Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Corporate Think Tank Dives into Water Policy

By Diane Farsetta, PR Watch. Posted April 30, 2009.


Judging from the track record of those involved, it seems reasonable to worry that it's likely to do more harm than good.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Hot, Steamy Mormons: Are the Latter Day Saints Getting Sexy?
Liz Langley

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
How Banks Are Putting an Extra Squeeze on the Unemployed
Barbara Koeppel

DrugReporter:
Congress Gets Its Act Together: Repeals Ban on Syringe Exchange Funding, Allows D.C. to Enact Medical Marijuana Program
Bill Piper, Naomi Long

Environment:
Copenhagen Is Not Just About Climate Change -- It's About the What Kind of People We Want to Be
George Monbiot

Food:
Does Aspartame Cause Tumors and Pose Cancer Risks? The Jury Is Still Out
Scott Thill

Health and Wellness:
Howard Dean Locks Horns with White House and Dem Senators After Call to 'Kill' Health Compromise
David Edwards, Daniel Tencer

Immigration:
Businesses and Unions Face the Guest Worker Dilemma
Maribel Hastings

Media and Technology:
Is Handwriting Going the Way of the Dodo?
Anne Trubek

Movie Mix:
Matt Damon and Morgan Freeman's Invictus Film Release Kicks Off New Campaign For Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Linda Milazzo

Politics:
Joe Lieberman's Former College Roommate on the Senator's Journey 'to the Dark Side'
Meg White

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Can Boob Jobs Serve the Public Good?
Alexandra Suich

Rights and Liberties:
Politicians Are Portraying 'Gitmo North' as a Terrific Local Jobs Program -- Don't Count On It
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
Guess What? Casual Sex Won't Make You Go Insane
Ellen Friedrichs

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Underused Drilling Practices Could Avoid Pollution
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
$57,077.60 -- That's What We're Paying Each Minute for the Occupation of Afghanistan
Jo Comerford

More stories by Diane Farsetta

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

There are also financial incentives for Whitman's involvement with WPI. Whitman "is now helping to bring clients to the law firm of Hunton & Williams as chairwoman of its new Water Policy Institute," reported Congressional Quarterly in June 2008. "Whitman's firm will get an undisclosed fee for its work."

In addition to Whitman's political star power, WPI presumably benefits from the connections and resources of its founding corporate members: BP, GE Water and the Central Arizona Project. As a multinational oil, gas and fuels company, BP's interests in water issues are significant. For example, the company is invested in Alberta's tar sands, where oil development requires -- and pollutes -- large volumes of water. Last year, BP was party to a $423 million settlement compensating U.S. public water systems for contamination from the gas additive MTBE.

GE Water describes itself as "a leading global supplier of water treatment, wastewater treatment and process systems solutions." In an August 2006 press release, the company enthused, "Globally, the water market is $365 billion and offers a high growth potential." Its products range from water treatment chemicals, filters and membranes; to industrial water management systems; to "mobile water" emergency back-ups. GE Water boasts "the world's largest base of desalination systems," which use an energy-intensive process to produce fresh water from seawater or salty water. GE Water is also involved with Canada's tar sands, as part of a $15 million effort "to improve water usage" during oil extraction.

The Central Arizona Project is a "336-mile long system of aqueducts, tunnels, pumping plants and pipelines" that directs Colorado River water to three Arizona counties. The "quasi-governmental entity" that runs the project has hired the Hunton & Williams firm to weigh in on several water-related legal cases. Due to growing population, drought and climate change, the Central Arizona Project is likely to face increased competition for water resources. It's also nervous about possible carbon tax or cap-and-trade policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as it relies on the coal-fired Navajo Generating Station for its substantial power needs.

Hunton for Robb

The Water Policy Institute's home, Hunton & Williams, isn't the most environmentally-friendly law firm. In a landmark 2007 case before the U.S. Supreme Court, the firm argued that the EPA shouldn't be allowed to regulate carbon dioxide. By the time the court ruled against them, Hunton & Williams "had built up a team of energy lobbyists who could ... work to minimize the potential damage to their clients through legislation," reported The Hill.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: water, dams, water pollution

Diane Farsetta is senior researcher at the Center for Media and Democracy.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

You've chosen to turn comments off for the entire site. Would you like to turn them back on?
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement