Popular Resistance to Corporate Water Grabbing (Project Censored #4)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

By Antonio Arenas and Nguyet (Kelley), Thi Luu ) & Kenn Burrows | Project Censored

waterIn January 2000, the people of Cochabamba, Bolivia, shut down the city in protest against the privatization of their municipal water system, which had resulted in rate hikes that doubled or tripled their water bills. In February of that year, Pacific News Service correspondent Jim Shultz broke the story in the Western press with “A War Over Water,” his firsthand reports of clashes between riot police and protesters. On the fifteenth anniversary of the Cochabamba protests, popular resistance to corporate water control continues to expand around the world, encompassing remunicipalization of privatized water utilities, direct action against unjust water shutoffs, and rainwater harvesting. A common theme—access to water as a fundamental human right—unites these three issues.

As Ellen Brown reported, today’s “water wars” not only pit local farmers against ranchers or urbanites, but also involve new corporate “water barons,” including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, the Carlyle Group, and other investment firms that are purchasing water rights from around the world at an unprecedented pace. A 2014 report on water grabbing defined it in these terms:

Water grabbing refers to situations where powerful actors are able to take control of or reallocate to their own benefit water resources at the expense of previous (un)registered local users or the ecosystems on which those users’ livelihoods are based. It involves the capturing of the decision-making power around water, including the power to decide how and for what purposes water resources are used now and in the future.

The authors of this report identified five “interlinked” drivers of the current “new wave of water grabbing”:

Changing patterns in global food markets have triggered a renewed interest in acquiring land and water resources for agricultural production.

Rising oil prices and concerns that a “peak oil” period has been reached have led to the rise of agrofuels that use large amounts of water throughout the production cycle.

Growing global demand for raw materials underpins the continued expansion of the extractive industries and large-scale mining projects—including, in particular, hydraulic fracturing or “fracking.”

The market-based management of water resources, especially the privatization of water systems and services, which jeopardizes water access for poor and marginalized groups in many developing countries.

The financialization of water utilities, infrastructures, and the resource itself.

Much corporate news coverage of water shortages—including California’s highly publicized drought—and their potential remedies fails to take into account these five drivers of water grabbing and how they intertwine.

Corporate efforts to privatize water rights are meeting robust grassroots resistance as communities around the world assert their rights to decide how water resources are used. Over the past fifteen years, Victoria Collier reported for CounterPunch, there have been 180 cases across thirty-five countries of water “remunicipalization,” with water control returned from private ownership to the public. “From Spain to Buenos Aires, Cochabamba to Kazakhstan, Berlin to Malaysia, water privatization is being aggressively rejected,” she reported.

In opposition to the fast-growing private-public-partnership (PPP) model, which she described as “a marketing euphemism for privatization,” communities in Japan, the Netherlands, India, Costa Rica, Brazil, and other countries are now pursuing public-public partnerships (PUPs) to forestall corporate water takeovers and to develop “non-profit, public-driven solutions for water infrastructure needs.”

While the remunicipalization movement grows, protests in US cities, including Detroit and Baltimore, show how some forms of ostensibly public water remain deeply problematic. As Collier reported, since the summer of 2014, Detroit residents have engaged in direct action to resist city water shutoffs that disproportionately affected low-income, mostly African-American residents. In Detroit, water rates had increased by 119 percent over the past decade and the poverty level was roughly 40 percent. In consequence, many residents could not afford to pay their water bills, and the city’s Water and Sewerage Department began shutting off residential water services, sometimes without providing households any advance notice. Food & Water Watch reported, “The extensive service disconnections are closely tied to Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr’s plan to privatize or corporatize the water and sewer system.” Notably, the city exempted from shutoffs many businesses that also had past-due water bills. Some forty businesses owed approximately $9.5 million in past bills, but were not subject to shutoffs.

As of October 2014, Detroit’s Water and Sewerage Department had shut off water service for some 27,000 Detroit residents. However, as YES! Magazine’s Larry Gabriel reported, “Grassroots progressive action has backed down aggressive action by the city and its contractors.”

