2AC

CP
PPPs can not solve alone because they focus mainly on garnering money from their ventures
empirics prove Desalination PPPs yield bureaucratic corruption and cost overruns
PPPs are unreliable in sustain a fair playing ground on water desalination - PPPs lock
communities into bad contracts and creates undesirable wealth transfer, spreading
injustice
West 12 (Michael, business columnist for the Sydney Morning Herald, 5/11/12, Spreading the pain of PPPs, http://www.smh.com.au/business/spreading-the-pain-of-
ppps-20120511-1ygnb.html, aps)
Two privatisations, neither quite as they seem. One, the Ararat Prison Project in Victoria, is being hammered as a
government disaster when it is really an example of genuine risk transfer by the state. The other, the sale of the
Sydney desalination plant, is hailed as a triumph when consumers have been locked into buying water
they don't need for the next few decades. Warragamba Dam has been literally overflowing and the people of NSW need this water
like the northern provinces of Chad require a new source of sand. It is a PPP (public private partnership), however, and
the second P requires its financial return. And so it is that the O'Farrell government has sold its plant for $2.3 billion, netting $300
million after paying down $2 billion in debt. Meanwhile in Victoria this week, work has stopped at the newest prison project and at least one of the
developers, St Hilliers, is said to be in strife and unable to pay its workers. The contractors and the unions are furious, understandably. Yet, as this is a
public-private partnership (PPP) deal too, the state has transferred the development risk to the
private consortium running the $400 million project and its private partners will have to dig
deep and see the job through. Wealth transfer PPPs are criticised, and often justly, for transferring
wealth from taxpayers to the private sector. And the private sector regularly gets the upper hand in
negotiations. But a PPP deal cuts both ways. In the case of Ararat, it appears the private sector is going to incur
substantial losses in delivering the new prison. This, after all, is a fixed-price deal with the Victorian government. And so the state is rightly
insisting that the private sector equity players, Commonwealth Bank and Bilfinger Berger, the project bankers (again CBA, Bendigo Bank, Adelaide Bank and
West LB) and the builders (St Hilliers and Hawkins Construction) fix the mess by pumping in more cash. If there is any debacle in the
sphere of public-private partnerships (PPPs), it is the failure of the state to ensure proper
disclosure of its private partners. A BusinessDay investigation last week found that the Victorian government does not reveal the
financial status of its private counterparties, not could it even demonstrate that it knew these details itself. Ironically, Victoria's most successful PPP tenderer,
the Plenary Group, was the under-bidder for the Ararat prison project. Given Plenary's track record and the fact that its development partner on the deal was
engineering giant John Holland, it seems the state selected the wrong bidder. If there was a mistake in the Ararat process, this was it. Nonetheless, the state
has a contract and Commonwealth Bank and Bilfinger Berger have deep pockets.

PPPs would be especially bad for low-income communitiesprofit hungry corporations
will treat water desalination as the next frontier acquiring capital
Kerans 13 [Water: the Next Frontier for Crisis Capitalism?, 3/02/2013, David Kerans, journalist and analyst for the Strategic Culture Foundation, which provides a
platform for exclusive analysis, research and policy comment on Eurasian and global affairs. http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2013/02/03/water-the-next-frontier-for-
crisis-capitalism.html | prs]

