And you thought selling our ports to the Arabs was cause for concern ... wait until you read this

The Bush junta is selling US water companies to foreign corporations.

Water. You know, the stuff that fish fuck in and the stuff that, without

which, you'll live for three days. And now, terrorist regimes will soon own

the water you drink -- at least, it will be the water you drink until they

want to cut it off.

QUOTE

Fighting the Corporate Theft of Our Water

By Tara Lohan, AlterNet

Posted on April 25, 2007, Printed on April 25, 2007

http://www.alternet.org/story/50994/

All across the United States, municipal water systems are being bought up by

multinational corporations, turning one of our last remaining public commons

and our most vital resource into a commodity.

The road to privatization is being paved by our own government. The Bush

administration is actively working to loosen the hold that cities and towns

have over public water, enabling corporations to own the very thing we

depend on for survival.

The effects of the federal government's actions are being felt all the way

down to Conference of Mayors, which has become a "feeding frenzy" for

corporations looking to make sure that nothing is left in the public's

hands, including clean, affordable water.

Documentary filmmakers Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman recently teamed up

with author Michael Fox to write "Thirst: Fighting the Corporate Theft of

Our Water" (Wiley, 2007). The three followed water privatization battles

across the United States -- from California to Massachusetts and from

Georgia to Wisconsin, documenting the rise of public opposition to corporate

control of water resources.

They found that the issue of privatization ran deep.

"We came to see that the conflicts over water are really about fundamental

questions of democracy itself: Who will make the decisions that affect our

future, and who will be excluded?" they wrote in the book's preface. "And if

citizens no longer control their most basic resource, their water, do they

really control anything at all?"

As the effects of climate change are being felt around the world, including

decreasing snowpacks and rainfall, water is quickly becoming the market's

new holy grail.

Mayor Gary Podesto, in his State of the City address to his constituents in

2003, sang the praises of privatization to his community, located in

California's Central Valley. "It's time that Stockton enter the 21st century

in its delivery of services and think of our citizens as customers," he

said.

And there is the crux of the issue -- privatization means transforming

citizens into customers. Or, in other words, making people engaged in a

democratic process into consumers looking to get the best deal.

It is also means taking our most important resource and putting it at the

whims of the market.

Currently, water systems are controlled publicly in 90 percent of

communities across the world and 85 percent in the United States, but that

number is changing rapidly, the authors report in "Thirst." In 1990, 50

million people worldwide got their water services from private companies,

but by 2002 it was 300 million and growing.

There are a number of reasons to be concerned.

"Globally, corporations are promoting water privatization under the guise of

efficiency, but the fact is that they are not paying the full cost of public

infrastructure, environmental damage, or healthcare for those they hurt,"

said Ashley Schaeffer of Corporate Accountability International. "Water is a

human right and not a privilege."

There are also significant environmental considerations -- with private

corporations, sustainability can be tossed out the window. "Climate change

is a warning that uncontrolled abuse of the earth's natural resources is

leading toward planetary catastrophe," the authors write in "Thirst." "Who

is to set the necessary limits to the abuse of the environment? Private

companies fighting for market share are incapable of doing so."

Privatization has been pushed aggressively at the federal level for decades,

but especially so in the last six years. "There is a kind of fire sale of

everything in the public sector right now," said Alan Snitow. "Water, we

think, is the line in the sand -- when your water is actually a profit

mechanism, people really react negatively to that."

"Thirst" beautifully documents the coalitions that are forming in

communities that are fighting back. But the battles are not easy: They must

confront massive political muscle and unlimited financial resources of

multinational corporations, not to mention our society's religious belief in

the power of the marketplace.

Privatizing municipal water systems is globalization come home, said Deborah

Kaufman. In 2000 Bechtel privatized water in Cochabamba, Bolivia, with such

miserable consequences that it was shortly driven out of the country in an

incredible feat of cross-class organizing. But just a few years later, it

was awarded a $680 million contract to "fix" Iraq's ruined water systems.

"What's happened in Iraq is really emblematic of what the Bush

administration is doing," said Kaufman. "We view the privatization of water

in the United States as the World Bank come home -- the third-worldization

of America and American communities."

It turns out the United States is an attractive place for multinationals

looking to make inroads in the water business. The three main players are

the French companies Suez and Veolia (formerly Vivendi), and the German

group RWE.

The companies first pushed water privatization in developing nations. "But

in many instances, those attempts didn't pan out as planned, it being

difficult to gouge governments and customers that don't have a lot of

money," Public Citizen reports. "The U.S., by contrast, presented the

promise of a steady, reliable revenue stream from customers willing and able

to pay water bills."

The companies that already controlled the small percentage of U.S. water

held privately were bought by the big three: Veolia picked up U.S Filter,

Suez got United Water and RWE took over American Water Works.

The results have been disastrous, as "Thirst" shows -- rates are increasing,

quality is suffering, customer service is declining, profits are leaving

communities and accountability has fallen by the wayside.

In Felton, Calif., a small regional utility ran the water system until it

was purchased in 2001 by California American Water, a subsidiary of American

Water, which is a subsidiary of Thames Water in London, which has also

become a subsidiary of German giant RWE. Residents in Felton saw their rates

skyrocket, "Thirst" reports. A woman who runs a facility for people in need

saw her water bill increase from $250 to $1,275 a month.

RWE also bought the company controlling the water system in Urbana, Ill.,

and locals have been unhappy with the service it provides. "A few months

ago, I got a notice on my door saying the water was turned off, and that

when it came back on, I needed to boil it before I used it," said the city's

mayor, Laurel Prussing. But when she called the number, the company didn't

know what was going on -- and it was no wonder, because the call center was

located in Florida.

The list of abuses in "Thirst," which represent only a handful of

communities, are plentiful:

In 2006, two top managers at a Suez/United Water plant in New Jersey were

indicted for covering up high radium levels in drinking water ... In

Milwaukee, Suez subsidiary United Water discharged more than a million

gallons of untreated sewage into Lake Michigan because it had shut down

pumps to reduce electricity bills ... In Stockton, Calif., a citizen's

watchdog group reported that water leakage doubled in the first year that

OMI/Thames took over system operations. In Indianapolis, customer complaints

nearly tripled the first year of Veolia's contract, and inadequate

maintenance resulted in hundreds of fire hydrants freezing in the winter ...

Overall, it has proved to be a recipe for disaster.

"Seeking to consolidate market share, private water companies are merging or

buying other companies, creating a volatile and unpredictable market," they

conclude, "hardly the kind of stability required for a life-and-death

resource like water."

The water crisis comes home

Corporate interest in water systems in the United States exists for very

good reason -- we have a water crisis. Our drinking and wastewater systems

were largely designed a hundred years ago and in many places, little

improvements have been made.

Aging systems combined with the pressures of increasing population,

development, and pollution have left many communities close to disaster.

As a result, corporations have swooped in to offer public officials an easy

out -- not only will they run these aging plants, but they'll save the city

millions of dollars in the process. At least that's the promise. So far, it

hasn't panned out.

In 2005,"Thirst" reports, 200 mayors of large and small cities said they

would consider privatization if it would save money. In addition to

lobbyists, publicists and ad campaigns, the corporations have also directly

gone after public officials to sell their wares.

"The U.S. Conference of Mayors has become an engine of water privatization

through its Urban Water Council," they write in "Thirst." "One mayor

described a Conference of Mayors session he attended as a kind of feeding

frenzy, with companies bidding to take over everything from his city's

school-lunch program to its traffic lights and water services. Financed by

the private water industry, staffed by former industry officials, the UWC

works hard to give its corporate sponsors 'face time' with mayors."

