New Report on Water Justice in Latin America

Changing the flow
Water movements in Latin America
Beverly Bell, Jeff Conant, Marcela Olivera, Crossley Pinkstaff, Philipp Terhorst
31 March 2009

In case after case around the world, water has been turned into a profit-making commodity – preventing people access to the most essential element on Earth. Private ownership of water and water delivery systems has severely compounded the abuse, neglect, mismanagement and exploitation of water as a resource essential to life.

But, as Mark Twain said, “Whiskey’s for drinkin’ and water’s for fightin’ over”: a global uprising is underway to ensure that water is respected as a human right, a public trust, and a part of the global commons. Popular pressure is winning victories – both effectively resisting threats and creating alternatives.

Latin America is one of the primary sites of resistance to the commercialization of water, and for innovative approaches to water management. As Salvadoran water warrior Ana Ella Gómez says of the Latin American water movements, “We are many voices, one echo. We are constructing a new definition of hope.”

In this booklet you will hear from some of the most visionary water warriors in Latin America. We hope you will be inspired by the visions, experiences, and lessons they have to share, and that, if you are not already, you too will become a water warrior to guarantee that water be protected as the fundament of life itself, for human beings and the whole planet.

Access the report here:

changingtheflow2

Greenspan – Mea Culpa

“I made a mistake…”

Photo by trackrecord via Flickr

Switching Sides

During the 2000 election, Bush opposed the notion that America was responsible for leading a moral crusade around the globe. When questioned about foreign policy, Bush asserted that it was a mistake to “go around the world and say this is the way it’s got to be.” He went further to say by policing the world we would “end up being viewed as the ugly American.” Bush told America that he would pursue action that was in the direct interests of the U.S., as opposed to Clinton who intervened in Bosnia and Haiti on moral grounds.

Bush won, and it was not long before 9/11 hit and the fate of the U.S. shifted dramatically. Entering Afghanistan seemed logical at the time – our intelligence had located Bin Laden and we needed to hit him where it hurts. The fact that the Taliban was an extremely oppressive regime: added bonus. The emphasis on leading a crusade of freedom and democracy against barbaric, repressive regimes began to take shape.

With the decision to enter Iraq, we saw the two political parties switch sides. The Middle East would be democratized and Saddam’s oppressive regime would be toppled, so said the Neocons. Iraqis would experience true freedom and not live in fear. Democrats, however, passionately opposed the war in Iraq. Iraq was a mistake from the beginning, a position further verified by the inability of U.N. weapons inspectors to find WMDs.

Within two years, the moralistic goals of the left were tossed out of the window. Perceiving Bush’s lust for oil and the initiation of the NeoCons’ long-standing goal in the Middle East, Democrats were willing to overlook Saddam’s horrible human rights record, including the use of chemical weapons on the Kurdish town of Halabja, which killed 3,200 – 5000 Iraqi civilians and injured thousands more. Republicans, however, were quick to paint the war in Iraq as a battle against an oppressive, brutal regime.

During the 2000 election, Bush would have lambasted the thought of the U.S. military engaging in a protracted war in order to bring democracy to Iraq–these days that’s the job of the Democrats.

From G’s to Gents to Martial Law

“We’ll be right back with the latest from Ludacris and more TRL, right after this terrifying depiction of impending martial law.” Not really what you would expect from a subsidiary of Viacom. And that’s not even the creepy part.

A strange Army Times article surfaced last month, describing a new arrival at NorthCom, the U.S. military command created after 9/11 and based in Colorado Springs. Apparently a U.S. Army brigade, returning home from Iraq, will remain deployed at NorthCom (here in the U.S.) . The article mentions that the brigade “may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control.” Army Col. Louis Vogler, chief of NorthCom future operations, explains, “I don’t know what America’s overall plan is — I just know that 24 hours a day, seven days a week, there are soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that are standing by to come and help if they’re called.” The ACLU recently filed requests asking for information related to the NorthCom brigade.

