Blog Posts: Water privatization

By Sam Bernhardt

Sam Bernhardt, Pennsylvania Organizer for Food & Water Watch

Last night’s Allentown city council meeting was the latest slap in the face for residents who have been trying to exercise their right to weigh in on the fate of their water and sewer system. Mayor Ed Pawlowski is rushing through a proposed 50-year lease of the city’s water and sewer system as fast as he can, and many members of the city council appear to be going along with it and silencing dissent.

At the meeting last night — a mere day after the city opened the final bids — the city council introduced a resolution and a bill to approve the lease to the winning bidder, the Lehigh County Authority.

More than 100 city residents, many wearing red shirts to show their opposition to the water lease, packed the council chambers to give public comment against the lease. However, the City Council President Julio Guridy and Vice President Ray O’Connell denied the public the right to speak on the water lease, stating that it was tradition not to discuss or take public comment on a bill the night it is introduced.

Residents made clear that the city charter did not say that the council should refuse public comment that night. Check out Rich Fegley, the owner of Brew Works, and other residents taking a strong stance and challenging the council, in the video on 69 News WFMZ-TV.

In fact, the charter explicitly states that the public has the right to comment on any topic of concern and be heard by the city council at the beginning of a meeting (see photo):

There are many good reasons why Allentonians oppose the lease, which Mayor Pawlowski touts as the only way to offset budget shortfalls and pay down the city’s pension debt. However, a new Food & Water Watch report released today, Borrowing Trouble: Water Privatization Is a False Solution for Municipal Budget Shortfalls, explains that taxpayers ultimately suffer when water systems are leased off. A lease is a one-shot ploy that simply masks, not alleviates, local budget shortfalls. Such backdoor borrowing may take debt off the city’s books, but it is only possible because the city is sacrificing future revenue and allowing the authority to hike water rates.

Residents in Allentown are well aware of these problems and have been working to try to stop the water lease. But they have faced an uphill battle against a mayor so intent on his lease scheme that he has undermined the democratic process. Last fall, for example, Mayor Pawlowski interfered with the residents as they worked to collect the signatures to put a question on the ballot to require voter approval before any major lease or sale of public assets.

Despite his interference, they collected more than 4,000 signatures, more than enough to get a public vote. Unfortunately, however, the county rejected the petitions because the residents collected them at the wrong time by following the city’s charter, which differed from state law.

The mayor’s administration has also bullishly supported the lease by limiting public input and refusing to disclose important information about the companies that sought to take over the water and sewer systems. It refused to reveal the full identities of the bidders and the responses to the request for qualifications for the water and sewer concession. This lack of transparency is common with these asset deals, and it is clear the mayor is trying to hide behind closed doors to rush this deal though.   

By Marcela Olivera

This blog was originally posted at Thebrokeronline.eu.

In the Americas, we have been fighting water privatization since the early 1990s: from Detroit in the United States to Buenos Aires in Argentina. After the infamous 2000 water war in Cochabamba, Bolivia, that led to the expulsion of a multinational corporation, social movements throughout the Americas have organized themselves to protect water from greed.

In August 2003, in El Salvador, several organizations from the Americas assembled and decided to create the Red VIDA (Network for Inter-American Vigilance in Defense of and for the Right to Water).  Through this network, we would launch a coordinated hemispheric campaign to defend water as a common good. 

Since its beginning in 2003, we have worked very hard resisting water privatization and expelling corporations that were profiting from our water sources and water utilities. We have also insured that constitutional amendments were passed that prevent the commodification of water. In Uruguay, for example, the Red VIDA was active in the campaign that led to a constitutional amendment declaring access to water as a human right. 

Read the full article…

By Mary Grant

On Wednesday, the Allentown City Council signed off on the mayor’s proposal to proceed with a massive water privatization scheme. The vote authorized the city to solicit proposals from seven entities that want to control the city’s water and sewer systems.

