WATER

WATER SUPPLIES WILL BE RESTRICTED BY GLOBAL WARMING

tag wtr 818

See WATER2 818 capt 818

quintessential commons being privatized, see sep node

IN US long assured for clean and cheap, regs breaking down cf Shaprio Exposed series/bk

Also Haliburton Loophole fracking, XL pipeline rivers and aquifers.

see Clean Water Act (mostly US pollution)

see new category drought

see glacier- gate

===

https://www.ecowatch.com/water-crisis-5-lessons-2645724350.html

5 Lessons for the Future of Water

World Economic Forum

Apr 16 ew

AN 5 26 WATER

Republicans hang red state out to dry — literally - Alternet.org

https://www.ecowatch.com/southwest-drought-climate-crisis-2645742986.html

A severe drought that has engulfed the American Southwest since the year 2000 is likely to soon be the most severe drought since the 800s, according to a new study published in Science.

"This appears to be just the beginning of a more extreme trend toward megadrought as global warming continues," the authors wrote in the study.

A team of researchers from Columbia University conducted the study. They described the ongoing dry spell, which has helped intensify wildfire seasons and threatened water supplies for people and agriculture, as an "emerging megadrought," according to The New York Times.

Of course, nothing is guaranteed. By comparison to the previous 19 years, 2019 was actually a fairly wet year. Unpredictable climate variability may also bring enough rain to the region to end the drought, but global warming boosts the chances that the drought will endure.

"We know that this drought has been encouraged by the global warming process," said lead author A. Park Williams, a bioclimatologist at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, as The New York Times reported. "As we go forward in time it's going to take more and more good luck to pull us out of this."

Scientists have suspected for a while that that the dryness is evolving into a megadrought. The new research not only confirms their suspicion, but also concludes this megadrought may be as bad or worse than anything known before.

"We now have enough observations of current drought and tree-ring records of past drought to say that we're on the same trajectory as the worst prehistoric droughts," said Williams, in a statement, as USA Today reported. This is "a drought bigger than what modern society has seen."

The researchers say that man-made global warming caused about half of this drought. Changes in the climate have contributed to dwindling reservoirs and harsher wildfire seasons.

It all could get much worse.

"Anthropogenic global warming and its drying influence in (southwestern North America) are likely still in their infancy," the study warns, as CNN reported. "Themagnitude of future droughts in North America and elsewhere will depend greatly on future rates of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions globally."

Without a drastic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, these droughts are just the beginning.

"The effects of future droughts on humans will be further dependent on sustainable resource use because buffering mechanisms such as ground water and reservoir storage are at risk of being depleted during dry times," the study continues, according to CNN....

https://www.ecowatch.com/fracking-cleanup-costs-2641678836.html

want to dump waste into surface water ~ bankruptcy

predictable, but still omg permanent

https://www.alternet.org/2019/11/as-corrupt-as-it-gets-oil-lobbyist-turned-interior-secretary-proposes-giving-coveted-contract-to-former-client/

no lnx

‘As corrupt as it gets’: Oil lobbyist turned Interior Secretary proposes giving ‘coveted’ contract to former client

Written by Jessica Corbett / Common Dreams November 10, 2019

Watchdog and conservation groups called out former oil lobbyist and current Interior Secretary David Bernhardt Friday over the department’s attempt to give a “coveted”permanent water supply contract to one of Bernhardt’s ex-clients.

“Bernhardt might as well still work for his former lobbying firm, where he represented oil and gas, mining, and agribusiness interests for many years,” declared Public Citizen president Robert Weissman.

Weissman’s national advocacy group previously waged a campaign highlighting Bernhardt’s conflicts of interest, opposed his confirmation, and filed an ethics complaint demanding a department investigation into him.

“If Bernhardt would like to return to his former lobbying job at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck and pursue the interests of his corporate clients, he certainly is free to do so, subject to the ethics rules,” Weissman said. “But for now, he is secretary of the Interior, and his duty is to serve the public, not his old clients.”

Invoking President Donald Trump’s rallying cries from the 2016 campaign, Weissman added that “if anyone still has any illusions that Trump is working to ‘drain the swamp’ or ‘take on elites,’ here is the definitive proof that it ain’t so. A former lobbyist delivering the goods for his old lobby clients is about as corrupt as it gets. Bernhardt is fast making a play for title of ‘Shadiest Trump Cabinet Official.'”

Holy hell. The oil lobbyist running Trump’s Interior Department is awarding one of the first *permanent* water supply contracts to…. wait for it…. his former lobbying client.

This is as corrupt as it gets. https://t.co/a7JwhfFyuu

— Public Citizen (@Public_Citizen) November 8, 2019

Center for Western Priorities policy director Jesse Prentice-Dunn concurred, tweeting late Thursday that the situation represented “the absolute epitome of the swamp.”

Their condemnation came in response to an Associated Press report that the Interior Department “is proposing to award one of the first contracts for federal water in perpetuity” to California’s Westlands Water District. The district, which “serves some of country’s wealthiest and most politically influential corporate farmers,” long employed Bernhardt as a lobbyist.

“As a lobbyist, he was involved in negotiations on a contentious 2016 federal law that made the Westlands’ proposed deal possible, allowing water districts to lock up permanent contracts for water from California’s federal water project,” AP noted. That law, which conservationists oppose over concerns for endangered native wildlife, “reshaped the federal handling of water in the U.S. state with the largest economy.”

After years of working for powerful industries, Bernhardt joined the Interior Department as deputy secretary in July 2017, despite opposition from ethics and environmental advocates who labeled him a “walking conflict of interest.” The GOP-controlled U.S. Senate confirmed him as secretary in March, following the December resignation of scandal-ridden Ryan Zinke.

“Despite Bernhardt’s clear conflicts of interest and his involvement in decisions that are currently under investigation for ethics violations, he can’t stop carrying water for his powerful former client,” Jayson O’Neill, deputy director of the advocacy group Western Values Project, said in a statement Friday.

“The flood gates of corruption flow through Bernhardt, who has manipulated scientific studies, prioritized resources, and tasked staff all to benefit a former client at the expense of the public,” he added. “Bernhardt’s level of corruption may only be eclipsed by that of his boss, but that should not prevent Congress from initiating an investigation immediately.”

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060095217

Fracking Wastewater Spikes 1,440% in Half Decade

By Sharon Kelly

Between 2011 and 2016, fracked oil and gas wells in the U.S. pumped out record-breaking amounts of wastewater, which is laced with toxic and radioactive materials, a new Duke Universitystudyconcludes. The amount of wastewater from fracking rose 1,440 percent during that period.

https://www.ecowatch.com/fracking-wastewater-spikes-2596433647.html

https://www.ecowatch.com/pruitt-epa-water-regulations-2582110942.html

no lnx

ruitt Proposes Weakening EPA's Power Over Water Polluters

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Scott Pruitt on Wednesday proposed another way to weaken U.S. environmental regulations protecting the nation's waterways from pollution.

In a memo dated June 26 but released June 27, Pruitt asked the EPA's Office of Water and Regional Administrators to draft a proposal that would restrict the agency's ability to revoke permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) allowing projects to dispose of dredged or fill material in rivers, streams and other waterways, The Hill reported.

"Today, I am directing the Office of Water to take another step toward returning the agency to its core mission and providing regulatory certainty," Pruitt wrote in the full text of the memo.

If the new proposal becomes policy, it would be the biggest change to how the EPA handles the dredging and filling of streams and waterways under the Clean Water Act in 40 years, according to The Hill.

Specifically, the proposal would block the EPA from preemptively blocking a permit to discharge materials in waterways before the USACE has issued one or revoking a permit issued by the USACE after the fact. It would also require that regional administrators get approval from EPA headquarters before vetoing a permit and that they listen to comments from the public before doing so.

Once a formal draft is ready, the public will have a chance to comment on Pruitt's proposed change, and opponents can attempt to block it in court, according to The Hill.

Former EPA staffer of the nonprofit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility Kyla Bennett told The Associated Press that the move would rob the EPA of one of its few means of protecting waterways from mining and other industry.

Instead of protecting waterways, Pruitt's policy change would help those "he's always concerned with: oil and gas and mining," Bennett said. "His buddies who make money."

Indeed, Pruitt justified the change as simplifying the permit process for businesses.

"This long-overdue update to the regulations has the promise of increasing certainty for landowners, investors, businesses and entrepreneurs to make investment decisions while preserving the EPA's authority to restrict discharges of dredge or fill material that will have an unacceptable adverse effect on water supplies, recreation, fisheries and wildlife," Pruitt wrote.

In practice, the EPA has rarely vetoed permits either retroactively or preemptively, though Republicans and industry have argued against their ability to do so. That ability was affirmed in a 2014 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Pruitt's memo cited a case in which the EPA suggested it would use its veto power, under Obama, to preemptively block a permit for the pending Pebble Mine in Alaska after concerns from conservationists and Native American groups that it would harm salmon fisheries and wetlands, according to The Associated Press.

Pruitt started a process to reverse that preemptive decision, but in a surprise move, kept it in place following public outcry.

zik perry

===

https://www.ecowatch.com/india-water-crisis-2579202142.html

https://www.ecowatch.com/nestle-water-san-bernardino-2575958681.html

Settlement Ends Nestlé’s Expired 'Zombie' Permit to Siphon Water From San Bernardino National Forest

Federal officials and conservation groups reached an agreement Wednesday that will finally end Nestlé Corp.'s ability to rely on a permit that expired 30 years ago to siphon water from the San Bernardino National Forest for its massive bottled-water operation. The company's diversion has severely reduced water in spring-fed Strawberry Creek, which forest wildlife and plants need to survive.

This settlement of the 2015 lawsuit requires the U.S. Forest Service to decide in 30 days whether or not to issue a new permit for the pipeline and Nestlé's associated activities in the San Bernardino National Forest.The Center for Biological Diversity, Courage Campaign Institute and the Story of Stuff Project agreed to dismiss an appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the old "zombie" permit after a new decision is issued. The groups reserved the right to challenge any new Forest Service decision.

Under the expired permit, Nestlé siphoned off as much as 162 million gallons of water a year from Strawberry Creek. Nestlé, the world's largest water-bottling company, earned $8.3 billion in profits from its water business in 2016. U.S. Geological Survey reports from July 2017 show that, despite heavy winter precipitation across California, Strawberry Creek's streamflow levels were the lowest since the agency began keeping track 96 years ago.

"This agreement stops Nestlé and the Forest Service from relying on a 30-year-old permit, but Strawberry Creek still desperately needs protection," said Ileene Anderson, a senior biologist at the Center for Biological Diversity. "The real tragedy is that Nestlé is sucking the creek dry to bottle water for profit, dooming plants and wildlife that have relied on it for tens of thousands of years. We'll keep fighting to protect Strawberry Creek and our forests from commercial exploitation."

The groups are urging the Forest Service to deny a new permit to Nestlé to safeguard the public land, water, plants and animals of the San Bernardino National Forest. If a new permit is issued, the agency should ensure there is enough water left in Strawberry Creek to support fish, wildlife and native plants year round.

The State Water Resources Control Board is also evaluating Nestlé's water rights on Strawberry Creek, which a board investigation determined is far less than the corporation claims.

...

5/18

https://www.ecowatch.com/global-water-shortages-nasa-2569657811.html

https://www.ecowatch.com/colorado-river-water-shortage-2569729456.html

===

https://www.alternet.org/water-war-will-decide-fate-1-8-americans

https://www.ecowatch.com/lawsuit-challenges-trump-administrations-ok-of-corporations-plan-to-drain-california-desert-aquifier-2513542263.html

Lawsuit Challenges Trump's Approval of Corporation's Plan to Drain California Desert Aquifer

Conservation and health-safety groups filed suit on Tuesday in federal court challenging the Trump administration's approval of an enormous groundwater-mining and pipeline project in Southern California. The Cadiz water project, approved without environmental review, includes the construction of a pipeline through the Mojave Trails National Monument and other public lands in the area.

