Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • 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.

A Big Win Against Corporate Control of Water

By Megan Tady, In These Times. Posted August 4, 2007.


In the battle over whether the people or corporations should control public water, residents of Stockton, Calif., won a huge victory.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Megan Tady

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Bill Lokyo never expected to find himself embroiled in a six-year battle over water with a multinational corporation and city officials in Stockton, Calif.

"We all thought this would only be a one-year fight," Lokyo says.

But Lokyo and the group Concerned Citizens Coalition of Stockton (CCOS) felt compelled to challenge a rushed deal that turned the city's publicly owned water system into a for-profit venture. This month, their perseverance paid off when the city finally sent privatization packing.

"We believed that we were right," Lokyo says. "And when you believe that, you just can't stop."

In 2003, against the wishes of many Stockton residents, the city signed a 20-year contract with the company OMI-Thames to manage its wastewater, water and stormwater system. The CCOS, joined by the Sierra Club and the League of Women Voters of San Joaquin County, filed a lawsuit under the California Environmental Quality Act to halt the project until it allowed for public participation. Judges twice ruled in favor of the groups, and on July 17, city officials voted to rescind their appeal and dissolve what Food and Water Watch, a group that challenges corporate control of water resources, has called the "most notorious water privatization deal in the United States."

As Loyko and fellow members of CCOS celebrate, water watchdogs mark another tally for citizens fighting to keep or regain local control of their water.

"It's both symbolic for the anti-water privatization movement, and it's a real victory for the citizens' groups of Stockton -- it means that the ordeal of water privatization is over for the city of 270,000 people," says Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food and Water Watch.

More than 80 percent of Americans fill their glasses with water owned and managed by public utilities -- a market for growth that has CEOs rubbing their hands. Across the United States, multinational corporations are swooping into towns and cities with promises of a more efficient and economical water system if they would just turn over their taps.

But for many municipalities, it is a raw deal. Privatization often results in exorbitant water rates, poor service, little accountability, a disregard for public safety and destruction of the environment. City officials in Atlanta, for instance, cancelled their contract with Suez four years into privatizing their water system after residents experienced routine boil orders, water shortages and rate hikes.

"People get at a very basic level that they don't want a really important public service like water to be privatized," Hauter says. "They don't want the customer call center to be 1,000 miles away. They don't want their water rates going up. Privatizations are succeeded with environmental disasters, as [companies] try to cut corners and they don't fix the leakages."

Two hours from Stockton, residents in Felton, Calif., have been trying to pry their pipes out of a corporation's grip since 2002. Cal-Am, owned by the multinational giant RWE, raised water rates by 44 percent and is pushing for another increase that would raise rates by a total of over 100 percent.

The citizens' group Felton Friends of Locally Owned Water (FLOW) is spearheading a campaign to buy back the water system in the belief that a "locally-owned, locally-managed water system could offer much lower rates, better service and protection of our natural resources." Cal-Am has refused to sell, and the group is now trying to use eminent domain to take over the system.

Jim Graham, a member of Felton FLOW, says he was "ecstatic" to learn that neighbors in Stockton succeeded in ousting OMI.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: water privatization, water, public water, stockton

Megan Tady is a National Political Reporter for InTheseTimes.com. Previously, she worked as a reporter for the NewStandard, where she published nearly 100 articles in one year. Megan has also written for Clamor, CommonDreams, E Magazine, Maisonneuve, PopandPolitics, and Reuters.

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


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Freshwater
Posted by: guybjones on Aug 4, 2007 4:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm glad to see that the citizens of this municipality emerged victorious in this instance.

I've read a number of articles predicting that with the arrival of peak oil and the ever-steeper decline in petroleum production, freshwater is going to emerge as the most fought-over and contested resource of the 21st century. I don't doubt it. No wonder the corporate interests can't wait to sink their claws into it. After all, it's a vital component of human survival. Petroleum, although it has become an essential resource underpinning much of our way of life, is not. How long before the GOP starts clamoring for water privatization on behalf of its corporate donors, in the name of "market efficiency?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Call me a Spoilsport
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Aug 4, 2007 6:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While It's great to see a municpality fight a corporation and win, the victory should be put in perspective. This is the citizens of one city fighting one corporation over one issue.