And the federal government is not doing anything to help -- in fact, it's

doing the opposite. "The administration has backed language in legislation

to reauthorize existing federal water funding assistance programs that would

require cities to consider water privatization before they could receive

federal funding," reports Public Citizen. "And in lockstep with private

industry's goals, the EPA is increasingly playing down the role of federal

financial assistance while actively encouraging communities to pay for

system upgrades by raising rates to consumers -- exactly the strategy the

industry hopes will drive cash-strapped and embattled local politicians to

opt for the false promise of privatization."

The EPA has projected a needed $446 billion for drinking water

infrastructure over the next 20 years, but the money that is needed and that

is actually allocated in the budget falls billions short.

Snitow calls the under funding of public water systems and public

infrastructure as a whole, "systematic" under the Bush administration. "On

water, President Bush says he wants to fund private companies to do it. He

does not want to give money, even loan money, to government agencies at the

local level to improve their own water systems."

This mindset goes against public opinion and environmental law. The Safe

Drinking Water Act passed in 1974 says, "The federal government needs to

provide assistance to communities to help the communities meet federal

drinking water requirements." And a national poll showed that 86 percent of

Americans supported creating a water infrastructure trust fund.

But this issue is not a partisan problem. As reported in "Thirst," in 1997

the Clinton administration changed the law to the benefit of private

companies. Previously municipal utility contracts were limited to five

years, but Clinton changed it to allow contracts to be extended up to 20

years. "The rule change unleashed a wave of industry euphoria with

predictions that private companies would soon be running much of what is now

a public service," they wrote. In the following five years, municipal water

contracts with private companies tripled.

"Privatization comes from both Democrats and Republicans. Particularly the

Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. Clinton advanced this in a number of

areas -- Bush has taken it to the extreme," said Snitow.

And across the country, Democrats are guilty as well as Republicans. "In Lee

[Mass.], one of the key people supporting the Veolia privatization is a

liberal Democrat. He has a great record with unions, on gay rights. He is a

social liberal, but he wants to privatize key public services," said Snitow.

"There is an ideology that is bipartisan and is part of the old Washington

consensus which is that the market can do everything better, it can be more

efficient," he continued. "I think that we are seeing the chickens come home

to roost on this with Iraq. You are seeing the ultimate apotheosis of the

kind of vision that they had in mind -- where they would turn over the

entire government and the resources to private multinationals. And, if that

is efficiency, I think that most people in the world would want themselves

counted out."

Not for sale

"Thirst" documents not just the consolidation of power through corporations

but the public resistance that is often, despite seemingly impossible odds,

successful.

Time and time again throughout the book, citizens responded to local threats

but realized they were part of much bigger effort against water

privatization around the world and the wholesale auction of the commons.

Even if you don't live somewhere under threat at the moment, there is

something for everyone to do. We can work to create a trust for drinking

water and wastewater; to drop conditions in federal funding that favor

privatizing water resources; to block water corporations from obtaining

access to public funding through tax-exempt private activity bonds; and to

promote strong public management of water resources. Or you can work to

support organizations like Corporate Accountability International, Food and

Water Watch, Sierra Club and others who are organizing around the issue.

"There has to be preemption -- companies come in secretly and people don't

know there are negotiations going on, and communities that are organizing

are coming from behind," said Snitow. "If there is more consciousness about

this and more mayors know that their political lives are going to be spent

fighting this issue, then I think fewer and fewer of them are going to say

this not the way for me to leave my mark on the city. They'll choose

something else. I think there is a lot of potential for victories, for

changing the water policy in this country and it won't be a minute too soon,

given what's going to be happening with global warming."

Taking a stand against corporate control of water means believing that some

things, like the lifeblood of our communities, should not be for sale.

"Whether clean and safe water will remain accessible to all, affordable and

sustainable into the future, depends on us," write Snitow, Kaufman and Fox.

"The stakes could not be higher. The outcome will surely be a measure of

democracy in the 21st century."

http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/50994/

END QUOTE

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:02:46 -0400, "Joe S." <noname@nosuch.net>

wrote:

>The Bush junta is selling US water companies to foreign corporations.

>Water. You know, the stuff that fish fuck in and the stuff that, without

>which, you'll live for three days. And now, terrorist regimes will soon own

>the water you drink -- at least, it will be the water you drink until they

>want to cut it off.

>

Didn't know that the Bush junta owned any water companies. Do you

think that the Arabs will ship all our water over seas in empty oil

tankers?

>QUOTE

>

>Fighting the Corporate Theft of Our Water

>By Tara Lohan, AlterNet

>Posted on April 25, 2007, Printed on April 25, 2007

>http://www.alternet.org/story/50994/

>All across the United States, municipal water systems are being bought up by

>multinational corporations, turning one of our last remaining public commons

>and our most vital resource into a commodity.

>

>The road to privatization is being paved by our own government. The Bush

>administration is actively working to loosen the hold that cities and towns

>have over public water, enabling corporations to own the very thing we

>depend on for survival.

>

>The effects of the federal government's actions are being felt all the way

>down to Conference of Mayors, which has become a "feeding frenzy" for

>corporations looking to make sure that nothing is left in the public's

>hands, including clean, affordable water.

>

>Documentary filmmakers Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman recently teamed up

>with author Michael Fox to write "Thirst: Fighting the Corporate Theft of

>Our Water" (Wiley, 2007). The three followed water privatization battles

>across the United States -- from California to Massachusetts and from

>Georgia to Wisconsin, documenting the rise of public opposition to corporate

>control of water resources.

>

>They found that the issue of privatization ran deep.

>

>"We came to see that the conflicts over water are really about fundamental

>questions of democracy itself: Who will make the decisions that affect our

>future, and who will be excluded?" they wrote in the book's preface. "And if

>citizens no longer control their most basic resource, their water, do they

>really control anything at all?"

>

>As the effects of climate change are being felt around the world, including

>decreasing snowpacks and rainfall, water is quickly becoming the market's

>new holy grail.

>

>Mayor Gary Podesto, in his State of the City address to his constituents in

>2003, sang the praises of privatization to his community, located in

>California's Central Valley. "It's time that Stockton enter the 21st century

>in its delivery of services and think of our citizens as customers," he

>said.

>

>And there is the crux of the issue -- privatization means transforming

>citizens into customers. Or, in other words, making people engaged in a

>democratic process into consumers looking to get the best deal.

>

>It is also means taking our most important resource and putting it at the

>whims of the market.

>

>Currently, water systems are controlled publicly in 90 percent of

>communities across the world and 85 percent in the United States, but that

>number is changing rapidly, the authors report in "Thirst." In 1990, 50

>million people worldwide got their water services from private companies,

>but by 2002 it was 300 million and growing.

>

>There are a number of reasons to be concerned.

>

>"Globally, corporations are promoting water privatization under the guise of

>efficiency, but the fact is that they are not paying the full cost of public

>infrastructure, environmental damage, or healthcare for those they hurt,"

>said Ashley Schaeffer of Corporate Accountability International. "Water is a

>human right and not a privilege."

>

>There are also significant environmental considerations -- with private

>corporations, sustainability can be tossed out the window. "Climate change

>is a warning that uncontrolled abuse of the earth's natural resources is

>leading toward planetary catastrophe," the authors write in "Thirst." "Who

>is to set the necessary limits to the abuse of the environment? Private

>companies fighting for market share are incapable of doing so."

>

>Privatization has been pushed aggressively at the federal level for decades,

>but especially so in the last six years. "There is a kind of fire sale of

>everything in the public sector right now," said Alan Snitow. "Water, we

>think, is the line in the sand -- when your water is actually a profit

>mechanism, people really react negatively to that."

>

>"Thirst" beautifully documents the coalitions that are forming in

>communities that are fighting back. But the battles are not easy: They must

>confront massive political muscle and unlimited financial resources of

>multinational corporations, not to mention our society's religious belief in

>the power of the marketplace.

>

>Privatizing municipal water systems is globalization come home, said Deborah

>Kaufman. In 2000 Bechtel privatized water in Cochabamba, Bolivia, with such

>miserable consequences that it was shortly driven out of the country in an

>incredible feat of cross-class organizing. But just a few years later, it

>was awarded a $680 million contract to "fix" Iraq's ruined water systems.

>

>"What's happened in Iraq is really emblematic of what the Bush

>administration is doing," said Kaufman. "We view the privatization of water

>in the United States as the World Bank come home -- the third-worldization

>of America and American communities."

>

>It turns out the United States is an attractive place for multinationals

>looking to make inroads in the water business. The three main players are

>the French companies Suez and Veolia (formerly Vivendi), and the German

>group RWE.

>

>The companies first pushed water privatization in developing nations. "But

>in many instances, those attempts didn't pan out as planned, it being

>difficult to gouge governments and customers that don't have a lot of

>money," Public Citizen reports. "The U.S., by contrast, presented the

>promise of a steady, reliable revenue stream from customers willing and able

>to pay water bills."

>

>The companies that already controlled the small percentage of U.S. water

>held privately were bought by the big three: Veolia picked up U.S Filter,

>Suez got United Water and RWE took over American Water Works.

>

>The results have been disastrous, as "Thirst" shows -- rates are increasing,

>quality is suffering, customer service is declining, profits are leaving

>communities and accountability has fallen by the wayside.

>

>In Felton, Calif., a small regional utility ran the water system until it

>was purchased in 2001 by California American Water, a subsidiary of American

>Water, which is a subsidiary of Thames Water in London, which has also

>become a subsidiary of German giant RWE. Residents in Felton saw their rates

>skyrocket, "Thirst" reports. A woman who runs a facility for people in need

>saw her water bill increase from $250 to $1,275 a month.

>

>RWE also bought the company controlling the water system in Urbana, Ill.,

>and locals have been unhappy with the service it provides. "A few months

>ago, I got a notice on my door saying the water was turned off, and that

>when it came back on, I needed to boil it before I used it," said the city's

>mayor, Laurel Prussing. But when she called the number, the company didn't

>know what was going on -- and it was no wonder, because the call center was

>located in Florida.

>

>The list of abuses in "Thirst," which represent only a handful of

>communities, are plentiful:

>

>

> In 2006, two top managers at a Suez/United Water plant in New Jersey were

>indicted for covering up high radium levels in drinking water ... In

>Milwaukee, Suez subsidiary United Water discharged more than a million

>gallons of untreated sewage into Lake Michigan because it had shut down

>pumps to reduce electricity bills ... In Stockton, Calif., a citizen's

>watchdog group reported that water leakage doubled in the first year that

>OMI/Thames took over system operations. In Indianapolis, customer complaints

>nearly tripled the first year of Veolia's contract, and inadequate

>maintenance resulted in hundreds of fire hydrants freezing in the winter ...

>

>Overall, it has proved to be a recipe for disaster.

>

>"Seeking to consolidate market share, private water companies are merging or

>buying other companies, creating a volatile and unpredictable market," they

>conclude, "hardly the kind of stability required for a life-and-death

>resource like water."

>

>The water crisis comes home

>

>Corporate interest in water systems in the United States exists for very

>good reason -- we have a water crisis. Our drinking and wastewater systems

>were largely designed a hundred years ago and in many places, little

>improvements have been made.

>

>Aging systems combined with the pressures of increasing population,

>development, and pollution have left many communities close to disaster.

>

>As a result, corporations have swooped in to offer public officials an easy

>out -- not only will they run these aging plants, but they'll save the city

>millions of dollars in the process. At least that's the promise. So far, it

>hasn't panned out.

>

>In 2005,"Thirst" reports, 200 mayors of large and small cities said they

>would consider privatization if it would save money. In addition to

>lobbyists, publicists and ad campaigns, the corporations have also directly

>gone after public officials to sell their wares.

>

>"The U.S. Conference of Mayors has become an engine of water privatization

>through its Urban Water Council," they write in "Thirst." "One mayor

>described a Conference of Mayors session he attended as a kind of feeding

>frenzy, with companies bidding to take over everything from his city's

>school-lunch program to its traffic lights and water services. Financed by

>the private water industry, staffed by former industry officials, the UWC

>works hard to give its corporate sponsors 'face time' with mayors."

>

>And the federal government is not doing anything to help -- in fact, it's

>doing the opposite. "The administration has backed language in legislation

>to reauthorize existing federal water funding assistance programs that would

>require cities to consider water privatization before they could receive

>federal funding," reports Public Citizen. "And in lockstep with private

>industry's goals, the EPA is increasingly playing down the role of federal

>financial assistance while actively encouraging communities to pay for

>system upgrades by raising rates to consumers -- exactly the strategy the

>industry hopes will drive cash-strapped and embattled local politicians to

>opt for the false promise of privatization."

>

>The EPA has projected a needed $446 billion for drinking water

>infrastructure over the next 20 years, but the money that is needed and that

>is actually allocated in the budget falls billions short.

>

>Snitow calls the under funding of public water systems and public

>infrastructure as a whole, "systematic" under the Bush administration. "On

>water, President Bush says he wants to fund private companies to do it. He

>does not want to give money, even loan money, to government agencies at the

>local level to improve their own water systems."

>

>This mindset goes against public opinion and environmental law. The Safe

>Drinking Water Act passed in 1974 says, "The federal government needs to

>provide assistance to communities to help the communities meet federal

>drinking water requirements." And a national poll showed that 86 percent of

>Americans supported creating a water infrastructure trust fund.

>

>But this issue is not a partisan problem. As reported in "Thirst," in 1997

>the Clinton administration changed the law to the benefit of private

>companies. Previously municipal utility contracts were limited to five

>years, but Clinton changed it to allow contracts to be extended up to 20

>years. "The rule change unleashed a wave of industry euphoria with

>predictions that private companies would soon be running much of what is now

>a public service," they wrote. In the following five years, municipal water

>contracts with private companies tripled.

>

>"Privatization comes from both Democrats and Republicans. Particularly the

>Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. Clinton advanced this in a number of

>areas -- Bush has taken it to the extreme," said Snitow.

>

>And across the country, Democrats are guilty as well as Republicans. "In Lee

>[Mass.], one of the key people supporting the Veolia privatization is a

>liberal Democrat. He has a great record with unions, on gay rights. He is a

>social liberal, but he wants to privatize key public services," said Snitow.

>

>"There is an ideology that is bipartisan and is part of the old Washington

>consensus which is that the market can do everything better, it can be more

>efficient," he continued. "I think that we are seeing the chickens come home

>to roost on this with Iraq. You are seeing the ultimate apotheosis of the

>kind of vision that they had in mind -- where they would turn over the

>entire government and the resources to private multinationals. And, if that

>is efficiency, I think that most people in the world would want themselves

>counted out."

>

>Not for sale

>

>"Thirst" documents not just the consolidation of power through corporations

>but the public resistance that is often, despite seemingly impossible odds,

>successful.

>

>Time and time again throughout the book, citizens responded to local threats

>but realized they were part of much bigger effort against water

>privatization around the world and the wholesale auction of the commons.

>

>Even if you don't live somewhere under threat at the moment, there is

>something for everyone to do. We can work to create a trust for drinking

>water and wastewater; to drop conditions in federal funding that favor

>privatizing water resources; to block water corporations from obtaining

>access to public funding through tax-exempt private activity bonds; and to

>promote strong public management of water resources. Or you can work to

>support organizations like Corporate Accountability International, Food and

>Water Watch, Sierra Club and others who are organizing around the issue.

>

>"There has to be preemption -- companies come in secretly and people don't

>know there are negotiations going on, and communities that are organizing

>are coming from behind," said Snitow. "If there is more consciousness about

>this and more mayors know that their political lives are going to be spent

>fighting this issue, then I think fewer and fewer of them are going to say

>this not the way for me to leave my mark on the city. They'll choose

>something else. I think there is a lot of potential for victories, for

>changing the water policy in this country and it won't be a minute too soon,

>given what's going to be happening with global warming."

>

>Taking a stand against corporate control of water means believing that some

>things, like the lifeblood of our communities, should not be for sale.

>

>"Whether clean and safe water will remain accessible to all, affordable and

>sustainable into the future, depends on us," write Snitow, Kaufman and Fox.

>"The stakes could not be higher. The outcome will surely be a measure of

>democracy in the 21st century."

>

>http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/50994/

>

>END QUOTE

>

--

There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling

the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their

cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.

Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not

on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away

with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone

are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices

me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS

"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.

"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.

--Will Durant

Joseph R. Darancette

daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net

Joe S. wrote:

> The Bush junta is selling US water companies to foreign corporations.

> Water. You know, the stuff that fish fuck in and the stuff that,

> without which, you'll live for three days. And now, terrorist

> regimes will soon own the water you drink -- at least, it will be the

> water you drink until they want to cut it off.

>

> QUOTE

>

> Fighting the Corporate Theft of Our Water

> By Tara Lohan, AlterNet

> Posted on April 25, 2007, Printed on April 25, 2007

> http://www.alternet.org/story/50994/

> All across the United States, municipal water systems are being

> bought up by multinational corporations, turning one of our last

> remaining public commons and our most vital resource into a commodity.

>

> The road to privatization is being paved by our own government. The

> Bush administration is actively working to loosen the hold that

> cities and towns have over public water, enabling corporations to own

> the very thing we depend on for survival.

>

> The effects of the federal government's actions are being felt all

> the way down to Conference of Mayors, which has become a "feeding

> frenzy" for corporations looking to make sure that nothing is left in

> the public's hands, including clean, affordable water.

>

> Documentary filmmakers Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman recently

> teamed up with author Michael Fox to write "Thirst: Fighting the

> Corporate Theft of Our Water" (Wiley, 2007). The three followed water

> privatization battles across the United States -- from California to

> Massachusetts and from Georgia to Wisconsin, documenting the rise of

> public opposition to corporate control of water resources.

>

> They found that the issue of privatization ran deep.

>

> "We came to see that the conflicts over water are really about

> fundamental questions of democracy itself: Who will make the

> decisions that affect our future, and who will be excluded?" they

> wrote in the book's preface. "And if citizens no longer control their

> most basic resource, their water, do they really control anything at

> all?"

>

> As the effects of climate change are being felt around the world,

> including decreasing snowpacks and rainfall, water is quickly

> becoming the market's new holy grail.

>

> Mayor Gary Podesto, in his State of the City address to his

> constituents in 2003, sang the praises of privatization to his

> community, located in California's Central Valley. "It's time that

> Stockton enter the 21st century in its delivery of services and think

> of our citizens as customers," he said.

>

> And there is the crux of the issue -- privatization means

> transforming citizens into customers. Or, in other words, making

> people engaged in a democratic process into consumers looking to get

> the best deal.

>

> It is also means taking our most important resource and putting it at

> the whims of the market.

>

> Currently, water systems are controlled publicly in 90 percent of

> communities across the world and 85 percent in the United States, but

> that number is changing rapidly, the authors report in "Thirst." In

> 1990, 50 million people worldwide got their water services from

> private companies, but by 2002 it was 300 million and growing.

>

> There are a number of reasons to be concerned.

>

> "Globally, corporations are promoting water privatization under the

> guise of efficiency, but the fact is that they are not paying the

> full cost of public infrastructure, environmental damage, or

> healthcare for those they hurt," said Ashley Schaeffer of Corporate

> Accountability International. "Water is a human right and not a

> privilege."

>

> There are also significant environmental considerations -- with

> private corporations, sustainability can be tossed out the window.

> "Climate change is a warning that uncontrolled abuse of the earth's

> natural resources is leading toward planetary catastrophe," the

> authors write in "Thirst." "Who is to set the necessary limits to the

> abuse of the environment? Private companies fighting for market share

> are incapable of doing so."

>

> Privatization has been pushed aggressively at the federal level for

> decades, but especially so in the last six years. "There is a kind of

> fire sale of everything in the public sector right now," said Alan

> Snitow. "Water, we think, is the line in the sand -- when your water

> is actually a profit mechanism, people really react negatively to

> that."

>

> "Thirst" beautifully documents the coalitions that are forming in

> communities that are fighting back. But the battles are not easy:

> They must confront massive political muscle and unlimited financial

> resources of multinational corporations, not to mention our society's

> religious belief in the power of the marketplace.

>

> Privatizing municipal water systems is globalization come home, said

> Deborah Kaufman. In 2000 Bechtel privatized water in Cochabamba,

> Bolivia, with such miserable consequences that it was shortly driven

> out of the country in an incredible feat of cross-class organizing.

> But just a few years later, it was awarded a $680 million contract to

> "fix" Iraq's ruined water systems.

>

> "What's happened in Iraq is really emblematic of what the Bush

> administration is doing," said Kaufman. "We view the privatization of

> water in the United States as the World Bank come home -- the

> third-worldization of America and American communities."

>

> It turns out the United States is an attractive place for

> multinationals looking to make inroads in the water business. The

> three main players are the French companies Suez and Veolia (formerly

> Vivendi), and the German group RWE.

>

> The companies first pushed water privatization in developing nations.

> "But in many instances, those attempts didn't pan out as planned, it

> being difficult to gouge governments and customers that don't have a

> lot of money," Public Citizen reports. "The U.S., by contrast,

> presented the promise of a steady, reliable revenue stream from

> customers willing and able to pay water bills."

>

> The companies that already controlled the small percentage of U.S.

> water held privately were bought by the big three: Veolia picked up

> U.S Filter, Suez got United Water and RWE took over American Water

> Works.

>

> The results have been disastrous, as "Thirst" shows -- rates are

> increasing, quality is suffering, customer service is declining,

> profits are leaving communities and accountability has fallen by the

> wayside.

>

> In Felton, Calif., a small regional utility ran the water system

> until it was purchased in 2001 by California American Water, a

> subsidiary of American Water, which is a subsidiary of Thames Water

> in London, which has also become a subsidiary of German giant RWE.

> Residents in Felton saw their rates skyrocket, "Thirst" reports. A

> woman who runs a facility for people in need saw her water bill

> increase from $250 to $1,275 a month.

>

> RWE also bought the company controlling the water system in Urbana,

> Ill., and locals have been unhappy with the service it provides. "A

> few months ago, I got a notice on my door saying the water was turned

> off, and that when it came back on, I needed to boil it before I used

> it," said the city's mayor, Laurel Prussing. But when she called the

> number, the company didn't know what was going on -- and it was no

> wonder, because the call center was located in Florida.

>

> The list of abuses in "Thirst," which represent only a handful of

> communities, are plentiful:

>

>

> In 2006, two top managers at a Suez/United Water plant in New Jersey

> were indicted for covering up high radium levels in drinking water

> ... In Milwaukee, Suez subsidiary United Water discharged more than a

> million gallons of untreated sewage into Lake Michigan because it had

> shut down pumps to reduce electricity bills ... In Stockton, Calif.,

> a citizen's watchdog group reported that water leakage doubled in the

> first year that OMI/Thames took over system operations. In

> Indianapolis, customer complaints nearly tripled the first year of

> Veolia's contract, and inadequate maintenance resulted in hundreds of

> fire hydrants freezing in the winter ...

>

> Overall, it has proved to be a recipe for disaster.

>

> "Seeking to consolidate market share, private water companies are

> merging or buying other companies, creating a volatile and

> unpredictable market," they conclude, "hardly the kind of stability

> required for a life-and-death resource like water."

>

> The water crisis comes home

>

> Corporate interest in water systems in the United States exists for

> very good reason -- we have a water crisis. Our drinking and

> wastewater systems were largely designed a hundred years ago and in

> many places, little improvements have been made.

>

> Aging systems combined with the pressures of increasing population,

> development, and pollution have left many communities close to

> disaster.