Tuesday's lawsuit notes that the Trump administration reversed two Obama administration decisions and wrongly concluded that the Cadiz project's 43-mile pipeline did not require any federal Bureau of Land Management permits or approvals. The BLM is allowing the developer to build the pipeline within an existing railroad right-of-way, paving the way for Cadiz to pump 16 billion gallons of water a year from the fragile desert aquifer to sprawling new developments in Southern California.

"The Cadiz project will suck the desert dry while developers count their money," said Ileene Anderson, a senior scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity. "It's an unsustainable water-privatization scheme. Pumping ancient groundwater from the Mojave Desert to water suburban lawns in Orange County will devastate desert wildlife and the entire ecosystem relying on that water for survival."

If allowed to move forward, the Cadiz water-mining project would drain life-giving springs in the Mojave Trails National Monument and surrounding public lands, killing vegetation and destroying key habitat for a host of desert wildlife, including the threatened desert tortoises, bighorn sheep, Mojave fringe-toed lizards and kit foxes. Hydrologists from the U.S. Geological Survey determined that the Cadiz project is unsustainable and that the company's privately funded study vastly overstates the aquifer's recharge rate.

"The Trump administration's approval of the Cadiz project is crony capitalism at its worst," said Adam Keats, senior attorney with the Center for Food Safety. "So much life relies on this precious desert groundwater, yet under Trump apparently the only thing that matters is how much money you have and who your friends are in government."

The project's approval followed the appointment of David Bernhardt, a deputy Interior Department secretary and former lobbyist for Cadiz. Bernhardt's former employer, the Washington-based law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, continues to represent Cadiz.

"Cadiz, Inc. is just another corporation looking to profit by selling off an irreplaceable public resource," said Greg Loarie, an attorney at Earthjustice who is representing the groups filing suit. "The Trump administration would love to give Cadiz a free pass around our environmental laws, but we're not going to let that happen."

The Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for Food Safety have also filed public records requests for documents that could shed light on the Trump administration's abrupt decision to allow the Cadiz project to move forward. In addition to Earthjustice, the groups are represented by Adam Keats at the Center for Food Safety and Aruna Prabhala and Lisa Belenky at the Center for Biological Diversity.

Family-Run Paper Wins Pulitzer for Exposing Big Ag Corruption

By Nika Knight

Prestigious Pulitzer Prizes on Monday were awarded to investigations that tackled President Donald Trump, Big Ag and international offshore tax havens, rewarding reporters that took on today's powers-that-be.

The Pulitzer Prizes this year came "in the face of a combative stance from President Trump, who has called the news media 'the enemy of the American people,'" as the New York Times noted.

The prize shed light on a small family-run paper in Iowa that tenaciously challenged large agricultural corporations over water pollution. The Storm Lake Times forced documents to be released that showed powerful agricultural interests were funding a local county's attempt to quell a lawsuit over nitrogen runoff from farms contaminating drinking water.

Art Cullen, the paper's editor, slammed the close financial ties between Big Ag and county government in editorials described by the Pulitzer Committee as "impressive" and "engaging," while also highlighting the catastrophic effects of nitrogen pollution. In one editorial, for example, Cullen wrote:

Anyone with eyes and a nose knows in his gut that Iowa has the dirtiest surface water in America. It is choking the waterworks and the Gulf of Mexico. It is causing oxygen deprivation in Northwest Iowa glacial lakes. It has caused us to spend millions upon millions trying to clean up Storm Lake, the victim of more than a century of explosive soil erosion.

Everyone knows it's not the city sewer plant causing the problem. And most of us recognize that this is not just nature at work busily releasing nitrates into the water. Ninety-two percent of surface water pollution comes from row crop production.

bolivia permanent water restriction b/c glacier 40% gone 11/16

Oil Industry Wastewater Injection Has Overpressurized Aquifers For Decades, Threatening California Drinking Water

A new report from the Washington, D.C-based Environmental Action Center (EAC) on California’s underground injection program finds that oil industry wells in the state have been overpressurizing some aquifers for decades, risking the contamination of neighboring aquifers that might contain drinkable water. Despite full awareness of the problem, state regulators have done little to stop them.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/10/28/oil-wastewater-underground-injection-threatens-drinking-water-california

india

http://www.alternet.org/environment/contamination-threatens-one-worlds-biggest-freshwater-supplies

http://www.alternet.org/environment/california-and-epa-poised-expand-pollution-potential-drinking-water-reserves

http://www.ecowatch.com/drinking-teflon-chemicals-water-1968474975.html

http://www.alternet.org/environment/factory-farms-are-putting-north-carolinians-risk-interactive-map

round the globe, people’s access to water is being threatened every day by one of the most powerful institutions on the globe—theWorld Bank. Under the guise of development, the World Bank and its investment arm, the International Finance Corporation, invest hundreds of millions in water privatization schemes that reduce access to water, increase costs and have a devastating impact on people. What’s worse is that the IFC often positions itself to profit from these projects, creating an irreconcilable conflict of interest.

But one congresswoman just took a stand against this threat that could mean the beginning of the end of the World Bank’s harmful water-for-profit pursuits. In a letter, Representative Gwen Moore (D-WI) demanded the World Bank cease all promotion and financing of these projects pending an external review and congressional hearings on conflicts of interest. Because Moore is the ranking member of a subcommittee with direct World Bank oversight, it has no choice but to listen.

The letter, addressed to World Bank President Jim Yong Kim, describes the failure of a World Bank-backed water privatization project in Manila, Philippines—the “success story” the IFC uses in marketing around the world—as the foundation of her concern. In Manila, the IFC advised the government to contract with two private corporations to manage the city’s water system, which it did in 1997 in a concession deal that favored one corporation, Manila Water Company, with less debt and better infrastructure. The IFC subsequently took part ownership in MWC only.

Since taking over, MWC has raised rates nearly 850 percent, and has even brought the Manila regulator—and the Philippines Department of Finance—into arbitration in an attempt to hike the cost of water even higher.

As part owner of MWC, the IFC is now in direct opposition to the government’s efforts to keep water affordable for its people. And while the IFC has stood by MWC, it has made $43 million from its initial investment.

Regrettably, these shady dealings aren’t unique to Manila. Recently, as adviser to the government in Kigali, Rwanda, the IFC awarded a 27-year public-private partnership contract to a subsidiary of Metito—in which IFC also has an ownership stake. As if that weren’t enough, it also approved a $14 million loan to the corporation as part of the deal.

These deals create a perverse incentive for the World Bank to try to squeeze money out of the very people it’s supposed to be helping.

Thanks to organizing and powerful leaders like Moore, the World Bank’s course could be changing. In the face of campaigning and public scrutiny, the IFC divested its ownership stake in global water privatizer Veolia in 2014. And in Lagos, Nigeria, a popular movement against a proposed privatization project has brought the World Bank to its knees, forcing it to drop its goal of securing a private sector contract for the water system in that city.

Moore’s intervention wasn’t only inspired by the struggles for water outside of the United States. People in her home state of Wisconsin successfully blocked a bill that would have fast-tracked water privatization by removing a public-vote requirement. Just last month, Moore traveled to Flint to hear firsthand from families affected by the lead contamination caused by corrupt management of that city.

The situation in Flint, Moore says, "demands swift and effective action from federal, state, and local stakeholders.” But as Moore explains, “It also begs of us in positions of influence to take a broader look at the world around us to help identify similar problems.”

Globally, access to water is threatened when those in power treat water as a business, not a public right. The IFC openly markets such an approach to water delivery, using various buzzwords like privatization, “public-private partnerships” and “full-cost recovery.” But, regardless of how they spin it, the results are the same: people lose.

Rep. Gwen Moore’s bold stance this week will likely compel others to take action and demand answers. Ultimately, given that the lives and well-being of millions around the world are at stake, there is no other option. If we are to ensure that everyone has access to water, the World Bank must not only address this conflict of interest, it must abandon its blind pursuit of water privatization and other models that undermine democratic control.

Jesse Bragg is the Media Director at Corporate Accountability International.

Killing the Colorado

The Truth Behind the Water Crisis in the West

California’s Drought Is Part of a Much Bigger Water Crisis. Here’s What You Need to Know

https://www.propublica.org/article/california-drought-colorado-river-water-crisis-explained

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/flint-lead-poisoning-america-toxic-crisis

http://www.globalpossibilities.org/south-african-insurance-company-backs-tree-planting-effort-to-reduce-effects-of-drought/

...Rather than sit idly by and watch farmers lose untold acreage of croplands, Santam is working to actively reduce drought risk for its customers by funding Living Lands, an international nonprofit that has been active in South Africa since 2008. Working with government agencies, community organizations, and individual farmers, the project has planted more than 3.7 million trees so far in an effort to stop land degradation and restore the compromised water catchment system. All of this falls under a larger project intended to create “a living landscape” in the Baviaanskloof.

“This is a business imperative for us, the likelihood of our sustainability is highly dependent on this,” Ray-Ann Sedres, head of integrated sustainability at Santam, told The Guardian. She explained Santam recognizes how climate change is impacting businesses, and feels projects like this tree-planting effort are crucial for the company’s survival.

The city of Port Elizabeth, now home to 1.4 million residents, hopes to reap direct benefits from the tree-planting program. The city has doubled in size since 1997 and endured water restrictions on and off since 2007. Baviaanskloof area farmers report the rate of topsoil loss has slowed, indicating the runoff which causes erosion has been reduced. With any luck, Port Elizabeth’s water supply will also stabilize as the result of this unique approach to risk management.

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/12/17/how_flint_michigan_saved_money_and

http://www.alternet.org/magical-mystery-tour-american-austerity-how-one-state-destroying-democracy-and-poisoning-its-people

Something is rotten in the state of Michigan.

One city neglected to inform its residents that its water supply was laced with cancerous chemicals. Another dissolved its public school district and replaced it with a charter school system, only to witness the for-profit management company it hired flee the scene after determining it couldn’t turn a profit. Numerous cities and school districts in the state are now run by single, state-appointed technocrats, as permitted under an emergency financial manager law pushed through by Rick Snyder, Michigan’s austerity-promoting governor. This legislation not only strips residents of their local voting rights, but gives Snyder’s appointee the power to do just about anything, including dissolving the city itself -- all (no matter how disastrous) in the name of “fiscal responsibility.”

If you’re thinking, "Who cares?" since what happens in Michigan stays in Michigan, think again. The state’s aggressive balance-the-books style of governance has already spread beyond its borders. In January, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie appointed bankruptcy lawyer and former Detroit emergency manager Kevyn Orr to be a “legal adviser” to Atlantic City.

http://www.globalpossibilities.org/reversing-the-tide-cities-and-countries-are-rebelling-against-water-privatization-and-winning/

gop ctr-attack: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/epa-waterways-wetlands-rule-118319.html

But House Speaker John Boehner accused the president of delivering yet another devastating blow to the economy.

“The administration’s decree to unilaterally expand federal authority is a raw and tyrannical power grab that will crush jobs,” the Ohio Republican said in a statement. “[T]he rule is being shoved down the throats of hardworking people with no input, and places landowners, small businesses, farmers and manufacturers on the road to a regulatory and economic hell.”

Barack Obama's water war

Industries like agriculture, oil and home-building are lining up to attack a rule aimed at protecting wetlands and waterways.

By JENNY HOPKINSON

5/27/15 10:41 AM EDT

Updated 5/28/15 2:56 PM EDT

The Obama administration announced new protections Wednesday for thousands of waterways and wetlands, pushing ahead despite a fierce counterattack from powerhouse industries like agriculture, oil and home-building — and their supporters in Congress.

On its face, the Waters of the United States rule is largely a technical document, defining which rivers, streams, lakes and marshes fall under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers. But opponents condemn it as a massive power grab by Washington, saying it will give bureaucrats carte blanche to swoop in and penalize landowners every time a cow walks through a ditch. And it comes amid years of complaints from Republicans about President Barack Obama’s regulatory agenda, which has encompassed everything from power plants and health insurers to Internet providers and for-profit colleges.

Story Continued Below

Obama was quick to add his personal endorsement to the rule, saying the measure is needed to protect vulnerable waterways and drinking water and to keep the economy going.Critics are already fighting back: The House voted earlier this month to block the rule, with support from both Republicans and some farm- and energy-state Democrats, and similar legislation is moving through the Senate. Opponents are also preparing lawsuits that will add to an already long trail of litigation over the government’s powers to regulate water — an issue the Supreme Court has taken up twice, with confusing results, since 2001.

ALSO ON POLITICO

Inside the war on coal

MICHAEL GRUNWALD

“This rule will provide the clarity and certainty businesses and industry need about which waters are protected by the Clean Water Act, and it will ensure polluters who knowingly threaten our waters can be held accountable,” Obama said in a statement after the EPA released a final version of the regulation. “My administration has made historic commitments to clean water, from restoring iconic watersheds like the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes to preserving more than a thousand miles of rivers and other waters for future generations. With today’s rule, we take another step towards protecting the waters that belong to all of us.”

But House Speaker John Boehner accused the president of delivering yet another devastating blow to the economy.

The agencies and their supporters say the safety of drinking water and stream health are threatened because of weak state and local regulation and a lack of enforcement. The rule is meant to make it clearer which waterways EPA and the Corps of Engineers can oversee under the 43-year-old Clean Water Act, which covers “navigable waters” such as the Mississippi River and Lake Erie but is vague on how far upstream protections must go to keep those water bodies clean.

In essence, the rule would establish whether antipollution laws are triggered if a farmer blocks a stream to make a pond for livestock, a developer fills in part of a wetland to put up a house or an oil pipeline has to cross a creek.

“The only people with reason to oppose the rule are polluters who threaten our clean water,” senior White House adviser Brian Deese told reporters during a conference call. He added that the rule “is based on common sense. … The status quo is rife with unsustainable confusion over what’s protected and what’s not.”

The final rule ensures protections for tributaries that have physical signs of flowing water, even if they don’t run all year round, and ditches that “look and act” like tributaries, said Jo-Ellen Darcy, the assistant secretary of the Army for civil works. The rule also limits EPA regulatory oversight to any body of water within 1,500 feet of another water body already covered by the rule, unless they have a surface water connection.

EPA and the corps also decided to extend protections to regional water features, like prairie potholes and coastal bays in the Delmarva peninsula and the Carolinas, on a case by case basis.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said the rule maintains long-held exemptions for agriculture and does not cover features like tile drainage systems, regular farm activities or the moving of livestock. The agency detailed many of the changes in a series of industry-specific fact sheets, also released Wednesday.

Despite the changes, McCarthy added that the new rule would expand the reach of the Clean Water Act by only about 3 percent. The measure is expected to take effect 60 days after it’s published in the Federal Register.

Defining where a navigable waterway begins and ends has long spurred disputes among the government, environmentalists and industry. Supreme Court rulings in 2001 and 2006 added to the confusion, imposing a less-than-clear requirement that upstream water must have a “significant nexus” to a navigable waterway to fall under the federal government’s jurisdiction.

Groups that back the rule, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, Environment America and fishing organizations, want the definition to be as broad as possible, saying you can’t protect major lakes and rivers unless you protect their sources upstream. And they say the federal government needs an oversight role, argued that states lack the financial resources and manpower to keep water from becoming polluted.

Supporters of the rule were quick to herald Wednesday’s action.

“Small streams and wetlands provide drinking water to roughly 1 in 3 Americans and they must be protected from pollution at the source,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, in a statement.

On the other side are Republicans and some of the biggest spenders in Washington.

“The administration’s cavalier attitude toward expanding the federal government’s authority into our backyards is absolutely outrageous,” said Sen. David Vitter (R-La.). “Not only were small businesses — who will be dramatically impacted by expanding of the definition of ‘waters of the United States’ — inappropriately excluded from the rule-making process, but the federal government shouldn’t be regulating puddles on private property in the first place.”

The Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers have joined the American Farm Bureau Federation, Dairy Farmers of America, pesticide manufacturers, mining companies, home builders, state and local governments, water utilities, flood control districts, the timber industry, railroads, real estate developers and even golf course operators among the more than 230 organizations and companies that have listed “Waters of the United States” on federal lobbying disclosures since the administration proposed the rule in March 2014.

Many food and beverage giants have pitched their thoughts to lawmakers on the measure, too, including Tyson Foods, Perdue Farms, Land O’Lakes, the potato giant J.R. Simplot and Ocean Spray Cranberries. Also weighing in are about 40 energy companies, including Halliburton, BP, Shell, Chevron, Rio Tinto and the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association, in addition to two dozen power companies such as Duke Energy and Pepco.

Many of the groups also made their case directly to White House and EPA officials during more than a dozen visits after the rule was sent for review at the Office of Management and Budget, meeting records show.

The lobbying effort has already had some success.

This month, the House passed a bill from Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) that would force EPA and the Army Corps to kick their rule back to the drawing board and consult with states and industries before writing a new proposal. The 261-155 vote included yes votes from 24 Democrats, of whom eight sit on the House Agriculture Committee and two sit on Energy and Commerce. Four of the Democrats are from energy-heavy Texas.

The Senate is considering a similar measure from Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) that is awaiting a vote in the Environment and Public Works Committee and has the backing of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Other supporters include three Democrats on the Agriculture Committee: Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia.

Barrasso’s measure includes more detailed consultation requirements than the House version and sets a Dec. 31, 2016, goal for EPA to finish a revised rule.

The White House has threatened to veto Shuster’s bill, arguing that it would “derail current efforts to clarify the scope of the CWA, hamstring future regulatory efforts and deny businesses and communities the regulatory certainty needed to invest in projects that rely on clean water.”

However, that won’t stop the agriculture industry and other opponents from suing. Among other objections, the suits are likely to debate whether the agencies violated the Administrative Procedure Act when trying to garner support for the measure and in reviewing comments, whether the rule-making violated federal protections for small businesses, and whether the rule’s expanded oversight of waterways falls outside what Congress intended when it wrote the Clean Water Act.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/epa-waterways-wetlands-rule-118319.html#ixzz3bYw6aDFd}:

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/epa-waterways-wetlands-rule-118319.html#ixzz3bYvABf00}:

Building on decades of successful water protections, the Clean Water Rule will defend sources of safe drinking water for one in every three Americans by clarifying protections that had come under challenge from some of the country’s biggest polluters.

The new rule is a victory for all of us, if we can keep it from being thwarted by its foes and their allies in Congress.

Republican leaders in the House and Senate have already teed up a showdown over this needed rule, a largely partisan battle that pits oil and gas companies, shopping center builders, Big Agriculture and others against the basic American right to clean water.

The Republican-led House sided earlier this month with the polluters.

We’re counting on the Senate to stand up for clean water.

For more than four decades, American waters have been protected by the Clean Water Act, passed by overwhelming Republican and Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress in 1972.

In recent years, though, this important law has come under withering attack by interests that stand to profit from weakening the protections the law provides.

In essence, these groups claim the Clean Water Act shouldn’t apply to vast reaches of streams and wetlands because these bodies of water are too remote, too small or too dependent on seasonal rains to count.

That, of course, is nonsense.

Even mighty rivers start small, taking on volume from wetlands and tributaries as water flows downhill.

Pollution at any point along the journey threatens all the waters downstream.

That’s why state and local officials, members of Congress, advocates for industry, agriculture, the environment and others, as well as members of the public at large, have asked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers to clarify the reach of theClean Water Act.

The agencies have participated in more than 400 meetings on the issue nationwide. Over just the past year, they’ve reviewed more than a million comments from people who depend on clean water for things like raising food, running their businesses, attracting tourism or fishing and hunting.

And here’s what they’ve found: 87 percent of the people who commented want the waters of America protected.....

Unless the polluters and their congressional allies get their way.

On May 12, the GOP-led House passed a bill to block the vital safeguards contained in the new Clean Water Rule—two weeks before the final rule was even issued.

The opponents didn’t need to see the final rule to vote against the measure, putting polluter profits first—and putting our drinking water at risk.

Similar legislation is pending in the Senate.

The Clean Water Rule, though, needs to go forward without further congressional obstruction or delay.

The rule’s protections will provide the country with up to $572 million worth of benefits every single year, the U.S. EPA estimates.

The wetlands and waterways this rule will defend help protect our communities from flooding. They filter industrial, agricultural and urban pollutants out of our water. They provide habitat for wildlife. And they help to recharge groundwater supplies.

Water is the foundation of life. What threatens that imperils us all.

We need our Senate to put our future first, put this pernicious legislation to bed and let the people who keep our water clean do the job we’re counting on them to do.

Rhea Suh is the president of Natural Resources Defense Council.

http://ecowatch.com/2015/05/28/epa-clean-water-rule/

===

The National Association of Water Companies (NAWC) has launched a new campaign, truthfromthetap.com, to undermine advocates who want municipal water systems operated and owned by local, democratically elected councils—not by big companies accountable to shareholders.

But the truth is, the private water operators behind the site have a poor track record when it comes to serving communities. Company executives drive the management decisions, not locally accountable water boards, and they have a financial incentive to cut service, cut maintenance and cut the workforce. This often results in delayed repairs and slow responses to customer service requests. There is ample evidence that maintenance backlogs, wasted water, sewage spills and service problems often follow privatization. In fact, poor performance is the primary reason that communities demand their local governments reverse the decision to privatize and resume public operation of previously contracted services.

For many communities, frequent and massive rate increases are the most pronounced consequence of privatization. On average, private sector companies charge higher water and sewer rates than local government utilities. For example, a 2010 survey of the largest water utilities in the Great Lakes region found that privately owned systems charged more than twice as much as municipal systems. The researchers attributed this difference to private companies’ taxes, profits, higher overall service costs, and ratemaking practices.

You don’t have to look far to find examples of failed privatization efforts:

Within a year of Veolia taking over the water system in Indianapolis, thousands of residents experienced billing problems and consumer complaints more than doubled. In 2005, because the company lacked proper safeguards, an error caused a boil-water alert for more than a million people, closing local businesses and canceling school for 40,000 students.

The privatized system in Gladewater, Texas violated federal water quality standards 16 times, and residents described the water as “dark brown” and “foul.” The company failed to perform work required by its contract, and its water plant operators were lacking the necessary certification.

In Gary, Indiana, after United Water downsized the workforce, residents experienced numerous service problems. In May 2008, a state inspection found that the district, under United Water’s management, violated discharge limits 84 times from 2005 to 2007.

The New Jersey State Comptroller’s Office issued a scathing audit of United Water’s Camden, NJ It found that inadequate contract supervision and the company’s poor performance cost the city millions of dollars.

Ellen Brown

Ellen Brown is an attorney, president of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including the best-selling Web of Debt. In The Public Bank Solution, her latest book, she explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her websites are Web of Debt, Public Bank Solution, and Public Banking Institute.

article was first published on December 21, 2012

A disturbing trend in the water sector is accelerating worldwide. The new “water barons” — the Wall Street banks and elitist multibillionaires — are buying up water all over the world at unprecedented pace.

Familiar mega-banks and investing powerhouses such as Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, UBS, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, Macquarie Bank, Barclays Bank, the Blackstone Group, Allianz, and HSBC Bank, among others, are consolidating their control over water. Wealthy tycoons such as T. Boone Pickens, former President George H.W. Bush and his family, Hong Kong’s Li Ka-shing, Philippines’ Manuel V. Pangilinan and other Filipino billionaires, and others are also buying thousands of acres of land with aquifers, lakes, water rights, water utilities, and shares in water engineering and technology companies all over the world.

The second disturbing trend is that while the new water barons are buying up water all over the world, governments are moving fast to limit citizens’ ability to become water self-sufficient (as evidenced by the well-publicized Gary Harrington’s case in Oregon, in which the state criminalized the collection of rainwater in three ponds located on his private land, by convicting him on nine counts and sentencing him for 30 days in jail). Let’s put this criminalization in perspective:

Billionaire T. Boone Pickens owned more water rights than any other individuals in America, with rights over enough of the Ogallala Aquifer to drain approximately 200,000 acre-feet (or 65 billion gallons of water) a year. But ordinary citizen Gary Harrington cannot collect rainwater runoff on 170 acres of his private land.

It’s a strange New World Order in which multibillionaires and elitist banks can own aquifers and lakes, but ordinary citizens cannot even collect rainwater and snow runoff in their own backyards and private lands.

“Water is the oil of the 21st century.” Andrew Liveris, CEO of DOW Chemical Company (quoted in The Economist magazine, August 21, 2008)

In 2008, I wrote an article,

“Why Big Banks May Be Buying up Your Public Water System,” in which I detailed how both mainstream and alternative media coverage on water has tended to focus on individual corporations and super-investors seeking to control water by buying up water rights and water utilities. But paradoxically the hidden story is a far more complicated one. I argued that the real story of the global water sector is a convoluted one involving “interlocking globalized capital”: Wall Street and global investment firms, banks, and other elite private-equity firms — often transcending national boundaries to partner with each other, with banks and hedge funds, with technology corporations and insurance giants, with regional public-sector pension funds, and with sovereign wealth funds — are moving rapidly into the water sector to buy up not only water rights and water-treatment technologies, but also to privatize public water utilities and infrastructure.

Now, in 2012, we are seeing this trend of global consolidation of water by elite banks and tycoons accelerating. In a JP Morgan equity research document, it states clearly that “Wall Street appears well aware of the investment opportunities in water supply infrastructure, wastewater treatment, and demand management technologies.” Indeed, Wall Street is preparing to cash in on the global water grab in the coming decades. For example, Goldman Sachs has amassed more than $10 billion since 2006 for infrastructure investments, which include water. A 2008 New York Times article mentioned Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, and the Carlyle Group, to have “amassed an estimated an estimated $250 billion war chest — must of it raised in the last two years — to finance a tidal wave of infrastructure projects in the United States and overseas.”

By “water,” I mean that it includes water rights (i.e., the right to tap groundwater, aquifers, and rivers), land with bodies of water on it or under it (i.e., lakes, ponds, and natural springs on the surface, or groundwater underneath), desalination projects, water-purification and treatment technologies (e.g., desalination, treatment chemicals and equipment), irrigation and well-drilling technologies, water and sanitation services and utilities, water infrastructure maintenance and construction (from pipes and distribution to all scales of treatment plants for residential, commercial, industrial, and municipal uses), water engineering services (e.g., those involved in the design and construction of water-related facilities), and retail water sector (such as those involved in the production, operation, and sales of bottled water, water vending machines, bottled water subscription and delivery services, water trucks, and water tankers).

Update of My 2008 Article: Mega-Banks See Water as a Critical Commodity

Since 2008, many giant banks and super-investors are capturing more market share in the water sector and identifying water as a critical commodity, much hotter than petroleum.

Goldman Sachs: Water Is Still the Next Petroleum

In 2008, Goldman Sachs called water “the petroleum for the next century” and those investors who know how to play the infrastructure boom will reap huge rewards, during its annual “Top Five Risks” conference. Water is a U.S.$425 billion industry, and a calamitous water shortage could be a more serious threat to humanity in the 21st century than food and energy shortages, according to Goldman Sachs’s conference panel. Goldman Sachs has convened numerous conferences and also published lengthy, insightful analyses of water and other critical sectors (food, energy).

Goldman Sachs is positioning itself to gobble up water utilities, water engineering companies, and water resources worldwide. Since 2006, Goldman Sachs has become one of the largest infrastructure investment fund managers and has amassed a $10 billion capital for infrastructure, including water.

In March 2012, Goldman Sachs was eyeing Veolia’s UK water utility business, estimated at £1.2 billion, and in July it successfully bought Veolia Water, which serves 3.5 million people in southeastern England.

Previously, in September 2003, Goldman Sachs partnered with one of the world’s largest private-equity firm Blackstone Group and Apollo Management to acquire Ondeo Nalco (a leading company in providing water-treatment and process chemicals and services, with more than 10,000 employees and operations in 130 countries) from French water corporation Suez S.A. for U.S.$4.2 billion.

In October 2007, Goldman Sachs teamed up with Deutsche Bank and several partners to bid, unsuccessfully, for U.K.’s Southern Water. In November 2007, Goldman Sachs was also unsuccessful in bidding for U.K. water utility Kelda. But Goldman Sachs is still looking to buy other water utilities.

In January 2008, Goldman Sachs led a team of funds (including Liberty Harbor Master Fund and the Pinnacle Fund) to buy U.S.$50 million of convertible notes in China Water and Drinks Inc., which supplies purified water to name-brand vendors like Coca-Cola and Taiwan’s top beverage company Uni-President. China Water and Drinks is also a leading producer and distributor of bottled water in China and also makes private-labeled bottled water (e.g., for Sands Casino, Macau). Since China has one of the worse water problems in Asia and a large emerging middle class, its bottled-water sector is the fastest-growing in the world and it’s seeing enormous profits. Additionally, China’s acute water shortages and serious pollution could “buoy demand for clean water for years to come, with China’s $14.2 billion water industry a long-term investment destination” (Reuters, January 28, 2008).

The City of Reno, Nevada, was approached by Goldman Sachs for “a long-term asset leasing that could potentially generate significant cash for the three TMWA [Truckee Meadows Water Authority] entities. The program would allow TMWA to lease its assets for 50 years and receive an up-front cash payment” (Reno News & Review, August 28, 2008). Essentially, Goldman Sachs wants to privatize Reno’s water utility for 50 years. Given Reno’s revenue shortfall, this proposal was financially attractive. But the water board eventually rejected the proposal due to strong public opposition and outcry.

Citigroup: The Water Market Will Soon Eclipse Oil, Agriculture, and Precious Metals

Citigroup’s top economist Willem Buitler said in 2011 that the water market will soon be hotter the oil market (for example, see this and this):

“Water as an asset class will, in my view, become eventually the single most important physical-commodity based asset class, dwarfing oil, copper, agricultural commodities and precious metals.”

In its recent 2012 Water Investment Conference, Citigroup has identified top 10 trends in the water sector, as follows:

Desalination systems
Water reuse technologies
Produced water / water utilities
Membranes for filtration
Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection
Ballast-water treatment technologies
Forward osmosis used in desalination
Water-efficiency technologies and products
Point-of-use treatment systems
Chinese competitors in water

Specifically, a lucrative opportunity in water is in hydraulic fracturing (or fracking), as it generates massive demand for water and water services. Each oil well developed requires 3 to 5 million gallons of water, and 80% of this water cannot be reused because it’s three to 10 times saltier than seawater. Citigroup recommends water-rights owners sell water to fracking companies instead of to farmers because water for fracking can be sold for as much as $3,000 per acre-foot instead of only $50 per acre/foot to farmers.

The ballast-water treatment sector, currently at $1.35 billion annually, is estimated to reach $30 to $50 billion soon. The water-filtration market is expected to outgrow the water-equipment market: Dow estimates it to be a $5 billion market annually instead of only $1 billion now.

Citigroup is aggressively raising funds for its war chest to participate in the coming tidal wave of infrastructure privatization: in 2007 it established a new unit called Citi Infrastructure Investors through its Citi Alternative Investments unit. According to Reuters, Citigroup “assembled some of the biggest names in the infrastructure business at the same time it is building a $3 billion fund, including $500 million of its own capital. The fund, according to a person familiar with the situation, will have only a handful of outside investors and will be focused on assets in developed markets” (May 16, 2007). Citigroup initially sought only U.S.$3 billion for its first infrastructure fund but was seeking U.S.$5 billion in April 2008 (Bloomberg, April 7, 2008).

Citigroup partnered with HSBC Bank, Prudential, and other minor partners to acquire U.K.’s water utility Kelda (Yorkshire Water) in November 2007. This week, Citigroup signed a 99-year lease with the City of Chicago for Chicago’s Midway Airport (it partnered with John Hancock Life Insurance Company and a Canadian private airport operator). Insiders said that Citigroup is among those bidding for the state-owned company Letiste Praha which operates the Prague Airport in the Czech Republic (Bloomberg, February 7, 2008).

As the five U.K. water utility deals illustrate, typically no one single investment bank or private-equity fund owns the entire infrastructure project — they partner with many others. The Citigroup is now entering India’s massive infrastructure market by partnering the Blackstone Group and two Indian private finance companies; they have launched a U.S.$5 billion fund in February 2007, with three entities (Citi, Blackstone, and IDFC) jointly investing U.S.$250 million. India requires about U.S.$320 billion in infrastructure investments in the next five years (The Financial Express, February 16, 2007).

UBS: Water Scarcity Is the Defining Crisis of the 21st Century

In 2006, UBS Investment Research, a division of Switzerland-based UBS AG, Europe’s largest bank by assets, entitled its 40-page research report, “Q-Series®:Water”—“Water scarcity: The defining crisis of the 21st century?” (October 10, 2006) In 2007, UBS, along with JP Morgan and Australia’s Challenger Fund, bought UK’s Southern Water for £4.2biillion.

Credit Suisse: Water Is the “Paramount Megatrend of Our Time”

Credit Suisse published its report about Credit Suisse Water Index (January 21, 2008) urged investors that “One way to take advantage of this trend is to invest in companies geared to water generation, preservation, infrastructure treatment and desalination. The Index enables investors to participate in the performance of the most attractive companies….” The trend in question, according to Credit Suisse, is the “depletion of freshwater reserves” attributable to “pollution, disappearance of glaciers (the main source of freshwater reserves), and population growth, water is likely to become a scarce resource.”

Credit Suisse recognizes water to be the “paramount megatrend of our time” because of a water-supply crisis might cause “severe societal risk” in the next 10 years and that two-thirds of the world’s population are likely to live under water-stressed conditions by 2025. To address water shortages, it has identified desalination and wastewater treatment as the two most important technologies. Three sectors for good investments include the following:

§ Membranes for desalination and wastewater treatment

§ Water infrastructure — corrosion resistance, pipes, valves, and pumps

§ Chemicals for water treatment

It also created the Credit Suisse Water Index which has the equally weighed index of 30 stocks out of 128 global water stocks. For investors, it offered “Credit Suisse PL100 World Water Trust (PL100 World Water),” launched in June 2007, with $112.9 million.

Credit Suisse partnered with General Electric (GE Infrastructure) in May 2006 to establish a U.S.$1 billion joint venture to profit from privatization and investments in global infrastructure assets. Each partner will commit U.S.$500 million to target electricity generation and transmission, gas storage and pipelines, water facilities, airports, air traffic control, ports, railroads, and toll roads worldwide. This joint venture has estimated that the developed market’s infrastructure opportunities are at U.S.$500 billion, and emerging world’s infrastructure market is U.S.$1 trillion in the next five years (Credit Suisse’s press release, May 31, 2006).

In October 2007, Credit Suisse partnered with Cleantech Group (a Michigan-based market-research, consulting, media, and executive-search firm that operates cleantech forums) and Consensus Business Group (a London-based equity firm owned by U.K. billionaire Vincent Tchenguiz) to invest in clean technologies worldwide. The technologies will also clean water technologies.

During its Asian Investment Conference, it said that “Water is a focus for those in the know about global strategic commodities. As with oil, the supply is finite but demand is growing by leaps and unlike oil there is no alternative.” (Credit Suisse, February 4, 2008). Credit Suisse sees the global water market with U.S.$190 billion in revenue in 2005 and was expected to grow to U.S.$342 billion by 2010. It sees most significant growth opportunities in China.

JPMorgan Chase: Build Infrastructure War Chests to Buy Water, Utilities, and Public Infrastructure Worldwide

One of the world’s largest banks, JPMorgan Chase has aggressively pursued water and infrastructure worldwide. In October 2007, it beat out rivals Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs to buy U.K.’s water utility Southern Water with partners Swiss-based UBS and Australia’s Challenger Infrastructure Fund. This banking empire is controlled by the Rockefeller family; the family patriarch David Rockefeller is a member of the elite and secretive Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations, and Trilateral Commission.

JPMorgan sees infrastructure finance as a global phenomenon, and it is joined by its global peers in investment and banking institution in their rush to cash in on water and infrastructure. JPMorgan’s own analysts estimate that the emerging markets’ infrastructure is approximately U.S.$21.7 trillion over the next decade.

JPMorgan created a U.S.$2 billion infrastructure fund to go after India’s infrastructure projects in October 2007. The targeted projects are transportation (roads, bridges, railroads) and utilities (gas, electricity, water). India’s finance minister has been estimated that India requires about U.S.$500 billion in infrastructure investments by 2012. In this regard, JPMorgan is joined by Citigroup, the Blackstone Group, 3i Group (Europe’s second-largest private-equity firm), and ICICI Bank (India’s second-largest bank) (International Herald Tribune, October 31, 2007). Its JPMorgan Asset Management has also established an Asian Infrastructure & Related Resources Opportunity Fund which held a first close on U.S.$500 million (€333 million) and will focus on China, India, and other Southern Asian countries, with the first two investments in China and India (Private Equity Online, August 11, 2008). The fund’s target is U.S.$1.5 billion.

JPMorgan’s Global Equity Research division also published a 60-page report called “Watch water: A guide to evaluating corporate risks in a thirsty world” (April 1, 2008).

In 2010, J.P. Morgan Asset Management and Water Asset Management led a $275 million buyout bid for SouthWest Water.

Allianz Group: Water Is Underpriced and Undervalued

Founded in 1890, Germany’s Allianz Group is one of the leading global services providers in insurance, banking, and asset management in about 70 countries. In April 2008, Allianz SE launched the Allianz RCM Global Water Fund which invests in equity securities of water-related companies worldwide, emphasizing long-term capital appreciation. Alliance launched its Global EcoTrends Fund in February 2007 (Business Wire, February 7, 2007).

Allianz SE’s Dresdner Bank AG told its investors that “Investments in water offer opportunities: Rising oil prices obscure our view of an even more serious scarcity: water. The global water economy is faced with a multi-billion dollar need for capital expenditure and modernization. Dresdner Bank sees this as offering attractive opportunities for returns for investors with a long-term investment horizon.” (Frankfurt, August 14, 2008)

Like Goldman Sachs, Allianz has the philosophy that water is underpriced. A co-manager of the Water Fund in Frankfurt, said, “A key issue of water is that the true value of water is not recognized. …Water tends to be undervalued around the world. …Perhaps that is one of the reasons why there are so many places with a lack of supply due to a lack of investment. With that in mind, it makes sense to invest in companies that are engaged in improving water quality and infrastructure.” Allianz sees two key investment drivers in water: (1) upgrading the aging infrastructure in the developed world; and (2) new urbanization and industrialization in developing countries such as China and India.

Barclays PLC: Water Index Funds and Exchange-Traded Funds

Barclays PLC is a U.K.-based major global financial services provider operating in all over the world with roots in London since 1690; it operates through its subsidiary Barclays Bank PLC and its investment bank called Barclays Capital.

Barclays Bank’s unit Barclays Global Investors manages an exchange-traded fund (ETF) called iShares S&P Global Water, which is listed on the London Stock Exchanges and can be purchased like any ordinary share through a broker. Touting the iShares S&P Global Water as offering “a broad based exposure to shares of the world’s largest water companies, including water utilities and water equipment stocks” of water companies around the world, this fund as of March 31, 2007 was valued at U.S.$33.8 million.

Barclays also have a climate index fund: launched on January 16, 2008, SAM Indexes GmbH licensed its Dow Jones Sustainability Index to Barclays Capital for investors in Germany and Switzerland. Many other banks also have a climate index or sustainability index.

In October 2007, Barclays Capital also partnered with Protected Distribution Limited (PDL) to launch a new water investment fund (with expected annual returns of 9% to 11%) called Protected Water Fund. This new fund, listed in the Isle of Man, requires a minimum of £10,000 and is structured as a 10-year investment with Barclays Bank providing 100% of capital protection until maturity on October 11, 2017. The Protected Water Fund will be invested in some of the world’s largest water companies; its investment decisions will be made based on an index created by Barclays Capital, the Barclays World Water Strategy, which charts the performance of some of the world’s largest water-related stocks (Investment Week and Reuters, October 11, 2007; Business Week, October 15, 2007).

Deutsche Bank’s €2 Billion Investment in European Infrastructure: “Megatrend” in Water, Climate, Infrastructure, and Agribusiness Investments

Deutsche Bank is one of the major players in the water sector worldwide. Its Deutsche Bank Advisors have identified water as a part of the climate investment strategies. In its presentation, “Global Warming: Implications for Investors,” they have identified the four following major areas for water investment:

§ Distribution and management: (1) Supply and recycling, (2) water distribution and sewage, (3) water management and engineering.

§ Water purification: (1) Sewage purification, (2) disinfection, (3) desalination, (4) monitoring.

§ Water efficiency (demand): (1) Home installation, (2) gray-water recycling, (3) water meters.

§ Water and nutrition: (1) Irrigation, (2) bottled water.

In addition to water, the other two new resources identified were agribusiness (e.g., pesticides, genetically modified seeds, mineral fertilizers, agricultural machinery) and renewable energies (e.g., solar, wind, hydrothermal, biomass, hydroelectricity).

The Deutsche Bank has established an investment fund of up to €2 billion in European infrastructure assets using its Structured Capital Markets Group (SCM), part of the bank’s Global Markets division. The bank already has several “highly attractive infrastructure assets,” including East Surrey Holdings, the owner of U.K.’s water utility Sutton & East Surrey Water (Deutsche Bank press release, September 22, 2006).

Moreover, Deutsche Bank has channeled €6 billion (U.S.$8.55 billion) into climate change funds, which will target companies with products that cut greenhouse gases or help people adapt to a warmer world, in sectors from agriculture to power and construction (Reuters, October 18, 2007).

In addition to SCM, Deutsche Bank also has the RREEF Infrastructure, part of RREEF Alternative Investments, headquartered in New York with main hubs in Sydney, Singapore, and London. RREEF Infrastructure has more than €6.7 billion in assets under management. One of its main targets is utilities, including electricity networks, water-treatment or distribution operations, and natural-gas networks. In October 2007, RREEF partnered with Goldman Sachs, GE, Prudential, and Babcok & Brown Ltd. to bid unsuccessfully for U.K.’s water utility Southern Water.

§ Crediting the boom in European infrastructure investment, the RREEF fund by August 2007 had raised €2 billion (U.S.$2.8 billion); Europe’s infrastructure market is valued at between U.S.$4 trillion to U.S.$6 trillion (DowJones Financial News Online, August 7, 2007).

§ Bulgaria — Deutsche Bank Bulgaria is planning to participate in large infrastructure projects, including public-private partnership projects in water and sewage worth up to €1 billion (Sofia Echo Media, February 26, 2008).

§ Middle East — Along with Ithmaar Bank B.S.C. (an private-equity investment bank in Bahrain), Deutsche Bank co-managed a U.S.$2 billion Shari’a-compliant Infrastructure and Growth Capital Fund and plans to target U.S.$630 billion in regional infrastructure.

Deutsche Bank AG is co-owner of Aqueduct Capital (UK) Limited which in 2006 offered to buy U.K.’s sixth-largest water utility Sutton and East Surrey Water plc from British tycoon Guy Hand. According to an OFWAT consultation paper (May 2007), Deutsche Bank formed this new entity, Aqueduct Capital (short for ACUK), in October 2005, with two public pension funds in Canada, Singapore’s life insurance giant, and a Canadian province’s investment fund, among others. This case, again, is an illustration of the complex nature of ownership of water utilities today, with various types of institutions crossing national boundaries to partner with each other to hold a stake in the water sector. With its impressive war chest dedicated to water, food, and infrastructure, Deutsche Bank is expected to become a major player in the global water sector.

Other Mega-Banks Eyeing Water as Hot Investment

Merrill Lynch (before being bought by Bank of America) issued a 24-page research report titled “Water scarcity; a bigger problem than assumed” (December 6, 2007). ML said that water scarcity is “not limited to arid climates.”

Morgan Stanley in its publication, “Emerging Markets Infrastructure: Just Getting Started” (April 2008) recommends three areas of investment opportunities in water: water utilities, global operators (such as Veolia Environment), and technology companies (such as those that manufacture membranes and chemicals used in water treatment to the water industry).

Mutual Funds and Hedge Funds Join the Action in Water

Water investment funds are on the rise, such as these four well-known water-focused mutual funds:

Calvert Global Water Fund (CFWAX) — $42 million in assets as of 2010, which holds 30% of its assets in water utilities, 40% in infrastructure companies, and 30% in water technologies. Also between 65% to 70% of the water stocks derived more than 50% of their revenue from water-related activities.
Allianz RCM Global Water Fund (AWTAX) — $54 million assets as of 2010, most of it invested in water utilities.
PFW Water Fund (PFWAX) — $17 million in assets as of 2010, with a minimum investment of $2,500, with 80% invested in water-related companies….
Kinetics Water Infrastructure Advantaged Fund (KWIAX) — $26 million in assets as of 2010, with a minimum investment of $2,500.

This is a brief list of water-centered hedge funds:

§ Master Water Equity Fund — Summit Global AM (United States)

§ Water Partners Fund — Aqua Terra AM (United States)

§ The Water Fund — Terrapin AM (United States)

§ The Reservoir Fund — Water AM (United States)

§ The Oasis Fund — Perella Weinberg AM (United States)

§ Signina Water Fund — Signina Capital AG (Switzerland)

§ MFS Water Fund of Funds — MFS Aqua AM (Australia)

§ Triton Water Fund of Funds — FourWinds CM (United States)

§ Water Edge Fund of Funds — Parker Global Strategies LLC (United States)

Other banks have launched water-targeted investment funds. Several well-known specialized water funds include Pictet Water Fund, SAM Sustainable Water Fund, Sarasin Sustainable Water Fund, Swisscanto Equity Fund Water, and Tareno Waterfund. Several structured water products offered by major investment banks include ABN Amro Water Stocks Index Certificate, BKB Water Basket, ZKB Sustainable Basket Water, Wagelin Water Shares Certificate, UBS Water Strategy Certificate, and Certificate on Vontobel Water Index. There are also several water indexes and index funds, as follows:

Credit Suisse Water Index

HSBC Water, Waste, and Pollution Control Index

Merrill Lynch China Water Index

S&P Global Water Index

First Trust ISE Water Index Fund (FIW)

International Securities Exchange’s ISE-B&S Water Index

The following is a small sample of other water funds and certificates (not exhaustive of the current range of diverse water products available):

Allianz RCM Global EcoTrends Fund

Allianz RCM Global Water Fund

UBS Water Strategy Certificate—it has a managed basket of 25 international stocks

Summit Water Equity Fund

Maxxwater Global Water Fund

Claymore S&P Global Water ETF (CGW)

Barclays Global Investors’ iShares S&P Global Water

Barclays and PDL’s Protected Water Fund based on Barclays World Water Strategy

Invesco’s PowerShares Water Resources Portfolio ETF (PHO)

Invesco’s PowerShares Global Water (PIO)

Pictet Asset Management’s Pictet Water Fund and Pictet Water Opportunities Fund

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce’s Water Growth Deposit Notes

Criterion Investments Limited’s Criterion Water Infrastructure Fund

One often-heard reason for the investment banks’ rush to control of water is that “Utilities are viewed as relatively safe assets in an economic downturn so [they] are more isolated than most from the global credit crunch, initially sparked by concerns over U.S. subprime mortgages” (Reuters, October 9, 2007). A London-based analyst at HSBC Securities told Bloomberg News that water is a good investment because “You’re buying something that’s inflation proof and there’s no threat to earnings really. It’s very stable and you can sell it any time you want” (Bloomberg, October 8, 2007).