One need only glance at environmental news headlines over the past few weeks to appreciate
the development of a many-sided water crisis around the world. For instance, we hear that the record-breaking drought that
afflicted the US from the Spring of 2012 has not really abated, and agriculture throughout the middle of the country faces calamity already this year if precipitation does not return to
at least normal levels over the next six to nine months. (5) A hideous heat wave across most of Australia has compelled meteorologists to recalibrate their models. (6) Water
pollution has reached shocking levels in China, with 40 percent of its rivers seriously polluted, and half of those so toxic that people should not touch the water. (7) A NASA study
measuring the Amazon rainforest canopy over the last decade found that droughts in 2005 and 2010 were severe enough to inhibit regrowth, portending deep ecological
consequences if this cycle proceeds. (8) And researchers have registered an alarming retreat of the Andes glaciers in South America, by some 30-50 percent since the 1970s. They
warn that millions of people will be at catastrophic risk from water shortage if and when the glaciers disappear. (9) To the investment class, scarcity
smells of profit, of course, and the profit opportunities where water is concerned could be huge. Until
recently, the fact that states provided water to their citizens free of charge largely excluded water from the menu of investment projects. To be sure, investors took genuine interest
in water processing technologies, like desalinization. But the idea of controlling access to water itself was not on the menu. The institutional landscape
surrounding water is changing now, however, with potentially serious consequences in many areas of the globe.
First, the wonders of the information age are allowing corporate-backed research outfits to study water systems much more thoroughly than ever before. While the
advertised goal of these efforts is to help companies to use water more efficiently, they are also empowering
investment funds, giving them precise information with which to guide and pinpoint their investment projects. (10)
Second, the strain on governmental budgets over the last few years leaves public authorities ever more vulnerable to the lure of privatization of public assets, including water
treatment and delivery systems. Third, the techniques of privatization in the hands of the investment class have become more sophisticated in recent years. Investment
funds are gradually perfecting the art of maneuvering public authorities into parting with
public assets, and extracting maximum profit thereafter. (11) Fourth, the emergence of hydraulic fracturing (fracking)
technologies to extract natural gas deposits has raised the industrial value of water to prices far beyond what any
agribusiness operation or residential water utility can afford to pay. In the US, for example, fracking operations will
pay up to $3,000 per acre-foot of water, versus about $50 for farmers. (12) Where water resources are falling into private hands,
therefore, local populations should expect diversion of those resources to industrial buyers. Fifth,
the last ten years or so has seen the emergence of huge SWFs (sovereign wealth funds, excess capital in the hands of national
governments especially oil-rich nations pooled for purpose of investing beyond the nation's borders).(13) These funds prioritize not only profit, but
also the strategic imperatives of their nations, and, as it happens, some of them are very hungry for water (Saudi Arabia, for example, which has depleted
80 percent or more of its underground water in the last few decades (14)). SWFs have been reinforcing a land grab of striking proportions around the world in recent years,
especially in Africa. One third of Africans already live in water-scarce conditions. The water-intensive agriculture projects attending
the land grabbing stands to imperil many millions of people, and open the door to private
sector, for-profit water services. (15) The stakes here are certainly large. SWFs and other foreign investors have acquired an average
of 10 million hectares of land per year since 2007. (16) In just five countries (Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia, Phillipines, Sudan, and Australia), they now have 29.7 million
hectares of land, which is 20 percent more territory than the entire United Kingdom. (17) The list of investors acquiring or preparing to acquire water-related assets is long, and it is
imposing: big banks, SWFs, multinational corporations, targeted hedge funds, tycoons, and pension funds all figure in
large numbers... (18) The investment class is quick to assert that the incipient water crisis is in part a reflection of
water's isolation from market forces. Water, they argue, has been undervalued, and so investment in water has
lagged. Investment, so the story goes, will alleviate the crisis. While this argument is not empty, the above-mentioned
categories of investors prioritize profit, not social good. They are pressing for the maximum
extension of property rights to water, with no regard for the possible consequences of this. It is most
unfortunate, therefore, that adequate national and international regulatory controls over water resources do not exist almost anywhere in the world. Review of relevant controls is
underway in many countries, prompted by the recent surge in land grabbing. (19) But of course it would be rash to assume that the public interest
will generally win out in the struggle to define and regulate rights to land and water. It will be well worth watching how this picture
takes shape over the next few years.


Perm

And perm do the counter plan its literally the same as the aff. PPPs still include the USFG
thats our Sellers Evidence

And perm do the plan then their CP. Federal government oversight is what is necessary to
provide sustainable water to rural locations desalinization is not one size fits all thats our
Craig Evidence Vanderwarker.

DA

Their sceneriao is Non Unique Obama administration increasing spending now
The Heritage 4/14/2014 [President Obamas 2015 Budget: How Government Expansion Will Limit Opportunity, Slow
Economic Growth, and Erode Financial and National Security. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/04/president-obamas-
2015-budget-how-government-expansion-will-limit-opportunity-slow-economic-growth-and-erode-financial-and-national-security]

