Tiffany Tong

October 16^th, 2008

Film Review

Blue Gold: World Water Wars

Water is essential to life. There is no argument; water is a defining characteristic when we look for signs of life. Blue Gold: World Water Wars is directed by Sam Bozzo and based on the book “Blue Gold: The Fight to Stop the Corporate Theft of the World’s Water.” The documentary sets off with the memoir of an explorer who survived seven days in the desert without water. He was literally “running dry of blood.” We are reminded that water issues affect all directly, whether rich or poor. Thus, the documentary argues, water is a human right; privatization will always harm the interests of the public. Corporate control of the essence of life is absurd.

I agree to most of the main arguments of the film: water is not only an environmental issue; there needs to be a fundamental shift in how we view water as a scarce resource; and the corporate control and politics of water is extremely worrisome. I, however, differ in opinion on how to frame and find solutions to this global problem. Namely, I do not see why privatizing water is inherently wrong; why public control is the only effective way of ensuring safe and secure water supply for all; and why water cannot be defined as an economic good. I also find some of the solutions offered in the film failing to offer a whole systems perspective.

At the start it was clearly stated that water conservation is not to save the environment, it is to save ourselves. I cannot agree more. I found this statement to be very powerful because it eliminates comments of how environmentalists care more about trees than dying humans. We don’t. We simply understand that all life on earth is intimately interconnected. The environment and human societies are not two separate entities. One’s action directly affects the other, similarly to how the urban affects the rural, and vice versa, as argued in “Annihiliating Space: Meat” (Cronon, 1991). In my opinion, we are not environmentalists by choice: our existence on earth means we are part of and therefore should be concerned about the environment.

The manifestation of this intimate connection can be seen in the health impacts of polluted water. 2.2 million infants and children die each year from diarrhea, which is caused largely by contaminated water and food (Pimentel et al, 2007). It is a matter of social justice. However, tor those who are indifferent to such plights, we are reminded that our food chain starts in countries with the least infrastructure to treat waste water. Food irrigated with contaminated water is grown and exported to rich countries. It is no longer useful to dismiss other countries: their problems are our problems, thanks to the current economic system.

The water cycle has changed. Water, in theory, is an infinite resource: evaporation, condensation, and precipitation. However, we are destroying the tools in nature uses to rejuvenate water. Wetlands filter, good soil holds moisture, decomposers break down harmful substances into nutrients… but since industrialization, nature cannot assimilate harmful pollutants at the rate they are produced. Polluted water runs straight to the coast because we have destroyed wetlands; water is evaporated before soaking into the soil because land is degraded by deforestation, bad agricultural practices, and climate change. Micro-organisms cannot detoxify our wastes because we have produced chemicals so potent, nature never thought of evolving them. Therefore it is essential that people stop thinking of water as an abundant resource that will forever self purify. We have to start viewing water, and the ‘tools’ need for maintenance, as scarce resources that need strict regulations to protect.

The regulations of water are, in my opinion, outdated; a result of the mentality there is not shortage of water. Problems such as water rights arise: USA farmers are literally forced to use as much water as they can. When water usage is reduced, the farmer’s water rights are also reduced. Therefore, it makes (strange) economic sense, as water is part of your farm’s assets, to continue to irresponsibly irrigate more. Results? Massive run-offs of fertilizer, pesticides and other chemicals which causes havoc in local ecosystems. The only regulations that have been updated are those that benefit large corporations because they have immense lobbying power. Obviously, the current market system, laws, and regulations fail to provide satisfactory solutions to our environmental, and health, problems.

Can the solution lie with corporations? The film argues that although privatized water had existed for a long time, especially in France, it used to be on a smaller scale. Since corporations such as Suez, Veolia have crossed national borders, it is harder to hold them accountable and transparent. The film argues that with only the bottom line in mind, these organizations cannot be trusted to deliver a safe and sustainable supply of water to all humans. Evidence can be seen around the world. Many of the towns in the USA are already bought up by big water companies, countries’ whole water supplies are being taken over as time passes.

There are many rural and urban tensions over the use of water because farms are the largest user of fresh water around the world. When water companies want to acquire new sources of fresh water, they persuade farmers to hand over the water rights to bottle water. It seems like a good way to earn money because farming requires such hard work and earns so little money and respect in return under our current system. Also, the average age of farmers is increasing rapidly around the world in developed countries, where the water is less polluted. The average age of farmers in Canada is around 50 years old; to many, selling the water rights of their lands would seem like an attractive choice.

Poorer states around the world have less control over corporate takeover of their water. Water is a serious matter of national security. Wars are already happening around the world: Owens Valley, Arizona, Kaveri river in India…some are fought in courts, some on the street. Some are presented as religious wars, while others are pitted against the corrupt state. But they are all fundamental resource conflicts over water. In Bolivia, when Veolia persuaded a corrupt government to hand over the water rights, Bolivians were not even allowed to collect rainwater falling from the sky. Such oppression provoked a violent opposition that united the people to fight back. Water in aquifers, for example, under Mexico City or Florida are being depleted at an unknown rate. The churches in Mexico City are sinking unevenly and a crater like depression is formed under Florida. Currently, Brazil has the largest known aquifer in the world. The USA has deployed forces to the surrounding region. The Bush family is seen buying land near the Paraguay and Brazilian border where the aquifer lies.

Court cases being fought around the world will be defining our future for water usage. The people in Wisconsin was united enough to fend off Suez’s water bottling plant in their town, but how many more cases, which costs millions of taxpayer dollars, do we have to go through? A related example would be the patent on living organisms that are genetically modified. Some argue that the ability to patent life would have never been approved if the first case was not a bacterium that seemed insignificant (The Corporation Transcript, 2006). The consequences have resulted with Monsanto controlling 70% to 100% of the genetically engineered seed production for various crops worldwide (Monsanto, 2006). We have to be extremely cautious when proceeding with such matters, including rights to water.

While I fully agree with the film that water is an urgent and important issue, on the other hand, my opinions differ with regards to how solutions should be explored. Fundamentally, I agree that water is a human right, as food is, therefore everyone should have easy access to fulfill basic needs. However, it is a jump in logic to say that since it is a human right, it cannot be privatized. Why is service provided by companies automatically assumed to be inferior to government service? Many of the world’s governments are corrupt, how are we sure they have the public’s best interest in mind?

There is even a potential problem when a privatised water supply is turned public, that there would be less efficient use. When people have to pay a suitable price for water, people use water efficiently, because water is viewed as a scarce resource. However, when the water system is public, water becomes a free resource which can be used with no regards to the consequences. Economics incentives do have an impact when used wisely. I disagree with the implicit message of the documentary; public control of resources does not always equal undesirable economic consequences. Arguably, water in developed countries should be priced much higher to discourage wastage.

New Delhi, the richest city in India, shares the nationwide urban water distribution problems. The “network is in such disrepair that no city can provide water from the public tap for more than a few hours a day (Sengupta, 2006).” As the city’s water supply runs through a 5,600-mile network of battered public pipes, 25 to 40 percent leaks out (Sengupta, 2006). The government has failed to repair the system, yet proposals for privatization are shot down. Those who can afford, buy water from private tankers; those who can’t afford are forced to use contaminated water (Sengupta, 2006).

The key, I believe, is in having strict, enforceable quality standards, not in whether the service provider is public or private. Different models exist where private and public institutions are combined. Governments provide basic water needs to all the citizens, while corporations provide water to the companies in the area. We should take advantage of both the efficiency of private companies and the more holistic perspective of the government. The solutions to such complex problems should not be an either/or question; it should be a hybrid of the best practices.

The concept of water being an economic good is presented as inherently absurd. An economic good is but a physical product that can, directly or indirectly, increase utility. Water is an economic good, as is food, because they provide for our needs and increases our welfare. There is nothing wrong with trading water or food from a strictly economic sense; however, it is unwise to trade these ecosystem services because they are very region specific.

The exporting of food is relocating the nutrients of the local bioregion to other parts of the world. Exporting parts of the ecosystem away will cause major imbalance. This is shown most dramatically with the desertification (exporting of water), algae blooms (importing too many nutrients), and other practices that alter the landscape and biosphere. Another opposition to mass transporting is the massive amounts of carbon dioxide emitted which exacerbate climate change, altering ecosystems around the world.

Hydroponics agriculture, growing food without natural soil, is presented as a potential solution to water shortages. While this method does save a lot of water, I find this solution to be very reductionist. Firstly, hydroponics relies on an artificial nutrient broth to periodically soak the roots of the plants so the plants get the nutrients required to grow. But soil organisms may provide some nutrients yet unknown to humans for the plants; plants grown with these nutrient broths may not be as health as ones grown in soil. Secondly, hydroponics requires an entirely contained and controlled system where plants stay in greenhouses and are fed water with nutrients at set times. The energy used to build and maintain the operation is huge compared to a natural field. Thirdly, water that runs through agricultural land is not wasted as is suggested. The excess water, if allowed to soak through the soil, is filtered and then returned to the aquifers. Nonetheless, hydroponics can be applicable in certain situations, such as in a dry country without good quality soil, thus reducing the need to import food.

There should be no debate over if water shortage is already a crisis. But debate over definitions rarely results in any action that is immediately needed. What we need is diversified experiments to find out which method of water governance works most efficiently and benefits the most people. Let’s stop arguing whether government or corporations are more evil; let’s find solutions, together, which are tailored to each community.

Bibliography

Cronon, W. 1991. Annihiliating Space: Meat. Ch. 5 in Nature’s Metropolis. New York: Norton. 207-247.

D. Pimentel, S. Cooperstein et al. Ecology of Increasing Diseases: Population Growth and Environmental Degradation in Human Ecology (2007) 35:653–668

Monsanto. (2006). Retrieved October 16, 2008, from MisFortune500 Companies: http://www.misfortune500.org/company/Show.aspx?companyid=19

Sengupta, S. (2006, September 29). In Teeming India, Water Crisis Means Dry Pipes and Foul Sludge. Retrieved October 16, 2008, from New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/asia/29water.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

The Corporation Transcript. (2006, November 13). Retrieved October 16, 2008, from The Corporation: http://www.thecorporation.com/media/Transcript_finalpt2%20copy.pdf