By Genna Reed

This post originally ran on Grist

Last week, the National Academy of Sciences hosted a summit to discuss “superweeds,”or the widespread problem of herbicide-resistant weeds currently afflicting millions of farm acres across the United States.

Superweeds — the “weeds that man can no longer kill!” — have been in the news for several years. All across the Midwest and Southeast farmers have been photographed and filmed standing in fields surrounded by the giant plants. They bemoan the cost of pesticides and point to industrial rows of crops that don’t have a chance when up against feisty weeds that grow up to three inches a day.

Superweeds have been especially likely to appear alongside genetically engineered (GE) crops, which are engineered to withstand large amounts of pesticide and herbicide use. And these weeds show no sign of going away any time soon.

That’s why scientists and researchers from land-grant universities, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and representatives from several industry and trade groups met at last week’s summit to strategize about the problem.

A few speakers boasted about the efficiency of modern-day farming and the fact that today’s agriculture requires fewer farmers on more acres. But missing from their analysis was the long list of consequences: from degradation of the environment, to health risks from increased chemical use and, ironically, superweeds themselves.

Those who did address the weeds tended not to see them as a result of that impressive modern agriculture. Take Michael Owen, an agronomist from Iowa State University, for instance. In his talk, he contended that superweeds are neither an herbicide problem nor a GE crop problem, per se, but a behavioral problem. This analysis puts the blame on farmers for overusing herbicides. Yet the resistance situation first arose when biotechnology companies pushed herbicides like glyphosate (or Roundup) on farmers as the silver bullet to weed management without educating them on the ramifications of their ubiquitous use. And the practice of using just one herbicide year after year would not have occurred if it weren’t for the aggressive promotion of the Roundup Ready line of GE crops (engineered to tolerate Roundup).

There was some talk of non-chemical solutions by Michael Walsh from the University of Western Australia, who spoke about that country’s serious problem with a weed that has developed resistance to several herbicides. Australian researchers designed a few different weed seed control methods that destroy the seed reserves, eliminating upwards of 95 percent of the seed before it is able to germinate. But it was made very clear by the U.S. farmers attending the summit that going back to traditional methods, like cultivation, would be tough. There was little mention of organic weed management techniques such as crop rotation or the use of cover crops.

But exhausting chemical tool after chemical tool in an arms race against herbicide resistant weeds is not only not sustainable, it’s not working. And despite the fact that chemical solutions are the cause of cross-resistance and multiple resistance in weeds, the need for more chemical solutions was still at the forefront of the discussion.

Strikingly missing from the conversation that day was any talk of the next round of GE crops now in the pipeline, like Dow’s 2,4-D corn and Monsanto’s dicamba soybean, which have both been designed to be resistant to more than one herbicide at once. A full 13 out of 20 crops in the queue awaiting USDA’s approval have what are called “stacked herbicide resistance traits.”

These crops, once approved, will likely result in the use of many more gallons of herbicides and the evolution of even more powerful superweeds that will be resistant to many different herbicides — making them harder and harder to manage. Formulating new varieties of crops to withstand applications of harsher chemicals may be business as usual for these scientists and the companies they work for, but it’s an approach that ignores the underlying issue.

The final speaker at the summit was Iowa State University President Steven Leath, who said he believed that using a “land-grant approach” involving public-private partnerships will help solve this complex problem. This approach is not surprising coming from Leath; Iowa State is known for its relationships with corporations (especially Monsanto), and its agronomy department received around half of its funding from private-sector donors from 2006 to 2010. Iowa State’s campus is even home to a Monsanto Student Services Wing in the main agriculture building.

The superweed problem is one that should be attacked with preventative strategies based in weed biology and independent, interdisciplinary creativity. But partnering with biotechnology companies will likely only result in biotech solutions.

We have the opportunity to see superweeds as a wake-up call and a strong argument for pulling agriculture off the chemical treadmill to which it is bound. But to do that, public research — free of private sector influence — must be funded in order to give farmers better alternatives and to shift the focus away from the current chemical arms race against weeds.

