One of History’s Great Atrocities: The Corporate Theft of the Public’s Natural Right to Water

The Growing Debate on who will Control the World’s Water Supply

The current 1.1 billion people worldwide without access to potable water only opens one of the smaller windows on the injustices and the multiple casualties being wrought by private water-related industries. In fact, many are clueless to the magnitude of the victims — present and projected — of the growing water crisis as well as to the inhumane implications of the role of the private sector in regards to treating water as a commodity that can be owned and sold for profit. As of now, 2.6 billion people are at high risk for not having access to potable and an additional 1.8 million children die each year from water-related diseases.

In the mix of chaos, despair, and confusion, which most affects the poorer elements of society, it is important to note the private corporations’ role, which some critics have identified as being among the major culprits in causing the crisis. Within recent decades, water privatization firms such as Suez, Vivendi, and RWE have bought control of a number of communities’ municipal water services, and then drastically increased the price of water; with some of them failing to effectively purify the water resources they had come to monopolize.

An Innate Right

The heightened trend towards water privatization has gone almost undetected by the general public for well over a decade, despite the huge ramifications it is having on many lives. Public water advocates argue that it is a necessity of life and no individual or corporation has the right to seize ownership and place a value on the resource. Water is for life, not for profit. Author Vadana Shiva resolutely states that “water is a commons because it is the basis of all life. Water rights are natural rights and thus usufructuary rights, meaning that water can be used, but not owned.” Water privatization has caused considerable strife around the world, specifically in less industrialized nations. Major water companies, with the help of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), continue to divest communities of their natural right to water, thus undermining the essence of democracy as well as contributing to an insidious form of global deprivation.

Water is a Means to Life

At a 2 percent water loss from the body, one is thirsty. At 5 percent, one is dehydrated, and at 11 percent, one is immobilized. It is estimated by WaterAid that in less industrialized countries, one child dies every 15 seconds from the lack of water. This disturbing figure has the potential to grow into an even harsher reality with much greater numbers at risk in the next 20 years, given that the global water supply is predicted to be depleted by 30 - 40 percent.

In addition to the necessity of water for survival, water acts as a principle force behind some of the most important socio-cultural, religious, and political aspects of society. Since the establishment of waterways as a major means of international transportation in the 15th century, water has also been a facilitator in communication as well as a mainstream factor in the exchange of goods and services. Water has both brought nations together and diversified economies for centuries. During this period, water has been the primary, most vital vehicle for communication among countries, societies and cultures. Thus it is reasonable to say that water has been the fundamental, initiating actor in technological innovation, cultural awareness and economic diversification.

Water also plays a central role in religious practices. For many faiths, water represents purity and rebirth. In Christianity, water is used for baptism, a sacred practice in which the individual is immersed in water to symbolize the rebirth as a follower of Christ. In Islam, the five daily prayers of the latter cannot be performed without the cleansing of body parts in water. In fact, water is a sufficiently sacred substance as it is mentioned in the New International Version of the Bible 442 times.

Water also has shaped the economic prosperity of many nations. If a nation has a coastline, there is abundant opportunity for viable trade and markets — as water can introduce a variety of new foods, expand agricultural production, and increase the prospects of tourism. Furthermore, water acts as a strategic resource for countries because it allows for geopolitical control over adjoining regions, as well as has the potential to enhance and make visible a state’s infrastructure. Due to the political connectivity of water, this scarce resource has caused numerous border wars between neighbors as well as countless water-related fatalities. There have been numerous instances where conflict has resulted from countries, organizations, and/or communities threatening to take control of a region’s main water resources and severely impeding the bulk of the local population’s access to the resource. These incidents have ranged from Israel’s partial ex parte control Jordan River running through the Middle East, to South Africa’s withholding of water resources from its black population during the Apartheid period (1948 - 1994), to Washington’s interest in the Guaraní Aquifer in the Triple Frontier region in South America.

The “Blue Gold” of the 21st Century

The World Bank and IMF are among the principle factors behind the implementation of water privatization. The commodification of water began in earnest in the 1990’s in various developing regions of the world in an effort to address a number of water-related issues varying from its scarcity to a woeful mismanagement of the resource. To begin, the World Bank and IMF, along with multinational enterprises, argued that by placing a value on water, the general public was less likely to abuse, waste, and indiscriminately consume large amounts of the increasingly scant product. It has been found by a vast array of non-profit organizations that the average European uses 200 liters of water every day whereas North Americans use 400 liters of water a day. This can be compared to the average person in the developing world who uses 10 liters of water every day for drinking, washing, and cooking purposes. Independent environmental journalist Carmelo Ruiz Marrero explains the role played by pro-privatization international lending agencies by stating that “water is wasted because people get it for free or for artificially low prices. Therefore, if its price reflected its true ecological and economic cost, people would avoid its abuse and overuse.”

Pro-privatization defenders maintain that in addition to poor water management by the general population, there is a serious lack of good management practices on a national level, which introduces the next argument. Critics of the status quo contend that the state has ill-served its citizens by not providing a clean, efficient water supply. Marrero explains that “the state has failed as administrator of the resource, not only because of its corruption, incapacity, and lack of investment in the infrastructure, but also through its promotion of paternalistic cheap water for all cultures that has resulted in waste and overexploitation.” Supporters of privatization argue that the government’s inability to comprehend and properly execute the methods needed to widely and effectively distribute water to the community inexorably results in an inadequate water supply for the general public. Their argument is that by inviting experienced international corporations into the country, water allocation, purity, and affordability will be made more efficient.

The third argument is that population growth will soon outweigh the ecosystem’s ability to provide abundant water supply for every individual, thus resulting in a very unsettling conditions of water scarcity. Because of this, social conflicts are likely to arise among communities, nations, and regions. Although this argument already has begun to prove to be self-fulfilling, private water companies can be seen as exacerbating social tensions by failing to properly assess the many different factors of water consumption. Marrero maintains that “this argument tends to grossly simplify complex social dynamics surrounding use of natural resources by assuming that extreme economic inequalities and differences in consumption patterns do not exist, and if they do, they are of no consequence.”

Water Privatization in the Western Hemisphere

Mexico

Less industrialized countries have borne the brunt of the most severe effects of water commodification. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the corporate ownership of water has only aggravated an already dire situation-both in terms of compromising the democratic, innate rights of citizens and endangering the environment. For example, during the Fox Administration in Mexico, water privatization often left Mexican citizens — specifically the poorest sector of the population — deprived of water resources as well as a deteriorating infrastructure. By 2002, precisely a decade after the Mexican government constitutionalized the jurisdiction of foreign-based corporations over what formally had been municipal water services, 28 of the country’s 30 states had been affected by privatization practices; this represented roughly 70 percent of the nation’s water supply. Once President Fox had created the Program for the Modernization of Water Management Companies (PROMAGUA), an agenda geared towards the commodification of the nation’s water supplies, Mexican citizens began to feel the harsh consequences of private ownership of water — and at an exceedingly expensive price. During the 2004 World Water Forum in Kyoto, Japan, Maude Barlow, a highly regarded Canadian field expert in the subject of water privatization, described the actions of one very irate Mexican citizen in the midst of confronting a panel of executives and specialists in water policy:

“Representatives of an international civil society network appeared at a meeting of chief executive officers at the World Water Forum in Kyoto, Japan, in March. The group took over the microphones and offered a series of testimonials about the impact of water privatization around the world. Toward the end of the event, a water activist from Cancun, Mexico, stepped to the microphone and held up a glass of pitch-black, putrid-smelling water. He explained that he had taken the water from his home tap in Cancun, where French company Suez runs the municipal water system. He then requested that the moderator pass the glass of black, smelly water up on stage to the CEO of Suez, inviting him to drink it.”

Water decentralization critics maintain that once these foreign companies, such as Vivendi and Suez, came into Mexico, they increased water prices by at least 60 percent and those who could not pay were cut off from services altogether. Furthermore, as the price of water escalated, its quality continued to deteriorate. The technology and filtration practices used to purify water reservoirs often cause serious damage to the environment while contaminating the surrounding air and soil, and displacing local wild life.

Stockton

Since the decentralization of water became a trend throughout Latin America in the early 1990’s, local communities in the United States and Canada have succumbed to it. But many other locals were prepared to fight for what they felt was rightfully theirs. In 2003, the city council of Stockton, California signed an agreement with water companies Thames and OWI to privatize the municipal water services for a period of 20 years, with the value of the contract approaching $600 million dollars. Similar to the citizens of Mexico, Stockton residents resisted once they discovered what was being signed away in their name. Despite the residents’ plea to be involved in the decision-making process, the city government continued to ignore the general consensus to oppose the privatization of the city’s water services. One resident attempted to reason with city council members, insisting that “I’m ashamed that we’ve followed this path and have gone down the road at making something happen that was not consensus building, not citizen-involved. It was basically handed down as a dictate. This is not the principle of an All-America City.” Despite an overwhelming opposition by the Stockton’s citizens, the city government overrode the group’s dogged opposition and its water resources were privatized. However, the persistence of the residents soon proved successful. In March of 2007, an overwhelming vote granted the residents their long-standing wish to keep water a free, equally accessible resource. The major reversal could turn out to be a pivotal moment in the history of water privatization in the United States. Not only did it prove that private firms failed to purify and deliver water any better than the previous public services, but it was the second time that the largest commodification project in the region was defeated by the electorate.

Walkerton

Similar to the lack of popular participation in the decision to privatize Stockton, California’s water systems was the experience of Walkerton, Canada, which was subjected to a comparable lack of transparency in the management of the community’s water resources. In May of 2000, the lack of proper water management techniques resulted in the death of seven Walkerton residents and left at least 2,000 ill (half of the population). The culprit behind this tragedy?-the city’s private water sector. It had failed to report indications of contamination, not only because it would hinder the corporation’s revenue, but more alarmingly, it was not required to report such details. Canada continues to remain a lucrative location in the eyes of privatization companies, as the country contains approximately 408 publicly owned water systems. The tragedy of Walkerton only reflects the greater global struggle for water democracy-a struggle that has resulted in many casualties ranging from the elderly to the youth, and from the healthy to the disabled.

Cochabamba

Perhaps the most infamous water privatization case involved the residents of Cochabamba, Bolivia, where the community overwhelmingly spoke out against Betchel. The giant U.S. multinational had gained responsibility over the region’s water resources. In October of 1999, the Drinking Water and Sanitation Law was passed, which permitted foreign water corporations to privatize Bolivia’s municipal water systems. Water prices in the Cochabamba region soon reached a disturbingly high level-the average Bolivian, who hardly earned a $100 a month, had to pay $20 alone for water services; the choice for many residents soon became whether to feed and house their families or purchase water. Through protest and perseverance, the local community rose up and soon won the battle, but not without dire costs. Seventeen year-old Victor Hugo Daza was killed by the police during the uprisings, not to mention hundreds injured. After the uprisings, Oliver Olivera, a Bolivian water activist, stated to the supporters of water privatization that “you have blood on your hands.” These six simple words that were heard throughout the world further attested to the severity of the situation and the distance people were willing to travel to obtain their innate rights to an essence of life.

The Price of a Bottle

The next time a consumer purchases a bottle of water, think of its true cost. There are several patterns of water privatization, but none are as offensive as the bottling of water. In fact, most people are unaware of the veritable scandals existing behind the bottled water industry. Characteristically, these multinational water companies go into less industrialized countries, where they monopolize water reservoirs (most often, these public reservoirs are the only available water resources that a given community might have), and sell the water back to the community at a price that invariably is far too expensive for its residents to pay. Water commodification is a global movement. In Africa, where privatization and lack of access to water is most prevalent, over half of the population earns less than one dollar a day; one can imagine the burden of trying to afford a bottle of water that is often priced a little higher than a dollar. Furthermore, women and female children are most affected, as they are forced to travel an average of five miles a day to fetch available water — often times this water is not even potable. The time-consuming task of searching for water impedes women from obtaining jobs to help feed their families and hinders female children from attending school on a regular basis. It is stated that 40 billion working hours are spent carrying water each year and 26 percent of women’s time around the world is spent on physically obtaining the water. In addition, it is estimated that 443 million school days are lost each year due to water privatization and the consequences it has on individual lives.

Water Democracy

Once the attendant injustices of water privatization became evident to the international community, activists, environmentalists, and average citizens alike have been arguing for a greater local presence in the decision-making process affecting water use. Also, advocates have been urging the World Bank, IMF, WTO, as well as national governments to discard their privatization scenarios, as, due to their high cost, they more often than not cause dissension among communities. There are alternatives. Advocates for democratizing water, Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke, assert that there are three essentials the public must control in order to secure their water from any conglomerate monopolization. First, they stress the need for conservation. The population is predicted to exponentially increase while the ecosystem’s water supply is likely to decrease by at least 30 percent. Therefore, preservation is a vital measure to take in order to safeguard this precious resource. Second, they emphasize the importance of equity in regards to water allocation.

Although some nations are blessed with abundant access to fresh water, others are burdened with an egregious lack of this fundamental source of life. Third, in order to institutionalize conservation and equity, water democracy must be obtained at all costs. Water management, its proponents maintain, should be in the hands of the people, not under control of corporations whose principle desire is to generate revenue. It is also notable that accountability, transparency, and consensus are vital in the management of water. Water is for life, not for profit. If the commodification of water continues — thus possibly undermining the basic right to life, it is not absurd to conclude that other vital resources might only become available on a for-pay basis. The coming water crisis must be dealt within a transparent, democratic process or else the globe will fall victim to a series of potentially violent and life threatening consequences. Barlow and Clark state that “In the 21st century, our water is becoming a commodity. Some want to profit from it and others are ready to go to war over it, but every form of life must have it.” The overarching question will be, “who will control this source of life?”

This analysis was prepared by COHA Research Associate Ashley Powdar.