Allentown Mayor Ed Pawlowski seems to think that he’s found a clever way to shore up the city’s struggling police and fire pension funds. His plan? Hand over control of the water and sewer systems for 50 years to a company that would pay the city at least $150 million upfront and $4 million a year over the course of the lease.

Sound easy? It’s not. The proposed privatization is a massive undertaking that would have lasting consequences for generations of residents.

Because water and sewer utilities provide services essential for public health and wellbeing, one would hope that the mayor would make the privatization process as open and transparent as possible and would seek public approval before moving forward.

Regrettably, the mayor’s administration has taken the opposite approach: limiting public disclosure, distributing misinformation and interfering with democratic citizen action. The mayor is trying to strong-arm and fast track his risky and costly water gambit.

Three Primary Ways that Allentown’s Mayor Is Deceiving the Public Read the full article…

By Kate Fried

It seems that Aqua America Chairman and CEO Nicholas DeBenedictis recently got a head start on Halloween, masquerading as…an oil and gas industry spokesperson. Sure, it’s not the most exciting costume around–all the sexy water baron costumes were apparently sold out. According to publicity materials recently released by the company, DeBenedictis said that he supports regulations that would help pave the proverbial road to fuel more cars and trucks with natural gas. Earlier this year, Aqua America even committed to transition many of its vehicles to burn the oil and gas industry’s current favorite fossil fuel.

From where does this fascination with natural gas arise? Has DeBenedictis been watching too many API ads? Does this have anything to do with what he hopes to find in his metaphorical trick or treat sack? It very well could. The fracking required to extract the gas to fuel these vehicles requires water—lots and lots of water and Aqua America wants to tap that market. Earlier this year, Aqua America was instrumental in evicting residents of the Riverdale Mobile Home Village from their homes so it could build a water withdrawal facility to supply the industry. We can only assume that Aqua America’s upcoming plans to exploit shale gas development are more trick than treat.

DeBenedictis has said that selling water to shale gas operations could comprise 10 percent of Aqua America’s total income in 2015. That means that he expects those water sales to bring in more than $15 million in profit. This year, the company expects to make about $1.5 to 2 million in profit from selling water to the fracking industry via the same pipeline that caused the eviction of residents in the Riverdale Mobile Home Village.

Private water has faced considerable public resistance in recent years as more people realize that water is best controlled and managed by the public. So what’s a corporation to do when its plans to sustain profits are foiled? In this case, the answer appears simple: join forces with another greedy industry.

While there are many, many reasons to oppose fracking, Aqua America’s apparent attempts to cozy up to the oil and gas industry serve as a reminder of some of the darker, possibly more insidious aspects of the fight—while we try to protect our communities and our collective future from fracking, it seems some CEOs just can’t wait to enjoy all their new loot.

By Marcela Olivera and Susan Spronk

Click here to learn more about water privatization in Latin America.

We are sitting in a large Catholic hall nestled in the heart of Mexico City, the type of space where many Latin American social movements have historically sought refuge from dictatorships. Today, we are not fending off the military but big multinationals and our governments who want to sell our water, use it to grow soy or poison it with their mines. 

We have gathered for the general assembly of Red Vida, an inter-American network of social movements working in defense of water from Canada to Argentina. Forty of us are debating political strategy to build on our successes in reversing the tide of privatization of the 1990s (see Struggles for Water Justice in Latin America).

Mexico in hot water

We can’t rest on our laurels. Mexico is just one ‘hot spot’ where our brothers and sisters are fighting private water companies and governments that support them. They have seen how private providers in Ecuador, Bolivia and Argentina have failed to deliver on their promises for cheaper and higher quality water services, and they can’t let their country make the same mistakes.

In Mexico, a national coalition of environmentalist organizations, COMDA, is currently embroiled in a campaign to reform the water law. COMDA wants the law to respect the right of communities to manage their own water resources and to defend the commons against ‘enclosure’, particularly from contamination by big mining companies.

