordable to poor people.

14. Acknowledgements • Dr. Jean-Daniel Saphores • Mentor/Thesis Advisor, Professor in Planning, Policy and Design • Dr. Valerie Jenness • Social Ecology Honors Program Advisor, Professor in Criminology, Law and Society • UCI Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (UROP) • Funding source • Others • Irvine Ranch Water District, Santa Margarita Water District, U.K. Office of Water Service, UCI Libraries, City of Santa Ana, SE Honors Program Cohort

15. Contact information • For more information, feel free to contact me: Allan Taing Undergraduate, UC Irvine School of Social Ecology Dept. of Environmental Health, Science and Policy E-mail: allan84@juno.com