>

> As a result, corporations have swooped in to offer public officials

> an easy out -- not only will they run these aging plants, but they'll

> save the city millions of dollars in the process. At least that's the

> promise. So far, it hasn't panned out.

>

> In 2005,"Thirst" reports, 200 mayors of large and small cities said

> they would consider privatization if it would save money. In addition

> to lobbyists, publicists and ad campaigns, the corporations have also

> directly gone after public officials to sell their wares.

>

> "The U.S. Conference of Mayors has become an engine of water

> privatization through its Urban Water Council," they write in

> "Thirst." "One mayor described a Conference of Mayors session he

> attended as a kind of feeding frenzy, with companies bidding to take

> over everything from his city's school-lunch program to its traffic

> lights and water services. Financed by the private water industry,

> staffed by former industry officials, the UWC works hard to give its

> corporate sponsors 'face time' with mayors."

>

> And the federal government is not doing anything to help -- in fact,

> it's doing the opposite. "The administration has backed language in

> legislation to reauthorize existing federal water funding assistance

> programs that would require cities to consider water privatization

> before they could receive federal funding," reports Public Citizen.

> "And in lockstep with private industry's goals, the EPA is

> increasingly playing down the role of federal financial assistance

> while actively encouraging communities to pay for system upgrades by

> raising rates to consumers -- exactly the strategy the industry hopes

> will drive cash-strapped and embattled local politicians to opt for

> the false promise of privatization."

>

> The EPA has projected a needed $446 billion for drinking water

> infrastructure over the next 20 years, but the money that is needed

> and that is actually allocated in the budget falls billions short.

>

> Snitow calls the under funding of public water systems and public

> infrastructure as a whole, "systematic" under the Bush

> administration. "On water, President Bush says he wants to fund

> private companies to do it. He does not want to give money, even loan

> money, to government agencies at the local level to improve their own

> water systems."

>

> This mindset goes against public opinion and environmental law. The

> Safe Drinking Water Act passed in 1974 says, "The federal government

> needs to provide assistance to communities to help the communities

> meet federal drinking water requirements." And a national poll showed

> that 86 percent of Americans supported creating a water

> infrastructure trust fund.

>

> But this issue is not a partisan problem. As reported in "Thirst," in

> 1997 the Clinton administration changed the law to the benefit of

> private companies. Previously municipal utility contracts were

> limited to five years, but Clinton changed it to allow contracts to

> be extended up to 20 years. "The rule change unleashed a wave of

> industry euphoria with predictions that private companies would soon

> be running much of what is now a public service," they wrote. In the

> following five years, municipal water contracts with private

> companies tripled.

>

> "Privatization comes from both Democrats and Republicans.

> Particularly the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. Clinton

> advanced this in a number of areas -- Bush has taken it to the

> extreme," said Snitow.

>

> And across the country, Democrats are guilty as well as Republicans.

> "In Lee [Mass.], one of the key people supporting the Veolia

> privatization is a liberal Democrat. He has a great record with

> unions, on gay rights. He is a social liberal, but he wants to

> privatize key public services," said Snitow.

>

> "There is an ideology that is bipartisan and is part of the old

> Washington consensus which is that the market can do everything

> better, it can be more efficient," he continued. "I think that we are

> seeing the chickens come home to roost on this with Iraq. You are

> seeing the ultimate apotheosis of the kind of vision that they had in

> mind -- where they would turn over the entire government and the

> resources to private multinationals. And, if that is efficiency, I

> think that most people in the world would want themselves counted

> out."

>

> Not for sale

>

> "Thirst" documents not just the consolidation of power through

> corporations but the public resistance that is often, despite

> seemingly impossible odds, successful.

>

> Time and time again throughout the book, citizens responded to local

> threats but realized they were part of much bigger effort against

> water privatization around the world and the wholesale auction of the

> commons.

>

> Even if you don't live somewhere under threat at the moment, there is

> something for everyone to do. We can work to create a trust for

> drinking water and wastewater; to drop conditions in federal funding

> that favor privatizing water resources; to block water corporations

> from obtaining access to public funding through tax-exempt private

> activity bonds; and to promote strong public management of water

> resources. Or you can work to support organizations like Corporate

> Accountability International, Food and Water Watch, Sierra Club and

> others who are organizing around the issue.

>

> "There has to be preemption -- companies come in secretly and people

> don't know there are negotiations going on, and communities that are

> organizing are coming from behind," said Snitow. "If there is more

> consciousness about this and more mayors know that their political

> lives are going to be spent fighting this issue, then I think fewer

> and fewer of them are going to say this not the way for me to leave

> my mark on the city. They'll choose something else. I think there is

> a lot of potential for victories, for changing the water policy in

> this country and it won't be a minute too soon, given what's going to

> be happening with global warming."

>

> Taking a stand against corporate control of water means believing

> that some things, like the lifeblood of our communities, should not

> be for sale.

>

> "Whether clean and safe water will remain accessible to all,

> affordable and sustainable into the future, depends on us," write

> Snitow, Kaufman and Fox. "The stakes could not be higher. The outcome

> will surely be a measure of democracy in the 21st century."

>

> http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/50994/

>

> END QUOTE

we are now "renting" our interstats too private corp too!!!!!!!

pathetic.

One Gov. is enough - having to be under the thumb of many is NOT

acceptable.

--

In our last episode,

<q94033pu1n4u9d7u88a6amgq010v94oqqr@4ax.com>,

the lovely and talented Captain Compassion

broadcast on alt.politics:

> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:02:46 -0400, "Joe S." <noname@nosuch.net>

> wrote:

>>The Bush junta is selling US water companies to foreign corporations.

>>Water. You know, the stuff that fish fuck in and the stuff that, without

>>which, you'll live for three days. And now, terrorist regimes will soon own

>>the water you drink -- at least, it will be the water you drink until they

>>want to cut it off.

>>

> Didn't know that the Bush junta owned any water companies. Do you

> think that the Arabs will ship all our water over seas in empty oil

> tankers?

They don't have to any more than Enron had to ship electricity to Arabia in

order to rape California. They just have to take down a few processing

plants or pumping stations for "maintenance." How soon you seem to have

forgot Grandma Milli.

--

Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>

Countdown: 635 days to go.

I live in a concealed-carry state which just passed a shoot-whenever-you're-

nervous-in-public law. Iran is the last thing I worry about.

On 26 Apr 2007 03:18:11 GMT, Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com>

wrote:

>In our last episode,

><q94033pu1n4u9d7u88a6amgq010v94oqqr@4ax.com>,

>the lovely and talented Captain Compassion

>broadcast on alt.politics:

>

>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:02:46 -0400, "Joe S." <noname@nosuch.net>

>> wrote:

>

>>>The Bush junta is selling US water companies to foreign corporations.

>>>Water. You know, the stuff that fish fuck in and the stuff that, without

>>>which, you'll live for three days. And now, terrorist regimes will soon own

>>>the water you drink -- at least, it will be the water you drink until they

>>>want to cut it off.

>>>

>> Didn't know that the Bush junta owned any water companies. Do you

>> think that the Arabs will ship all our water over seas in empty oil

>> tankers?

>

>They don't have to any more than Enron had to ship electricity to Arabia in

>order to rape California. They just have to take down a few processing

>plants or pumping stations for "maintenance." How soon you seem to have

>forgot Grandma Milli.

California wouldn't have been raped if Grey Davis hadn't of bent over

and spread his cheeks. Davis paid for that.

--

There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling

the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their

cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.

Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not

on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away

with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone

are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices

me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS

"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.

"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.

--Will Durant

Joseph R. Darancette

daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net

In our last episode,

<r970335cjo3kgolgfi1ofe11g9ls6mmmus@4ax.com>,

the lovely and talented Captain Compassion

broadcast on alt.politics:

> On 26 Apr 2007 03:18:11 GMT, Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com>

> wrote:

>>In our last episode,

>><q94033pu1n4u9d7u88a6amgq010v94oqqr@4ax.com>,

>>the lovely and talented Captain Compassion

>>broadcast on alt.politics:

>>

>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:02:46 -0400, "Joe S." <noname@nosuch.net>

>>> wrote:

>>

>>>>The Bush junta is selling US water companies to foreign corporations.

>>>>Water. You know, the stuff that fish fuck in and the stuff that, without

>>>>which, you'll live for three days. And now, terrorist regimes will soon own

>>>>the water you drink -- at least, it will be the water you drink until they

>>>>want to cut it off.

>>>>

>>> Didn't know that the Bush junta owned any water companies. Do you

>>> think that the Arabs will ship all our water over seas in empty oil

>>> tankers?

>>

>>They don't have to any more than Enron had to ship electricity to Arabia in

>>order to rape California. They just have to take down a few processing

>>plants or pumping stations for "maintenance." How soon you seem to have

>>forgot Grandma Milli.

> California wouldn't have been raped if Grey Davis hadn't of bent over

> and spread his cheeks. Davis paid for that.

As if you wouldn't have been the first one squealing if he had sent the

National Guard to seize the plants when Enron started playing games.

--

Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>

Countdown: 635 days to go.

I live in a concealed-carry state which just passed a shoot-whenever-you're-

nervous-in-public law. Iran is the last thing I worry about.

Captain Compassion wrote:

> On 26 Apr 2007 03:18:11 GMT, Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com>

> wrote:

>

>> In our last episode,

>> <q94033pu1n4u9d7u88a6amgq010v94oqqr@4ax.com>,

>> the lovely and talented Captain Compassion

>> broadcast on alt.politics:

>>

>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:02:46 -0400, "Joe S." <noname@nosuch.net>

>>> wrote:

>>

>>>> The Bush junta is selling US water companies to foreign

>>>> corporations. Water. You know, the stuff that fish fuck in and

>>>> the stuff that, without which, you'll live for three days. And

>>>> now, terrorist regimes will soon own the water you drink -- at

>>>> least, it will be the water you drink until they want to cut it

>>>> off.

>>>>

>>> Didn't know that the Bush junta owned any water companies. Do you

>>> think that the Arabs will ship all our water over seas in empty oil

>>> tankers?

>>

>> They don't have to any more than Enron had to ship electricity to

>> Arabia in order to rape California. They just have to take down a

>> few processing plants or pumping stations for "maintenance." How

>> soon you seem to have forgot Grandma Milli.

>

> California wouldn't have been raped if Grey Davis hadn't of bent over

> and spread his cheeks. Davis paid for that.

So, I take it you think Davis should have sent in the National Guard and

taken over the plants by force. That was the only other option for stopping

Bush's Enron buddies, you know.

Or are you just farting more asinine nonsense you can't back up?

--

Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.

------

Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:43:00 -0500, "Peter Principle"

<petesfeats@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote:

>Captain Compassion wrote:

>> On 26 Apr 2007 03:18:11 GMT, Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com>

>> wrote:

>>

>>> In our last episode,

>>> <q94033pu1n4u9d7u88a6amgq010v94oqqr@4ax.com>,

>>> the lovely and talented Captain Compassion

>>> broadcast on alt.politics:

>>>

>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:02:46 -0400, "Joe S." <noname@nosuch.net>

>>>> wrote:

>>>

>>>>> The Bush junta is selling US water companies to foreign

>>>>> corporations. Water. You know, the stuff that fish fuck in and

>>>>> the stuff that, without which, you'll live for three days. And

>>>>> now, terrorist regimes will soon own the water you drink -- at

>>>>> least, it will be the water you drink until they want to cut it

>>>>> off.

>>>>>

>>>> Didn't know that the Bush junta owned any water companies. Do you

>>>> think that the Arabs will ship all our water over seas in empty oil

>>>> tankers?

>>>

>>> They don't have to any more than Enron had to ship electricity to

>>> Arabia in order to rape California. They just have to take down a

>>> few processing plants or pumping stations for "maintenance." How

>>> soon you seem to have forgot Grandma Milli.

>>

>> California wouldn't have been raped if Grey Davis hadn't of bent over

>> and spread his cheeks. Davis paid for that.

>

>So, I take it you think Davis should have sent in the National Guard and

>taken over the plants by force. That was the only other option for stopping

>Bush's Enron buddies, you know.

>

>Or are you just farting more asinine nonsense you can't back up?

I think that Davis shouldn't have dumped California's power contracts

to get power on the spot market.

--

There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling

the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their

cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.

Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not

on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away

with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone

are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices

me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS

"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.

"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.

--Will Durant

Joseph R. Darancette

daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net

In our last episode, <0ac033t255s2knb63jq82bo313h08rqhr4@4ax.com>, the

lovely and talented Captain Compassion broadcast on alt.politics:

> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:43:00 -0500, "Peter Principle"

><petesfeats@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote:

>>Captain Compassion wrote:

>>> On 26 Apr 2007 03:18:11 GMT, Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com>

>>> wrote:

>>>

>>>> In our last episode,

>>>> <q94033pu1n4u9d7u88a6amgq010v94oqqr@4ax.com>,

>>>> the lovely and talented Captain Compassion

>>>> broadcast on alt.politics:

>>>>

>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:02:46 -0400, "Joe S." <noname@nosuch.net>

>>>>> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>> The Bush junta is selling US water companies to foreign

>>>>>> corporations. Water. You know, the stuff that fish fuck in and

>>>>>> the stuff that, without which, you'll live for three days. And

>>>>>> now, terrorist regimes will soon own the water you drink -- at

>>>>>> least, it will be the water you drink until they want to cut it

>>>>>> off.

>>>>>>

>>>>> Didn't know that the Bush junta owned any water companies. Do you

>>>>> think that the Arabs will ship all our water over seas in empty oil

>>>>> tankers?

>>>>

>>>> They don't have to any more than Enron had to ship electricity to

>>>> Arabia in order to rape California. They just have to take down a

>>>> few processing plants or pumping stations for "maintenance." How

>>>> soon you seem to have forgot Grandma Milli.

>>>

>>> California wouldn't have been raped if Grey Davis hadn't of bent over

>>> and spread his cheeks. Davis paid for that.

>>

>>So, I take it you think Davis should have sent in the National Guard and

>>taken over the plants by force. That was the only other option for stopping

>>Bush's Enron buddies, you know.

>>

>>Or are you just farting more asinine nonsense you can't back up?

> I think that Davis shouldn't have dumped California's power contracts

> to get power on the spot market.

What that amounts to saying is that Davis should have enriched Enron more.

When they took plants offline for no reason other than greed, what do you

think would happen to prices on the spot market? Who do you think would

have profited?

So your solution is: pay the blackmailers. How is that an improvement on

sending in the National Guard to put the plants back online?

And to get back to the original topic: why wouldn't privatizing public

water supplies put other Bush buddies like the late Ken Lay in a position to

do exactly the same thing with the water supply that Enron did with electric

power? --- Only this time in spades, since only a few people on elevators,

on ventilators, and so forth will die from interruptions in power, but death

and disease would be widespread if the supply of potable water is held

hostage.

--

Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>

Countdown: 635 days to go.

I live in a concealed-carry state which just passed a shoot-whenever-you're-

nervous-in-public law. Iran is the last thing I worry about.