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

26 Comments so far

Eric J-D May 1st, 2008 12:35 pm

In my opinion, this is one of the most important articles ever to appear on Common Dreams.

Thanks are certainly due to those who maintain the website for posting it. I can only hope that people will pass it on to their friends.

I should add that when I was in Nicaragua a few years ago (2003), this issue was the major concern of many of the social and political justice organizations I met with. They had seen this coming for some time following the structural adjustments made to other parts of Nicaraguan society. As many of them stoically said, “We can live without the telephone lines and we can even live without electricity, but we’ll die without access to water.”

andersdl May 1st, 2008 12:50 pm

In 2000 when Enron was exploiting the western power grid and stealing money by the boatload, a Wall Street Journal article discussed Enron’s plans to control water supply just as they were already controlling natural gas and power supplies.

Since few of the Enron pirates are in jail, many of them are among those exploiting water supplies. The collapse of Enron taught them to pursue their evil deeds in a clandestine or low profile manner, rather than the high profile, cavalier approach taken by Enron.

gde May 1st, 2008 2:16 pm

Actually, there is not a whole lot new here, but it is a vital issue and needs to be kept out there.

In dealing with the corporations, it is interesting to note one of the big lies propagated by the corporate world is that the stockholders own the corporation. Any legitimate finance textbook would emphasize that stockholders own an option on the profits, nothing more. They are shielded from liability in exchange for giving up direct control.* It is not the least bit unreasonable for a nation to protect its actual assets from a corporation without compensation given that loss of those assets harms the nation’s vital interests. After all, nobody is hurt, although investors may lose their gambles. The corporation is a paper entity, and even many investors are paper entities as well; they are not bodies, human or animal. The return on investment is largely a reward for risk, so the risk must be legitimately there.

* As an interesting aside, the text I read than had a contradictory essay in the appendix, taking it as axiomatic that shareholders had limited liability and proceeding to argue that other stakeholders, especially those who willingly or unwillingly acquire liabilities beyond the assets of the corporation

vmulier May 1st, 2008 2:35 pm

We are losing our clean water, folks, and this is a disaster that the predators will surely pounce on. The catastrophe that awaits is unimaginable to the coddled text-messaging masses. Amused to death amid the smoking toxic ruins of the world. Gasping for air and water as the pestilence and the chemical burns spread slowly across our skins. We have created a world where humankind cannot survive. Where all softness all forgiveness is gone.

ZeroPointField May 1st, 2008 3:22 pm

There are plans to introduce tracable atoms in the air, to track who is breathing which quota of air. Soon companies will be able to point out how much air you have inhaled from their stock. You will have to provide blood samples at the end of each year to these corporations, and they will be able to determine how much of there air you have consumed, and will bill you accordingly.

The charges are nominal, but those who can not afford to make the payments will be asphyxiated through special air molecules.

gus May 1st, 2008 3:59 pm

It’s interesting that Israel has placed settlements whose removal is “non-negotiable” over wells and aquifers on Palestinian land. That should be some indicator the socialist, nuclear-armed, anti-American government places on the value of water.

Gene Therapy May 1st, 2008 5:45 pm

People in the Great Lakes Basin are learning that others are looking to the Great Lakes as a future water supply for other parts of the country and the world. One “resource developer” has made the case that its a moral obligation to supply the world’s thirsty. One biologist, who looks at the Great Lakes Basin as a water-dependent ecosystem disagreed strongly this way:

“The coming water shortage in the U.S. and elsewhere has been known for many years. In the U.S., Marc Reisner’s “Cadillac Desert”, published in 1986, invoked history and all that is known of geology and water use to warn society. It was ignored, of course, as desert cities - Phoenix, Tucson, Los Vegas, etc. - went full speed ahead with cancerous growth and libertarian “freedom” and the religion of property rights above all, even as water tables were dropping and rivers being tapped out. The apparent attitude has been “There’s money to be made, and sure, we can arm-twist the Great Lakes people when, some day, our actions have caused a crash.” Yea free market!

“The question becomes one of “When does a person - or a society - have to face the consequences of its decisions and actions?” By extension, “What is the obligation of the Great Lakes to bail out regions or countries whose “leaders” have, with eyes wide open, put themselves and their communities into an entirely predictable situation?”

“The Great Lakes Basis is the center - the freshwater “heart”, if you will - of North America. It’s not that it HAS water, it’s that it IS water and ABOUT water. Do take note that even now, with lake levels down, “experts” have no definitive answer as to why. But hell, if you’re a Chicago-School, neoliberal economist, it makes all the sense in the world to pipe water to New Mexico, or bottle it and sell it to yuppies, or ship it out of the Basin in tankers to other parts of the Globe, if the “free market” says it’s economically feasible.

“Sorry, but if nature has taught anything, it’s that it has a reservoir of unintended consequences for “experts” who thought they knew what they were doing. And it doesn’t matter if shipping water out of the Basin is done with profit as a motive or as humanitarian gesture. I don’t know who Dempsey is, and I wouldn’t want to disparage someone’s honest efforts, but in reading his appeal to my humanitarian sensibilities, I felt I was being set up.

“If it is an obligation of Great Lakes people to deal with the water issues of poor nations (even as their populations continue to grow at an absolutely insane rate), it would be most effective, not to mention protective of the Basin Ecosystem, to work for population control in those countries and for improvement THERE of water resources, whatever that might mean in terms of creation of wells or education or water purification plants. One’s first obligation is protection of one’s home.”

ezeflyer May 1st, 2008 5:46 pm

Bow to Mammon.

unionave May 1st, 2008 8:07 pm

This is an out standing article . In his book “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy” Greg Palast goes in to some detail about these same activities . He points out that a company called “Bechtel” is pulling the strings in some of these activities . If you want to spend some sleepless nights read this book and “Confessions of An Economics Hit Man” where there is an explanation of who is involved with “Bechtel” .

good luck May 1st, 2008 10:22 pm

In Canada Harper just made it so water is not an necessity of life but allows the oil companies to use millions of gallons to make steam to get the oil out of the tar sand.

good luck May 1st, 2008 10:29 pm

I am glad I have a well and cistern ( collects rain water from the roof) so I have a supply of water. I know some of you live in an appartment. I think if I lived in and I had the option to get out of the USA I would.
Toronto Star had a story of 100,000 trades peoples jobs are opening up and few takers.

Rimpinths May 1st, 2008 11:44 pm

There is a natural right to water, but there’s no natural right to clean water transported to your house. A natural right is a right that you could excercise if not for government or corporate intervention — such as freedom of speech or religion. Conversely, clean water that is transported to your house is only possible because of government or corporate intervention. The most cost-effective way (private or public means) to provide clean water is of course up for debate, but it’s silly to say that everybody should have access to clean water because it is a “natural right”. If people want water, no government or corporation is preventing them from going to a lake or river to drink and transport as much water as they want. That is their natural right. To be able to turn on a tap and expect clean water to flow out is not a natural right because it is something that is only possible with government or corporate intervention.

This article is also deceitful. The author has an obvious bias against the privatization of water purification and distribution systems (which is what we’re really talking about, not water itself), and she’s willing to make up facts to support her point of view. For example, she states:

“In addition, it is estimated that 443 million school days are lost each year due to water privatization and the consequences it has on individual lives.”

This is simply a lie and the author has to know that. Just do a quick Google search of “443 million school days missed water” and you’ll see that this statistic refers to the number of days missed due to water-related diseases:

“Boys and girls are frequently too sick to attend school, with a total of 443 million school days lost each year due to water-related diseases.”

http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2007/issue4/0407p87.html

Needless to say, that is very different than the author’s point. Most of those missed school days are contributable to unsafe water supplies, and if the privatization of water purification and distribution systems was banned, sewers and pipes would not magically appear in undeveloped areas of Africa and most of those school days would still be lost. I lived in Africa for several years, and there are simply no water purification and distribution systems, public or private, in most areas and that is the cause of those missed school days. If the author is truly interested ensuring a clean water supply, then she should be willing to objectively assess the cost-effectiveness of public and private options rather than making up statistics to back her anti-corporate viewpoint.

The article has the appearance of being well-researched, but then when you pick apart one statistic like the 443 million missed school days, you can see how the author has twisted the facts to make her point. As a result, it’s hard to accept the credibility of the article as a whole.

Rimpinths May 2nd, 2008 12:47 am

Wow, this article really is full of distortions. I picked on the 443 million missed school days because it sounded fishy to me. (I always doubt any statements that begin with “it is estimated” or “it has been stated” without providing sources.) But the author’s deliberate twisting of facts or events doesn’t stop there. For example, the author writes:

“In May of 2000, the lack of proper water management techniques resulted in the death of seven Walkerton residents and left at least 2,000 ill (half of the population). The culprit behind this tragedy? — the city’s private water sector.”

Check out the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation report on this event:

“According to the local medical officer of health, it all could have been prevented. Dr. Murray McQuigge stunned the country with his revelation on CBC Radio on May 25, 2000 that the Walkerton Public Utilities Commission knew there was a problem with the water several days before they told the public.”

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/walkerton/

That’s right, the PUBLIC Utilities Commission. Or read the report by the Canadian Attorney General:

“For years, the Public Utilities Commission operators engaged in a host of improper operating practices, including failing to use adequate doses of chlorine, failing to monitor chlorine residuals daily, making false entries about residuals in daily operating records, and misstating the locations at which microbiological samples were taken. The operators knew that these practices were unacceptable and contrary to Ministry of Environment guidelines and directives.”

Later in the report, in case there’s any doubt, it states: “The Walkerton water system is owned by the municipality.”

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/walkerton/part1/WI_Summary.pdf

The culprit wasn’t a private corporation at all, but a public one. How could the author not know this? She either has to be a very sloppy researcher or intentionally deceitful.

karlof1 May 2nd, 2008 1:21 am

SOP for the US Empire. Give Military or Market-Driven Empire Building: 1950-2008 a read.

starislon2 May 2nd, 2008 3:32 am

All one needs to do to establish that corporate and government work together in a joint venture is one word: “tobacco”, as it has been proven, over and over again, that both the corporate and political “authorities” knew it was killing people for half a century. It even killed the “Marboro man”.

To say that the unhealthy toxic environment that millions live in is the fault of their local Public Utilities Commissions is like saying its the governments fault for letting us breath unhealthy air.

Who designed and marketed the devices that pollute the air, and then bought off politician’s, so they would look the other way. It appears we are paying more than once for our own demise.

Water, water, everywhere and not a drop to drink, unless you pay-up, to further subsidize corporate plunder of nature and everyone’s well-being.

MiMiCcS May 2nd, 2008 4:47 am

From Larouches EIR this week (subscription only, so can’t post the whole thing).

“If you think these oligarchs—who, like Britain’s Prince Philip, brag that they would like to solve the “overpopulation” problem by being reincarnated as a deadly virus—can be ignored, think again. For not only has the WWF ideology virtually taken over culture in the industrialized world over the last 45 years, but WWF agents have been imbedded into leading positions within governments and international institutions, where they are able to enforce their prescriptions for genocide.

Take the question of water, the natural resource on which life itself depends. The WWF wants to take your water away! It has established a “Global Freshwater Programme” dedicated to “protecting” water from any
human intervention. The program’s self-proclaimed mission is to prevent construction of any new water management programs globally—and reverse those already built; to stop desalination, the crucial technology
for solving the depletion of fossil water; to shift irrigation
strategies to “conserving” water; and to discourage water use by turning control over water to the “markets”— so that water costs too much for optimal human consumption. They are even proposing establishing a
market for using or trading “water allocation rights.”

These fellows are insane. For example, their “Dam Project” whines that “for reasons of hydropower, river navigation, irrigation, and flood protection, rivers have been dammed, straightened, deepened, and cut off from the natural floodplains. The water from an entire river basin is sometimes diverted to a neighbouring river basin. . . . Such massive engineering schemes cause irreparable ecological damage, by disrupting the natural flooding cycles, reducing flows, draining wetlands, and inundating riparian habitats, and resulting in the destruction of species, the intensification of floods, and a threat to livelihoods in the long term.” What about the fact that such water control measures are essential for saving lives, and putting food and clean water in the mouths of the billions who now lack
it?

The WWF could care less. They are out to prevent anyone from producing
water, in this time of global water scarcity. In June 2007, the program issued a 52-page attack on seawater desalination (“Making Water. Desalination: Option or Distraction for a Thirsty World?”). As Sergey Moroz of WWF summarized their view: “Building reservoirs, desalination
plants, and river basin transfers shouldn’t even be on the agenda until it can be proven that alternative measures have been exploited. Discussing supplyside measures like ‘making water’ in desalination plants diverts attention from cheaper and more environmentally- friendly alternatives, which are widely available.”

What does that mean? Reducing “demand” for water, and that requires restricting farming. On July 18, 2007, the WWF, with the European Environmental Bureau, issued a statement attacking “water-wasting farmers.” Decrying the fact that 44% of all water extracted in Europe is used for farming, they call for market mechanisms to force “agricultural water-users” to pay “the full cost of their water.””

There is a war being fought. The war is the oligarchs against you. But most do not even know they are being attacked.

Water, Food, Health Care, Energy, Banking are all industries that either need to be nationalized, or need to be broken up into many smaller companies to eliminate the cartels from manipulating supplies and prices.

Unfortunately, the agenda is depopulation. Technology can address resource and environmental issues, yet is being suppressed to prevent global development which could feed the world, and also improve standard of living, while addressing environmental and resource issues. Yet the elite have chosen to take us back to the dark ages, dumbing down the population, and orchestrating one disaster after another to prove their point. Men pretending to be God, or shall I say, Lucifer.

