[WestMALocals] Fw: seeking screening opp's for THIRST/water privatization

[Owen Broadhurst]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Leavitt" <leavitt.jonathan at gmail.com>
To: undisclosed-recipients, :
Subject: seeking screening opp's for THIRST/water privatization
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 18:04:14 -0400

> To: Green-Rainbow Activists
> Re: Seeking screening opportunities for "THIRST"
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> We are currently seeking screening opportunities with Green-Rainbow
> locals, progressive organizations, churches, unions, civic groups, and
> schools for a wonderful documentary on the issue of water
> privatization called, "THIRST".
> 
> As many of you are aware, this issue is become a vital one on both the
> local, national, and international level.
> 
> "Our Communities, Our Water" organizers have set up nearly (30) of
> these screenings over the last six months, and plan on setting up an
> additional (40) over the next three months. We are hoping that local
> Green-Rainbow activists and/or organizations would be interested in
> providing some logistical support for these screenings by providing a
> room and some publicity to their members.
> 
> We would provide a copy of the film and a support speaker. (Generally
> these screenings run for a total of (2) hours. One hour for the film
> and one hour for a question and answer session.)
> 
> Below is both a snapshot of the movie as well as some other
> information about the issue of water privatization. I hope this will
> help you with your decision. I am available at 978-683-3967 as well as
> <organizing at massglobalaction.org> if you have any questions or want to
> talk further.
> 
> Jonathan Leavitt
> Our Communities, Our Water
> 
> Is water a human right or a commodity to be bought and sold in a
> global marketplace?
> 
> THIRST is a moving 60-minute documentary by Alan Snitow and Deborah
> Kaufman on global resistance to water privatization, a trend sweeping
> the United States. Dramatic stories from Bolivia, India and California
> are bracketed by escalating conflict over privatization at a global
> water conference in Japan.
> 
> THIRST takes a piercing look at the conflict between public and
> private stewardship, and the claim that water is a human right versus
> a commodity. From riots in Bolivia to women's water mobilizations in
> India to extraordinary community organizing in the United States,
> THIRST shows that water is the catalyst for old conflicts and new
> coalitions. Already broadcast on the PBS series P.O.V., THIRST is a
> warning: multinational water companies are coming to your town as
> certainly as Wal-Mart.
> 
> For more information about the film: www.thirstthemovie.org
> 
> "Thirst" is fabulous. A moving and inspiring film about one of the
> biggest water issues of our day— the growing dangers of corporate
> control over water. It sounds a clarion call for citizens and
> governments to reaffirm that water is a public trust, not a commodity
> to be exploited for private profit."— Maude Barlow, National Chair,
> Council of Canadians and Co-author, with Tony Clarke, of Blue Gold,
> The Fight to Stop Corporate Theft of the World's Water.
> 
> What oil is in today's geopolitical framework, water will soon become.
> Currently a mere 12% of the world's population (from industrialized
> nations) uses 85% of the world's water. Already wars are being fought
> somewhere in this world over the issue of water. This is how important
> this issue is on the world stage and this is why we must begin putting
> the issue of globalization and control of water on the front burner
> for both social justice activists all over the country, whether they
> are organizers, musicians, or documentary filmmakers.
> 
> Many of us believe that "water is a basic human need, and therefore a
> right, and should not be treated as a commodity'. Corporations and
> those who believe in the corporate model deny this and will do
> whatever it takes to move the issue of control over water into the
> market forces that worship one basic principle, that those who have
> money will always be making decisions for those without.
> 
> The bottom line is that corporations want a piece of the $400 billion
> dollar market worldwide, including the $35 billion dollar bottled
> water industry. In the U.S. alone there is a $82 billion dollar
> market, of which 9.3 billion is the bottled water industry.
> 
> Over the last decade we have seen a significant rise in attempts by
> corporations both national and international to get control over one
> of the last great sources of available public funds. These of course
> are local municipal budgets and the public spending that goes in
> support of everything from public education to trash pickup to water
> delivery systems. Almost every community has begun the slow devolution
> from the public sector model to the corporate model. The process of
> globalization has accelerated this push for privatization.
> 
> With promises of greater efficiency and cost savings for strapped
> communities, these corporations have begun making in-roads into what
> has always been a relative safe haven for local control and autonomy
> from the growing influence of the corporate model.
> 
> It's important to understand that there is a history of privatization
> of water delivery systems that date back hundreds of years. In fact,
> many of the first contracted water delivery systems were done by
> private companies. But the circumstances of the country were much
> different then. There was very little public infrastructure or
> municipal revenue sources that could support municipal building
> projects of this scale.
> 
> The nature of corporations was different as well. Multi-national trade
> treaties did not exist in the format we are familiar with today. And
> corporate charters were reviewed every year to see if the corporation
> had served the public good. By the time corporations received their
> "personhood" (with all the rights of a US citizen, but none of the
> responsibilities) through a number of bad Supreme Court rulings, most
> of these private water efforts had moved into public hands. So as we
> speak today in the United States, we have roughly 85% (about 60,000
> cities or towns) of our water delivery systems in the hands and
> control of public municipalities.
> 
> Now however it is a new age, and corporate America has spent the last
> thirty years trying to figure out how it could escape the basic
> concepts of democracy through the creation of international trade
> treaties where local decision making (still accessible to regular
> citizens and responsive to citizen outcry) could be overruled.
> 
> We need to keep in mind that Privatization and globalization isn't
> simply a matter of signing off on a local company to do some
> contracting for a city/town. Instead we are dealing with an almost
> irreversible process. The fact is that once the infrastructure of a
> system has been turned over to privatization all the "institutional
> memory" is lost from the city. When it comes time to renegotiate a
> contract, the corporations hold all the cards because it would require
> a huge capital investment from cash starved cities to re-claim their
> water systems. Cities and towns are then at the mercy of these
> corporations.
> 
> Those advocating the corporate model want you to turn a blind eye to
> this history of success of municipal water systems, providing safe,
> clean and cheap water for a hundred plus years here in our country;
> while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the destructive history of
> corporate economics that has ruined our environment, our sense of
> community, our democracy, and the lives of hundreds of millions of the
> worlds citizens held hostage by this beast.
> 
> What we need to do is to continue this tradition of public control and
> community ownership by building public water treatment plants through
> a cities own bonding capacity and an increase in both state and
> federal funds for this purpose.
> 
> Estimates are that the US Water System would need $140 billion dollar
> investment between now and 2016 in order to meet standards. This is
> the equivalent of perhaps a dozen nuclear submarines. I guess if you
> put the question to 100 people whether they wanted their tax dollars
> invested in more nuclear madness or towards safe drinking water for
> themselves and their families, they would choose the safe drinking
> water option.
> 
> There are thousands of stories that must be told about this issue to
> groups like this. Each one shows what we are up against in this
> battle, as well as the possibility of successful resistance to
> corporate globalization. Here in Massachusetts we began opposition in
> my hometown of Lawrence where two years ago we turned away an attempt
> by United Water/French Suez to take over our water delivery system.
> Eight months ago citizens in Lee turned back an attempt by Veolia to
> take over control of their water system. This issue has also raised
> its head in communities such as North Adams, Fitchburg, Lynn, and many
> more.
> 
> As we speak today, citizens in Holyoke are attempting to turn back an
> attempt by Aquarion Water Systems to get a twenty-year contract on
> their wastewater system (which would of course lead to eventual
> control of the water delivery system itself). We hope that you will
> take a step towards securing water for all future generations by
> working to maintain water in the hands of the public.


-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm