Schorr, David B. “The First Water-Privatization Debate: Colorado water Corporations in the Gilded Age,” Ecology Law Quarterly 33, no. 2 (2006): 313-361.
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.mnsu.edu. (Accessed February 8th, 2011). \
This article discusses many legal issues surrounding public versus private ownership of water; however, most of this discussion pertains directly to issues in Colorado in the late 1800’s, which makes this source less valuable for the purpose of my thesis. The article discusses the law as primarily serving the wealthy and includes this borrowed quote from Andrew Jackson:
“It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes…when the laws undertake…to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society-the farmers, mechanics and laborers-who have neither the time nor the means for securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice to their government”
The article also includes an overview of how the past can relate to the present in terms of water-privatization debates. That part specifically may be useful to my thesis, as well as the above quote.
Showing posts with label water privatization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label water privatization. Show all posts
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Water for Profit
Stuart, Alix. “Water for Profit,” CFO 23, no. 2 (2007): 40-45.
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.mnsu.edu. (Accessed February 8th, 2011).
This article discusses, mainly, the obstacles standing in the way of companies seeking to privatize public water supplies. The economic pull of the water industry is discussed, as well as that when and if public municipalities privatize, an enormous profit will be made, as currently only about 15% of American Water is privatized. This may be a good source if I plan to discuss what advantages privatization will have economically for the companies who take over public water supplies. I am not sure if I will use this source, but I very well may. At the very least, it is valuable to have an article that is mainly pro-privatization from the corporation’s standpoint as it gives a summary of the opposing view. This article also discusses how much of the U.S.'s pipes and underground infrastructures are in dire need of repair, another reason cities look at privatizing. A lot of discussion about how to gain the trust of the public is also included, which is almost unsettling, especially because the scope of this article is entirely economical.
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.mnsu.edu. (Accessed February 8th, 2011).
This article discusses, mainly, the obstacles standing in the way of companies seeking to privatize public water supplies. The economic pull of the water industry is discussed, as well as that when and if public municipalities privatize, an enormous profit will be made, as currently only about 15% of American Water is privatized. This may be a good source if I plan to discuss what advantages privatization will have economically for the companies who take over public water supplies. I am not sure if I will use this source, but I very well may. At the very least, it is valuable to have an article that is mainly pro-privatization from the corporation’s standpoint as it gives a summary of the opposing view. This article also discusses how much of the U.S.'s pipes and underground infrastructures are in dire need of repair, another reason cities look at privatizing. A lot of discussion about how to gain the trust of the public is also included, which is almost unsettling, especially because the scope of this article is entirely economical.
Monday, March 7, 2011
The Blue Gold Rush
Starr, Kayla M. “The Blue Gold Rush” Sentient Times: Alternatives for Personal & Community Transformation 11. No.1 (2003). http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.mnsu.edu. (Accessed March 5th, 2011).
In 2002, “The United Nations issued a report stating that two out of three people will face water shortages by 2025” (Starr 1). According to Starr, the reason for this impending shortage is being blamed on “mismanagement of existing water resources, population growth and changing water patterns” (Starr 1). Another useful piece of data is contained in a report released by the International Atomic Energy Agency, stating that “an estimated 1.1 billion people now have no access to safe drinking water, 2.5 billion lack proper sanitation and more than 5 million people die from waterborne diseases each year—10 times the number of casualties killed in wars. Globally, water use has tripled between 1950 and 1990” (Starr 1). Because of the crisis that is stirring because of the limited potent water supply on earth, (“the amount of fresh water available for human use is less than .08% of all the water on the planet” (Starr1)) multinational companies have poised themselves to take advantage of this, by taking ownership of the water municipalities (privatization). Starr cites Atlanta, GA, and Jacksonville FL as examples of cities who have had their water privatized, and suffered negative consequences such as dirty water, loss of jobs, and increases in water bills. Also mentioned is the fact that Perrier was given access to Mecosta County’s water in Michigan, as it rests on the largest supply of fresh water on earth. Citizens became very concerned about the fact that Perrier was allowed to take the water, bottle it, and sell it back to residents of the upper Midwest, and sued. I am not sure about the outcome of this suit, but intend to find out through further research. I think that some of the data cited in this article is very significant, and I will probably use some of it in my research paper. I do wish that the article was more recent, as it is approximately 9 years old. However there is a lot of information in it that could possibly lead to newer sources, thus rendering it even more valuable. For instance, I was not aware of that water usage has tripled since the 1950’s, and cannot fathom how we are managing to allow such a magnitude of water to go to waste!