The Bush Administration has slowly eroded the historic prohibitions surrounding martial law. Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald describes this process in his aptly titled article Why is a U.S. Army brigade being assigned to the “Homeland”?:

“After Hurricane Katrina, the Bush administration began openly agitating for what would be, in essence, a complete elimination of the key prohibitions of the Posse Comitatus Act in order to allow the President to deploy U.S. military forces inside the U.S. basically at will — and, as usual, they were successful as a result of rapid bipartisan compliance with the Leader’s demand.”

The Posse Comitatus Act limits the federal government’s power to deploy troops. The roots of the act are in the post-Civil War period, when U.S. troops remained in the Southern states during Reconstruction. The act places the right to respond with troops during an emergency into the hands of the individual states.

Bush successfully changed the wording of Posse Comitatus in 2006. Originally the act limited the federal government, allowing it to deploy troops only in the case of an “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.” Bush’s new version expanded this list to “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition.” Was it respond to emergencies like Katrina? Yes, but that doesn’t hide the fact that the last two words gave the president enormous power.

Luckily all of the changes were repealed in a 2008 defense act, and the original wording in now back on the books. But that doesn’t help clarify the mystery surrounding the NorthCom brigade. Complicating matters further, the Army Times article revealed a new “non-lethal crowd control package…intended for use on deployments to the war zone, not in the U.S.” We already have torture prisons–I guess we better hope that the non-lethal crowd packages are meant for the Iraqis.

“The Tenth Amendment is the foundation of the Constitution.”
- Thomas Jefferson

Obama around Oakland

I took this shot on a weeknight outside of the Oakland Democratic Headquarters. Volunteers were hard at work.

Yesterday, while riding around West Oakland taking photos, I heard a DJ somewhere off in the distance. I rode towards the music and discovered the skatepark located in DeFremery Park on Adeline. They were just wrapping up an all-ages skate competition and a graffiti competition, all part of the Living World Festival. I was able to meet K Dub, the man behind the skatepark. Obama was present in graffiti tags from the contest and stencils on the ramps.

Today we walked over to the Obama rally at Snow Park in Oakland. Volunteers were cold-calling voters throughout the country, people were selling Obama apparel, and families were gathered together in support of the candidate.

Check out my Flickr Page to see more photos of the Living World festival.

Take the Free Gallery Tour

Ride your bike through any urban area and take a look around–you’ll see art that’s just as poignant (if not more) than the stuff in galleries. Here are some shots of street art from the around the East Bay:

For more shots of graffiti, stencils, and interesting stuff, please visit my Flickr page.

Nietzsche, Prophecy, and the Environment

Friedrich Nietzsche, best known for his attack on religion and the supernatural, laid claim to a powerful prophetic ability. Nietzsche was a contradictory figure, so it comes as no surprise that the “antichrist” himself wrote parables and predictions regarding the future of mankind. After all it was Nietzsche, with his proclamation on the “will to power” and his life-long assault against “the religion of pity,” who fell into a state of severe mental illness after watching a man beat an overburdened horse.

In Thus Spoke Zaratrustra, Nietzsche outlines a central concept in his philosophy: the Overman. In light of the apparent failures of human race—environmental destruction, greed, intolerance—the Overman presents itself as a goal. Nietzsche establishes that “man is something that should be overcome,” and begs that we “remain true to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of super terrestrial hopes.” He also asks us to ponder, “What good is my reason?” He then offers a wide-angle perspective on evolution:

Man is a rope, fastened between animal and Overman—a rope over an abyss. A dangerous going-across, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous and shuddering and staying still…What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal; what can be loved in man is that he is a going-across and a going-down.

Nietzsche asserts that humans should be respected in that they are a “going-across” or “going-down,” and asks that we sacrifice ourselves to the earth and live for knowledge.

