

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

We commend the independent expert for her thorough review of the challenges to ensuring the human right to water and sanitation in the United States, and support her call for a national water and sanitation policy and plan of action. To fully realize and sustain the human right to water and sanitation, it is essential that the U.S. engage in a process of policy reform and harmonization to put human rights and marginalized groups first, address gaps in regulation and implementation, minimize inequality and de facto discrimination, protect water resources, and bolster data collection and rural water quality oversight. We support communities that have been impacted by corporate usurpation of water resources, including water bottling, and look to the U.S. government to ensure that these unjust and unsustainable practices are stopped.
The report recognizes the need for adequate investment in planning and implementation, which in the U.S. includes a serious need for federal funding increases for infrastructure. Lack of adequate financing is a major contributing factor to U.S. water and sewer system failures. Since 1978, the portion of municipal sewer infrastructure funded by the federal government has declined dramatically from 78 percent to 3 percent. States and localities have been unable to fill this shortfall, leading to extensive deterioration of essential infrastructure. This steady cutback in federal funding has also forced utilities to raise rates dramatically, endangering the human right to water and sanitation especially for low income communities. For example, Washington, D.C. needs a $3.8 billion investment over the next ten years, and without adequate federal support, the city raised rates 17 percent in 2010. With nearly 18 percent of D.C. residents living in poverty in 2009, these escalating water rates could restrict people's access to safe drinking water.
We are concerned that instead of prioritizing the human right to water and sanitation and dedicating needed federal funding, parts of the U.S. government are increasingly promoting "market solutions" such as "full cost pricing" in ways that undermine these human rights for the most marginalized. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is now advocating for full cost pricing, backed by private corporations that stand to gain from higher water rates and reliance on ratepayers for investments. In the past, these aggressive rate increases have resulted in residents being unable to pay, and having their water cut off. This is a troubling trend that threatens the human right to water in both urban and rural communities and will exacerbate the de facto discrimination highlighted in the Rapporteur's report.
Water privatization in the U.S. has too often led to human rights violations, and has consistently undermined democratic water governance, accountability, and transparency. While privatization and the right to water may not be theoretically mutually exclusive the Rapporteur's report shows some examples of how the myriad forms of privatization have violated the human right to water through cutoffs, price hikes, contamination, corporate withholding of information or misleading the public, and failing to fulfil obligations. Additionally, these practices disproportionately impact low income communities and those with fixed incomes.
For example, in 2004, Aqua America took over the water and wastewater system in Neuse River Village, N.C. Within a year, Aqua America had cut off water service to more than half of the 130 households. Dozens of families were forced to fill jugs of water at their neighbours' faucets for daily cleaning and cooking, use the nearby woods as a bathroom, and some were evicted from their homes. Many families were paying more for water than for rent.
In another case in Toms River, N.J., a federal and state investigation linked drinking water served by United Water Toms River, an investor owned water utility, to childhood cancer. The state later determined that United Water was also manipulating drinking water tests to conceal potential quality violations. These cases exemplify the broader problems with water privatization in the U.S. and the need for better regulation and government oversight.
U.S. foreign assistance should also support the progressive realization of the human right to water and sanitation in other countries. Greater transparency and disclosure, as well as civil society and public involvement is needed in setting priorities for foreign aid to ensure that, for example, the strategy and criteria USAID is developing to target areas of greatest need emphasize community ownership of water and sanitation projects, non-profit structures and locally-sourced technologies.
Finally, U.S. engagement with international financial institutions should be designed to promote and support the human right to water and sanitation. The World Bank Group remains the "largest external source of financing for water management in developing countries", but continues to push water privatization and corporatization on governments through advisory and technical services, direct investments that empower transnational water corporations, restructuring public utilities, and even through donor conditionalities. Restructuring often means forcing borrowing countries to adopt cost-recovery regulations that increase household tariffs and lay the groundwork for corporate takeover.
In particular, the IFC plays a key role in not only directly purchasing equity shares in water transnationals, but also advising governments to procure their services. We found that from 2000 to 2008, 80 percent of the IFC's water loans went to the four largest transnational water corporations, further exacerbating power and resource inequalities between the private and the public sector.
Currently, many states lack the capacity to adequately protect and fulfil the human right to water and sanitation, making it both easier and more dangerous for them to succumb to the pressures of transnational corporations, IFIs, and donors, by delegating their key duties to the private sector.