Many of those in Congress, not to mention those in the Executive Branch, and even some in the Judicial Branch, are technically guilty of treason. The Constitution requires Congress to look after the general welfare of it’s citizens. It said nothing of globalization and transfer of sovereignty to a bunch of neo-malthusians hiding behind the UN and Tax Free Foundations.

bornfreemen May 2nd, 2008 7:02 am

What if water could be used to power cars?

http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html

Do the math. Would you not want to control it for profit?

RHB May 2nd, 2008 9:21 pm

This means that it’s not immoral to deprive politicians access to water.

jclientelle May 2nd, 2008 9:40 pm

ZeroPointField - I was wondering how one could charge for air, and you have come up with the technology. Bravo!

Water privatization is truly one of the great issues of this century. Thirst and a sense of injustice develop quickly. Already the people of El Alto and Cochabamba in Bolivia struggled and won against water privatization by very big players, Bechtel and a World Bank related company.

Here in the US it can be more subtle, such as diverting scarce water from natural streams to private vineyards or selling recovered water to golf courses. Look out for it.

mary lou May 3rd, 2008 6:17 pm

here in the great lakes basin, we have at least a fifth of the world’s fresh water. 1% of that circulates in the form of evaporation, runoff, and weather. to tap the great lakes would mean to deplete them.

wetlands are great waste water filters. try it sometime anywhere but in deserts. the maintainance is minimal, and the frogs (dying all across the world for loss of habitat) will thank you.

we all need certain things, and we can get them from the publicly run utilities or from privately run utilities. water and power are two of them. clean air should be available as a matter of public responsibility. we as a society should make food available to people. security should be taken for granted (meaning publicly supplied).

let us not think of the great lakes as blue gold!

MacMeister May 4th, 2008 12:52 am

Rimpinths:

What is important to note is that the reason there was a water quality problem in Walkerton was not due to the fact that the water utility was publicly owned, but rather due to the negligence of two employees. The fact that it was publicly owned is immaterial. The same could have happened if negligent employees worked for a privately owned utility. Your argument is: a) there was a water quality problem in Walkerton b) the water utility in Walkerton was publicly owned. Therefore c) publicly owned water utilities are bad. This is simply not true. If it were, then people certainly would never have survived the past hundred years or so. I could just as easily state this: a) people got sick eating hamburgers at a restaurant b) the restaurant was privately owned. Therefore c) privately owned restaurants are bad. Both are logical fallacies and both are false. Publicly owned water utilities are good because their main objective is to provide clean water for people. The main objective of a privatized water utility is to make money.

When a private company controls the water distribution and purification systems it supplants the public system, giving no other option than to get the water from the private company. You say that ‘If people want water, no government or corporation is preventing them from going to a lake or river to drink and transport as much water as they want’. You obviously have not heard of companies such as Coca-Cola, Pespi etc. going into “third world” countries and making their pop using the local water. They extract the water, put it in bottles and ship the bottles overseas. Due to the huge amount of water extraction, the local water table drops so low that people cannot possibly dig a well deep enough to reach water. Many private companies also pollute fresh water supplies so that you cannot drink the water even if you can get it. So that statement is also false. Sure one is a beverage vendor and one is a water utility, but the essence is the succession of control over the water supply. One is mandated (or contracted) and one is de facto. Still the water is privatized and no longer accessible by the people.

As far as having a right to clean water; actually people in many countries do because that is one of the reasons they pay taxes. You try to sidetrack the argument by saying that it is not a ‘natural right’. Whether it’s a natural right or just a constitutional/legal right is immaterial. The fact is that it is still a right.

Your arguments have the appearance of being well-researched, but when you pick apart one argument like your Walkerton logical fallacy and your tangental ad hominem attacks, you can see how you have twisted the facts to make your point. As a result, it’s hard to accept the credibility of your comments as a whole.

DiabloRojo May 4th, 2008 5:14 am

MacMeister:

An enlightening, logically concise, and airtight case you’ve made! Bravo to you I say!

bornfreemen:

You may find David Mamet’s brilliant play/movie “The Water Engine” to be of great interest. Although the storyline is about control of a breakthrough design of an engine, e.g. , waterpower, it nonetheless parallels this topic.

BTW: In case anyone’s interested France was the birthplace of modern water privatization!

Gail May 4th, 2008 11:11 am

karlof1 May 2nd, 2008 1:21 am

“Military or Market-Driven Empire Building: 1950-2008 a read.”

karlof1,

That was a brilliant essay by James Petras. Thanks for sharing it with us.

Gail May 4th, 2008 11:22 am

If you have any extra cash and can donate a few bucks to help stop the “corporate pillaging” of public water supplies, please consider sending a check to this organization:

http://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/cms/page1096.cfm

http://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/files/pdfs/Corporate%20Accountability%20International%20Standards%20of%20Political%20Conduct%20for%20Corporations.pdf

Rimpinths May 4th, 2008 1:07 pm

MacMeister wrote: “Your argument is: a) there was a water quality problem in Walkerton b) the water utility in Walkerton was publicly owned. Therefore c) publicly owned water utilities are bad. This is simply not true.”

That was not my argument. I don’t even think that’s true. I don’t think public water utilities are bad. But nor do I think that private water utilities are always bad. Water utilities are a type of natural monopoly, and in most cases of natural monopolies, public ownership or at the very least strict government regulation, is justified.

My argument was that the author presented Walkerton as a case where the privatization of the water system caused deaths and illnesses. I pointed out that the Walkerton water system is not even privatized; it is publicly-owned. Therefore, the author’s statement was false.

I was not trying to make an argument against publicly-owned water systems. I was simply pointing out that the author’s argument against privately-owned water systems was based on false statements, both in the case of Walkerton and in the case of “443 million missed school days”, which was deliberately deceitful. I would love to read a good article arguing against the privatization of water systems. The author did not write one; she made up facts and events to support her point of view. If you find that behavior acceptable, then I think Cheney may be interested in hiring you to help him come up with a casus belli for his next war.

You also wrote:

“You try to sidetrack the argument by saying that it is not a ‘natural right’. Whether it’s a natural right or just a constitutional/legal right is immaterial. The fact is that it is still a right.”

It was not a sidetrack to the argument. The author uses the words “natural right” in the title of her article, so therefore it is a central part of her argument. The distinction between a natural right and a legal right is very important. A natural right does not come with any expense: the government must be simply avoid interferring with citizens’ attempts to exercise it. On the other hand, a legal right requires money to enforce it. In the case of the “right” to clean water transported to your house, somebody has to pay for the sewers, the water treatment plant, the pipes to bring it in homes and businesses. By claiming that clean water is a “natural right”, the author is avoiding the more difficult argument of who’s going to pay for it, and what is the most cost-effective way of providing it. Clean water transported to the point of use requires massive amounts of capital to build and it’s expensive to maintain. In most cases, a public utility is the best option. In other cases, a private company may be the better option. The article did contain any facts or comparative analysis that would help somebody determine the most cost-effective way of doing that.

mary lou May 4th, 2008 6:05 pm

just to reiterate: wetlands are a great way to treat wastewater. the example noted on public radio was in new jersey, i think.