Residents of Baltimore faced similar challenges in spring 2015, as their city threatened to shut off water service for some 250,000 households, affecting approximately 750,000 residents. An April 2015 Food & Water Watch press release asserted that “Baltimore is repeating Detroit’s mistakes,” and that disconnecting water services posed “a very real public health threat.” In May 2015, the Baltimore Sun reported that the city’s enforcement of “long-unpaid” water bills was “starkly uneven,” with businesses that owed the greatest amounts exempted, while residents faced summary shutoffs. The Sun quoted Charly Carter, director of the advocacy group Maryland Working Families: “If the city can shut off 1,600 working families from their water, but hasn’t shut off even one commercial account, I think that speaks volumes about where their priorities are.” According to the Sun, over 350 large commercial accounts—a category that includes businesses, nonprofits, and government offices—account for a total of $15 million in unpaid water bills.

Direct action and other community efforts were ongoing in Detroit and Baltimore as this volume went to press.

[Read more here]

Originally entitled “#4 Popular Resistance to Corporate Water Grabbing”

Sources:

Ellen Brown, “California Water Wars: Another Form of Asset Stripping?,” Nation of Change, March 25, 2015, www.nationofchange.org/2015/03/25/california-water-wars-another-form-of-asset-stripping.

Victoria Collier, “Citizens Mobilize Against Corporate Water Grabs,” CounterPunch, February 11, 2015, www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/11/citizens-mobilize-against-corporate-water-grabs.

Larry Gabriel, “When the City Turned Off Their Water, Detroit Residents and Groups Delivered Help,” YES! Magazine, November 24, 2014, http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/cities-are-now/when-detroit-s-citizens-fought-for-their-right-to-water.

Madeline Ostrander, “LA Imports Nearly 85 Percent of Its Water—Can It Change That by Gathering Rain?,” YES! Magazine, January 5, 2015, http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/cities-are-now/los-angeles-imports-nearly-85-percent-of-its-water.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Subscribe

If you enjoyed this article, subscribe now to receive more just like it.

Subscribe via RSS FeedConnect on YouTube

6 Reader Comments

Trackback URL Comments RSS Feed

  1. 1063565703696291@facebook.com' Jeff Andrews says:

    ya wanna carry veggie oil cans long ways to the source?? pay whatever

  2. 228989280767128@facebook.com' Audrey Ward says:

    Great, Gods Speed!!! ?

  3. 157795511265708@facebook.com' Nathan Vandel Bevan says:

    This is a must we cant be dictated to by corporations trying to charge extortionate rates for potable water, there is a reason Nestlé were trying to buy up all our dams and reservoirs in Australia, people need to widen up

  4. 1144756432201756@facebook.com' Micheal Ward says:

    copy and share this with everyone you know until all of America gets educated about our elected and appointed officials legislators senators and Governors and even the President of the United States whose oath of office has been perjured by treason.18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason

    Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

    US Code
    Notes
    prev | next
    Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

    (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.) this includes all contracting employees and staff including law enforcement police,officers of the courts Attorneys judges, clerks all of them are subject to these penalties.

  5. 10205575037164100@facebook.com' Asheva Asheva says:

    Treble?

  6. 10207361853916489@facebook.com' Joanne Hoo says:

    H20 essential to human existence. This is a natural resource; not a commodity to be bought sold or bartered. A more appropriate Governmental response would be that of Stewardship: safeguarding and ensuring a sustainable supply. Picture a world without a fresh water supply. Sad.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

FAIR USE NOTICE. Many of the stories on this site contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making this material available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental issues, human rights, economic and political democracy, and issues of social justice. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law which contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. If you wish to use such copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use'...you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. And, if you are a copyright owner who wishes to have your content removed, let us know via the "Contact Us" link at the top of the site, and we will promptly remove it.

The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. Conscious Life News assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms.

Paid advertising on Conscious Life News may not represent the views and opinions of this website and its contributors. No endorsement of products and services advertised is either expressed or implied.
Top

Send this to friend