September, 24 2008, 01:05pm EDT
Shapleigh Stops Poland Springs' Spigot
The people of Shapleigh, Maine voted overwhelmingly Saturday to halt Nestle's
water mining activities. The vote represents a community victory
against the multinational company's plans to develop new water sources
for its Poland Springs bottling brand in Maine.
SHAPLEIGH, Maine
The people of Shapleigh, Maine voted overwhelmingly Saturday to halt Nestle's
water mining activities. The vote represents a community victory
against the multinational company's plans to develop new water sources
for its Poland Springs bottling brand in Maine.
Residents, water activists, and journalists flooded the elementary
school cafeteria where residents voted 204 to 38 for a six-month
moratorium on water extraction. The moratorium is intended to provide
time for the town to draft and approve a comprehensive water protection
ordinance regulating water testing and large-scale pumping. The town
also shot down Nestle's request for access to a 150 acre parcel of town
land to drill up to 15 test wells this coming spring to determine
whether it was as an adequate site to install a new well-head.
Residents stomped down the testing proposal 183 to 43.
In 2006 Nestle received permission from the Maine Department of
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to sink bore wells in the Vernon Walker
Wildlife Management Area, land that Shapleigh and the neighboring town
of Newfield both share. Nestle's initial interest was to sign a bulk
water extraction contract with the State of Maine for water underneath
Vernon Walker. When the state offered a price too high for Nestle, the
corporation turned to the town of Shapleigh across the road.
Nestle Poland Springs already draws water from eight sites across
the state of Maine, reporting that it drained 700 million gallons of
groundwater last year. Nestle operates the largest spring
water-bottling plant in North America in the rural town of Hollis, 25
miles east northeast of Shapleigh.
Citizen groups have sprung up in response to Nestle's aggressive bid
for water contracts in pristine rural communities tucked among the
mountains, rivers and ponds of Southern Maine. In Shapleigh, community
members formed a grassroots organization, Protecting Our Water &
Wildlife Resources (POWWR) with the mission to keep water in the hands
of the citizens that use it simply to live. One of POWWR's main
concerns is the effect of Nestle's bulk water extraction on the local
wildlife habitat, water quality, and water sustainability for future
generations. Speaking on POWWR's contribution to the Shapleigh
victory, chair member Ann Winn-Wentworth said, "Nestle has coined our
group as 'small and very vocal' but our purpose is to educate voters on
the facts. The residents of Shapleigh voted [Saturday], sending a
resounding message that they are not ready for Nestle to move in. We
want to see this statewide.
Now that Nestle has been defeated in
Shapleigh, citizens and local water activists fear future encroachment
of Nestle on the Vernon Walker site managed by the Inland Fisheries and
Wildlife. A water-mining contract with Nestle might seem lucrative to
the government agency struggling with insufficient funds. However
bottling companies do not really cover the various costs to local
communities or what happens when the water is gone. According to
analysis by the consumer advocacy organization Food and Water Watch,
jobs created by these bottling plants are seasonal, low paying and
often go to people outside of the community. The constant roar of
trucks leaving and entering the bottling plant has an impact on the
quality of life of these rural communities.
In June, Food & Water Watch partnered with Defending Water in
Maine and other local allies to protest Nestle's proposed 30-year
contract with the nearby town of Wells. On July 18th, the Kennebunk,
Kennebunkport, and Wells Water (KKW) District decided to "infinitely
table" Nestle's proposal which would have drained 500,000 gallons of
water a day from the town's fragile ecosystem.
"The extraction
of any community's water for sale has the potential to create a
crisis," said Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water
Watch. "As communities enter into contracts with companies that
extract water, it could become difficult for states and local
governments to regulate water removal. Nestle threatens the local
people and businesses' of Maine and their right to use their public
water resource reasonably for drinking, growing food and other
activities in the community."
At the state level, a coalition
of activists and citizens are collaborating to develop legislation
protecting groundwater across Maine. A press rally in Portland last
Wednesday marked the kick off for an initiative to protect Maine's
groundwater supplies from corporate bulk water extraction.
At the
rally, state Rep. Rick Burns of Berwick announced that he has submitted
a bill in the Legislature called "An Act to Protect Maine's
Groundwater." Over the summer, Maine communities brewed over the
question of local groundwater extraction. As the first frost falls,
the state continues to bubble over the question of who will control the
future of local water.
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500LATEST NEWS
Fire Kills Nearly 40 at Migrant Detention Facility Near US-Mexico Border
"The U.S. bears responsibility for pushing these migrants back into Mexico to face unsafe conditions," argued one immigrant rights advocate.
Mar 28, 2023
This is a developing news story... Check back for possible updates...
At least 39 migrants were declared dead Tuesday after a fire broke out overnight at a detention facility in Ciudad Juárez, close to the U.S.-Mexico border.
Mexico's National Institute of Migration said in a statement that the detention center held 68 men from Central and South America and that an investigation into the cause of the fire is underway.
"The National Institute of Migration strongly rejects the acts that led to this tragedy," the agency said, without elaborating.
Photos taken at the detention center in the wake of the deadly fire showed emergency workers on the scene and numerous bodies covered by sheets. A majority of the migrants detained at the facility were believed to be from Venezuela.
Whatever the immediate cause, the disaster is likely to intensify criticism of the immigration policies of the U.S. and Mexico, both of which have been accused of systematically violating the rights of asylum seekers.
The Associated Press noted that "in recent years, as Mexico has stepped up efforts to stem the flow migration to the U.S. border under pressure from the American government, its National Immigration Institute has struggled with overcrowding in its facilities."
Kerri Talbot, deputy director at the Immigration Hub, argued Tuesday that "the U.S. bears responsibility for pushing these migrants back into Mexico to face unsafe conditions"—a reference to the Trump-era "Remain in Mexico" policy.
In December, a Trump-appointed federal judge blocked President Joe Biden's attempt to end the policy, which rights groups say is illegal.
Meanwhile, Biden has been under heavy criticism from advocates for his asylum proposals.
On Monday, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees urged the Biden administration to rescind its proposed anti-asylum rule, which critics have compared Trump's "transit ban" that denied asylum to anyone who had traveled to the United States through a third country.
Key portions of the Biden proposal, said the agency, "are incompatible with principles of international refugee law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Billionaire Bailout': FDIC Chair Says the Biggest Deposit Accounts at SVB Held $13 Billion
"The bailout really did protect billionaires from taking a modest haircut," one observer wrote in response to the FDIC chief.
Mar 28, 2023
In prepared testimony for a Senate Banking Committee hearing slated for Tuesday morning, the chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation reveals that the 10 largest deposit accounts at Silicon Valley Bank held a combined $13.3 billion, a detail that's likely to intensify criticism of federal regulators' intervention in the firm's recent collapse.
When SVB was spiraling earlier this month, the FDIC, Treasury Department, and Federal Reserve rushed in to backstop the financial system and make all depositors at the California bank whole, including those with accounts over $250,000—the total amount typically covered by FDIC insurance.
"At SVB, the depositors protected by the guarantee of uninsured depositors included not only small and mid-size business customers but also customers with very large account balances," FDIC chief Martin Gruenberg writes in his prepared testimony. "The ten largest deposit accounts at SVB held $13.3 billion, in the aggregate."
Gruenberg goes on to estimate that the FDIC's $125 billion Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF)—which is financed primarily by assessments on insured banks and "backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government"—took a $20 billion hit as a result of the SVB intervention.
According to Gruenberg, nearly 90%—$18 billion—of the DIF loss stemming from SVB is "attributable to the cost of covering uninsured deposits." He added that the DIF absorbed a roughly $1.6 billion cost to cover uninsured deposits at Signature Bank, which failed shortly after SVB.
The FDIC chair's testimony comes as federal regulators continue to face scrutiny for glaring oversight failures in the lead-up to the collapse and backlash over the emergency response, which many have characterized as a bailout for the wealthy and well-connected given SVB's role as a major lender to venture capital and tech startups.
Billionaire Peter Thiel, whose firm was accused of helping spark a bank run by advising clients to pull their money from SVB, told the Financial Times that he had $50 million in a personal account at the bank when it failed earlier this month.
"The bailout really did protect billionaires from taking a modest haircut," Matt Stoller of the American Economic Liberties Project tweeted in response to Gruenberg's testimony.
Writing for The American Prospect on Monday, Revolving Door Project researcher Dylan Gyauch-Lewis called the federal government's swift action in the wake of SVB's failure "a good illustration of the enormous class bias in American policymaking."
"As soon as corporations and the wealthy run into trouble, elites trip over themselves, discarding both law and precedent, to rescue them," Gyauch-Lewis wrote, noting that federal regulators had to classify SVB's collapse as a "systemic risk" to the financial system—a disputed characterization—in order to legally guarantee deposits over $250,000.
For contrast, Gyauch-Lewis added, "consider student loan forgiveness. The legal justification is clear as day, and the authority itself is used regularly. According to the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003, the Education Department can forgive student loans as it sees fit in a national emergency."
"At bottom, the core reason SVB's depositors got bailed out had little to do with morals or even financial risk," Gyauch-Lewis argued. "It happened because they had rich and powerful friends with the ear of the president's chief of staff. Broke students don't. The students have to organize and campaign for decades to get something far worse than what they wanted, and for that to hang in the balance at the Supreme Court. The SVB depositors just had to whine on Twitter and make a few calls."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Tlaib Leads Call for $1.2 Billion in Humanitarian Aid for War-Torn Yemen
"Without a significant increase in American assistance... we fear that 2023 will be a heartbreakingly deadly year for everyday Yemenis," Tlaib and 23 other House Democrats wrote.
Mar 27, 2023
U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib on Monday led two dozen House Democrats in urging Congress to allocate at least $1.2 billion in humanitarian aid for Yemen—whose people have suffered eight years of U.S.-backed Saudi war—in next year's budget.
"As we approach the 8th anniversary of the Yemen war, the country remains stuck in a devastating cycle of conflict and humanitarian crisis that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives," Tlaib (D-Mich.) and 23 other lawmakers wrote in a letter to House Subcommittee on State and Foreign Relations Chair Mario Díaz-Balart (R-Fla.) and Ranking Member Barbara Lee (D-Calif.).
"Yemen has the grim title of the world's worst humanitarian crisis, with over 4 million Yemenis displaced and an estimated 80% of the country's 30 million people reliant upon some form of assistance for their survival," the letter, which was first sent last week, asserts.
The letter's authors lament that "international appeals for assistance for Yemen have consistently [fallen] short of their goals by large margins" and that "the continuous reduction in funding has greatly exacerbated the humanitarian suffering."
The United Nations "has had to close over 75% of its lifesaving programs, and the World Food Program has been forced to cut or reduce food distribution to 8 million people, increasing the number of areas at risk of famine," the letter notes.
"Without a significant increase in American assistance (which we believe would incentivize foreign nations to increase their support in turn), we fear that 2023 will be a heartbreakingly deadly year for everyday Yemenis," the signers assert.
The lawmakers urge Congress to include at least $1.2 billion "for humanitarian relief and reconstruction efforts in Yemen" in the budget for fiscal year 2024. They also ask the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development "to develop programming that directly invests in sustainably developing long-term economic opportunities for Yemenis."
Tlaib is one of four dozen bipartisan House lawmakers who last June introduced a War Powers Resolution to end "unauthorized" United States military involvement in the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen's civil war.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), along with Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), introduced a similar measure in the Senate. Last December, Sanders withdrew the resolution just before it was slated for a floor vote, while vowing to work with the Biden administration on ending U.S. involvement in the war.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.