More Pension Funds Investing in Water

Many pension funds have entered the water sector as a relatively safe sector for investment. For example, BT Pension Scheme (of British Telecom plc) has bought stakes in Thames Water in 2012, while Canadian pension funds CDPQ (Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, which manages public pension funds in Québec) and CPPIB (Canada Pension Plan Investment Board) have acquired England’s South East Water and Anglian Water, respectively, as reported by Reuters this year.

Sovereign Wealth Investment Funds Jumping into Water

In January 2012, China Investment Corporation has bought 8.68% stakes in Thames Water, the largest water utility in England, which serves parts of the Greater London area, Thames Valley, and Surrey, among other areas.

In November 2012, One of the world’s largest sovereign wealth funds, the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA), also purchased 9.9% stake in Thames Water.

Billionaires Sucking up Water Globally: George H.W. Bush and Family, Li Ka-shing, the Filipino Billionaires, and Others

Not only are the mega-banks investing heavily in water, the multibillionaire tycoons are also buying water.

Update on Hong Kong Multibillionaire Li Ka-shing’s Water Acquisition

In summer 2011, the Hong Kong multibillionaire tycoon Li Ka-shing who owns Cheung Kong Infrastructure (CKI), bought Northumbrian Water, which serves 2.6 million people in northeastern England, for $3.9 billion (see this and this).

CKI also sold Cambridge Water for £74 million to HSBC in 2011. Not satisfied with controlling the water sector, in 2010, CKI with a consortium bought EDF’s power networks in UK for £5.8 billion.

Li is now also collaborating with Samsung on investing in water treatment.

Warren Buffet Buys Nalco, a Chemical Maker and Water Process Technology Company

Through his Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffet is the largest institutional investor of Nalco Holding Co. (NLC), a subsidiary of Ecolab, with 9 million shares. Nalco was named 2012 Water Technology Company of the Year. Nalco manufactures treatment chemicals and water treatment process technologies.

But the company Nalco is not just a membrane manufacturer; it also produced the infamous toxic chemical dispersant Corexit which was used to disperse crude oil in the aftermath of BP’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. Before being sold to Ecolab, Nalco’s parent company was Blackstone……

Former President George H.W. Bush’s Family Bought 300,000 Acres on South America’s and World’s Largest Aquifer, Acuifero Guaraní

In my 2008 article, I overlooked the astonishingly large land purchases (298,840 acres, to be exact) by the Bush family in 2005 and 2006. In 2006, while on a trip to Paraguay for the United Nation’s children’s group UNICEF, Jenna Bush (daughter of former President George W. Bush and granddaughter of former President George H.W. Bush) reportedly bought 98,840 acres of land in Chaco, Paraguay, near the Triple Frontier (Bolivia, Brazil, and Paraguay). This land is said to be near the 200,000 acres purchased by her grandfather, George H.W. Bush, in 2005.

The lands purchased by the Bush family sit over not only South America’s largest aquifer — but the world’s as well — Acuifero Guaraní, which runs beneath Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. This aquifer is larger than Texas and California combined.

Online political magazine Counterpunch quoted Argentinean pacifist Adolfo Perez Esquivel, the winner of 1981 Nobel Peace Prize, who “warned that the real war will be fought not for oil, but for water, and recalled that Acuifero Guaraní is one of the largest underground water reserves in South America….”

According to Wikipedia, this aquifer covers 1,200,000 km², with a volume of about 40,000 km³, a thickness of between 50 m and 800 m and a maximum depth of about 1,800 m. It is estimated to contain about 37,000 km³ of water (arguably the largest single body of groundwater in the world, although the overall volume of the constituent parts of the Great Artesian Basin is much larger), with a total recharge rate of about 166 km³/year from precipitation. It is said that this vast underground reservoir could supply fresh drinking water to the world for 200 years.

Filipino Tycoon Manuel V. Pangilinan and Others Buy Water Services in Vietnam

In October 2012, Filipino businessman Manuel V. Pangilinan went to Vietnam to scout for investment opportunities, particularly on toll road and water services. Mr. Pangilinan and other Filipino billionaires, such as the owners of the Ayala Corp. and subsidiary Manila Water Co. earlier announced a deal to buy a 10-per cent stake in Ho Chi Minh City Infrastructure Investment Joint Stock Co. (CII) and a 49-per cent stake in Kenh Dong Water Supply Joint Stock Co. (Kenh Dong).

The Ayala group has also entered the Vietnamese market by buying significant minority interest in a leading infrastructure company and a bulk water supply company both based in Ho Chi Minh City.

Water Grabbing Is Unstoppable

Unfortunately, the global water and infrastructure-privatization fever is unstoppable: many local and state governments are suffering from revenue shortfalls and are under financial and budgetary strains. These local and state governments can longer shoulder the responsibilities of maintaining and upgrading their own utilities. Facing offers of millions of cash from Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, UBS, and other elite banks for their utilities and other infrastructure and municipal services, cities and states will find it extremely difficult to refuse these privatization offers.

The elite multinational and Wall Street banks and investment banks have been preparing and waiting for this golden moment for years. Over the past few years, they have amassed war chests of infrastructure funds to privatize water, municipal services, and utilities all over the world. It will be extremely difficult to reverse this privatization trend in water.

References for Several Articles Mentioned

“Goldman Sachs eyes bid for Veolia Water,” by Anousha Sakoui and Daniel Schäfer, Financial Times, March 13, 2012.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/183cfae4-6d21-11e1-a7c7-00144feab49a.html#axzz2CM8OLnFQ

“Hong Kong tycoon to buy Northumbrian Water,” by Mark Wembridge, Financial Times, August 2, 2011.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/3df07960-bcdb-11e0-bdb1-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2CM8OLnFQ

“Why Big Banks May Be Buying up Your Public Water System: In uncertain economic and environmental times, big banks and financial groups are buying up public water systems as safe investments,” by Jo-Shing Yang, AlterNet, October 31, 2008.

http://www.alternet.org/zstory/105083/why_big_banks_may_be_trying_to_buy_up_your_public_water_system

“Barclays Capital Backs Water Fund,” by Dylan Lobo, October 11, 2007. Reuters.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/10/11/citywire-barclays-water-idUKNOA13736320071011

“Investors Gush Over SouthWest Water Buyout,” March 3, 2010, Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/03/southwest-water-novell-markets-equities-deals-marketnewsvideo.html

“Hideout or Water Raid? Bush’s Paraguay Land Grab,” by CP News Wire, Counterpunch, October 22-26, 2006.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/10/20/bush-s-paraguay-land-grab/

“Paraguay in a spin about Bush’s alleged 100,000 acre hideaway,” by Tom Phillips, The Guardian, October 22, 2006.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/23/mainsection.tomphillips

“Cities Debate Privatizing Public Infrastructure,” by Jenny Anderson, August 26, 2008, The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/business/27fund.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

“Philippine tycoon eyes investments in Vietnam,” by Doris C. Dunlao in Manila, Philippine Daily Inquirer, October 18, 2012.

http://my.news.yahoo.com/philippine-tycoon-eyes-investments-vietnam-060002777.html

Jo-Shing Yang is an independent researcher and author of “Ecological Planning, Design, & Engineering. Solving Global Water Crises: New Paradigms in Wastewater and Water Treatment. Small and On-Site Systems for Water Self-Sufficiency and Sustainability.”

ohio sued

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/24/3637048/fracking-all-the-water-away/

Around the world, private firms have been given “carte blanche rights to mine local groundwater supplies at the expense of local populations, say experts.” In 1997, Swiss food giant Nestlé signed a contract with the privately- owned water services provider in Fryeburg, Maine, to buy freshwater in bulk for its Poland Spring brand of bottled water. Fearing that large-scale commercial water exploitation would lead to groundwater depletion and the Saco River drying up, the town of Fryeburg enacted a Land Use Ordinance that required that any company pumping more than 10,000 gallons of water a day get approval from the planning board. With a constant stream of litigation and appeals, however, Fryeburg Water Co. was able to buy time while continuing its moneymaking sideline business without interruption.

:{Read more:(style="outline:none"):}:

A bill that would allow New Jersey municipalities to sell their public water utilities to private, for-profit corporations without putting the measure to voters is awaiting Gov. Chris Christie’s signature.

Until now, any municipality in New Jersey that sought to sell off its water system to a private bidder had to hold a public vote. But a bill passed with bipartisan support by the state’s Senate last week would allow municipalities with aging and deteriorating water systems to put their systems up for sale without holding a referendum.

NJ voters have approved the sale of water systems to private developers in about 45% of the state–making New Jersey one of the more receptive states in the union to privatization. It seems a bit strange that there would be a need to cut the citizens out of the decision making process.

A report from Corporate Accountability International found that privatization of water supplies was often followed by rate increases. In Bayonne, New Jersey, a 2012 contract with United Water led to an 8.5 percent rate increase in the first year, according to the nonprofit. And a 2010 report from Food and Water Watch found that customers in New Jersey municipalities with private water systems paid on average 64 percent more than others in the state.

But New Jersey, as with many states across our country has spent next to nothing on its infrastructure over the past decades and now the water systems are in bad shape.

So the bill, with minimal amendments, is fast-tracking through New Jersey legislature.

The amendments were approved unanimously 24-0, on Monday by the Senate.

The sponsors of the “Water Infrastructure Protection Act” have said the legislation is aimed at getting investment into public water systems that have been neglected to the breaking point. State Sen. Joseph Kyrillos (R-Monmouth) told NJ Advance Media last month that sales will not happen “willy nilly” – and many other people in the Garden State already are already supplied by private companies.

Opponents of the bill bring up this wacky idea:

Why don't our municipalities spend our tax money on building and maintaining and upgrading our infrastructure?

Maybe it's because the guy with the pen has already cut hundreds of millions out of environmental protections in the state of New Jersey. Chris Christie looks the part of a gangster and a bully but he's just doing what everyone else in his party has been doing for years. Privatizing our infrastructure.

ORIGINALLY POSTED TO WEINENKEL ON MON DEC 29, 2014 AT 10:26 AM PST.

ALSO REPUBLISHED BY CHRISTIE WATCH AND NEW JERSEY KOSSACKS.

