Making rainwater harvesting illegal (and thus forcing people to overpay a monopolized water system) is arguably a violation of human rights. It is a prohibition of what you are 'free to do for yourself', that forces people to pay for something they need to survive (and could otherwise get for free).
However, I agree on the haziness around the issue. Mandating that everyone receives X amount of drinkable water may be expensive to implement, economically unsustainable and create perverse incentives.
But the right to use water that lands on your property? Never heard of "rain water rights". Unless it was previously declared somehow, forcing you not to collect rainwater would highlight the need for the right to bear arms. I would like to know more about how that came about in those cases.
I believe are some serious injustices around water privatization in South America, however.
Of course you're correct about the way the word "right" is generally used in philosophy and ethics. But that's absolutely not the definition being used here.
The Nestle CEO was using the correct definition of "human right". Now people are going to attribute their inaccurate definition of the term to his statements, and condemn him for it (like the parent comment did).
It's all semantics.
Now how about we start using the word correctly so we can avoid this? Or how about the liberals condemning him try being intellectually honest for once, and stop deliberately and knowingly misinterpreting what he said just because it's convenient for the argument they're trying to make?
What they do to women with their formula in developing nations is a crime. They miseducate them by telling them that Formula is better, give them free samples until their milk dries up, and then start charging them.
It's deplorable behavior, and as a result I refuse to buy any Nestle product.
Saying water isn't a human right is different than saying not everyone should have access to water.
I generally agree that water isn't a right. I think it's a misuse of the word "right" and a misapplication of the concept of a "right".
Rights define what you're free to do for yourself, and the various ways in which those freedoms can't be infringed upon by others. For example, you have a right to free speech and people can't infringe on that. You have a right to not be tortured and people can't infringe on that. In the US, if the government is going to take your property or jail you as punishment for a crime, you have a right to a fair trial first before they can do that to you.
There's a distinction between that and things like water and healthcare. One is a list of rights, and the other is a list of things people generally need to live a happy and healthy life. If we're going to dilute the definition of "right" down to that degree, why don't we just throw in housing and free trips for vacation and a loving partner while we're at it?
South Africa has housing as a right in their constitution. They also have 200,000 homeless people. So who's infringing on their rights? Every citizen of South Africa?
The UN General Assembly declared water a human right. The world also has close to a billion people who don't have access to clean drinking water. Who's infringing on their rights? Are you?
Rights aren't about what resources (time, money, commodities, services, etc) you're free to take from others. When you start defining rights that way, rights all start contradicting each other. What about a doctor's freedom to choose who they perform surgery on? What about your freedom to live a life not solely dedicated to plumbing in Gabon?