By now you’ve probably read about the $2 billion trading loss reported by JPMorgan Chase. The loss was the result of risky trades using ‘innovative’ financial instruments – you know, the sort of thing that turned a domestic housing market crisis into a global financial crisis. What you may not have heard is that there are plans to bring this sort of innovation to our most essential common resources – especially water.

In July of last year Willem Buiter, chief economist at Citigroup, wrote that he expects “to see a globally integrated market for fresh water within 25 to 30 years. Once the spot markets for water are integrated, futures markets and other derivative water-based financial instruments – puts, calls, swaps – both exchange-traded and OTC will follow.” You’d think they can’t be serious, but they are.

Everyday fresh evidence seems to appear that the people who run the Wall Street casino haven’t learned the lesson of the financial crisis. Whether it’s that they feel picked on or that they’re making the same sorts of risky bets they’ve been making for years. Their hubris knows no bounds.

The plans and vision to bring the speculative world of finance to bear on our common resources – the financialization of nature – should give you pause. Next month, leaders from around the world will be meeting in Rio de Janeiro to make plans for a so-called “green economy.” These plan are in the works now. If successful, our common resources could come under the control of hedge fund managers, Wall Street speculators, and big banks making risky bets.

If you thought the current crisis was large you haven’t seen anything yet. As Buiter tells us:

“Water as an asset class will, in my view, become eventually the single most important physical-commodity based asset class, dwarfing oil, copper, agricultural commodities and precious metals.”

That’s a risk we can’t afford.

Image courtesy of 2012 Erie Rising (www.erierising.com)

While many of us shower our moms with flowers, cards and special outings on Mothers Day, a group of women in Erie, Colorado has a much more urgent request: that the oil and gas giant Encana call off its plans to frack next to their kids’ schools. Encana intends to frack just a stone’s throw from several local schools as early as May 26.

Fearful of potential health problems associated with fracking, the moms of Erie Rising recently wrote a letter to Encana pleading with the company to help safeguard their childrens’ safety by not fracking within 600 yards of their schools. The fact that anyone would have the audacity to forge ahead with such a plan is almost unthinkable, but given the oil and gas industry’s recent attempts to frack near vital drinking water sources, daycare centers and hospitals, this reality is sadly unsurprising.

Food & Water Watch is working with the courageous moms of Erie to hault Encana’s dastardly plan in its tracks. As we stand with the moms of Erie Rising, we hope you will read their letter to Encana, featured below. Help stop the well in Erie by speaking out today. After that, be sure to visit our Fracking Action Center for information on more ways to get involved.

Sunday, May 13th, 2012

Dear Encana Corporation,

We have one wish for Mother’s Day. One wish.

We are mothers, neighbors, cancer survivors, nurses, pharmacists, business owners, teachers, nutritionists, consultants and advocates living in Erie, Colorado.We are mothers who don’t care about receiving flowers, breakfast in bed or a night on the town this Mother’s Day. We are mothers who place the ultimate value on the health and well being of our children.

Encana Corporation is scheduled to begin an extensive drilling operation on May 26, 2012 less than 600 yards from Red Hawk Elementary, Erie Elementary, Erie Middle School and Exploring Minds Childcare Center, which would pose serious dangers to these and other schools near by. The only wish we have is that Encana Corporation not drill the well pad next to our children’s schools.

We are heavily invested in our community and our schools. We have spent years building relationships in our community and making Erie a wonderful place to raise a family. We are thrilled to have the LEED certified, sustainably built Red Hawk Elementary in our community.

On behalf of the Mothers of Erie Rising, we respectfully request that Encana Corporation halt all drilling operations at the Canyon Creek well pad. Please do not set up your drill rigs, hay bales and 24-hour lighting operations next to our children’s schools and playgrounds. Please do not transport your toxic fracking chemicals, millions of gallons of water, lethal flow-back water and sand in front of our schools and by our homes. Please do not make thousands of diesel truck trips on the streets where our children ride their bikes. Please do not violate our homeowners’ quiet neighborhoods with your 24/7 drilling operations and the legacy of potential dangers that will be left behind after the rig is gone.

Our wish is that our children attend schools where they are not at risk of toxic chemical exposure, subterranean radioactive substances and toxic metals. Our wish is that our children get to harvest tomatoes and lettuce from their organic school garden; fresh produce that has not been contaminated by chemical laden air particles. Our wish is for our children play tetherball on the playground without having difficulty breathing. Our wish is that our children will not suffer from fracking chemical related nosebleeds. Our wish is that our children will grow up cancer free.

We know that even if Encana drills this site during the summer, toxic VOCs and chemicals from fossil fuel combustion will continue to be released into the air throughout the school year and beyond. We know that Encana will be swabbing, venting and flaring the wells while our children play nearby on their playgrounds.

We know that Encana will return to re-frack these wells in upcoming years, repeating this environmental damage, and subjecting more families to health risks, again and again.

We realize this “play” is worth billions of dollars to your company. Please realize that a price cannot be placed on our children’s health and future. We ask that you not compromise the safety of our community and it’s most precious inhabitants; it’s children.

We respectfully request that Encana Corporation halt all drilling operations at the Canyon Creek well pad. Please.

This is our Mother’s Day wish.

Sincerely,

The Mothers of Erie Rising

www.ErieRising.com

The City of Las Cruces is trying to recoup close to nearly $2 million in unpaid tickets for running red lights. But while times of economic turmoil call for desperate measures, their punishment doesn’t fit the crime. A loophole in a city ordinance would allow the City of Las Cruces to shut off utilities, including water and sewage services, for residents with unpaid red light tickets. Food & Water Watch organizers are currently working with local allies to convince Las Cruces City Council to put an end to this policy. We’re serving notice to the City Council that they’re violating the human right to water.

And Las Cruces isn’t the only city with this problem. With budget shortfalls threatening funding for public services in cities throughout the country, some leaders have incorporated desperate tactics to try to right their ships. Unfortunately, some of these tactics come not only in the form of household water shut-offs for traffic violations, but also threats of jail time for those who can’t afford sanitation systems, and even anti-immigration policies that deny access to water.

Since the United Nations officially recognized water as a human right in July 2010, it’s time for the United States to start working toward making that declaration a reality. Food & Water Watch’s new report, Our Right to Water (a collaboration with the Council of Canadians), demonstrates that we can’t take our relationship with water for granted. Learn more about the report here.

Live in Las Cruces? Act now and sign this petition telling this City Council to stop water shut offs for unpaid traffic tickets: http://action.foodandwaterwatch.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=10375

If you don’t live in Las Cruces but are a New Mexico resident, take action here by telling the New Mexico Attorney General to instruct city officials to stop enforcing this dangerous policy: http://action.foodandwaterwatch.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=10408

An intriguing revelation has emerged recently that further illustrates the vast web of hype surrounding the oil and gas industry’s fracking agenda. While the industry has sworn up and down that fracking doesn’t endanger drinking water resources, and while we of course know better, important new research published by an independent hydrogeologist adds credence to the mounting body of evidence that pokes holes in the industry’s already flimsy claims.

The research uses mathematical modeling to contradict the oil and gas industry talking point that fracking can’t endanger water supplies because there are impermeable layers of rock between any water supply and the rock being fracked. The modeling shows that contaminants could reach aquifers within a decade after fracking by traveling through a network of different pathways, pushed along by ordinary pressure forces. The different pathways include wells with failed well casings, new fractures created during fracking and existing natural fractures and faults.

This all makes makes perfect sense when you think about it: layers of rock aren’t impermeable once you drill through them!

This is the first peer-reviewed research on the long-term risks that “the specific process of fracking itself” (as industry likes to say) poses to our drinking water. But over 1,000 cases of water contamination have been documented in just Colorado, New Mexico, Alabama, Ohio and Pennsylvania alone. There are likely many more across the country. Many of these cases are from spills and leaks of wastewater seeping into groundwater or into watersheds, or from methane leaking into aquifers when well casings fail during drilling. But what everyone forgets is that if they weren’t fracking, they wouldn’t be drilling.

As fracking intensifies across the United States, we simply cannot afford to ignore how it affects the water upon which we all rely. At the end of the day, you can’t drink oil, money or natural gas.

It’s for this reason and of course, many others, that proud “fracktivists” from around the U.S. will converge on Washington, D.C. this July for Stop the Frack Attack!, a rally to call for a truly clean, fossil fuel-free energy future. The event is sponsored by our friends at Earthworks, and is co-sponsored by over 70 allied groups including us at Food & Water Watch, and will feature speeches from community leaders, celebrities, and policymakers.

Since the event will be held right outside the Capitol, it’s sure to grab the ear of our nation’s federal leaders, many of whom have been slow to catch on to the myriad threats posed by fracking. It’s more important than ever that we tell them to put communities and the environment first and to stop the frack attack!

The United Nations General Assembly declared in July 2010 that access to clean water and sanitation is an essential human right, calling on countries and or­ganizations to help provide access for the 884 million people currently without safe drinking water and the more than 2.6 billion people without basic sanitation.

Read the full report.

The United States can be considered largely water rich relative to many other countries, and its citizens enjoy near-universal access to safe water and sani­tation. Yet some U.S. communities continue to face systemic violations of this human right — often those in poor, minority or rural locations. In recent years, new threats have emerged, particularly in com­munities where the oil and gas industry is using the process of hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas deposits, and in communities where groundwater is being mined for bottling, which can lead to shortages in household water supplies.

In February 2011, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Right to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation, Catarina de Albuquerque, officially visited the United States to examine the extent to which the federal government met its obligations to respect, protect and fulfill the right to safe drinking water and sanitation. Her investigation focused on nondiscrimination and equality and identified several populations that contin­ue to face discrimination, including homeless people, Native Americans and other marginalized groups.

As stressed in the Special Rapporteur’s investigation, the U.S. government should focus on the process and not just the outcome of the right to safe drink­ing water and sanitation by targeting obligations to respect, protect and fulfill. This helps to prioritize ac­countability and reduce gray areas where vulnerable populations are denied rights.

The Take Back the Tap Curriculum is designed to teach kids about the importance of protecting our most essential public resource: water.

Joe Camel. Ronald McDonald. Tony the Tiger. Spuds McKenzie. Kid-friendly advertising tricks by corporations seeking to lure young consumers clutter the annals of marketing history.

While some of these efforts are more insidious than others, they share a common trait. In each case, advertisers were trying to hook new consumers early to cultivate a sense of brand loyalty to be exploited for years to come. With the advent of programs ostensibly designed to teach kids about water issues, bottled water companies are getting in on the action. Their tactics flow through an institution that few kids can escape — the classroom.

The best example of this is Project WET. This non-profit organization claims to educate children and parents about the importance of preserving global water resources. According to its website, “sustainable water management is crucial to secure social and economic stability, as well as a healthy environment.”

That’s certainly true. But Nestlé Waters North America, the organization’s main sponsor, is the last entity that should be empowered to educate the public about responsible water use. When you consider the bottled water behemoth ‘s track record of hogging global water supplies and profiting from them, Project WET’s supposed mission is a slap in the face to any community that has had its water muscled away by Nestlé.

By its own admission, Nestlé expends 2.37 gallons of water for every gallon of bottled water it produces. The company used approximately 4 billion gallons of water in 2007. That same year, it reduced the amount of water it used by 1.3 percent, but that was more than cancelled out as it increased the volume of bottled water it produced by 10 percent. Meanwhile, Nestlé buys community water for as little as $ .000081 per gallon, and sells it back to consumers for at least 127,000 times as much.

Pumping all that water comes at a steep price to consumers and the planet. U.S. bottled water consumption used energy equivalent to 32 to 54 million barrels of oil in 2007, enough to fuel approximately 1.5 million cars over the course of a year. Moreover, 77 percent of all empty plastic water bottles consumed in the United States end up in landfills.

And yet, Nestlé has the audacity to anoint itself a leader in water education.

With over 1.1 billion people in the world lacking access to clean water and sanitation, it’s more important than ever that children learn the connection between the choices they make as consumers and their greater impact on the world. But Nestlé’s brand of water education only greenwashes the company’s own hand in profiting from an increasingly scarce resource to which all humans have a right, while cultivating a new generation of consumers.

Luckily, the Nestlé-funded Project WET isn’t the only water education program in town. We at Food & Water Watch have developed an innovative initiative to teach students that the simple choice of choosing a water fountain over a bottle of water can make a real difference in preserving our shared water resources. The Take Back the Tap Curriculum uses English, science, math, and social studies to help students draw the connection between the stuff that comes out of their taps at home and that which their peers across the globe sometimes have to walk miles to procure.

As Americans, it’s easy to take drinking water for granted, but this basic resource is central to a complex web of political and environmental issues. We should teach our kids the importance of protecting it. We can’t abdicate that responsibility to corporations with a vested interest in building demand for bottled water.

This piece was originally published on Other Words.

Image By: Maryland Office of the Governor, Maryland State Archives (flickr.com/MDGOVPICS)

*Updated May 9

During the 2012 Maryland legislative session, the burning of pollutant-laden chicken poop was embraced as a Tier I renewable energy resource, while readily available, clean wind power was dead. In Maryland, chicken is truly king. Or, as a series of emails obtained from Martin O’Malley’s office to a Perdue official indicate, it’s at least Governor. 

Food & Water Watch obtained the emails through a Public Information Act request for all correspondence between the Governor’s office and the giant Eastern Shore poultry company. 

In one back-and-forth between O’Malley and the Perdue representative from March 2011, the Governor acknowledges that wind energy may cost the poultry industry “18 cents to $2 additional per month at the outset,” but suggests that the cost is well worth it because “kids keep dying in the middle east.”

Eighteen cents a month to keep kids from dying in the Middle East was, apparently, a price too high to pay for the industry; Perdue responded by complaining of the additional costs to the integrators and stating that wind “is not high on [its] list of concerns.” Perdue, however, did buy into the chicken manure-to-energy scheme as a way to offload some of its mountains of waste in the state. And thanks to companies like Perdue, today in Maryland chicken crap is renewable, and wind is not. 

The 70 pages of emails we obtained were almost exclusively between O’Malley and Perdue’s General Counsel, Herb Frerichs. Mr. Frerichs is also a partner at the law firm that represents Perdue in the Clean Water Act suit bought by environmentalists for pollution coming from one of the company’s contract growers’ facilities. The emails depict a very close and personal relationship between the Governor and Frerichs, who were classmates at the Maryland School of Law in the mid-to-late 1980s.

O’Malley has taken a very public stand against the Perdue lawsuit, going so far as to support legislation that would defund the Maryland School of Law clinic that represents the plaintiffs in the case. He claims to have a personal interest in protecting farmers, but the emails suggest that in all things chicken, the Governor is little more than Perdue’s cheerleader and his real interest is in protecting the company. Back on November of 2011, the Governor released a letter he wrote to the environmental law clinic denouncing the merits of the ongoing litigation and calling on students to represent polluters instead of nonprofits trying to protect the Bay. On the day that letter went public, the governor received a pat on the back from Frerichs in a standalone email that simply said, “Very nice.”

What is also clear from the emails is that O’Malley plays a very deferential role in his relationship with Frerichs. Excerpts from one email string from July and August of 2010, in which O’Malley backs away from statements made by his own press secretary regarding the need for Perdue to deal with its vast amounts of waste, paint a portrait of a head of state who walks on eggshells around the chicken industry:

Frerichs -> O’Malley, Jul 30, 2010 7:49 PM

Was trying to have a vacation but was read in on the articles in response to Enviro MD petition. Big news on shore. I assume your press secretary speaks for you but we were surprised. Is this your current position? Its certainly your right to think this way-just let us know.

O’Malley -> Frerichs, Jul 30, 10:16 PM

I’ve spoken with my guy who said those quotes and I’ve now read the full article. I think all of us are feeling the pressure of the tmdl’s — and he didn’t need to state the obvious or encourage more pressure.