Targeted Watersheds Grants: Water Quality Trading Projects

2008 Targeted Watersheds Grants Project Summaries and Final Grant Reports

In 2008, EPA awarded $3.7 million in Targeted Watersheds Grants (TWG)to encourage innovative water quality trading and other market-based programs designed to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment, and other pollutants that cause low oxygen levels in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. The projects focused on three Mississippi River Sub-basins with the highest nutrient loads contributing to hypoxia: the Ohio River, the Upper Mississippi River, and the Lower Mississippi River. EPA awarded grants to the following organizations:

http://www.alternet.org/environment/new-satellite-boosts-research-global-rainfall-and-climate

The International Private Water Association (IPWA) was established in 1999 by Philip Dyk with the help of the association management company Marketshare Inc. ^[1]

According to its website, IPWA was formed "to address the changing dynamics" in the "water/wastewater infrastructure project and service arena. IPWA serves as a conduit between the public and private sector players." ^[2]

IPWA is a member of the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Investment Coalition ^[3] and the World Water Council, a think tank focused "on the privatization of water -- water for profit." ^[4]

IPWA vice-president Richard M. Temple wrote in a May 2003 article, "Experience shows that public sector provision is in many cases inadequate and cannot cope with the huge capital needs of the water and sewage network. ... The way forward lies in combining the skills of the public and private sectors through public/private partnerships (PPPs) to make use of their complementary skills to address the particular needs of a community." ^[5]

[hide]

1 Activities

6 External links

Activities

Lobbying

IPWA supported federal legislation introduced in 2008, H.R. 6194, the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Investment Act (SWIIA). "The bill would bring water and wastewater projects out from under the state volume cap on private activity bonds, and thereby significantly expand the availability of low-cost financing for water infrastructure projects," according to a description by the National Association of Water Companies. Representative Bill Pascrell introduced the bill, which was co-sponsored by Rep. Philip English. ^[3] The bill was referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means, but not voted on. ^[6]

Exhibitions

IPWA has participated in the Middle East Electricity exhibition, an event promoting companies providing water services. "The countries of the Middle East have recognised that it is essential for them to work in close conjunction with the private sector to build a lasting infrastructure," IPWA's Kathy Shandling said in July 2007. "The region is set to spend a staggering amount - over $120US billion - on water investments during the next 10 years as without this investment experts estimate that by 2050 the Middle East could face a severe water shortage and providing adequate amounts of safe water for drinking and sanitation could be an unsurmountable challenge." ^[7]

Conferences

In July 2002, IPWA took part in the "Partnering for Clean Water in Asia Conference," held in Bangkok, Thailand. According to a press release, the conference engaged "U.S. technology and service providers in the implementation of large-scale projects in the areas of water supply for industrial, commercial, and residential use; wastewater treatment; desalination; irrigation; decontamination of potable water; and flood control and flood forecasting. The combined value of projects to be presented at the conference is expected to exceed several billion dollars." The event was organized by the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, the U.S. Departments of Commerce and State, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. - Asia Environmental Partnership. ^[8]

A 1999 conference organized by IPWA and the Singapore Trade Development Board also focused on water issues in Asia. Conference participants urged governments in the region to revise laws, "to allow greater private participation in the water industry, the region's next driving force for infrastructure development. ... According to published estimates of the Asia Development Bank, the region needs to spend at least 80-100 billion US dollars between 1995 and 2000 in the water sector," to update infrastructure. ^[9]

Founding

A March 1999 press release announcing IPWA's formation said it was launched "to represent the common interests of firms involved in the evolving private water infrastructure business which is expected to require more than $700-billion in investments in the next 10 years." The steering committee that helped create IPWA had representatives from "a geographically balanced spectrum of companies involved in private water infrastructure," including Asea Brown Boveri,Atlantis Water Fund, Cameron McKenna LLP, Cemonics, Enertech, Hagler Bailly, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, Morrison & Foerster, OMI, Inc., PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Stone & Webster, Thelen, Reid & Priest, Vivendi, and the Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy. ^[10]

Members

IPWA has four different classes of members: advisory board membership, for development banks, aid agencies, export credit agencies and others "actively involved in the water and wastewater infrastructure/service sectors"; corporate board membership; basic corporate membership; and individual membership. ^[11]

Members listed on the IPWA website, as of February 2009, include: ^[11]

AIDIS USA, the Inter American Association of Sanitary Engineering and Environmental Sciences
Asian Development Bank
UK Department for International Development (DFID)
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)
Export Development Corporation of Canada (EFC)
Inter-American Development Bank (ADB)
International Finance Corporation (IFC)
Institute of the Americas
Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC)
North American Development Bank (NADBank)
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)
Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility (PPIAF)
Transparency International
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
Export-Import Bank of the United States
Yale Center for Law and Policy

A 2003 article stated that IPWA "includes water companies ranging from Vivendi's main subsidiary in North America, U.S. Filter, to the British company, Bi-Water. The IPWA is organized to 'promote opportunities for private water project development globally' by arranging meetings with government water ministries and local authorities." ^[12]

Contact information

c/o Kathy ShandlingInternational Private Water Associationc/o 125 West 55th Street, 14th floor (consultant)10019 New YorkUnited StatesTelephone: +1-212-873-0920E-mail: kshandling (AT) nyc.rr.comWebsite: http://www.ipwa1.org

Articles and resources

References

:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:↑ "Anti-privatisation Wave Sinks Corporate Lobby Group," Corporate Europe Observatory, accessed May 2006.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:↑ "Homepage," International Private Water Association website, accessed February 2009.
↑ ^Jump ^up ^to:3.0 ^3.1 "Rep. Pascrell Introduces Sustainable Water Infrastructure Investment Act," States News Service, June 10, 2008.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:↑ Denise D. Wight, "It saves to be Green," National Petroleum News, March 2006 (Pg. 26 Vol. 98).
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:↑ Richard M. Temple, "How is water privatization working?," Environmental Science & Engineering, May 2003; Quoted in Phil McNichol, op/ed: "South Bruce faces pipeline challenge: Sauble Beach is long overdue for municipal sewer and water services. The only question should be how to do it - what to build and how to pay for it," Owen Sound Sun Times (Ontario, Canada), March 13, 2004.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:↑ "All actions on H.R. 6194," THOMAS Library of Congress database, accessed February 2009.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:↑ "Middle East water sector poised for massive essential investment," Al-Bawaba, July 30, 2007.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:↑ Press release, "U.S. Co-Sponsors Clean Water Conference in Bangkok; Meeting to include U.S. suppliers of water-related technologies," State Department, June 20, 2002.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:↑ "Asia asked to pave way for private-led development of water industry," Agence France Presse, November 2, 1999.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:↑ Press release, "International Private Water Association Founded This Week To Promote Private Investment in Global Water Sector," IPWA via PR Newswire, March 24, 1999.
↑ ^Jump ^up ^to:11.0 ^11.1 "Membership," International Private Water Association website, accessed February 2009.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:↑ "Global water grab: how corporations are planning to control our local water services," Catholic New Times, June 29, 2003.

External resources

External articles

"Anti-privatisation Wave Sinks Corporate Lobby Group," Corporate Europe Observatory, accessed May 2006.

External links

Categories:

http://insideclimatenews.org/todaysnews/20140306/coal-firm-pay-record-penalty-and-spend-millions-water-cleanup-5-states

coal trifecta: coal ash, coal cleaning chemical, coal air ash, coal mines leaking toxics

http://www.alternet.org/activism/how-grassroots-organizing-came-rescue-west-virginias-water-crisis

LOIS HENRY, Californian columnist lhenry@bakersfield.com

House Speaker John Boehner dug his shiny loafers into a swath of powder dry Kern County dirt on Wednesday and promised to move quickly on legislation aimed at easing the pain of California's historic drought.

Boehner and his partners on the legislation -- House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia, and Rep. David Valadao, R-Hanford -- all agreed that, yes, the drought is the biggest obstacle to farmers getting adequate water in the near term.

But they denounced as "idiocy" and "nonsense" California's management of its water system.

"In my part of the world we would shake our heads at how things work here, " Boehner said. "It's nonsense that a bureaucracy would favor fish over people."

He referred to the delta smelt and other fish protected under the Endangered Species Act. In an attempt to bolster those populations, water exports from the San Joaquin-Sacramento delta have been curtailed.

The proposed bill would attempt to bring "reason" to how the system is managed, if only during the drought emergency, the politicians said.

The bill has yet to be written, but its three main prongs would seek to increase pumping out of the delta -- if water is available -- to agreed-upon 1994 levels, suspend the San Joaquin River restoration settlement and create a Senate-House task force to come up with long term solutions.

The consequences of the drought were brought into sharp focus when local farmer Larry Starrh talked about his family being forced to let 1,000 acres of productive almond trees die this year for lack of water.

"Water is life," he said, his voice thick with emotion. "But sadly in this world, water has become about power, water is used as a weapon."

As real and painful as the water situation is, there was more than a hint of politics lurking around the edges of Wednesday's press conference. The first two prongs of the proposed bill have already been rejected by the Senate last year. Increased pumping and suspension of the San Joaquin River restoration agreement were both parts of H.R. 1837, introduced by Nunes, passed by the House and left to whither and die on the steps of the Senate.

Though all the politicians at Wednesday's conference insisted this bill was different because it would implement those measures on an emergency-only basis, Senate reaction is likely to be the same.

Indeed, a press release from Sen. Dianne Feinstein's office Wednesday warned that "I am concerned that (the new proposed bill) may follow the pattern of previous House bills which seek to either preempt state law or waive state water quality and Endangered Species Act requirements which could spur serious litigation and likely delay any action."

The likelihood of strong opposition cast Wednesday's event in a suspect light. Was it a sincere attempt to help California in a time of need or an unofficial reelection kickoff for Valadao, who is being heavily targeted by Democrats?

While Boehner's presence brought a great deal more media attention to California's water plight, any meaningful change in federal law or a federal-state partnership would have to get Senate buy-in, meaning Feinstein, who's long been a heavyweight in California water politics, not Boehner.

However, if freshman Valadao needed a boost to help loosen wallets before the mid-term elections this fall, Boehner would be a great leg up. Since Valadao, himself a dairy farmer, has made water a key issue, Wednesday's event would look to be a smooth political fit.

Meanwhile, California's reaction to the proposed bill pitched by Boehner, et al, was wary.

John Laird, secretary of the state's Natural Resources Agency, provided testimony in 2011 vehemently opposing Nunes' bill, H.R. 1837. The state was particularly upset by the portions of H.R. 1837 that would have set pumping levels at those agreed to in 1994 and suspension of the San Joaquin River restoration settlement, which he said would essentially toss out California water law and upend long held water rights.

The exact same measures are being discussed for this new bill, albeit on an emergency basis only.

In an email on Wednesday, Laird said that if this new bill proves sufficiently similar to the old H.R. 1837, the state would again stand in opposition.

"We are rarely forced to confront water allocations this low, salinity in the delta, and difficulty moving water during a crisis. Now is not the time to be divided -- now is the time to bring people together to find solutions," Laird said.

http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/local/x22866465/Boehner-comes-to-Kern-to-pitch-water-bill

AlterNet [1] / By Shiney Varghese [2]

Why Is the US Getting in the Way of International Efforts to Make Clean Water a Basic Human Right?

December 12, 2013 |

On 21 November 2013 the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee (The Committee) adopted a resolution on “The human right to safe drinking water and sanitation.” There, all UN member states agreed that the rights to water and sanitation are derived from the right to an adequate standard of living. As a result, these rights are now implicitly recognised as being part of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

This means that for the very first time, all UN member States affirm that the rights to water and sanitation are legally binding in international law. This is indeed a moment for all of us to celebrate.

Yet this agreement is marred by the reluctance of the United States to join all other nations in a universal agreement on the definition of these rights (as defined in a resolution of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) adopted by consensus in September 2013).

Writing about this, an Amnesty International press release [3] says: “At the time [of the unanimous adoption of the UNHRC resolution] the United States was the only country that disassociated itself from the definition of these rights and stated that it did not agree ‘with the expansive way this right has been articulated.’ However, it has not explained what aspects of this definition it does not accept.” The press release continues: “Such rights are only ‘expansive’ if one adopts a 19th century understanding of hygiene and of government duties to ensure the provision of public services.”

At the behest of the United States the main sponsors of the draft resolution [4]—Germany and Spain—tried to reach a consensus by removing the following paragraph, which contained a critical affirmation of the contents of these rights, from the resolution that was unanimously passed at the General Assembly this November:

“the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation entitles everyone, without discrimination, to have access to sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic use and to have physical and affordable access to sanitation, in all spheres of life, that is safe, hygienic, secure, and acceptable and that provides privacy and ensures dignity.”

Given that this was the only reference in the draft resolution [4] to the content of the rights to water and sanitation, the final resolution adopted is stripped of essential elements related to these rights. Amnesty International is right that it is “incumbent upon the U.S. government to explain which of these aspects of the rights it cannot accept and why.” The removal of that text from the resolution would seem to indicate that some aspects of our rights to water and sanitation are not guaranteed by the federal government. Which ones?

Quite apart from the domestic implications, such a position by the U.S. government also works against the interests of the billions of people who lack adequate access to water and sanitation.