In conclusion, we urge the U.S. government to:
We urge the Human Rights Council Working Group on Transnational Business, etc to:
A PDF of this statement (with citations) is here (pdd)
Corporate Accountability stops transnational corporations from devastating democracy, trampling human rights, and destroying our planet.
(617) 695-2525"We will organize to win and defend the agenda that resonated with voters: free childcare, fast and free buses, freezing the rent and building affordable homes, and more," says Our Time for an Affordable NYC.
On the heels of over 1 million New Yorkers voting for Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani's affordability agenda, his allies have launched an organization that aims to keep the movement behind the democratic socialist's successful campaign active during his term.
"We will organize to win and defend the agenda that resonated with voters: free childcare, fast and free buses, freezing the rent and building affordable homes, and more," says the website of the new 501(c)(4), Our Time for an Affordable NYC.
"We'll be door-knocking, phone-banking, communicating, and organizing at the neighborhood, city, and state level," the site explains. "To get it done, we'll collaborate with community organizations, movement groups, and unions that have been doing this work and share a commitment to the affordability agenda."
While Our Time embraces Mamdani's messages and policies, it is distinct from the mayor-elect and his campaign, and "was legally incorporated last week before his victory over former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo," the New York Times reported Thursday. The newspaper noted Mamdani's comments about the group during a press conference earlier this week.
"I will always celebrate anyone who is looking to build on the incredible, amazing grassroots enthusiasm of our campaign," he said. "This work was not simply to win an election but transform our city, and that means it has to continue."
Mamdani "also encouraged supporters to join the New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, his political home," according to City & State New York. Our Time's leadership has ties to the NYC-DSA, which played a key role in mobilizing support for Mamdani during the campaign.
Our Time's site names five people leading the organization: executive director Jeremy Freeman, field manager Magdalena Morańda, senior adviser Susan Kang, and board members David Turner and Batul Hassan.
"Our goal is to channel the energy of a volunteer base towards winning the affordability agenda, and doing so at this scale is unprecedented in New York City history," Freeman told the Times. "In developing the organization, we're looking carefully at past examples both positive and negative, and we'll certainly be sure to avoid the pitfalls of any similar efforts by past administrations, and we'll be as transparent as possible in our practices."
The group's creation has prompted comparisons to Our Revolution, which launched after the 2016 presidential run of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), one of Mamdani's most prominent supporters.
Some political observers have also framed it as what former Democratic President Barack Obama should have done after winning his first term. The American Prospect's executive editor, David Dayen, said that "this is the opposite of what Obama did to his volunteer base after 2008."
There's also the cautionary tale of former NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio's Campaign for One New York, which shut down in 2016 amid alarm over its finances, including donations from entities that had business before or labor contracts with City Hall.
Our Time is "a fully independent organization," and it is "not asking for dues or formal membership," the group's site says. "We are accepting donations from individuals, foundations, and other philanthropic organizations. All donations greater than $1000 will be disclosed publicly on our website."
Freeman told the Times that the group will not be accepting money from corporations or firms with business before the city.
"Our victory was historic, but the campaign for an affordable New York City is just beginning," Our Time's site says. "Even as billionaires have made their opposition clear, more than 100,000 volunteers helped win this election, and they want to keep going. Our Time can be a vehicle for continued engagement—a way for folks to plug in and stay active while they find a long-term political home."
The group is coming together as Mamdani supporters, skeptics, and critics all wonder how much of his popular platform he'll actually be able to accomplish after the state assemblyman is sworn in as mayor next January.
Time on Tuesday published a detailed look at the barriers Mamdani will face in his mission to deliver a rent freeze, more affordable housing, city-run grocery stores, fare-free buses, no-cost childcare, a higher minimum wage, and taxes targeting the 1%.
"Raising taxes would require approval from the Democratic-controlled state Legislature and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul," Time noted. "Hochul endorsed Mamdani but expressed fears that significant tax hikes would force wealthy residents out of the city, ultimately opposing his proposed tax increases."
After Mamdani's Tuesday victory, longtime labor organizers Peter Olney and Rand Wilson wrote in an op-ed that during his four-year term, "every Republican and corporate Democrat will do everything possible to ensure he fails, to discredit his socialist platform."