On 26 Apr 2007 06:44:37 GMT, Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com>

wrote:

>In our last episode, <0ac033t255s2knb63jq82bo313h08rqhr4@4ax.com>, the

>lovely and talented Captain Compassion broadcast on alt.politics:

>

>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:43:00 -0500, "Peter Principle"

>><petesfeats@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote:

>

>>>Captain Compassion wrote:

>>>> On 26 Apr 2007 03:18:11 GMT, Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com>

>>>> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> In our last episode,

>>>>> <q94033pu1n4u9d7u88a6amgq010v94oqqr@4ax.com>,

>>>>> the lovely and talented Captain Compassion

>>>>> broadcast on alt.politics:

>>>>>

>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:02:46 -0400, "Joe S." <noname@nosuch.net>

>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>>> The Bush junta is selling US water companies to foreign

>>>>>>> corporations. Water. You know, the stuff that fish fuck in and

>>>>>>> the stuff that, without which, you'll live for three days. And

>>>>>>> now, terrorist regimes will soon own the water you drink -- at

>>>>>>> least, it will be the water you drink until they want to cut it

>>>>>>> off.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>> Didn't know that the Bush junta owned any water companies. Do you

>>>>>> think that the Arabs will ship all our water over seas in empty oil

>>>>>> tankers?

>>>>>

>>>>> They don't have to any more than Enron had to ship electricity to

>>>>> Arabia in order to rape California. They just have to take down a

>>>>> few processing plants or pumping stations for "maintenance." How

>>>>> soon you seem to have forgot Grandma Milli.

>>>>

>>>> California wouldn't have been raped if Grey Davis hadn't of bent over

>>>> and spread his cheeks. Davis paid for that.

>>>

>>>So, I take it you think Davis should have sent in the National Guard and

>>>taken over the plants by force. That was the only other option for stopping

>>>Bush's Enron buddies, you know.

>>>

>>>Or are you just farting more asinine nonsense you can't back up?

>

>> I think that Davis shouldn't have dumped California's power contracts

>> to get power on the spot market.

>

>What that amounts to saying is that Davis should have enriched Enron more.

>When they took plants offline for no reason other than greed, what do you

>think would happen to prices on the spot market? Who do you think would

>have profited?

>

That's exactly what I said. By dumping energy contracts with fixed

rates to try to get "lower rates" from the spot market Cal Iso left

it's self open to market tricks.

>So your solution is: pay the blackmailers. How is that an improvement on

>sending in the National Guard to put the plants back online?

>

Davis han no other choice. Either pay spot rates or go without power.

>And to get back to the original topic: why wouldn't privatizing public

>water supplies put other Bush buddies like the late Ken Lay in a position to

>do exactly the same thing with the water supply that Enron did with electric

>power? --- Only this time in spades, since only a few people on elevators,

>on ventilators, and so forth will die from interruptions in power, but death

>and disease would be widespread if the supply of potable water is held

>hostage.

How about food? All food production in the US is in private hands why

are we not held hostage by agribusiness?

--

There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling

the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their

cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.

Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not

on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away

with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone

are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices

me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS

"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.

"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.

--Will Durant

Joseph R. Darancette

daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:02:46 -0400, "Joe S." <noname@nosuch.net>

wrote:

>The Bush junta is selling US water companies to foreign corporations.

I don't believe it, unless they're subsidiaries of Bechtel or

Halliburton, and there is a stealth ownership element. Watch the movie

"The Corporation" and see what Bechtel did in Columbia (got the

populace of a city they had a contract to provide water to banned from

collecting rainwater). The locals rioted, of course, the the Columbian

police or military was kind enough to the Bechtel people bribing the

right politicians to shoot a number of them to death.

I just recently said in a post on this newsgroup that what US

corporations were doing abroad, Bush would soon be trying to enable

them to do at home. The rest of the World is tired of getting done out

of what's rightfully their's by multinational corporations, and isn't

going to tolerate it for long. That's why Bush has been trying to undo

so much progress in worker's rights... in case the foreign ventures

don't work out.

>Water. You know, the stuff that fish fuck in and the stuff that, without

>which, you'll live for three days. And now, terrorist regimes will soon own

>the water you drink -- at least, it will be the water you drink until they

>want to cut it off.

>

>QUOTE

>

>Fighting the Corporate Theft of Our Water

>By Tara Lohan, AlterNet

>Posted on April 25, 2007, Printed on April 25, 2007

>http://www.alternet.org/story/50994/

>All across the United States, municipal water systems are being bought up by

>multinational corporations, turning one of our last remaining public commons

>and our most vital resource into a commodity.

>

>The road to privatization is being paved by our own government. The Bush

>administration is actively working to loosen the hold that cities and towns

>have over public water, enabling corporations to own the very thing we

>depend on for survival.

>

>The effects of the federal government's actions are being felt all the way

>down to Conference of Mayors, which has become a "feeding frenzy" for

>corporations looking to make sure that nothing is left in the public's

>hands, including clean, affordable water.

>

>Documentary filmmakers Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman recently teamed up

>with author Michael Fox to write "Thirst: Fighting the Corporate Theft of

>Our Water" (Wiley, 2007). The three followed water privatization battles

>across the United States -- from California to Massachusetts and from

>Georgia to Wisconsin, documenting the rise of public opposition to corporate

>control of water resources.

>

>They found that the issue of privatization ran deep.

>

>"We came to see that the conflicts over water are really about fundamental

>questions of democracy itself: Who will make the decisions that affect our

>future, and who will be excluded?" they wrote in the book's preface. "And if

>citizens no longer control their most basic resource, their water, do they

>really control anything at all?"

>

>As the effects of climate change are being felt around the world, including

>decreasing snowpacks and rainfall, water is quickly becoming the market's

>new holy grail.

>

>Mayor Gary Podesto, in his State of the City address to his constituents in

>2003, sang the praises of privatization to his community, located in

>California's Central Valley. "It's time that Stockton enter the 21st century

>in its delivery of services and think of our citizens as customers," he

>said.

>

>And there is the crux of the issue -- privatization means transforming

>citizens into customers. Or, in other words, making people engaged in a

>democratic process into consumers looking to get the best deal.

>

>It is also means taking our most important resource and putting it at the

>whims of the market.

>

>Currently, water systems are controlled publicly in 90 percent of

>communities across the world and 85 percent in the United States, but that

>number is changing rapidly, the authors report in "Thirst." In 1990, 50

>million people worldwide got their water services from private companies,

>but by 2002 it was 300 million and growing.

>

>There are a number of reasons to be concerned.

>

>"Globally, corporations are promoting water privatization under the guise of

>efficiency, but the fact is that they are not paying the full cost of public

>infrastructure, environmental damage, or healthcare for those they hurt,"

>said Ashley Schaeffer of Corporate Accountability International. "Water is a

>human right and not a privilege."

>

>There are also significant environmental considerations -- with private

>corporations, sustainability can be tossed out the window. "Climate change

>is a warning that uncontrolled abuse of the earth's natural resources is

>leading toward planetary catastrophe," the authors write in "Thirst." "Who

>is to set the necessary limits to the abuse of the environment? Private

>companies fighting for market share are incapable of doing so."

>

>Privatization has been pushed aggressively at the federal level for decades,

>but especially so in the last six years. "There is a kind of fire sale of

>everything in the public sector right now," said Alan Snitow. "Water, we

>think, is the line in the sand -- when your water is actually a profit

>mechanism, people really react negatively to that."

>

>"Thirst" beautifully documents the coalitions that are forming in

>communities that are fighting back. But the battles are not easy: They must

>confront massive political muscle and unlimited financial resources of

>multinational corporations, not to mention our society's religious belief in

>the power of the marketplace.

>

>Privatizing municipal water systems is globalization come home, said Deborah

>Kaufman. In 2000 Bechtel privatized water in Cochabamba, Bolivia, with such

>miserable consequences that it was shortly driven out of the country in an

>incredible feat of cross-class organizing. But just a few years later, it

>was awarded a $680 million contract to "fix" Iraq's ruined water systems.

>

>"What's happened in Iraq is really emblematic of what the Bush

>administration is doing," said Kaufman. "We view the privatization of water

>in the United States as the World Bank come home -- the third-worldization

>of America and American communities."

>

>It turns out the United States is an attractive place for multinationals

>looking to make inroads in the water business. The three main players are

>the French companies Suez and Veolia (formerly Vivendi), and the German

>group RWE.