President Obamas budget would funnel more taxpayer dollars toward inappropriate federal spending fraught with special-interest carve-outs:
universal preschool programs, a Washington-centric approach to local transportation and infrastructure needs, and
manufacturing innovation centers and energy efficiency subsidies to direct innovation in America. With nearly $56 billion in
additional discretionary spending on expensive big-government programs, President Obama encourages Congress
to violate the discretionary spending caps yet again. Although the President claims that his budget does not violate the spending caps, that claim is largely an
exercise in rhetoric: It depends on the definition of spending cap. Does President Obamas budget propose to spend more than the current Budget Control Act caps allow? If the answer is yes, then
clearly, the Presidents budget would violate the caps. While President Obama focuses on expanding inappropriate and wasteful domestic federal spending, he is falling short as commander in chief of the
armed forces. As Michaela Dodge, Heritage defense and strategic policy analyst, commented: The Presidents defense budget yet again fails to adequately prepare our men and women in uniform to
effectively fight current and future wars. The President chose to ignore structural reforms the Pentagon needs, including military health care, retirement, and acquisition system reforms. Thus, the
President abrogated his responsibility to provide for the common defense and be a good steward of taxpayers dollars.[2] Obamas budget would have the following effects in numbers: Spending
would go from $3.5 trillion in 2013 to nearly $6 trillion in 2024. Debt borrowed in credit markets (public debt)
would grow from $12 trillion in 2013 to $19 trillion in 2024. The national debt, including debt owed to
government agencies, would grow from $17.3 trillion today to $25 trillion in 2024. The Presidents budget
includes about $1 trillion in new spending, partly offset by other spending cuts, and about $1.2 trillion in tax
increases.


No link The plan can be funded entirely through budget reallocation, no new spending is required, Thats
National Academy And the aff is tiny compared to current entitlement spending
Boccia 2/13 - an economist, is Assistant Director for the Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. She holds a
masters degree in Economics at George Mason University (Romina, How the United States High Debt Will Weaken the Economy and Hurt
Americans, Heritage Foundation, 2/13/13, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/how-the-united-states-high-debt-will-weaken-the-
economy-and-hurt-americans)

While tax revenues are expected to return to their historically average levels of 18.5 percent, total federal spending driven in large part
by entitlements is projected to hover well above the historical level of about 20 percent in the near term.[6] In a
mere 25 years, federal spending under current policy is projected to consume as much as 36 percent of GDP.[7]
Americas entitlement programs, by definition, span generations. It is vital in assessing their sustainability to
consider their long-term implications. Over the 75-year long-term horizon, the combined unfunded obligations arising
from promised benefits in Medicare and Social Security alone exceed $48 trillion.[8] The federal unfunded
obligations arising from Medicaid and even from veterans benefits are unknown, but would likely add many
trillions more to this figure. The International Monetary Fund,[9] the intergovernmental organization of 188 member states that seeks to
ensure the stability of the international monetary system, warned that the U.S. lacks a credible strategy to stabilize its mounting
public debt.[10] Such a strategy must begin with putting entitlement spending on a more sustainable long-term path. The sooner policymakers act,
the less severe and the more gradual the necessary policy changes can be. Policymakers should not delay, since the economic consequences, particularly
the impact on individuals in or planning retirement, would be pronounced and severe.
And even if they do prove a link we turn their link - Empirics prove spending is key to jobs and theres no
impact to debt
Harvey 13 Professor of Economics at Texas Christian University areas of specialty are international economics (particularly exchange rates),
macroeconomics, history of economics, and contemporary schools of thought(John, The Coming Recession: How Fiscal Responsibility is Economic
Suicide, Forbes, 1/30/13, http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2013/01/30/the-coming-recession/)

Todays employment data showed, once again, very little change (BLS News Release). The administration has been announcing
for some time that the recovery is well underway, but thats hard to justify. Its a bit like saying that a patient is on the right track because their fever has
dropped from 105 degrees to 104. While, strictly speaking, its true, the situation continues to be so serious that a relapse could easily occur. To be fair,
there are positive signs in the private sector. The single most important variable to watch there is investment. By that I do
not mean financial, but physical: mostly firms adding to productive capacity and inventory. It is the primary driver of
private-sector economic activity and, after a brief reversal at the end of 2010 and beginning of 2011, it has steadily increased. But, the rate at which it has
done so has decreased substantially, as these data confirm (real gross private domestic investment, numbers are averages of quarterly changes calculated
at annual rates; data from Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis):The moderation has been substantial and, not coincidentally, the
biggest deceleration occurred over the period during which the Republican and Democratic calls for fiscal
responsibility have been the greatest. Those furloughed government employees used to spend their checks on
goods and services sold in the private sector. Where does the latter make up for those lost profits? They dont.
We are committing a critical error in cutting federal expenditures right now. There is no reason why unemployment should
not be closer to 6% than 8%. But, government debt does not hinder growth!. I am sure I do not need to review the
controversy that now surrounds the research supporting that view (Reinhart and Rogoff). Suffice it to say that studies
correcting for the spreadsheet errors, omissions, etc., suggest that this is decidedly untrue. In addition, readers of
this blog know that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a nation to be forced to default in debt denominated in its own currency
(e.g., It Is Impossible For The US To Default). Unless we adopt the euro, the US is NOT about to become another Greece.
Austerity plans are well-named; their primary effect is austerity.