"Any success he achieves as mayor will be due to the strength of the movement that prevailed in the primary and continued to grow for his election in November," the stressed. "If that movement stays mobilized, continues to grow, and delivers for New York’s working class, it will be an inspiring political model that our labor movement should support and attempt to replicate in other US metropolitan areas."
"Under Gov. Hochul’s leadership, New Yorkers’ voices were silenced to appease President Trump’s fossil fuel priorities," said one critic.
Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul came under fire Friday after her administration approved a previously rejected fracked gas pipeline over the objection of climate and conservation campaigners.
The New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) announced approval of permits including a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the proposed Northeast Supply Enhancement (NESE) pipeline. Commonly known as the Williams Pipeline, the expansion project involves the construction of a 23.5-mile fracked gas conduit beneath the Raritan Bay and Lower New York Bay. The pipeline would carry hydraulically fractured gas from Pennsylvania across New Jersey and into New York.
“As governor, a top priority is making sure the lights and heat stay on for all New Yorkers as we face potential energy shortages downstate as soon as next summer,” Hochul said in a statement. “We need to govern in reality.”
DEC assured that it is "committed to closely monitoring the project’s construction and adherence to all permit conditions to ensure the full protection of New York’s waterways."
This, after the agency twice denied water quality certification for the same pipeline for failing to demonstrate compliance with state quality standards.
In 2020, the DEC under then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who is also a Democrat, denied certification for the project after finding that the proposed pipeline was likely to harm water quality by stirring up sediment and other contaminants that “would disturb sensitive habitats, including shellfish beds.”
The advocacy group New York Communities for Change noted in a fact sheet that the project "would jack up already-high utility bills" and be a "super-polluter" that would "generate about 8 million tons of additional climate-heating and asthma-inducing air pollution each year."
"The pollution would also foul our water, including stirring up toxic waste during the construction process," the group added. "The project would especially hurt people on the Rockaways, a majority African American community, where it would terminate."
BREAKING: Hochul just did Trump’s bidding by approving the massive Williams fracked gas pipeline.Hochul’s dirty deal with Trump will jack up our utility bills, pollute our air & water, and cook the climate.Join us at 3:30 outside her office 919 3rd Avenue to protest TODAY.
— New York Communities for Change (@nychange.bsky.social) November 7, 2025 at 9:22 AM
However, Williams Companies, the group behind the project, filed a new application this year amid pressure from President Donald Trump for Hochul to green-light construction.
“Today’s decision by New York is a complete reversal of their two previous determinations to reject this pipeline project over threats to the state’s water resources," Mark Izeman, senior attorney for environmental health at the Natural Resources Defense Counsel, said in a statement Friday.
"The pipeline proposal is exactly the same, and state and federal law is the same, so there is no legal or scientific basis for taking a 180 degree turn from the state’s past denials," Izeman continued. "If built, the pipeline would tear up 23 miles of the New York-New Jersey Harbor floor; destroy marine habitats; and dredge up mercury, copper, PCBs, and other toxins."
The project "would also harm sensitive shellfish beds and fishing areas, and undercut billions of dollars New York has invested to improve water quality in the harbor," he added.
Earthjustice New York policy advocate Liz Moran said that “it is shameful that Gov. Hochul and her Department of Environmental Conservation made a decision that fails to protect New Yorkers and our precious waterways."
"We are reviewing the certificate and evaluating our options," Moran added. "The certificate application hasn’t changed since being previously rejected by the DEC, water quality standards haven’t changed—only the political context has changed, and that’s not a basis to completely reverse course.”
Sane Energy Project director Kim Fraczek also condemned the approval, asserting that "under Gov. Hochul’s leadership, New Yorkers’ voices were silenced to appease President Trump’s fossil fuel priorities."
"Hochul has made it abundantly clear that she will abdicate her responsibility as governor, violate New York’s signature climate law, dismiss the environmental and affordability struggles facing New Yorkers, and bend the knee to Trump for political expediency," Fraczek added.
Roger Downs, conservation director at the Sierra Club’s Atlantic chapter, said, "It is truly a sad day when New York leaders cave to the Trump administration and agree to build pipelines that New Yorkers do not need and cannot afford."
“This decision is an affront to clean water, energy affordability, and a stable climate," Downs added.
Food & Water Watch New York state director Laura Shindell called Hochul's approval "a betrayal of New Yorkers."
“In granting the certification for this pipeline, Gov. Hochul has not only sided with Trump, she’s fast-tracked his agenda," she continued. "Hochul has shown New Yorkers she’d prefer to do Trump’s dirty work rather than protect our waterways from pollution."
"She hasn’t kept her promises to fight against skyrocketing energy bills or the climate crisis," Shindell added. "But New Yorkers will fight Hochul’s dirty pipeline every step of the way—alongside our communities—until it is stopped for good.”
"The administration’s legal maneuver sends a clear and devastating message: that the well-being of America’s most vulnerable is not important," said the president of the Food Research & Action Center.
The Trump administration will not give poor Americans food assistance without a fight.
Instead of following a federal judge’s ruling Thursday that ordered officials to release Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funds to 42 million Americans by the next day, the Department of Justice (DOJ) asked an appeals court to immediately block the ruling on Friday.
The Trump administration has argued that due to the government shutdown, the SNAP program, which provides food assistance to those making 130% of the federal poverty line or less, functionally does not exist.
In an emergency request to the 1st Circuit Court of the United States, the DOJ called the lower court's ruling, "unprecedented" and argued that it makes "a mockery of the separation of powers.”
Furthering what has been widely interpreted as an effort to pressure Democrats to cave on their demands in the government shutdown, the appeal stated that the lapse in SNAP funding was caused by “congressional failure, and... can only be solved by congressional action.”
US District Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island, in his second ruling against the administration's efforts to choke off SNAP benefits, wrote the previous day that the administration's plan to partially fund the program was insufficient. The previous week, McConnell had ruled that the administration had to tap a $5 billion contingency fund to fund the program and make up for the shortfall by drawing from other sources.
The administration agreed to use the contingency fund but offered a plan that fell several billion dollars short of fully funding the program and would have amounted to a 61% benefit cut for the average SNAP recipient, leaving millions without benefits altogether, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
While the administration has sought to pin the blame for funding lapses on Democrats in Congress and has asserted that its hands are tied, McConnell described the administration's maneuvering as a deliberate political stunt.
"This is a problem that could have and should have been avoided," McConnell said. “The defendants failed to consider the practical consequences associated with this decision to only partially fund SNAP... It’s likely that SNAP recipients are hungry as we sit here."
He added that Trump had essentially telegraphed his plan to defy the court order over the weekend, writing on Truth Social that “SNAP payments will be given only when the government opens.”
This, along with messages on the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) website blaming Democrats for the lapse in funding, McConnell suggested, was evidence that “SNAP benefits are being withheld for political reasons.”
“Children are immediately at risk of going hungry,” McConnell said. “This should never happen in America.”
More than 1 in 8 Americans rely on the SNAP program, 39% of whom are children. As the CBPP report explained, families with children would likely be those hardest hit under Trump's partial funding proposal.
"Nearly 1.2 million SNAP households with roughly 4.9 million people—roughly 1 in 9 SNAP recipients—will receive zero benefits because their normal benefit amount is less than the planned benefit reduction," it says. "Only one-or two-person households receive a minimum benefit under SNAP rules, leaving some households with three or more members—which are primarily households with children—at risk of receiving nothing."
The USDA has also issued a warning to grocery stores telling them it is illegal for them to offer special discounts to SNAP recipients hurt by the freeze, even though the government is allowed to grant them waivers. On Thursday, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced a bill that would allow grocery stores to voluntarily offer discounts to SNAP recipients whenever their benefits are affected by a government shutdown.
“Donald Trump is the most powerful person in the world,” Wyden said. “Only a monster would use that power to deny help to millions of families that don’t know where their next meal is coming from.”
As the CPBB has noted, contrary to its claims, nothing is stopping the Trump administration from transferring funds from other food assistance programs to fund SNAP fully. It has already done this twice to sustain the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which a court ruled was legal.
"Instead of using the funding that has been readily available to feed people, this administration continues to fight to deny tens of millions from accessing the nutrition they need," said Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center. "For some unfathomable reason, the Trump administration wants to punish the 42 million people, including children, working parents, older adults, people with disabilities, and veterans, who rely on SNAP to put food on the table."
She added that "at a time when food insecurity is rising due to increasing grocery prices, the administration’s legal maneuver sends a clear and devastating message: that the well-being of America’s most vulnerable is not important."