Some people think that the government should strictly control the supply of fresh water, as it is a limited resource, while others it should not be regulated. Discuss both sides and give your opinion.

There is an ongoing debate about whether the supply of fresh

water

should be highly regulated or should not be bounded by any

rules

.

While

laws may be perceived as attempts to limit freedom, I believe that corresponding regulations should be as detailed as possible to help avoid potential conflicts where access to

water

can be used as a weapon. On the one hand, most

rules

may cause an impact on already-formed habits, and breaking them may face backlashes. Throughout history, previous generations came up with many traditions related to rivers and lakes.

Therefore

, even very justifiable restrictions may not be faced friendly.

For example

, in the Carpathian mountains locals were quite furious about losing legal ways to cut trees

due to

the growing population and frequent floodings. In my opinion, negative feelings should be taken into account in communications from officials, but they should not stop responding to the changing environment.

On the other hand

, detailed

rules

about freshwater control can prevent upcoming international conflicts.

For example

, China threatened India by redirecting the river which is a

water

supply for hundreds of millions of people. In case of well-defined consequences for

such

actions, the motivation to use

such

a cruel method will be much lower. In my opinion, the following decades have many hazards related to

water

wars and global warming, and well-development laws can prevent or reduce many of them.

To conclude

,

although

strict

water

control may cause the feeling of lost freedom for some people, it is one of the most important priorities in the world with climate changes and more hostile relationships between countries. Defined

rules

bring certainty and reduce miscommunication.