>

>The companies first pushed water privatization in developing nations. "But

>in many instances, those attempts didn't pan out as planned, it being

>difficult to gouge governments and customers that don't have a lot of

>money," Public Citizen reports. "The U.S., by contrast, presented the

>promise of a steady, reliable revenue stream from customers willing and able

>to pay water bills."

>

>The companies that already controlled the small percentage of U.S. water

>held privately were bought by the big three: Veolia picked up U.S Filter,

>Suez got United Water and RWE took over American Water Works.

>

>The results have been disastrous, as "Thirst" shows -- rates are increasing,

>quality is suffering, customer service is declining, profits are leaving

>communities and accountability has fallen by the wayside.

>

>In Felton, Calif., a small regional utility ran the water system until it

>was purchased in 2001 by California American Water, a subsidiary of American

>Water, which is a subsidiary of Thames Water in London, which has also

>become a subsidiary of German giant RWE. Residents in Felton saw their rates

>skyrocket, "Thirst" reports. A woman who runs a facility for people in need

>saw her water bill increase from $250 to $1,275 a month.

>

>RWE also bought the company controlling the water system in Urbana, Ill.,

>and locals have been unhappy with the service it provides. "A few months

>ago, I got a notice on my door saying the water was turned off, and that

>when it came back on, I needed to boil it before I used it," said the city's

>mayor, Laurel Prussing. But when she called the number, the company didn't

>know what was going on -- and it was no wonder, because the call center was

>located in Florida.

>

>The list of abuses in "Thirst," which represent only a handful of

>communities, are plentiful:

>

>

> In 2006, two top managers at a Suez/United Water plant in New Jersey were

>indicted for covering up high radium levels in drinking water ... In

>Milwaukee, Suez subsidiary United Water discharged more than a million

>gallons of untreated sewage into Lake Michigan because it had shut down

>pumps to reduce electricity bills ... In Stockton, Calif., a citizen's

>watchdog group reported that water leakage doubled in the first year that

>OMI/Thames took over system operations. In Indianapolis, customer complaints

>nearly tripled the first year of Veolia's contract, and inadequate

>maintenance resulted in hundreds of fire hydrants freezing in the winter ...

>

>Overall, it has proved to be a recipe for disaster.

>

>"Seeking to consolidate market share, private water companies are merging or

>buying other companies, creating a volatile and unpredictable market," they

>conclude, "hardly the kind of stability required for a life-and-death

>resource like water."

>

>The water crisis comes home

>

>Corporate interest in water systems in the United States exists for very

>good reason -- we have a water crisis. Our drinking and wastewater systems

>were largely designed a hundred years ago and in many places, little

>improvements have been made.

>

>Aging systems combined with the pressures of increasing population,

>development, and pollution have left many communities close to disaster.

>

>As a result, corporations have swooped in to offer public officials an easy

>out -- not only will they run these aging plants, but they'll save the city

>millions of dollars in the process. At least that's the promise. So far, it

>hasn't panned out.

>

>In 2005,"Thirst" reports, 200 mayors of large and small cities said they

>would consider privatization if it would save money. In addition to

>lobbyists, publicists and ad campaigns, the corporations have also directly

>gone after public officials to sell their wares.

>

>"The U.S. Conference of Mayors has become an engine of water privatization

>through its Urban Water Council," they write in "Thirst." "One mayor

>described a Conference of Mayors session he attended as a kind of feeding

>frenzy, with companies bidding to take over everything from his city's

>school-lunch program to its traffic lights and water services. Financed by

>the private water industry, staffed by former industry officials, the UWC

>works hard to give its corporate sponsors 'face time' with mayors."

>

>And the federal government is not doing anything to help -- in fact, it's

>doing the opposite. "The administration has backed language in legislation

>to reauthorize existing federal water funding assistance programs that would

>require cities to consider water privatization before they could receive

>federal funding," reports Public Citizen. "And in lockstep with private

>industry's goals, the EPA is increasingly playing down the role of federal

>financial assistance while actively encouraging communities to pay for

>system upgrades by raising rates to consumers -- exactly the strategy the

>industry hopes will drive cash-strapped and embattled local politicians to

>opt for the false promise of privatization."

>

>The EPA has projected a needed $446 billion for drinking water

>infrastructure over the next 20 years, but the money that is needed and that

>is actually allocated in the budget falls billions short.

>

>Snitow calls the under funding of public water systems and public

>infrastructure as a whole, "systematic" under the Bush administration. "On

>water, President Bush says he wants to fund private companies to do it. He

>does not want to give money, even loan money, to government agencies at the

>local level to improve their own water systems."

>

>This mindset goes against public opinion and environmental law. The Safe

>Drinking Water Act passed in 1974 says, "The federal government needs to

>provide assistance to communities to help the communities meet federal

>drinking water requirements." And a national poll showed that 86 percent of

>Americans supported creating a water infrastructure trust fund.

>

>But this issue is not a partisan problem. As reported in "Thirst," in 1997

>the Clinton administration changed the law to the benefit of private

>companies. Previously municipal utility contracts were limited to five

>years, but Clinton changed it to allow contracts to be extended up to 20

>years. "The rule change unleashed a wave of industry euphoria with

>predictions that private companies would soon be running much of what is now

>a public service," they wrote. In the following five years, municipal water

>contracts with private companies tripled.

>

>"Privatization comes from both Democrats and Republicans. Particularly the

>Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. Clinton advanced this in a number of

>areas -- Bush has taken it to the extreme," said Snitow.

>

>And across the country, Democrats are guilty as well as Republicans. "In Lee

>[Mass.], one of the key people supporting the Veolia privatization is a

>liberal Democrat. He has a great record with unions, on gay rights. He is a

>social liberal, but he wants to privatize key public services," said Snitow.

>

>"There is an ideology that is bipartisan and is part of the old Washington

>consensus which is that the market can do everything better, it can be more

>efficient," he continued. "I think that we are seeing the chickens come home

>to roost on this with Iraq. You are seeing the ultimate apotheosis of the

>kind of vision that they had in mind -- where they would turn over the

>entire government and the resources to private multinationals. And, if that

>is efficiency, I think that most people in the world would want themselves

>counted out."

>

>Not for sale

>

>"Thirst" documents not just the consolidation of power through corporations

>but the public resistance that is often, despite seemingly impossible odds,

>successful.

>

>Time and time again throughout the book, citizens responded to local threats

>but realized they were part of much bigger effort against water

>privatization around the world and the wholesale auction of the commons.

>

>Even if you don't live somewhere under threat at the moment, there is

>something for everyone to do. We can work to create a trust for drinking

>water and wastewater; to drop conditions in federal funding that favor

>privatizing water resources; to block water corporations from obtaining

>access to public funding through tax-exempt private activity bonds; and to

>promote strong public management of water resources. Or you can work to

>support organizations like Corporate Accountability International, Food and

>Water Watch, Sierra Club and others who are organizing around the issue.

>

>"There has to be preemption -- companies come in secretly and people don't

>know there are negotiations going on, and communities that are organizing

>are coming from behind," said Snitow. "If there is more consciousness about

>this and more mayors know that their political lives are going to be spent

>fighting this issue, then I think fewer and fewer of them are going to say

>this not the way for me to leave my mark on the city. They'll choose

>something else. I think there is a lot of potential for victories, for

>changing the water policy in this country and it won't be a minute too soon,

>given what's going to be happening with global warming."

>

>Taking a stand against corporate control of water means believing that some

>things, like the lifeblood of our communities, should not be for sale.

>

>"Whether clean and safe water will remain accessible to all, affordable and

>sustainable into the future, depends on us," write Snitow, Kaufman and Fox.

>"The stakes could not be higher. The outcome will surely be a measure of

>democracy in the 21st century."

>

>http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/50994/

>

>END QUOTE

>