Standing in opposition to Overman is the Last Man. “When the earth becomes small, upon it hops the Last Man,” Nietzsche remarks. They have “left places where living was hard: for one needs warmth.” In the world of the Last Man, there is “no herdsman and one herd. Everyone wants the same thing, everyone is the same: whoever thinks otherwise goes voluntarily into the madhouse.” The arrogance and complacency of the last man is frightening:

They are clever and know everything that has ever happened: so there is no end to their mockery…They have their little pleasure for the day and their little pleasure for the night: but they respect health. “We have discovered happiness,” say the Last Men and blink.

Our 21st century consumer society is reflected in the Last Men, and the powerful concept of the Overman connects with the perils we face today. We urgently need to look to the earth and not a supernatural destination.

Nietzsche is relevant, for in light of today’s challenges, his philosophy inspires one to not look for a way out, but to grab hold of life and glow.

Yes, I know from where I came!
Ever hungry like a flame,
I consume myself and glow.
Light grows all that I conceive,
Ashes everything I leave:
Flame I am assuredly.

Those bottles of water

In La Paz Water is Vital; In my new lifestyle, water is Vital. (Coca-Cola’s bottled water brand in Bolvia)

Everyone has purchased a bottle of water in their lifetime. Whether you buy it because you think it tastes better, it is cleaner, or you live in a place where you don’t have access to clean tap water, buying bottled water is a common practice for many people. Over the last decade bottled water consumption has increased in every region of the world, making the bottled water industry one of the world’s fastest growing. In 2006, the global bottled water industry was valued at over $60 billion; market researchers predict this figure will increase to $86 billion by 2011.
Four multi-national corporate giants control 33 percent of the global bottled water market: Nestlé, Danone, Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Together, they produce hundreds of brands of bottled water. From the brand Kilimanjaro, sourced from the mountain glaciers in Tanzania, to the Andean water in bottles labeled Vital in Bolivia, the water is sourced, packaged, and sold by major bottled water and beverage companies whose name brands can usually be found in small unreadable print hidden somewhere on the bottle.

The Water in the Bottle
So, where do these companies get pristine water to put in their bottles? In most cases they get it from your public water supply, for a very low price and often for free. After extracting water from local aquifers and streams, companies bottle the water in non-biodegradable plastic bottles, slap on different bottled water brand labels and sell the water back to the public for up to 10,000 times the cost per gallon of tap water.

The process of bottling water leaves a heavy footprint on the environment, society, and people’s pocketbooks. According to the Pacific Institute, it takes 3 liters of water to produce 1 liter of bottled water. In addition, plastic bottles are highly energy intensive. In 2006, 17 million barrels of oil were used to produce the 29 billion plastic bottles of water consumed by in US. That same year, US citizens spent $11 billion on bottled water. Unfortunately for most people living in poor countries, buying bottled water is not an option due to financial constraints. In Bolivia, Latin America’s poorest country, the average price for a liter of bottled water is $.50. One third of the Bolivian population does not have access to water and must buy bottled water whenever possible. But, over 42 percent of the population lives on less than one dollar a day, making bottled water is simply unaffordable.

Corporate Control over Water
Bottled water company’s avaricious and damaging practices have created controversy all over the globe. In 2001, Nestle, the largest bottled water company in the US opened a bottling plant in Stanwood, Michigan designed to pump over 210 million gallons of spring water per year from local aquifers and streams. The plant was licensed for a mere one hundred dollars a year, and Nestle was not required to pay for the water it extracted. The plant caused degradation to local water supplies, and left the community in outrage. A local citizen’s group sued Nestle in an attempt to take back control over their water and prevent further despoliation of the community’s water resources. The suit remains unresolved and Nestle continues to bottle water from the community without paying for the water they consume.

The people of California won a huge victory in August of this year against Nestle and their plans to build the largest bottled water plant in the US on the banks of the McCloud River near Mount Shasta. Nestle failed to consider the negative impacts of the proposed plant on local springs and groundwater supplies, which lead California Attorney General Jerry Brown to threaten to sue the bottled water company. Nestle was forced to cancel the project.

Similar lawsuits against bottled water companies have been filed in Texas, Wisconsin, Maine, and in Brazil. Communities in India, Mexico, and Columbia have organized boycotts against Coca-Cola in response to the beverage company’s disregard for the environment, human health, and human rights. Protests across the US against Pepsi Co. for its fraudulent labeling of Aquafina water, forced Pepsi to admit that they were selling consumers tap water in Aquafina bottles. Increasing public concern about corporations buying, selling, and ultimately controlling water sources has created a global voice against the commodification of water by multinational beverage companies; the voice is rapidly growing louder and more powerful.

Water and Profits
As water becomes scarcer, bottled water companies will have greater incentive to sell more bottled water to consumers at a higher price. With billions of dollars to gain in profits, the bottled water industry is not going to give communities back their water without a fight. They have built alliances with each other and governments through the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) – a trade association of companies in the bottled water industry. On September 1st of this year, Nestle Waters, Danone, and Highland Spring launched the Natural Hydration Council. The Council, based in the UK, is designed to lobby on behalf of the bottled water industry and promote bottled water to the public. This organization is recruiting companies all over the world to join them in the pursuit to control and sell the world’s water to global citizens. Their intentions are completely non-transparent. Only members who apply and are approved by the Council have access to information about the Council’s members and activities.

Companies such as Nestle and Coca-Cola hold an immense amount of power in the world economy. They have infinite financial resources and allies in every corner of earth. They have multi-billion dollar advertising campaigns focused purely on making people think they need to buy bottled water because it is better, safer, and more appealing than tap water. But as giant corporations close in on the world’s water and claim it as their own, the ability for communities and individuals to make consumer choices about their water quickly diminishes. We will be forced to buy Pepsi’s tap water in Aquafina bottles. We will have to live next door to the polluted streams, contaminated by the local Nestle bottling plant. And we will have failed to protect the life breathing liquid for all living things on earth that cannot afford to buy bottled water. Every time you buy a bottle of water, you send a message to corporations, government officials, and other citizens that it is ok to make a profit off selling public water to people at the expense of the environment, the poor and yourself.

Plastic bottles outside a house in Cochabamba, Bolivia

The struggle for resources in Bolvia

Hugo Chavez urged Evo Morales to keep fighting and condemned the right-wing prompted coup in Bolivia, stating, “Resist, Evo ! We are with you!”

People are dying in Bolivia in what is a struggle for power over resources, and in the end, profits. Historically, the non-indigenous elite in Bolivia has controlled natural gas operations and revenues. When Evo was elected, he promised to rewrite the constitution and install policies that would feed revenues back into the country. Nationalizing various resource sectors was a cornerstone in his campaign. From my experience in Bolivia, supporters feel that Evo’s administration is far from perfect. However, Evo’s indigenous identity and socialist policies act as a glimmer of hope for the majority of citizens (many indigenous) that live in Latin America’s poorest country. I believe that Evo represents a paradigm shift currently taking place in many Latin American countries. The elite in Bolivia as well as the United States perceive this shift as a threat. In their minds, it will take control away from multinational corporations, international financial institutions, and the Bolivian citizens who make a financial killing from selling Bolivian land, labor, and the environment on the cheap. If indeed a coup in Bolivia is successful, the US will surely be one of the biggest benefactors. For the Bolivian people, on the other hand, a coup will ensure that the current cycle of poverty persists. US citizens often fail to recognize the direct connection between the two countries. By supporting US policies in Bolivia that ensure the status quo, individuals directly benefit from Bolivian citizens living without adequate food supplies, access to education, health, water and other basic services. Although Bolivia seems a world apart from our lives in what is the richest nation in the world, it is closer than we think. Our policies and subsequent profits from Bolivia’s resources directly affect the lives of Bolivian people. I know; it’s crazy to think about.