Water - Market-Based or Necessity?

So I stumbled upon this fascinating debate on The Economist about the market price of water. In the so-called "era of sustainability", water shortages are caused by a growing population facing what was always viewed as a renewable resource becoming scarce.

One side argues that water must be priced so that "customers served under identical cost conditions should be charged equal prices" and that water "should be supplied and priced in such a way that the price for each class of service equals the marginal cost of serving that class." This initial argument comes off as oligarchical, but immediately transfers itself into an interesting take on a way to solve global water problems. The proposition then argues that if we are ever to solve water's scarcity issues, we must realize that "market pricing is central to enabling the forces that allow the efficient allocation of the resource." It's a fairly theoretical case that doesn't have a lot of basis in anything other than empirics, simply because there isn't a historical instance of water being priced at market value outside of the unique situation of Arab desalination efforts.

The opposition, rather than moving into pragmatics that would seem like a sound response, takes a borderline-Marxist opening statement, arguing that there is "no reliable 'market price' in a volatile world driven by greed and profits." This off-putting statement transfers into an argument made that we must "respect the water cycle" and limit our own use. We merely must put in our own limits based on availability.

Though I think the proposition's point is fairly ridiculous, the actual skill with which the opposition sought to defeat it was lackluster. I personally voted yes, simply because the argument in favor of sustainability and environmental protection was actually argued better by the market-force side of the affair. The opposition offered no mechanism by which we might regulate our water uses other than personal judgment, which tends to be at best arbitrary. I was left convinced that regardless of necessity, water was something that must be treated as a commodity if we are to actually conserve it.

I personally would have made an argument akin to the market argument of permits for hunting and fishing. In a completely unfettered market, everyone has access to fish. This causes problems such as overfishing, a chronic problem facing fishing industries across the world. As a result, many nations, the US included, instituted hunting and fishing permits. This cut some out of the market, but in the long run kept fish alive long enough to allow the populations to reproduce. This sort of permit system almost fulfills the opposition's aim of regulating the water market through our own personal judgment. It maximizes marginal utility and ensures the longevity of a scarce resource.

The level of controversy surrounding this topic was the reason I chose it. I hope to get some comments and opinions about the articles.