Deficits are good and sustainable, theyre key to increase employment during an economic recovery.
Disregard their fear mongering claims
Krugman 3/10 professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University, received his B.A. from Yale University and Ph.D.
from MIT (Paul, Dwindling Deficit Disorder, NYT, 3/10/13, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/11/opinion/krugman-dwindling-deficit-
disorder.html)//js

Right now, a sustainable deficit would be around $460 billion. The actual deficit is bigger than that. But according to new estimates by the
budget office, half of our current deficit reflects the effects of a still-depressed economy. The cyclically
adjusted deficit what the deficit would be if we were near full employment is only about $423 billion,
which puts it in the sustainable range; next year the budget office expects that number to fall to just $172 billion. And thats why budget
office projections show the nations debt position more or less stable over the next decade. So we do not, repeat do not, face any kind of
deficit crisis either now or for years to come. There are, of course, longer-term fiscal issues: rising health costs and an aging population
will put the budget under growing pressure over the course of the 2020s. But I have yet to see any coherent explanation of why these longer-run concerns
should determine budget policy right now. And as I said, given the needs of the economy, the deficit is currently too small. Put
it this way: Smart fiscal policy involves having the government spend when the private sector wont, supporting
the economy when it is weak and reducing debt only when it is strong. Yet the cyclically adjusted deficit as a share of G.D.P. is
currently about what it was in 2006, at the height of the housing boom and it is headed down. Yes, well want to reduce deficits once the
economy recovers, and there are gratifying signs that a solid recovery is finally under way. But unemployment,
especially long-term unemployment, is still unacceptably high. The boom, not the slump, is the time for austerity, John
Maynard Keynes declared many years ago. He was right all you have to do is look at Europe to see the disastrous effects of austerity on weak
economies. And this is still nothing like a boom. Now, Im aware that the facts about our dwindling deficit are unwelcome in
many quarters. Fiscal fearmongering is a major industry inside the Beltway, especially among those looking for
excuses to do what they really want, namely dismantle Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. People whose
careers are heavily invested in the deficit-scold industry dont want to let evidence undermine their scare
tactics; as the deficit dwindles, were sure to encounter a blizzard of bogus numbers purporting to show that were still in some kind of fiscal crisis. But
we arent. The deficit is indeed dwindling, and the case for making the deficit a central policy concern, which was never very
strong given low borrowing costs and high unemployment, has now completely vanished.



Besides there is No Impact Royals wrong Economic decline does not motivate countries to go to war.
Barnett 09-Thomas P.M. Barnett, senior managing director of Enterra Solutions LLC, The New Rules: Security Remains Stable Amid
Financial Crisis, 8/25/2009, http://www.aprodex.com/the-new-rules--security-remains-stable-amid-financial-crisis-398-bl.aspx

When the global financial crisis struck roughly a year ago, scary predictions was exacerbated of, and commentary
regarding, ensuing conflict and wars -- a rerun of the Great Depression leading to world war, as it were. Now, as global economic
news brightens and recovery -- surprisingly led by China and emerging markets -- is the talk of the day, it's interesting to look back over the past year and
realize how globalization's first truly worldwide recession has had virtually no impact whatsoever
on the international security landscape. None of the more than three-dozen ongoing conflicts listed by
GlobalSecurity.org can be clearly attributed to the global recession. Indeed, the last new entry (civil conflict between Hamas and Fatah
in the Palestine) predates the economic crisis by a year, and three quarters of the chronic struggles began in the last century. Ditto for the 15 low-
intensity conflicts listed by Wikipedia (where the latest entry is the Mexican "drug war" begun in 2006). Certainly, the Russia-Georgia conflict last
August was specifically timed, but by most accounts the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics was the most important external trigger (followed by
the U.S. presidential campaign) for that sudden spike in an almost two-decade long struggle between Georgia and its two breakaway regions. Looking
over the various databases, then, we see a most familiar picture: the usual mix of civil conflicts, insurgencies, and liberation-themed terrorist
movements. Besides the recent Russia-Georgia dust-up, the only two potential state-on-state wars (North v. South Korea, Israel v. Iran) are both tied to
one side acquiring a nuclear weapon capacity -- a process wholly unrelated to global economic trends. And with the United States effectively
tied down by its two ongoing major interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan-bleeding-into-Pakistan), our involvement
elsewhere around the planet has been quite modest, both leading up to and following the onset of the economic crisis: e.g., the usual
counter-drug efforts in Latin America, the usual military exercises with allies across Asia, mixing it up with pirates off Somalia's coast). Everywhere else
we find serious instability we pretty much let it burn, occasionally pressing the Chinese -- unsuccessfully -- to do something. Our new Africa Command,
for example, hasn't led us to anything beyond advising and training local forces. So, to sum up: * No significant uptick in mass violence or unrest
(remember the smattering of urban riots last year in places like Greece, Moldova and Latvia?); * The usual frequency maintained in civil conflicts (in all
the usual places); * Not a single state-on-state war directly caused (and no great-power-on-great-power crises even triggered); * No great improvement
or disruption in great-power cooperation regarding the emergence of new nuclear powers (despite all that diplomacy); * A modest scaling back of
international policing efforts by the system's acknowledged Leviathan power (inevitable given the strain); and * No serious efforts by any rising great
power to challenge that Leviathan or supplant its role. (The worst things we can cite are Moscow's occasional deployments of strategic assets to the
Western hemisphere and its weak efforts to outbid the United States on basing rights in Kyrgyzstan; but the best include China and India stepping up
their aid and investments in Afghanistan and Iraq.) Sure, we've finally seen global defense spending surpass the previous world
record set in the late 1980s, but even that's likely to wane given the stress on public budgets created by all this
unprecedented "stimulus" spending. If anything, the friendly cooperation on such stimulus packaging was the
most notable great-power dynamic caused by the crisis. Can we say that the world has suffered a distinct shift to political radicalism
as a result of the economic crisis? Indeed, no. The world's major economies remain governed by center-left or center-right
political factions that remain decidedly friendly to both markets and trade. In the short run, there were attempts
across the board to insulate economies from immediate damage (in effect, as much protectionism as allowed under current trade
rules), but there was no great slide into "trade wars." Instead, the World Trade Organization is functioning as it was
designed to function, and regional efforts toward free-trade agreements have not slowed. Can we say Islamic radicalism
was inflamed by the economic crisis? If it was, that shift was clearly overwhelmed by the Islamic world's growing disenchantment with the brutality
displayed by violent extremist groups such as al-Qaida. And looking forward, austere economic times are just as likely to breed connecting
evangelicalism as disconnecting fundamentalism. At the end of the day, the economic crisis did not prove to be sufficiently frightening to provoke major
economies into establishing global regulatory schemes, even as it has sparked a spirited -- and much needed, as I argued last week -- discussion of the
continuing viability of the U.S. dollar as the world's primary reserve currency. Naturally, plenty of experts and pundits have attached great significance to
this debate, seeing in it the beginning of "economic warfare" and the like between "fading" America and "rising" China. And yet, in a world of
globally integrated production chains and interconnected financial markets, such "diverging interests" hardly
constitute signposts for wars up ahead. Frankly, I don't welcome a world in which America's fiscal profligacy goes undisciplined, so bring it
on -- please! Add it all up and it's fair to say that this global financial crisis has proven the great resilience of America's post-
World War II international liberal trade order.



And Case outweighs
A. Water Injustice You should prioritize water access thats our Verchick evidence. Policy
maker should value moral decisions over hyperbolic catastrophic impacts like the DA

B. Water Wars Water scarcity acts as a threat multiplier and is more likely to cause
adventurous behavior than economic decline. Central Asian war is more likely to escalate and
cause extinction than economic decline b/c it draws in nuclear superpowers