Our biggest and most important public service is our government. I think that the selling of the operation of our government by both of our political parties to the corporate establishment for campaign contributions is far more serious. Throwing corporations out of government should be our number one priority.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Call me a Spoilsport Posted by: jbetterl
Fighting back against bottled water
Posted by: DrSuess on Aug 4, 2007 8:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There was a period of time that I was like most Americans and bought bottled water because it was "purer". I think that pure food and water is important. However, I am now turning against bottled water. First I read how some comanies just bottle tap water and sell it for a profit. Then I began to read about the tremendous environmental cost of brining food from far away. I live in the Midwest- so why are there bottles of water on the shelf from the Pacific island of "Fiji" and the "Swiss Alps". Water is heavy- do you know the energy costs involved in transporting water that far?? Then there is the energy cost in all those containers- that are just thrown away. Throwing away all those bottles annoys the enviornmentalist in me.

I went out and bought a powerful water purifier that I have in my basement. I no longer buy bottled water. My shower water is now fresh, and so is the water in my tap.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's all corporate thievery
Posted by: jefhadist on Aug 4, 2007 8:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A few years back some idiot millionaire tried to steal our local river(s) water with the plan to pump it into ship size water bags off the coast which he would then float to the highest bidder. You can't make this shit up. We sent him packing, apparently to try it again in Alaska. Nestle corporation is right now trying to steal billions of gallons of water from Mt Shasta reservoir in McCloud, CA for another bottled water plant so they can sell you water at two or three times the cost of gasoline. And unfortunately, people will buy it. They are buying corporate water all over the world, especially in Europe. In the meantime, Lake Shasta is being set to expand and cover the last remaining burial grounds (the rest have all been flooded) of the local native folks in those parts. Pay attention to Food and Water Watch. That's one righteous organization that takes corporations to task and wins a few for the people. Safe water is a basic human right...not a commodity!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's all corporate thievery Posted by: guybjones
» RE: It's all corporate thievery Posted by: jefhadist
» Basic Human Rights... Posted by: bob t
Correction
Posted by: jefhadist on Aug 4, 2007 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry. That would be Mt. Shasta's "aquifers."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cochabamba
Posted by: Brasilaaron on Aug 4, 2007 8:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
while i lived in Cochabamba Bolivia in 2000 there was the "water war" in which Bechtel, unde rthe name Aguas del Tunari, was awarded the city's water supply when Bolivia was forced to privatize utilities to satisfy the neocon's wet dreams from the IMF. They made all the standard promises (aka "lies") regarding privatization, "it'll be cheaper, better service, private industry can do better than public utilities, the free market works miracles, the poor people of Bolivia will love the improved service/prices/quality of water..." ad nauseum. All of which were revealed to be lies in a short time. Rates started going up quickly, to which Bechtel said "people are paying more because they're using more water b/c the service is so much better", yeah campesinos went out and bought dishwashers and washing machines to use more water b/c the service was better. Right, the rates had been raised by 50%, then doubled then tripled so that they could meet their required 50% profit margin. To squeeze more money from the poor they began charging people for water they had pumped out of wells they had dug by hand. Service began to plummet, with most people being unable to get water most of the day, this was blamed on the poor infrasturcutre before Bechtel arrived to which they had promised to repair and vowed that they were in the process of repairing. It was later revealed they had spent less than $10,000 attempting to repair infrastructure. After a while, the Bolivians realized they were being lied to by everyone, the corrupt local gov't that had accepted millions of $$$ from Bechtel, Bechtel itself and the gov't of Bolivia. So they started protesting, shut down the city and got attacked by their own government who was more interested in protecting the interests of Bechtel than serving their citizens. Eventually the Cochabambinos won, kicked Bechtel to the curb etc. Lesson? Never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever trust a single word that comes out of the lips of a corpwhorate spokeswhore. All they do is prevaricate and lie, lie, lie, lie, lie until they've tried to tell you day is night, water is dry and the sun ain't hot.
Hopefully, Americans will wake up soon and begin understanding that the magic potion the neocons have been trying to sell us ain't nuthin but some of their own re-warmed anal leakage. The market ain't free and it ain't magic. Private industry does not always perform better than government and government is not always to blame for everything that doesn't make corporate investors tons of money that they don't deserve.
Satan created a new wing in Hell: it's for corpwhorate businessmen (and women) and salacious corpwhorate investors. Yes, if you invest in a corporation, you are just as guilty as the CEO for the
sh!t that gets done with your money. Ignorance is no excuse, in fact, that is why they send you those little statements in the mail....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Banzer Posted by: Brasilaaron
» RE: Cochabamba Posted by: jefhadist
Minneapolis
Posted by: chaoslegs on Aug 4, 2007 8:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have been in the news this week for the collapsed bridge.