Eric J-D May 1st, 2008 12:35 pm

In my opinion, this is one of the most important articles ever to appear on Common Dreams.

Thanks are certainly due to those who maintain the website for posting it. I can only hope that people will pass it on to their friends.

I should add that when I was in Nicaragua a few years ago (2003), this issue was the major concern of many of the social and political justice organizations I met with. They had seen this coming for some time following the structural adjustments made to other parts of Nicaraguan society. As many of them stoically said, “We can live without the telephone lines and we can even live without electricity, but we’ll die without access to water.”
andersdl May 1st, 2008 12:50 pm

In 2000 when Enron was exploiting the western power grid and stealing money by the boatload, a Wall Street Journal article discussed Enron’s plans to control water supply just as they were already controlling natural gas and power supplies.

Since few of the Enron pirates are in jail, many of them are among those exploiting water supplies. The collapse of Enron taught them to pursue their evil deeds in a clandestine or low profile manner, rather than the high profile, cavalier approach taken by Enron.
gde May 1st, 2008 2:16 pm

Actually, there is not a whole lot new here, but it is a vital issue and needs to be kept out there.

In dealing with the corporations, it is interesting to note one of the big lies propagated by the corporate world is that the stockholders own the corporation. Any legitimate finance textbook would emphasize that stockholders own an option on the profits, nothing more. They are shielded from liability in exchange for giving up direct control.* It is not the least bit unreasonable for a nation to protect its actual assets from a corporation without compensation given that loss of those assets harms the nation’s vital interests. After all, nobody is hurt, although investors may lose their gambles. The corporation is a paper entity, and even many investors are paper entities as well; they are not bodies, human or animal. The return on investment is largely a reward for risk, so the risk must be legitimately there.

* As an interesting aside, the text I read than had a contradictory essay in the appendix, taking it as axiomatic that shareholders had limited liability and proceeding to argue that other stakeholders, especially those who willingly or unwillingly acquire liabilities beyond the assets of the corporation
vmulier May 1st, 2008 2:35 pm

We are losing our clean water, folks, and this is a disaster that the predators will surely pounce on. The catastrophe that awaits is unimaginable to the coddled text-messaging masses. Amused to death amid the smoking toxic ruins of the world. Gasping for air and water as the pestilence and the chemical burns spread slowly across our skins. We have created a world where humankind cannot survive. Where all softness all forgiveness is gone.
ZeroPointField May 1st, 2008 3:22 pm

There are plans to introduce tracable atoms in the air, to track who is breathing which quota of air. Soon companies will be able to point out how much air you have inhaled from their stock. You will have to provide blood samples at the end of each year to these corporations, and they will be able to determine how much of there air you have consumed, and will bill you accordingly.

The charges are nominal, but those who can not afford to make the payments will be asphyxiated through special air molecules.
gus May 1st, 2008 3:59 pm

It’s interesting that Israel has placed settlements whose removal is “non-negotiable” over wells and aquifers on Palestinian land. That should be some indicator the socialist, nuclear-armed, anti-American government places on the value of water.
Gene Therapy May 1st, 2008 5:45 pm

People in the Great Lakes Basin are learning that others are looking to the Great Lakes as a future water supply for other parts of the country and the world. One “resource developer” has made the case that its a moral obligation to supply the world’s thirsty. One biologist, who looks at the Great Lakes Basin as a water-dependent ecosystem disagreed strongly this way:

“The coming water shortage in the U.S. and elsewhere has been known for many years. In the U.S., Marc Reisner’s “Cadillac Desert”, published in 1986, invoked history and all that is known of geology and water use to warn society. It was ignored, of course, as desert cities - Phoenix, Tucson, Los Vegas, etc. - went full speed ahead with cancerous growth and libertarian “freedom” and the religion of property rights above all, even as water tables were dropping and rivers being tapped out. The apparent attitude has been “There’s money to be made, and sure, we can arm-twist the Great Lakes people when, some day, our actions have caused a crash.” Yea free market!

“The question becomes one of “When does a person - or a society - have to face the consequences of its decisions and actions?” By extension, “What is the obligation of the Great Lakes to bail out regions or countries whose “leaders” have, with eyes wide open, put themselves and their communities into an entirely predictable situation?”

“The Great Lakes Basis is the center - the freshwater “heart”, if you will - of North America. It’s not that it HAS water, it’s that it IS water and ABOUT water. Do take note that even now, with lake levels down, “experts” have no definitive answer as to why. But hell, if you’re a Chicago-School, neoliberal economist, it makes all the sense in the world to pipe water to New Mexico, or bottle it and sell it to yuppies, or ship it out of the Basin in tankers to other parts of the Globe, if the “free market” says it’s economically feasible.

“Sorry, but if nature has taught anything, it’s that it has a reservoir of unintended consequences for “experts” who thought they knew what they were doing. And it doesn’t matter if shipping water out of the Basin is done with profit as a motive or as humanitarian gesture. I don’t know who Dempsey is, and I wouldn’t want to disparage someone’s honest efforts, but in reading his appeal to my humanitarian sensibilities, I felt I was being set up.

“If it is an obligation of Great Lakes people to deal with the water issues of poor nations (even as their populations continue to grow at an absolutely insane rate), it would be most effective, not to mention protective of the Basin Ecosystem, to work for population control in those countries and for improvement THERE of water resources, whatever that might mean in terms of creation of wells or education or water purification plants. One’s first obligation is protection of one’s home.”
ezeflyer May 1st, 2008 5:46 pm

Bow to Mammon.
unionave May 1st, 2008 8:07 pm

This is an out standing article . In his book “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy” Greg Palast goes in to some detail about these same activities . He points out that a company called “Bechtel” is pulling the strings in some of these activities . If you want to spend some sleepless nights read this book and “Confessions of An Economics Hit Man” where there is an explanation of who is involved with “Bechtel” .
good luck May 1st, 2008 10:22 pm

In Canada Harper just made it so water is not an necessity of life but allows the oil companies to use millions of gallons to make steam to get the oil out of the tar sand.
good luck May 1st, 2008 10:29 pm

I am glad I have a well and cistern ( collects rain water from the roof) so I have a supply of water. I know some of you live in an appartment. I think if I lived in and I had the option to get out of the USA I would.
Toronto Star had a story of 100,000 trades peoples jobs are opening up and few takers.
Rimpinths May 1st, 2008 11:44 pm

There is a natural right to water, but there’s no natural right to clean water transported to your house. A natural right is a right that you could excercise if not for government or corporate intervention — such as freedom of speech or religion. Conversely, clean water that is transported to your house is only possible because of government or corporate intervention. The most cost-effective way (private or public means) to provide clean water is of course up for debate, but it’s silly to say that everybody should have access to clean water because it is a “natural right”. If people want water, no government or corporation is preventing them from going to a lake or river to drink and transport as much water as they want. That is their natural right. To be able to turn on a tap and expect clean water to flow out is not a natural right because it is something that is only possible with government or corporate intervention.