O’Malley -> Frerichs, Jul 30, 10:20 PM

I haven’t seen the petition, wish my own guys had checked with me. Might have helped avoid the sensationalizing effect of the “pressure” quote.

Frerichs -> O’Malley, August 1, 2010 7:53 AM

Thanks for getting back to me. Know that we have heard gansler and kennedy say similar things. Not really much in their about working together.

O’Malley -> Frerichs, August 1, 2010 10:23 AM

Shaun didn’t need to encourage “the pressure” — we would all benefit from more implementation (avi homes, distributed waste to energy) and less pressure.

O’Malley -> Frerichs, August 2, 2010 at 7:00 AM

The message I have to deliver as friend. Is that you have always distanced yourself from the other on the attack. Now you can’t. 

O’Malley responded to Frerich’s admonition by scrambling to repair the damage and sending Frerichs a draft of an email that he wants to send to Jim Perdue, trying desperately to explain away his press secretary’s statements. Over the next few days, O’Malley waits anxiously for Frerich’s permission to send the note, before Frerichs rejects it:

O’Malley -> Frerichs, August 6, 2010 at 4:16 PM

Dear Jim — given the back and forth between my Press Secretary Shaun Ademac and Bill Saterfield, I wanted to let you know that all of Shaun’s comments were related to the work across all sectors — waste water discharge, stormwater, agriculture, septic — that will have to be done to meet the new total daily maximum loads.

Notwithstanding Mr. Satterfield’s fears, I have intention of re-visiting “co-permitting” and appreciate your willingness to work together to achieve Maryland’s tmdl goals.
Sincerely, mom

O’Malley -> Frerichs, August 7, 2010 at 7:53 PM

Were you ok with that message I sent to you?

Frerichs -> O’Malley, August 8, 2010 at 6:42 PM

Not sure at this point. I have been witness to some back and forth emails over weekend and need to see how people feel tomorrow and what will work best.

O’Malley -> Frerichs, August 8, 2010 at 7:53 PM

Hmmm. Let me know

O’Malley -> Frerichs, August 9, 2010 at 2:47 PM

How’s my message doing? (It wasn’t that long…)

Frerichs -> O’Malley, August 10, 2010 at 4:24 PM

Sorry for delay. My conclusion is that letter will not be helpful. Jim took this very personally.

O’Malley -> Frerichs, August 10, 2010 at 4:33 PM

So what am I supposed to do? Just leave it alone? Call him, what?


O’Malley -> Frerichs, August 10, 2010 at 4:36 PM

By the way, there was a typo in the draft of that note. I, of course, meant we have “no” intention of pursuing co-permitting.

The emails also underscore an unparalleled level of access to the Governor’s office and his agencies:

O’Malley -> Frerichs, November 5, 2011 at 9:16 AM

So, have you guys decided not only to not be a part of poultry waste to energy but to oppose it?

Frerichs -> O’Malley, November 5, 2011 at 6:38 PM

I reread your email and I’m a little put off. Besides doing more to save agriculture in the state of md than the secretary of ag. We were working with [redacted] until they lost interest when state rfp went out. And stopped talking to us. Then we reached out to [redacted] and are currently trying to work with them.

O’Malley -> Frerichs, November 5, 2011 at 7:16 PM

Don’t be put off. When I hear rumors that don’t seem to square, I contact you right away.

O’Malley -> Frerichs, November 5, 2011 at 7:19 PM

What is it about the Secretary of Agriculture’s job performance that you find lacking?

Frerichs -> O’Malley, November 6, 2011 at 7:22 AM

I just feel like I’m trying to push a bunch of stuff and I don’t see him around. He’s not as strong as his counterparts in DE and VA. I work w all three.

O’Malley -> Frerichs, November 6, 2011 at 10:01 AM

I’m guessing you don’t have the personal email of governors of DE or VA, so let me know when Buddy can/should be doing more to help you push stuff. I’m serious. I’ll have him call you monday.