In 2002, “The United Nations issued a report stating that two out of three people will face water shortages by 2025” (Starr 1). According to Starr, the reason for this impending shortage is being blamed on “mismanagement of existing water resources, population growth and changing water patterns” (Starr 1). Another useful piece of data is contained in a report released by the International Atomic Energy Agency, stating that “an estimated 1.1 billion people now have no access to safe drinking water, 2.5 billion lack proper sanitation and more than 5 million people die from waterborne diseases each year—10 times the number of casualties killed in wars. Globally, water use has tripled between 1950 and 1990” (Starr 1). Because of the crisis that is stirring because of the limited potent water supply on earth, (“the amount of fresh water available for human use is less than .08% of all the water on the planet” (Starr1)) multinational companies have poised themselves to take advantage of this, by taking ownership of the water municipalities (privatization). Starr cites Atlanta, GA, and Jacksonville FL as examples of cities who have had their water privatized, and suffered negative consequences such as dirty water, loss of jobs, and increases in water bills. Also mentioned is the fact that Perrier was given access to Mecosta County’s water in Michigan, as it rests on the largest supply of fresh water on earth. Citizens became very concerned about the fact that Perrier was allowed to take the water, bottle it, and sell it back to residents of the upper Midwest, and sued. I am not sure about the outcome of this suit, but intend to find out through further research. I think that some of the data cited in this article is very significant, and I will probably use some of it in my research paper. I do wish that the article was more recent, as it is approximately 9 years old. However there is a lot of information in it that could possibly lead to newer sources, thus rendering it even more valuable. For instance, I was not aware of that water usage has tripled since the 1950’s, and cannot fathom how we are managing to allow such a magnitude of water to go to waste!
Friday, March 4, 2011
A Town Torn Apart by Nestle
Conlin, Michelle. “A TOWN TORN APART BY NESTLE” BusinessWeek 4074 (2008)
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.mnsu.edu. (Accessed March 1st, 2011).
This article describes the animosity that has plagued McCloud, California since 2006, brought about by Nestle’s million square foot plant that was raised after a contract between the City officials and Nestle Waters North America. The plant’s aim was to suck “1,250 gallons a minute of water from McCloud's glacier-fed springs” (Conlin 1). An uproar emerged when the town’s city council unveiled their plan, raising intense opposition from locals who felt that the $350,000 annually and 240 new local jobs promised were simply too little compensation for a plant that could potentially incur detrimental and environmental effects on the town. According to this article, Nestle employees 11 “water hunters” who “search for new sources, typically in remote, pristine places like McCloud. A big part of their job is building relationships with locals, few of whom have dealt with a multinational” (Conlin 2). The water hunters build relationships with the locals and try to gain their trust in order to move in and gain access to their water, for little in exchange. This seems wrong to me! One of the board members who was persuaded by Nestle recalls visiting one of their plants in Palm Springs during the negotiation process: “Dragseth recalls a gorgeous, first-class operation. She couldn't believe how quiet and well-run the plants were.
‘I came back extremely impressed with this company,’ says Dragseth. ‘They had beautiful break rooms for their employees with microwaves and anything else they wanted. It was a beautiful plant’” (Conlin 2). Nestle had promised jobs for 240 residents of the poverty stricken town that was struggling and in debt. Allowing Nestle to take over the spring water was one way out of this dire economic situation, but a majority of the local citizens did not agree with this viewpoint. What seems particularly unfair is that Nestle offered the ghastly low price of $350,000 annually to draw 1,250 gallons a minute of water and then “pack 300 semi-trailers a day full of Arrowhead brand water, truck it as far away as Los Angeles and Reno, and sell it at prices that are as much as 1,000 times more than the cost of tap water” (Conlin 1). Most enraging for residents was that there was no public participation in the process, the city board discussed and decided to allow Nestle access to the water on their own. This will be a useful article for me, and I am hoping to find more like it detailing the predatory nature of bottled water companies. What is especially disheartening is that despite owning an American branch, Nestle is a foreign corporation, who is being allowed to come into local towns and cities, take the water, and sell it back to Americans!
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.mnsu.edu. (Accessed March 1st, 2011).
This article describes the animosity that has plagued McCloud, California since 2006, brought about by Nestle’s million square foot plant that was raised after a contract between the City officials and Nestle Waters North America. The plant’s aim was to suck “1,250 gallons a minute of water from McCloud's glacier-fed springs” (Conlin 1). An uproar emerged when the town’s city council unveiled their plan, raising intense opposition from locals who felt that the $350,000 annually and 240 new local jobs promised were simply too little compensation for a plant that could potentially incur detrimental and environmental effects on the town. According to this article, Nestle employees 11 “water hunters” who “search for new sources, typically in remote, pristine places like McCloud. A big part of their job is building relationships with locals, few of whom have dealt with a multinational” (Conlin 2). The water hunters build relationships with the locals and try to gain their trust in order to move in and gain access to their water, for little in exchange. This seems wrong to me! One of the board members who was persuaded by Nestle recalls visiting one of their plants in Palm Springs during the negotiation process: “Dragseth recalls a gorgeous, first-class operation. She couldn't believe how quiet and well-run the plants were.
‘I came back extremely impressed with this company,’ says Dragseth. ‘They had beautiful break rooms for their employees with microwaves and anything else they wanted. It was a beautiful plant’” (Conlin 2). Nestle had promised jobs for 240 residents of the poverty stricken town that was struggling and in debt. Allowing Nestle to take over the spring water was one way out of this dire economic situation, but a majority of the local citizens did not agree with this viewpoint. What seems particularly unfair is that Nestle offered the ghastly low price of $350,000 annually to draw 1,250 gallons a minute of water and then “pack 300 semi-trailers a day full of Arrowhead brand water, truck it as far away as Los Angeles and Reno, and sell it at prices that are as much as 1,000 times more than the cost of tap water” (Conlin 1). Most enraging for residents was that there was no public participation in the process, the city board discussed and decided to allow Nestle access to the water on their own. This will be a useful article for me, and I am hoping to find more like it detailing the predatory nature of bottled water companies. What is especially disheartening is that despite owning an American branch, Nestle is a foreign corporation, who is being allowed to come into local towns and cities, take the water, and sell it back to Americans!
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Limits to Water Privatization
Draper, Stephen E. “ Limits to Water Privatization,” Journal of Water Resources Planning & Management 134, no. 6 (2008): 493-503.
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.mnsu.edu. (Accessed February 8th, 2011).
This article introduces (to me, at least) the stance of allocating the right to use of water in the hands of the private sector, but still having these rights controlled by the public sector. Private, Public, and Private-Public allocation are all discussed, as well as economic and environmental consequences of each. Beliefs of proponents of privatization are discussed. An argument often used is that by charging the public for water, privatization will provide more incentive for the public to conserve water. A lot of this article outlines the economics, which I’m not sure I will be delving into too deeply in my research. The value of water is discussed heavily as a tradable commodity. The possibity of monopolies is also discussed in great detail. I may use this source, but I feel it is not as valuable as a lot of the other sources I have found for my research.
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.mnsu.edu. (Accessed February 8th, 2011).
This article introduces (to me, at least) the stance of allocating the right to use of water in the hands of the private sector, but still having these rights controlled by the public sector. Private, Public, and Private-Public allocation are all discussed, as well as economic and environmental consequences of each. Beliefs of proponents of privatization are discussed. An argument often used is that by charging the public for water, privatization will provide more incentive for the public to conserve water. A lot of this article outlines the economics, which I’m not sure I will be delving into too deeply in my research. The value of water is discussed heavily as a tradable commodity. The possibity of monopolies is also discussed in great detail. I may use this source, but I feel it is not as valuable as a lot of the other sources I have found for my research.