However, when it comes to public water, we are among the best. In the past few years we have upgraded our system.

More importantly:

The plant is owned by the City of Minneapolis and operated by Minneapolis Water Treatment & Distribution Services.

Notice this is all city level work, not county, state, nor federal. There may have been some money from those sources to help with the upgrade, but it is owned by the city.

When they were doing reconstruction of Lake St, they updated the lines on Lake St, and branching to the side streets.

I get to drink great water straight from the tap without funding corporate profits.

Years back I remember reading that this budget doesn't come from taxes, but via payment for services and they are usually right on target.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A defense of regulated private water
Posted by: lamar on Aug 4, 2007 9:07 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why was Stockton trying to contract out management of its water system in the first place? The easy answer is corporate cronyism. That'd probably be wrong, though. Water and wastewater systems are complicated to run, and unless you have the expertise (which many small municipalities don't), you end up spending more on water infrastructure than needed. This also leads to higher rates, but since politicians never want to raise rates, it usually leads to taxes from other areas going to subsidize the expensive water or, more likely, lack of maintenance on the infrastructure itself.

OMI-Thames (I'm not aware of its reputation) bought the water systems for $600 million, and had to put close to $60 million in to refurbish the wastewater system. That's real money to a city of 270,000 people. That kind of money affects the city's debt rating and can significantly impact funding of other areas of the local government.

That said, the regulatory pitfall that Stockton agreed to was a waiver of any environmental review of the deal. I'm not sure of the circumstances surrounding that agreement, but environmental concerns are usually a fundamental issue in water deals. Even as a supporter of private water, that part of the deal struck me as odd. Of course, Stockton would still have control over the rates charged. If Stockton has to refurbish its system, it will have to raise rates significantly.

This article claims that privatization leads to exhorbitant rates, but many publicly-owned utilities (Los Angeles comes to mind) charge some of the highest rates in the country. The fact is that water costs money. The article also cites to poor service, but private utilities are regulated by the states or counties. A large part of that regulation goes to the quality of service. Plus, many smaller municipalities simply can't afford to provide quality service.

Many cities, especially large cities with resources and decent credit ratings, run excellent water systems. Many smaller towns and cities end up wishing they had sold their water systems because 20 years later they're left with shoddy infrastructure and a game of finger pointing. There have been more than 30 publicly-owned utilities in California fined for water and wastewater violations.

The problem with foreign ownership (i.e., Suez), is that you get megacorporations who just want to suck profits out of the utility while storing debt there. As much as I favor private ownership of water systems, I have to concede that the Atlanta situation is valid concern and red flag. Cities looking to sell their water systems (and the associated headaches) simply must do their homework. They can't just sell to the highest bidder. They need to factor in the company's reputation for providing quality service, and they need to set up an infrastructure to regulate that service. A mindful and fair Public Service Commission is key.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

World wide attack
Posted by: coñoloco on Aug 7, 2007 1:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Google language tools will help translate,the links are in spanish
it make the blood boil.

http://www.google.com/search?q=el+agua+no+se+ven

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: World wide attack Posted by: coñoloco
Ron Paul
Posted by: lamar on Aug 7, 2007 9:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Uh.....Ron Paul? Aw, just kiddin'. I like the guy, but I'm totally embarassed by those internet freaks who bombard everything. Jess pokin' a little fun.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]