Debating strategies

One of the productive tensions that has emerged in this meeting is whether we should be pushing our governments to include the ‘right to water’ in legislation or whether we should be focusing our energies on struggles to defend ‘the commons’.

Oscar Olivera from Fundación Abril (Bolivia) spoke eloquently about the need to defend spaces of self-government such as community-run water systems in the peri-urban areas of the Andes. If people have constructed their own water systems with sweat and blood, do we really ‘need’ the state to provide these services? Many members of such autonomous communities, most self-identifying as indigenous, see the state as an alien institution imposed by colonial rule.

By contrast, Adriana Marquisio from Uruguay’s publicly owned and operated water utility OSEhighlighted that state provision in her country has allowed to achieve near universal coverage, and much higher quality services than many of the small community systems could ever provide.

From our conversations it is clear that it is not enough to frame our campaigns around the right to water and we must document concrete alternatives to privatization. Red Vida is better able to do that thanks to collaboration with researchers from the Municipal Services Project, who attended our assemblies as invited observers in Buga, Colombia in May 2009 and are here with us again in Mexico. 

If we can articulate what the alternatives are perhaps we can convince others that privatization is not the solution. We can also demonstrate the negative impact of the more insidious practices of sub-contracting and corporatization, which threaten the ‘public’ nature of our utilities. These trends are affecting every one of us, whether our governments claim to be left-of-center or not.

As our Declaration signed in Mexico by all member organizations of the Red Vida states, in the face of all these struggles, we will continue to fight “like water, in a manner that is transparent, joyful and always in motion…until the final victory.” 

Marcela Olivera is the Latin American coordinator for the Water for All Campaign of Food and Water Watch, and coordinates the Red Vida.

Susan Spronk teaches international development at the University of Ottawa. She is an active participant in several projects of the Red Vida and a research associate with the Municipal Services Project. 

This was originally posted on the blog of the Municipal Services Project.

By Emily Wurth

I’m sure most residents of Allentown, Pennsylvania have never heard of Public Financial Management Inc. (PFM), but the company’s financial recommendations are a major factor behind the irresponsible water privatization scheme that could soon affect every city resident.

PFM, the top ranked financial advisory firm in the country, was hired by Mayor Ed Pawlowski to advise the city on how to address its serious fiscal shortfalls threatening to make Allentown unable to fund the pensions of police officers and firefighters.

After exploring options for how the city could shore up its finances and incorporating PFM recommendations, the mayor decided that the city should lease its water and sewer system for 50 years in exchange for a lump payment of between $150 million and $200 million. The plan has been met with widespread public criticism – at the September 27^th city council meeting, all 24 speakers voiced their opposition to this deal. Read the full article…

By Maude Barlow

From left to right: Barbara Gysi, Cedric Wermuth, Yvonne Feri, Jacques Neyrinck, Maude Barlow, Rosmarie, Balthasar Glättli and Franklin Frederick. Photo Courtesy of Council of Canadians.

Maude Barlow is the National Chairperson of Council of Canadians and Board Chair of Food & Water Watch. This post originally appeared on the Council of Canadians’ blog.

I have just returned from a week in Switzerland to promote the right to water and to challenge the giant Swiss bottled water giant Nestlé. My visit was arranged by Franklin Frederick, an activist and leader in the global fight against Nestlé Waters, who is originally from Brazil, but now lives and works in Switzerland. Franklin is an extraordinary man. He is fiercely committed to global water justice and has been a thorn in the side of the water privateers for years. I also reconnected with Rosmarie Bar, a former Green Member of the Swiss Parliament and former senior member of the Swiss development network, Alliance Sud. Rosmarie and I worked together to form an international group called Friends of the Right to Water and worked for many years to lay the groundwork for the recognition of this right at the UN.