The Water Theives
Luoma, Jon. “The Water Thieves,” The Ecologist 34, no. 2 (2004): 52-57.
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.mnsu.edu. (Accessed February 8th, 2011).
This article appears to be very anti-privatization, discussing how privatization will result in billions of dollars for corporations while leaving consumers with polluted water and a high monetary price to pay for water. This article specifically talks about cases where privatization went sour in the United States, such as Atlanta, Georgia where the municipal water supply was privatized by Suez subsidiary United Water. The water quality dropped and violations of federal drinking water standards occurred. Amazingly, United Water insisted that the city pay much more than was previously agreed upon to restore quality. One quote that struck me was as follows:
"Multinational companies now run water systems for 7 percent of the world's population, and analysts say that figure could grow to 17 percent by 2015. Private water management is estimated to be a $200 Billion dollar business, and the world bank, which has encouraged governments to sell off their utilities to reduce public debt, proects it could be wort $1 trillion by 2021"
A lot of other statistics are cited from sources such as the FDA, which will potentially be of value to me. The political aspect of privatization is discussed heavily. The author speaks of cases in which water companies have met in Washington to press their legislative agenda with Congress, "lobbying for laws that would protect companies from lawshits over contaminated water and which would block municipalities from reversing failed privatizations". I anticipate using this source, especially for the data.
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.mnsu.edu. (Accessed February 8th, 2011).
This article appears to be very anti-privatization, discussing how privatization will result in billions of dollars for corporations while leaving consumers with polluted water and a high monetary price to pay for water. This article specifically talks about cases where privatization went sour in the United States, such as Atlanta, Georgia where the municipal water supply was privatized by Suez subsidiary United Water. The water quality dropped and violations of federal drinking water standards occurred. Amazingly, United Water insisted that the city pay much more than was previously agreed upon to restore quality. One quote that struck me was as follows:
"Multinational companies now run water systems for 7 percent of the world's population, and analysts say that figure could grow to 17 percent by 2015. Private water management is estimated to be a $200 Billion dollar business, and the world bank, which has encouraged governments to sell off their utilities to reduce public debt, proects it could be wort $1 trillion by 2021"
A lot of other statistics are cited from sources such as the FDA, which will potentially be of value to me. The political aspect of privatization is discussed heavily. The author speaks of cases in which water companies have met in Washington to press their legislative agenda with Congress, "lobbying for laws that would protect companies from lawshits over contaminated water and which would block municipalities from reversing failed privatizations". I anticipate using this source, especially for the data.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Glennon, Robert. “Water Scarcity, Marketing, and Privatization,” Texas Law Review 83, no. 7 (2005): 1873-1902. http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.mnsu.edu. (Accessed February 8th, 2011).
This article discusses how the United States is “heading towards a water scarcity crisis”. The author discusses how the demand for water is greater than the actual supply, and how much of the water used is wasted. Climate change and global warming are cited as part of the reason for the decrease in water, besides increased demand and wastefulness. The author points to laws that have been passed or negotiated, such as Annex 2001, which prevents bulk exportation of water from the Great Lakes, and the “reasonable use” doctrine. A lot of the information presented in this article is concrete and foreseeably helpful in my research. A lot of evidence and data are presented which is useful to me. The types of privatization are also discussed along with the pros and cons of each. Nestle’s role in privatization is presented which is something that I do wish to discuss in my paper. This is a solid source that I fully anticipate using!
This article discusses how the United States is “heading towards a water scarcity crisis”. The author discusses how the demand for water is greater than the actual supply, and how much of the water used is wasted. Climate change and global warming are cited as part of the reason for the decrease in water, besides increased demand and wastefulness. The author points to laws that have been passed or negotiated, such as Annex 2001, which prevents bulk exportation of water from the Great Lakes, and the “reasonable use” doctrine. A lot of the information presented in this article is concrete and foreseeably helpful in my research. A lot of evidence and data are presented which is useful to me. The types of privatization are also discussed along with the pros and cons of each. Nestle’s role in privatization is presented which is something that I do wish to discuss in my paper. This is a solid source that I fully anticipate using!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)