This article is also deceitful. The author has an obvious bias against the privatization of water purification and distribution systems (which is what we’re really talking about, not water itself), and she’s willing to make up facts to support her point of view. For example, she states:

“In addition, it is estimated that 443 million school days are lost each year due to water privatization and the consequences it has on individual lives.”

This is simply a lie and the author has to know that. Just do a quick Google search of “443 million school days missed water” and you’ll see that this statistic refers to the number of days missed due to water-related diseases:

“Boys and girls are frequently too sick to attend school, with a total of 443 million school days lost each year due to water-related diseases.”

http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2007/issue4/0407p87.html

Needless to say, that is very different than the author’s point. Most of those missed school days are contributable to unsafe water supplies, and if the privatization of water purification and distribution systems was banned, sewers and pipes would not magically appear in undeveloped areas of Africa and most of those school days would still be lost. I lived in Africa for several years, and there are simply no water purification and distribution systems, public or private, in most areas and that is the cause of those missed school days. If the author is truly interested ensuring a clean water supply, then she should be willing to objectively assess the cost-effectiveness of public and private options rather than making up statistics to back her anti-corporate viewpoint.

The article has the appearance of being well-researched, but then when you pick apart one statistic like the 443 million missed school days, you can see how the author has twisted the facts to make her point. As a result, it’s hard to accept the credibility of the article as a whole.
Rimpinths May 2nd, 2008 12:47 am

Wow, this article really is full of distortions. I picked on the 443 million missed school days because it sounded fishy to me. (I always doubt any statements that begin with “it is estimated” or “it has been stated” without providing sources.) But the author’s deliberate twisting of facts or events doesn’t stop there. For example, the author writes:

“In May of 2000, the lack of proper water management techniques resulted in the death of seven Walkerton residents and left at least 2,000 ill (half of the population). The culprit behind this tragedy? — the city’s private water sector.”

Check out the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation report on this event:

“According to the local medical officer of health, it all could have been prevented. Dr. Murray McQuigge stunned the country with his revelation on CBC Radio on May 25, 2000 that the Walkerton Public Utilities Commission knew there was a problem with the water several days before they told the public.”

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/walkerton/

That’s right, the PUBLIC Utilities Commission. Or read the report by the Canadian Attorney General:

“For years, the Public Utilities Commission operators engaged in a host of improper operating practices, including failing to use adequate doses of chlorine, failing to monitor chlorine residuals daily, making false entries about residuals in daily operating records, and misstating the locations at which microbiological samples were taken. The operators knew that these practices were unacceptable and contrary to Ministry of Environment guidelines and directives.”

Later in the report, in case there’s any doubt, it states: “The Walkerton water system is owned by the municipality.”

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/walkerton/part1/WI_Summary.pdf

The culprit wasn’t a private corporation at all, but a public one. How could the author not know this? She either has to be a very sloppy researcher or intentionally deceitful.
karlof1 May 2nd, 2008 1:21 am

SOP for the US Empire. Give Military or Market-Driven Empire Building: 1950-2008 a read.
starislon2 May 2nd, 2008 3:32 am

All one needs to do to establish that corporate and government work together in a joint venture is one word: “tobacco”, as it has been proven, over and over again, that both the corporate and political “authorities” knew it was killing people for half a century. It even killed the “Marboro man”.

To say that the unhealthy toxic environment that millions live in is the fault of their local Public Utilities Commissions is like saying its the governments fault for letting us breath unhealthy air.

Who designed and marketed the devices that pollute the air, and then bought off politician’s, so they would look the other way. It appears we are paying more than once for our own demise.

Water, water, everywhere and not a drop to drink, unless you pay-up, to further subsidize corporate plunder of nature and everyone’s well-being.
MiMiCcS May 2nd, 2008 4:47 am

From Larouches EIR this week (subscription only, so can’t post the whole thing).

“If you think these oligarchs—who, like Britain’s Prince Philip, brag that they would like to solve the “overpopulation” problem by being reincarnated as a deadly virus—can be ignored, think again. For not only has the WWF ideology virtually taken over culture in the industrialized world over the last 45 years, but WWF agents have been imbedded into leading positions within governments and international institutions, where they are able to enforce their prescriptions for genocide.

Take the question of water, the natural resource on which life itself depends. The WWF wants to take your water away! It has established a “Global Freshwater Programme” dedicated to “protecting” water from any
human intervention. The program’s self-proclaimed mission is to prevent construction of any new water management programs globally—and reverse those already built; to stop desalination, the crucial technology
for solving the depletion of fossil water; to shift irrigation
strategies to “conserving” water; and to discourage water use by turning control over water to the “markets”— so that water costs too much for optimal human consumption. They are even proposing establishing a
market for using or trading “water allocation rights.”

These fellows are insane. For example, their “Dam Project” whines that “for reasons of hydropower, river navigation, irrigation, and flood protection, rivers have been dammed, straightened, deepened, and cut off from the natural floodplains. The water from an entire river basin is sometimes diverted to a neighbouring river basin. . . . Such massive engineering schemes cause irreparable ecological damage, by disrupting the natural flooding cycles, reducing flows, draining wetlands, and inundating riparian habitats, and resulting in the destruction of species, the intensification of floods, and a threat to livelihoods in the long term.” What about the fact that such water control measures are essential for saving lives, and putting food and clean water in the mouths of the billions who now lack
it?

The WWF could care less. They are out to prevent anyone from producing
water, in this time of global water scarcity. In June 2007, the program issued a 52-page attack on seawater desalination (“Making Water. Desalination: Option or Distraction for a Thirsty World?”). As Sergey Moroz of WWF summarized their view: “Building reservoirs, desalination
plants, and river basin transfers shouldn’t even be on the agenda until it can be proven that alternative measures have been exploited. Discussing supplyside measures like ‘making water’ in desalination plants diverts attention from cheaper and more environmentally- friendly alternatives, which are widely available.”

What does that mean? Reducing “demand” for water, and that requires restricting farming. On July 18, 2007, the WWF, with the European Environmental Bureau, issued a statement attacking “water-wasting farmers.” Decrying the fact that 44% of all water extracted in Europe is used for farming, they call for market mechanisms to force “agricultural water-users” to pay “the full cost of their water.””

There is a war being fought. The war is the oligarchs against you. But most do not even know they are being attacked.

Water, Food, Health Care, Energy, Banking are all industries that either need to be nationalized, or need to be broken up into many smaller companies to eliminate the cartels from manipulating supplies and prices.

Unfortunately, the agenda is depopulation. Technology can address resource and environmental issues, yet is being suppressed to prevent global development which could feed the world, and also improve standard of living, while addressing environmental and resource issues. Yet the elite have chosen to take us back to the dark ages, dumbing down the population, and orchestrating one disaster after another to prove their point. Men pretending to be God, or shall I say, Lucifer.