The RFP referred to in the email is a Request for Proposals that went out in early November 2011 to solicit projects that use chicken manure to generate electricity. In December 2011, Perdue and its manure-to-energy partner Fibrowatt submitted a proposal to build a 10 Megawatt facility on Perdue’s property on the Eastern Shore. There is no indication yet that Perdue was formally awarded the project, but given the relationship between O’Malley and the company, there can be little doubt that the poultry company will end up with the state’s approval. 

Governor O’Malley continues to prop up the poultry industry despite the fact that all Maryland agriculture combined contributes only 0.35% to the state’s Gross Domestic Product, with chicken contributing only a fraction of that number.

O’Malley’s shameful pandering to big chicken knows no limits. Just recently, the Governor attended a Delmarva Poultry Industry dinner to “salute the industry that is an economic driver of the Maryland economy.” O’Malley continues to prop up this industry despite the fact that all Maryland agriculture combined contributes only 0.35% to the state’s Gross Domestic Product, with chicken contributing only a fraction of that number.

Rumor has it that his latest industry surrender will happen tomorrow morning when the Governor is having a private meeting with a handful of agribusiness and environmental representatives to disclose his long-awaited Nutrient Management Plan regulations. The NMP regs are supposed to place limits on the way the ag industry handles its wastes in order to protect waterways, but leaked indications are the O’Malley’s regs openly ignore the recommendations of local scientists at the dire expense of the Bay.

O’Malley talks of making a run for the president in 2016, yet he lacks the backbone to stand up to the industry that is most responsible for the pollution pouring into the Chesapeake Bay, killing jobs, damaging natural resources and costing the state money. His dealings with Perdue clearly show a man who is far too willing to follow, not lead—a man who is willing to sacrifice the welfare of the people of his state for a favor to his friends. He is certainly not the person you would ever want leading the country.

*Update: In its coverage of these emails, the Baltimore Sun is reporting that around the time these emails began, Perdue began shifting its political giving from the Republican Governor’s Association to the Democratic Governor’s Association–which O’Malley heads. Read more here. Additionally, we learned that the governor’s brother Peter O’Malley was recently hired at Venable LLP, the law firm where Herb Frerichs works.

The artwork for Last Call at the Oasis

Drought, famine, disease and war – are these the buzz words of our nightmares, distanced from public perception by vast oceans and foreign lands? Or are they the social products of the rapidly dwindling resource vital to life on Earth?

In many areas of the U.S., the concept of water shortages may seem as foreign as excavating icebergs for potable product. Turn on your tap after all, and the water gods will make it rain. But for those not so blessed, shrinking water supplies in the American Southwest and elsewhere on the globe serve a painful lesson: the tap is running dry.

Jessica Yu’s new film, Last Call at the Oasis, sounds the alarm on dwindling global water resources, and invites Americans to bridge the distance between them and their water.

Through the opening credits water waltzes seductively, teasing the audience with a glittering, circus-spectacle. The circus must end though, and the film must tell its dark tale.

When the Lights Go Out

“Water,” Erin Brockovich begins, “is everything. The single most necessary element for any of us to sustain, and live, and thrive is water.” Speaking of water’s importance, Brockovich draws from her father’s wisdom who warned her, “… in my lifetime that we would see water become more valuable than oil, he said, because there will be so little of it.”

There’s nothing fanciful about the predictions of Brockovich’s childhood memories – the evidence is everywhere. Last Call at the Oasis begins by examining the consequences for the Southwest as climate change, water mismanagement and population growth threaten the long-term viability of the entire region. Having over-tapped the Colorado River, farms are unable to get water for irrigation, while cities struggle to find an electrical alternative to the failing Hoover Dam. Despite the slowdown in agriculture and energy, development (and population) escalates.

In Australia we see the problems are similar, if not worse. Severe heat waves, wildfires, and drought have destroyed farmers’ crops, leading roughly one farmer every four days to commit suicide at the peak of the drought. Rural social workers are struggling to ease unrest, and farmers are scaling back production. Australia, the film posits, is past its “carrying capacity.”