The debate isn't over yet. Even though the references to the content of the rights to water were removed from the November resolution, UNGA’s Third Committee endorsed the UNHRC resolution of September 2013, which elaborates the underlying essential elements of these rights. Thus, reintroducing the content of these rights in future texts on rights to water and sanitation should be quite straightforward.

The issue will likely come up again [3] at the UN General Assembly next year. For the supporters of the draft resolution [4] this offers an opportunity to reintroduce the removed language. For the United States too, that will provide a chance to stand on the right side of history, rather than holding back progress.

If and when a UN GA resolution is adopted with these amendments, it will indeed be a big step forward in advancing rights-based approaches to development. Yet, we need to be mindful that this will only be a baby step towards ensuring adequate access to water and sanitation for world’s poor. It will require sustained work at multiple levels and spaces, including rethinking our water intensive development trajectory, to make it a reality for all.

See more stories tagged with:

water [5],

human rights [6]

Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/water/why-us-getting-way-international-efforts-make-clean-water-basic-human-right

nestle mt shasta http://celdf.org/downloads/CA%20-%20Shasta%20Water%20Rights%20Report.pdf

In South Carolina, after the state outsourced its water system, the for-profit corporation failed to pay state employee payroll taxes, lost track of tens of thousands of dollars, and lost millions of gallons of water. But the private company refused to come clean about what happened and comply with the public records law's transparency requirements, despite being funded by public dollars.

"Time and again, when we have privatized public infrastructure, the promises of better, faster, cheaper have failed to be delivered," says Donald Cohen, chair of In The Public Interest, a group that has long tracked the outsourcing of public services and assets to for-profit firms. "Outsourcing [in many cases] means taxpayers have little say in how tax dollars are spent and how services are run." Cohen's group is fighting to put control of public services and assets back into the hands of taxpayers. CMD

http://grist.org/news/epa-abandons-investigation-into-fracking-pollution/

gov bush added no parkland, tho low, and had $; wanted to lease it; ok w/ paper chems dumped in lake

strat ignor

john graham ~ nanny state; do not need to test chems before used 23 hypochondria

16K dirty plants of all types grandfathered p24 let jeb dump wastewater into drink aquifer; haz waste (sludge) ok for farms and playgrounds 24

luntz advice: safe clean, healthy; ppl techy on water

http://www.alternet.org/environment/human-beings-have-no-right-water-and-other-words-wisdom-your-friendly-neighborhood

===

The Water Policy Institute is a think tank project established in May 2008 by the law firm Hunton & Williams. It describes itself as "a nonpartisan consortium bringing together industry leaders, including water suppliers, water users and nongovernmental organizations, to develop initiatives to address water supply, quality and use issues." ^[1]

The Institute is chaired by former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency chief turned PR consultant Christine Todd Whitman. ^[1] Whitman also co-chairs the Nuclear Energy Institute's Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. ^[2]

According to Congressional Quarterly, Whitman "is now helping to bring clients to the law firm of Hunton & Williams as chairwoman of its new Water Policy Institute. ... Whitman's firm will get an undisclosed fee for its work." ^[3]

The Water Policy Institute's corporate members include BP, Central Arizona Project and GE Water. ^[1]

Hunton & Williams "is extending membership invitations ... to about 15 other organizations, including local-government water agencies and multinational corporations," reported Congressional Quarterly in July 2008. "It will not charge membership dues" for the Institute, "but will ask each member to give something to support the institute, which plans to produce two white papers on water issues and hold monthly telephone conferences. The institute will also provide podcasts of conversations with people who are actively involved in water issues." ^[3]

Michael Campana, of Oregon State University's Institute for Water and Watersheds, wrote that the Institute "is sponsored by a Park Avenue law firm, has corporate members, and has an advisory panel with attorneys for 6 of its 8 members. Ask me why I'm not expecting anything but the SOS." ^[4]

Contents[hide]

Issues and publications

"Climate change is likely to be a major topic" of the Water Policy Institute, according to a profile in the Clean Water Report. "Other topics will include the intersection of water quality and quantity; desalination; new technology; agriculture; allocation of water; and infrastructure." ^[5]

In March 2009, the Water Policy Institute released its first white paper, "Water Wars: Conflicts Over Shared Waters (pdf)." The paper "focuses on the long-running war over water among Georgia, Florida and Alabama in the wake of the Southeast drought and the challenges resulting from a growing water footprint and increased consumption." ^[6] The paper recommends that Alabama, Florida and Georgia work with a federal mediator to develop an interstate compact on water use, while pending lawsuits are put on hold. It also suggests that further studies be conducted, on water use and ecological needs in the region. ^[7]

The Water Policy Institute plans to publish its second white paper in spring 2009, on "the interplay of water and energy" issues. ^[7]

Personnel

From the Hunton & Williams website: ^[8]

Christine Todd Whitman, Chair
Kathy Robb, Director - also a Hunton & Williams Partner on Resources, Regulatory & Environmental Law

Advisory panel

From the Hunton & Williams website: ^[9]

Leslie Carothers - president, Environmental Law Institute
Gabriel Eckstein - professor at Texas Tech University School of Law
Paul Faeth - executive director, Global Water Challenge
David Freestone - senior adviser, office of the general counsel of the World Bank
G. Tracy Mehan III - principal with The Cadmus Group, an environmental consulting firm
Hon. H. Craig Manson - lecturer in law at the University of the Pacific ^[10]
Mark Van Putten - president, ConservationStrategy
David L. Sunding - professor of the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of California, Berkeley, and Co-Director of the Berkeley Water Center
Dr. Robert N. Stavins - director, Harvard Environmental Economics Program

Principals

From the Hunton & Williams website; all principals are Hunton & Williams employees: ^[11]

Contact details

Kathy Robb

Director, Water Policy Institute

Hunton & Williams LLP

200 Park Avenue

New York, New York 10166-0091

Phone: (212) 309-1128

Kathleen Shea

Administrative Manager

Hunton & Williams LLP

200 Park Avenue

New York, New York 10166-0091

Phone: (212) 309-1081

Email: kshea AT hunton.com

Web: http://www.hunton.com/Resources/Sites/general.aspx?id=527

Articles and resources

References

↑ ^1.0 ^1.1 ^1.2 Press release, "Water Industry Leaders Launch Water Policy Institute to Address Current Challenges: Christine Todd Whitman to serve as chair; Hunton & Williams lawyer as director," Hunton & Williams, June 4, 2008.
↑ Diane Farsetta, "The Other Half of the Nuclear Industry's Power Couple: Christine Todd Whitman," PR Watch, August 27, 2007.
↑ ^3.0 ^3.1 Rebecca Adams, "Water Policy: Whitman Dives In," Congressional Quarterly Weekly, July 6, 2008.
↑ Michael E. Campana, "Wow! A Famous Person Starts A Water Institute!," WaterWired blog, June 10, 2008.
↑ "New water institute seeks to convene diverse voices," Clean Water Report, June 18, 2008.
↑ Press release, "New Water Policy Institute White Paper Offers Blueprint for Resolving Southeastern Water Wars: Challenges and potential solutions in water consumption fight between states examined," Water Policy Institute via PR Newswire, March 31, 2009.
↑ ^7.0 ^7.1 "Water Wars: Conflicts Over Shared Waters (pdf)," Water Policy Institute, March 31, 2009.
↑ "Water Policy Institute: Leadership," Hunton & Williams website, accessed June 2008.
↑ "Water Policy Institute: Advisory Panel," Hunton & Williams website, accessed June 2008.
↑ Press release, "Manson Named To Prestigious Water Policy Institute Panel," University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law, June 13, 2008.
↑ "Water Policy Institute: Institute Principals," Hunton & Williams website, accessed June 2008.

External resources

External articles

Andy Peters, "New water plan floats no one's boat: Flurry of filings likely as Georgia, Florida and others call Lanier plan unfair," Daily Report (Georgia), June 17, 2008.
"Water Policy Institute Meeting: Opening Remarks by Christine Todd Whitman," Washington, DC, June 18, 2008.
Carlos David Mogollon, "An Interview with Water Policy Institute Co-Founder Kathy Robb," Industrial WaterWorld/Water & Wastewater International, September 2008.

Categories: Water | Energy | United States | Think tanks

===

update

http://www.alternet.org/water/154894/debating_the_future_of_our_world%27s_water?page=entire

===

Investment banker Goldman Sachs has famously been described by the Rolling Stone’s business writer Matt Taibbi (July 2009) as “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.” So it’s a good idea to take notice whenever that Vampire Squid moves its blood funnel towards something. Having profited handsomely from the Wall Street bailouts, the Squid has smelled money in a new direction: water privatization.

In January 2010, Goldman Sachs, General Electric, and the World Resources Institute (WRI), a Washington-based think tank, together launched a water “initiative” to develop an index measuring water-related risks facing companies and their investors. As their news release put it, “In many regions around the world, water scarcity from climate change and pollution is starting to impact a company’s performance, yet few analysts account for water-related risks.”

Their new water index would “draw on publicly available data regarding physical scarcity and water quality and overlay factors including the regulatory regime and social and reputational issues” in various regions of the world. In other words, their risk-index might more accurately be called an “opportunity-index” for water-investors. Goldman Sachs’ partner General Electric has long smelled money from that sector.

According to Canada’s water expert Maude Barlow, “The biggest water company of all is General Electric.”

The Aqueduct Alliance

By August 2011, Goldman Sachs, General Electric, and WRI had not only found a name for their partnership – the Aqueduct Alliance – but they had also developed their index into a water database and mapping tool, which can include the amount of infrastructure investment taking place in a given region. Moreover, they had put an “environmental” spin on the project, claiming that it will help corporations, governments and stakeholders become more aware of their “water footprint” and thus make more “sustainable” decisions.

As well, by August 2011, Goldman Sachs, General Electric and WRI had invited into the Alliance some new corporate partners (or Vampire Squids, if you prefer): Coca-Cola, Talisman Energy, Dow Chemical, United Technologies, and Bloomberg. The WRI’s Kirsty Jenkinson told the Financial Times (August 16th, 2011), “Companies see the need to get better visibility about water if they are going to have to access it for their business.” With the new Aqueduct Alliance water database, “they can see if they are at risk of not getting the water they need, or coming into conflict with other users of that water.”

...

http://www.greenmuze.com/blogs/guest-bloggers/4412-general-electrics-privatization-of-water.html

THE PR FIRM FROM HELL

Submitted by lgc_admin on Mon, 06/29/2009 - 17:04.

http://www.lloydgcarter.com/content/090629251_the-pr-firm-from-hell

WATER

WATER SUPPLIES WILL BE RESTRICTED BY GLOBAL WARMING

===

5 Lessons for the Future of Water

Fracking Wastewater Spikes 1,440% in Half Decade

Settlement Ends Nestlé’s Expired 'Zombie' Permit to Siphon Water From San Bernardino National Forest

Lawsuit Challenges Trump's Approval of Corporation's Plan to Drain California Desert Aquifer

California’s Drought Is Part of a Much Bigger Water Crisis. Here’s What You Need to Know

Barack Obama's water war

Inside the war on coal

Ellen Brown

ALSO REPUBLISHED BY CHRISTIE WATCH AND NEW JERSEY KOSSACKS.

TAGS

Targeted Watersheds Grants: Water Quality Trading Projects

2008 Targeted Watersheds Grants Project Summaries and Final Grant Reports

Contents

Activities

Lobbying

Exhibitions

Conferences

Founding

Members

Contact information

Articles and resources

Related SourceWatch articles

References

External resources

External articles

External links

LOIS HENRY, Californian columnist lhenry@bakersfield.com

Why Is the US Getting in the Way of International Efforts to Make Clean Water a Basic Human Right?

Issues and publications

Personnel

Advisory panel

Principals

Contact details

Articles and resources

Related SourceWatch articles

References

External resources

External articles

===

update

http://www.alternet.org/water/154894/debating_the_future_of_our_world%27s_water?page=entire

===

The Aqueduct Alliance

THE PR FIRM FROM HELL