I spoke at the universities of Bern and Lucerne and in a beautiful 500 year-old church located in the heart of Bern. In the magnificent wood paneled Swiss Parliament, I also met with a delegation of MPs from every party who are committed to protecting public water and the human right to water. In all these venues, I met wonderful, committed people working for economic and social justice.

However, it is very clear that Nestlé is a powerful presence in Switzerland and its influence in the halls of power goes deep. Everyone I talked to said so in one way or another. Switzerland has no law limiting political donations from corporations, or requiring transparency in campaign financing. Given that the marketing department of Nestlé has a larger annual budget than the World Health Organization, it is widely understood that the company has great political influence.

Read the full article…

By Wenonah Hauter

Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter

Sometimes the forces working to commoditize our vital natural resources exist in plain sight, flaunting their selfish motives. Other times, they hide behind euphemistic smokescreens, which is far and away more menacing.  Regardless of where you may find them, their actions share a common consequence—undermining our collective right to access safe, clean, affordable water.

Last May, I traveled to Dubai for the Global Water: Oil & Gas Summit where I was surrounded by corporate executives discussing their “drill baby drill” philosophy with abandon and no mention of the environmental or societal costs. Then in August, I traveled to Los Angeles to speak at the premiere of a film about powerful corporate interests who conceal their intentions to privatize California’s water supply behind the guise of conservation and disaster preparedness. 

While half a world apart, these scenarios both represent the global force determined to privatize and commodify water for the sheer benefit of corporate profits. My colleague Scott Edwards says it best: “Water-related death, drought and degradation aren’t calamities; they’re profit opportunities.” This couldn’t be truer for California where political wars have been waged over water since the Gold Rush. Read the full article…

Eleanor Sochanski (Photo by CHRIS LaCHALL / COURIERPOSTONLINE.COM)

By Wenonah Hauter

The notion of a profit-driven multinational corporation controlling the supply of water to our homes (yes, the water we as humans rely on daily to drink, bathe and live) seems odd to many. Perhaps as odd as the notion of a corporation controlling (and charging us for) the sunshine we enjoy, or air we breathe. But with so much to worry about these days, it often takes an extreme case to remind us all just how absurd the privatization of water is. The recent case of 91-year old Camden, NJ resident Eleanor Sochanski and her $2,167.02 water bill should do the trick. Read the full article…

By Hannah Scott

Click here to learn more about Take Back the Tap.

One of Coca-Cola’s lead representatives to the Olympics was quoted as laughing while saying that he hopes for a hot a sunny summer with “lots of thirsty people.” But spectators at the Summer Olympics will not have to rely on Coca-Cola’s Abbey Well for their hydration needs, as there is another water resource available to consumers: tap water.

It began in 2008 when Tom Brake, an Olympics spokesperson and London Member of Parliament, actively worked to ensure that the Olympic organizers would provide tap water to spectators and athletes. “Everyone wants the 2012 Games to be the most sustainable on record. That must mean free non-bottled water for all visitors to the Games,” he said. That same year, Olympic organizers confirmed that tap water would be available to spectators and athletes of the Games.

London, however, is not the first city to provide attendees of Olympic Events free tap water. When Vancouver hosted the Winter Olympics in 2010, spectators were encouraged to enjoy tap water instead of purchasing bottled water.  (We heard a little rumor that Coca-Cola was upset about having to compete with tap water, despite claiming they did not see tap water as competition.) 

Although spectators will not be permitted to bring in bottles of liquid exceeding 100 mL (about 3.4 fluid ounces), or “excessive food,” due to security regulations, an empty reusable water bottle will be allowed. So instead of having to waste £1.60 (roughly $2.50) on a bottle of water, spectators can enjoy tap water from designated filling stations. 

We encourage all spectators and athletes to take advantage of the free water, and to bring their reusable water bottles to take back the tap in London. 

Hannah Scott is a Food & Water Watch summer water research and policy intern and a senior at American University.