What Lurks in the Deep

Shortages aren’t simply due to lack of water, but also the pollution of drinkable water. Every day, treatment plants struggle to filter heavy metals, pharmaceuticals and other toxins from our drinking water. Sewage and industrial chemicals flow into our streams and seep into our aquifers – let us not forgot Erin Brockovich’s work in Hinkley,Texas. 

The citizens of Hinkley, however, can’t forget. Their nightmares are reoccurring, as cancerous hexavalent chromium is still part of daily life. Brockovich, a central figure in the film, knows Hinkley isn’t an isolated event. She receives emails daily from all corners of the U.S., voiced by the victims of industrial contamination. Her response to their despair: help is not on the way.

With over 1,200 queued Superfund sites and a meager budget, the EPA is unable to address the industrial catastrophes plaguing the masses. Meanwhile, these communities lack access to safe drinking water. Brockovich encourages them to organize, to protest and to pursue legal action and research – really, the only hope they have of salvation.

Other activists, like Michigan family farmer Lynn Henning, bear witness to industrial abuse and pollution. Henning won the 2010 Goldman Environmental Prize for her do-it-yourself research of the toxic runoff from neighboring CAFOs. She lost a good amount of her lung capacity in standing her polluted ground, but worked tirelessly to expose CAFO abuses in the hope she might make her community a better place for her granddaughter. 

While the film may seem to deliver a despairing message, it unites the struggles of communities, activists and researchers on common ground. We can no longer live passively, watching the growth of industry rip society apart. We can no longer expect our government to play deus ex machina, redeeming our hope in the final act. We must unite as citizens. We must become the researcher, the advocate, the guardian of a future we cherish.

The Last Few Hurdles

We must also escape the alluring psychology of corporate marketing. Corporate advertising campaigns have been incredibly successful in falsely convincing the American public that bottled water is a safer option than municipal tap water. Almost laughably, the public has forgotten they have access to the safest, cleanest municipal water system in the world. 

In the film, a team of advertising talent and water experts put together an urban campaign to sell the idea of recycled water to consumers. Recycled water is exactly what it sounds like – used water. The implications may sound slimy, but the end product is safe, drinkable H2O.

Jack Black makes a cameo in the film to endorse Porcelain Springs, the final product, and the ad team takes to the streets for consumer testing. As you can imagine there were mixed reactions, as many people still cling to the myth of bottled superiority.

In Shortage, Strife?

The film finally looks at the most unsavory implications of water shortage:  war. Certainly there have been conflicts over water, but what we learn is that water has an incredible potential to engage people in peace. Water, after all, is borderless.

Friends of the Earth Middle East (FOEME), bridges the political and cultural differences of Jordan, Palestine and Israel in an attempt to unite them in a common conservation effort. In some parts of its 156 mile journey, the Jordan River flows at 2 percent of its historical capacity, and along the way is also laden with toxic industrial chemicals. Bearing more than an economic significance for Middle Eastern nations, the Jordan River is sacred to the world’s foremost monotheistic religions. Where political differences divide, the Jordan unites cultural heritage. FOEME strives for international cooperation around the region’s lifeline, calling governments peacefully to the table over conservation efforts.

If conflict can be avoided in such a volatile region, then hopefully the same will hold true around the global as communities and leadership face the challenges of a new, drier century.

Last Call…

Last Call at the Oasis provides a critical look at the outcome of water mismanagement.  Not another wonky environmental flick, it’s an intelligent and decisive look at the global crisis civilization faces in the era of a hotter planet. Public perception and politics still remain the greatest threat to our survival, but water, most basic of necessities, transcends environmental and political debate. We are asked to question our careless consumption, and consider a future without water. This film is a must-see for all citizens, and will hopefully ignite awareness and action before the oasis runs dry.

The film opens this weekend in select theaters across the US. For more information on production and screenings, visit www.takepart.com/lastcall. Also, follow the discussion on Twitter: LastCallOasis.

Also, be sure to visit Food & Water Watch to take action against the abuse and pollution of our water systems.