Many of those in Congress, not to mention those in the Executive Branch, and even some in the Judicial Branch, are technically guilty of treason. The Constitution requires Congress to look after the general welfare of it’s citizens. It said nothing of globalization and transfer of sovereignty to a bunch of neo-malthusians hiding behind the UN and Tax Free Foundations.
bornfreemen May 2nd, 2008 7:02 am

What if water could be used to power cars?

http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html

Do the math. Would you not want to control it for profit?
RHB May 2nd, 2008 9:21 pm

This means that it’s not immoral to deprive politicians access to water.
jclientelle May 2nd, 2008 9:40 pm

ZeroPointField - I was wondering how one could charge for air, and you have come up with the technology. Bravo!

Water privatization is truly one of the great issues of this century. Thirst and a sense of injustice develop quickly. Already the people of El Alto and Cochabamba in Bolivia struggled and won against water privatization by very big players, Bechtel and a World Bank related company.

Here in the US it can be more subtle, such as diverting scarce water from natural streams to private vineyards or selling recovered water to golf courses. Look out for it.
mary lou May 3rd, 2008 6:17 pm

here in the great lakes basin, we have at least a fifth of the world’s fresh water. 1% of that circulates in the form of evaporation, runoff, and weather. to tap the great lakes would mean to deplete them.

wetlands are great waste water filters. try it sometime anywhere but in deserts. the maintainance is minimal, and the frogs (dying all across the world for loss of habitat) will thank you.

we all need certain things, and we can get them from the publicly run utilities or from privately run utilities. water and power are two of them. clean air should be available as a matter of public responsibility. we as a society should make food available to people. security should be taken for granted (meaning publicly supplied).

let us not think of the great lakes as blue gold!
MacMeister May 4th, 2008 12:52 am

Rimpinths:

What is important to note is that the reason there was a water quality problem in Walkerton was not due to the fact that the water utility was publicly owned, but rather due to the negligence of two employees. The fact that it was publicly owned is immaterial. The same could have happened if negligent employees worked for a privately owned utility. Your argument is: a) there was a water quality problem in Walkerton b) the water utility in Walkerton was publicly owned. Therefore c) publicly owned water utilities are bad. This is simply not true. If it were, then people certainly would never have survived the past hundred years or so. I could just as easily state this: a) people got sick eating hamburgers at a restaurant b) the restaurant was privately owned. Therefore c) privately owned restaurants are bad. Both are logical fallacies and both are false. Publicly owned water utilities are good because their main objective is to provide clean water for people. The main objective of a privatized water utility is to make money.

When a private company controls the water distribution and purification systems it supplants the public system, giving no other option than to get the water from the private company. You say that ‘If people want water, no government or corporation is preventing them from going to a lake or river to drink and transport as much water as they want’. You obviously have not heard of companies such as Coca-Cola, Pespi etc. going into “third world” countries and making their pop using the local water. They extract the water, put it in bottles and ship the bottles overseas. Due to the huge amount of water extraction, the local water table drops so low that people cannot possibly dig a well deep enough to reach water. Many private companies also pollute fresh water supplies so that you cannot drink the water even if you can get it. So that statement is also false. Sure one is a beverage vendor and one is a water utility, but the essence is the succession of control over the water supply. One is mandated (or contracted) and one is de facto. Still the water is privatized and no longer accessible by the people.

As far as having a right to clean water; actually people in many countries do because that is one of the reasons they pay taxes. You try to sidetrack the argument by saying that it is not a ‘natural right’. Whether it’s a natural right or just a constitutional/legal right is immaterial. The fact is that it is still a right.

Your arguments have the appearance of being well-researched, but when you pick apart one argument like your Walkerton logical fallacy and your tangental ad hominem attacks, you can see how you have twisted the facts to make your point. As a result, it’s hard to accept the credibility of your comments as a whole.
DiabloRojo May 4th, 2008 5:14 am

MacMeister:

An enlightening, logically concise, and airtight case you’ve made! Bravo to you I say!

bornfreemen:

You may find David Mamet’s brilliant play/movie “The Water Engine” to be of great interest. Although the storyline is about control of a breakthrough design of an engine, e.g. , waterpower, it nonetheless parallels this topic.

BTW: In case anyone’s interested France was the birthplace of modern water privatization!
Gail May 4th, 2008 11:11 am

karlof1 May 2nd, 2008 1:21 am

“Military or Market-Driven Empire Building: 1950-2008 a read.”

karlof1,

That was a brilliant essay by James Petras. Thanks for sharing it with us.
Gail May 4th, 2008 11:22 am

If you have any extra cash and can donate a few bucks to help stop the “corporate pillaging” of public water supplies, please consider sending a check to this organization:

http://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/cms/page1096.cfm

http://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/files/pdfs/Corporate%20Accountability%20International%20Standards%20of%20Political%20Conduct%20for%20Corporations.pdf
Rimpinths May 4th, 2008 1:07 pm

MacMeister wrote: “Your argument is: a) there was a water quality problem in Walkerton b) the water utility in Walkerton was publicly owned. Therefore c) publicly owned water utilities are bad. This is simply not true.”

That was not my argument. I don’t even think that’s true. I don’t think public water utilities are bad. But nor do I think that private water utilities are always bad. Water utilities are a type of natural monopoly, and in most cases of natural monopolies, public ownership or at the very least strict government regulation, is justified.

My argument was that the author presented Walkerton as a case where the privatization of the water system caused deaths and illnesses. I pointed out that the Walkerton water system is not even privatized; it is publicly-owned. Therefore, the author’s statement was false.

I was not trying to make an argument against publicly-owned water systems. I was simply pointing out that the author’s argument against privately-owned water systems was based on false statements, both in the case of Walkerton and in the case of “443 million missed school days”, which was deliberately deceitful. I would love to read a good article arguing against the privatization of water systems. The author did not write one; she made up facts and events to support her point of view. If you find that behavior acceptable, then I think Cheney may be interested in hiring you to help him come up with a casus belli for his next war.

You also wrote:

“You try to sidetrack the argument by saying that it is not a ‘natural right’. Whether it’s a natural right or just a constitutional/legal right is immaterial. The fact is that it is still a right.”

It was not a sidetrack to the argument. The author uses the words “natural right” in the title of her article, so therefore it is a central part of her argument. The distinction between a natural right and a legal right is very important. A natural right does not come with any expense: the government must be simply avoid interferring with citizens’ attempts to exercise it. On the other hand, a legal right requires money to enforce it. In the case of the “right” to clean water transported to your house, somebody has to pay for the sewers, the water treatment plant, the pipes to bring it in homes and businesses. By claiming that clean water is a “natural right”, the author is avoiding the more difficult argument of who’s going to pay for it, and what is the most cost-effective way of providing it. Clean water transported to the point of use requires massive amounts of capital to build and it’s expensive to maintain. In most cases, a public utility is the best option. In other cases, a private company may be the better option. The article did contain any facts or comparative analysis that would help somebody determine the most cost-effective way of doing that.
mary lou May 4th, 2008 6:05 pm

just to reiterate: wetlands are a great way to treat wastewater. the example noted on public radio was in new jersey, i think.

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)