PBS: P.O.V. Thirst

PBS Program

Global corporations are rapidly buying up local water supplies and third world communities face losing control of one of their most precious resources. The P.O.V. documentary "Thirst" reveals how water is becoming the catalyst for community resistance to globalization. The film looks at the conflict between public stewardship and private profit, where activists claim that water is a human right and corporations declare it a commodity.

Filmmakers Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman will be online Wednesday, July 14, at 1 p.m. ET to discuss the documentary.

Snitow and Kaufman have produced and directed PBS films "Secrets of Silicon Valley" and "Blacks and Jews." Snitow is a board member of the Film Arts Foundation and a member of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. Kaufman was the director of the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival for 13 years. He has been a board member of the California Council for the Humanities, Amnesty International USA, and the New Israel Fund.

A transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

________________________________________________

Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman: Welcome. Thanks so much for watching "Thirst" and we are happy to answer your questions.
Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: Thanks for your excellent film. Your film notes (I believe the comment was made by a Thames Water spokesperson) that billions of dollars in infrastructure investment are needed, both in the U.S., and certainly in developing countries, to expand and maintain water and sewerage networks. In this regard, what are the alternatives you heard advanced by water rights' activists in lieu of private sector participation? This does not strike me as an easy problem to solve. Thanks.

Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman: You are right that this is not an easy problem to solve. It's a question of priorities. Should federal money be spent on war or on American infrastructure? Cities and states have successfully pushed bond measures to raise money for public water utilities all over the country. In Atlanta, where they had to cancel the private contract because it was so disastrous, the mayor is pushing a one penny sales tax to underwrite fixing and maintaining the sewage system. The most important factor in success seems to be citizen involvement to ensure that local governments don't give up their responsibility to maintain the water system.

_______________________

New York, NY: What has happened in Stockton, CA
since the documentary was done?

PS: Thank you for your great
docuimentary.

Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman: The battle over water continues in Stockton. The Citizens Coalition filed a lawsuit against the privatization claiming it violated the California Environmental Quality Act. A Superior Court judge ruled in their favor. The Mayor has appealed and asked for a new trial, which should happen sometime this year. In the meantime OMI-Thames is running the system. Rates have increased and legal fees are mounting for the city. The Citizens Coalition vows to continue its fight.

_______________________

Alexandria, VA: I understand that Mr. McDonald left his position voluntarily, but to your knowledge, were there any employees laid off in Stockton?

Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman: Michael McDonald refused to work for the private company as a matter of principle. He is now maintenance supervisor for the Stockton Public Works Department.
To our knowledge, OMI/Thames did not do any layoffs after the privatization, but then again, the water department was understaffed when they took over because the city had imposed a hiring freeze on the public utility. As a result, layoffs were not an option.
A number of employees left or retired in the months leading up to the privatization because they opposed or were worried about the contract.

_______________________

East Lyme, Conn.: In the film, reference was made to muddy water in the city of Atlanta, GA, by a spokesperson at the conference. Can you please expound on this situation in Atlanta?

Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman: The Atlanta disaster really was a wake-up call. An affiliate of the giant multinational Suez got the contract to provide water services there. Apparently they had not done sufficient due diligence because they couldn't cope with maintenance and delivery - they let go of approximately 50% of staff (an "efficiency" measure, no doubt) and problems arose with water quality - there were 5 "boil water alerts" in the city due to contamination. Finally, the mayor had to cancel the contract.

_______________________

Ithaca, NY: I was wondering what inspired you to make this documentary and if you will be following this very important issue. I know that the water privitization fight in Stockton is not over, and will only become more of an issue all over the globe.

Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman: We are based in California and had just been through an "energy crisis" that was in large part caused by the failures of deregulation. Then we saw that one of the energy companies, Enron, was a big player in the water industry and we wanted to know more. The more we looked at what was going on, the more disturbing the story became because so few people know that a major transformation is going on in terms of the consolidation of the water industry by a handful of Fortune 100 companies. Because the story seems so important to us we'll be spending the next year taking the film around to communities across the US, working with the Sierra Club and Public Citizen and other local community groups to get the word out about the threat of water privatization.

_______________________

Cincinnati, Ohio: Hello My Name is Raymon.
Firstly, under no circumstances should we ever allow any person or company to own our water. This is a life sustaining resources(a gift from our creator) that any person would die without. We can not allocate it only to those who can afford to buy it. Secondly, In all the arguments about for profit companies saving communities money, I have never heard a very important Question asked. If there is a way to provide water to all the citizens of a community, that is both safe and allows for living wages for the front line workers, then why not allow communities/governments to study the models that work and rework there systems? How can it be a long term benifit for a community if these test are not met? Governments elected to serve the masses, should never find themselves supporting efforts that will allow a few people to control/own natural resources needed for life itself.

Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman: You have put your finger on one of the important alternatives to privatization: reinvesting in our public water systems and reorganizing them. This has been done successfully in a number of cities. San Diego comes to mind. However, it's an alternative that is strongly opposed by the private water companies because they see the reinvestment and reinvigoration as a threat to their growing market. Organizations like the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies are active in trying to expand utility and employee skills in dealing with the new challenges of population growth and the environment.

_______________________

Seattle, WA: How long ago did you start the process of making this film.

Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman: We started working on Thirst about two and a half years ago. The film seemed to take on a life of its own when we found so many possible and wonderful stories to follow.
At the time, an entrepreneur from Alaska was proposing to put mile-long pipes up two Northern California wild rivers to siphon water into giant offshore water bags the size of three footballs fields. The bags--which were sometimes referred to as giant condoms--were to be towed down to San Diego to provide water for development there.
It was a wonderful introduction to the incredible number of plans now being proposed or underway to make money off the marketing of water.

_______________________

New York, NY: While water is an important link to sustainable development and to life, there is a cost to the convenience of accessing clean water 24/7? Who should bear this cost? Isn't it privilege to be able to walk down a hallway of your home and turn on the faucet? And isn't there a cost for this privilege?

Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman: In the US we are definitely privileged to have one of the best water systems in the world. 100 years ago many systems here were private and complete failures because they couldn't handle the demands of population growth. The government put large amounts of money into infrastructure and things have worked so well most Americans take it for granted. In the last decades the Federal government has been starving cities of funding for this in the name of "small government" and in order to push private sector involvement. But you are right, there is a cost, and it's now time to pay for upgrades of the system - the question is: do you want to pay a multinational corporation that has no transparency and no obligations to your local community and can "game" the system like Enron did with energy in California, or do you want to pay your local government give you good water service?

_______________________

Holyoke MN: Thank you for the program and your work.

I think citizens in the US will be able stave off privatization.

Perhaps I missed it, but how will the poor around the world be protected? Is the UN working on strategies that will protect them?

Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman: We agree with you that the battle against massive privatization of water can be won. Even industry publications acknowledge the growing difficulties.
Perhaps this is why the industry's lobbying organizations have been so vituperous in attacking the film.
They are having to fight growing opposition in local areas; they have lost some major contracts; and now with the film, they seem to feel that the momentum is shifting against them and that their free ride lobbying elected officials at venues like the Conference of Mayors is coming to an end.

_______________________

Overland Park, Kan.: One is led to believe that the Stockton example is a case of privatization. I understood it was a public-private partnership in which the private-sector company does not own or control the water, nor does it set the rates. Is this true?

Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman: The terms "privatization" and "public-private partnership" are used interchangably by both sides in this conflict. In any case, the issue is generally the control of water, not the ownership of water. Private companies come in and regularly submit change orders to the contract, so promises are not kept. A city has a difficult time controlling rates. There are significant political pressures put on officials - and what we saw in Stockton was the introduction of campaign financing by a large multinational the suddenly was dropping so much money into the city that it literally could torque the campaign. This single issue - corporate campaign contributions - should be enough of a red flag to send a warning that citizens are at serious risk of losing local control of this vital resource.

_______________________

Louisville, Kentucky: Power failed here last night so I missed the film.
How much does the film cover of the pressure by the IMF and World Bank on forcing privatization of public utilities?

Gene

Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman: Sorry you missed the film. "Thirst" tells a story about the rebellion in Cochabamba, Bolivia against the privatization of water there in a contract with a Bechtel-led consortium.
That contract was the result of the IMF and World Bank conditioning loans to Bolivia on privatization on the country's various state services, including water.
The Cochabamba contract was so out of whack that the World Bank refused in the end to support it because it called for unnecessary dams to be built (at a big profit for local elite construction companies as well as Bechtel itself).
In India, the World Bank has supported government efforts to privatize ownership of water resources that are now in the "commons", i.e. not owned by specific individuals or companies. The Bank has also supported controversial dam projects.

_______________________

Jaffrey, New Hampshire: It seems to me that we live in a time when capitalism is regarded by many, especially in the USA, as more sacred than religion. How can we hope to argue, successfully, that water should not be transformed from "public good" to commodity?

Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman: There has been a constant drone in recent years about market efficiencies even while we have seen massive scandals and corruption in the private sector, outsourcing and the loss of jobs to foreign countries, and the decline in the standard of living for the American middle class. What we've seen is that water is the point where people seem to draw the line and say "NO", privatization and the marketization of everything in sight has to end here. There is an instinctive feeling that water is different from cell phones or running shoes and must be protected from the profit motive. Retaining local control of public water systems is increasingly becoming a bipartisan issue as people on both sides of the political aisle realize that the new trade laws might make it impossible to regulate water once water trading and bulk water transport begins. The most critical factor in keeping water public seems to be citizen education and citizen involvement - once activism begins, privatization is slowed down.

_______________________

East Lyme, Conn.: Has the cost of water in Stockton, CA increased since the corporate takeover of the municipal water supply?

Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman: Yes. The consortium received an increase just before the contract went into effect last August--the first increase in rates in years. Another increase goes into effect this year.
The City and the company claimed rates would not go up as much under private management of the utilities. This remains to be seen. We are hearing reports of "cost savings" such as deferred maintenance, reduced use of odor-reducing chemicals, hiring non-union, out-of-state contractors, environmental problems, and hiring temp workers.

_______________________

Colmar, Pa.: Why did you not differentiate between "privatization" and "public-private partnerships" in your film, misleading the viewer to believe outsourced operations of municipal water systems to be "privatization"?

Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman: Public-private partnerships and privatization are terms that have been used interchangeably by people on both sides of this conflict. Private water companies now prefer the term "public-private partnerships" because "privatization" has become controversial because so many privatizations around the world were the result of cronyism, corruption, and political campaign contributions.
Also, private water companies are no longer small local operations. The nature of these deals has changed dramatically with the entrance of three giant, foreign multinationals - Veolia, Thames/RWE, and Suez - into U.S. water services through buyouts of the largest U.S.- based water companies.

_______________________

Brooklyn, New York: Alan and Deborah,
I'm about to finish my last year in my civil engineering degree and my desire is to work in the field of water distribution and water mechanics---more specifically I want to go to locations that are lacking water supplies and devise methods in which, with little infrastructure, water can be safely provided to the community. My question is: from your documentary "Thirst" it seems that you both have been successful in discovering how to report on these places and others with water issues, do you have any suggestions on how I could set out to achieving my goal of working in these places? --Katie

Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman: Addressing the problem of water scarcity will become increasingly important. Already, over a billion people don't have access to clean water and those numbers will increase. What we saw in India is that alternatives do exist to large, centralized, capital intensive projects like mega-dams which have not solved water scarcity problems for the majority of India's rural poor. The rainwater harvesting movement is growing both there and elsewhere - like the US southwest states. Recycling and new water conservation technologies are deeply needed here in the US. Good luck!

_______________________

Linwood, Pa: To address a comment just made from Raymon in Ohio, I didn't think those companies own the water, I thought they run the pipes and system but the town or city stills owns the water. Is that true?

Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman: The City of Stockton also didn't "own" the water. It bought water from a nearby water district.
The issue in utility privatization is not ownership of water, but control of the water service.
However, forms of ownership are up for grabs. Water marketers, some agribusness interests, and developers are involved in complex water marketing schemes in a number of states to take river water or groundwater and sell it to the highest bidder--often piping the water a long distance away.
This is not the same as utility privatization, but it is not a coincidence that the people supporting such marketing schemes also usually support utility privatization. It's all about the deal and avoiding the oversight of wonderfully surly public institututions that are subject to democratic controls.

_______________________

Harrisburg, Pa.: We have the capability to turn salt water into drinking water. Are we getting close to the point where an international humanitarian effort needs to be use this option? I know one objection is the loss of this world could affect the sea ecology, so I wonder, isn't there a way the water could be recycled back into the ocean as salt water?

Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman: Desalination is being used in some parts of the world to convert salt water into drinking water but it is very expensive and consumes a lot of energy - which is why it works for the Saudis but is probably not going to be the solution for the rest of the world. In the US, much more effort needs to be placed in water conservation, in rethinking the wasteful uses of water in the agribusiness sector, and in limiting contamination of water by toxics.

_______________________

East Lyme, Conn.: Do you plan to make a follow-up film? (I sure hope so!)

Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman: Thirst has been an eye opener for us and we hope to continue to do films that look seriously at critical problems in the new era of globalization. It's becoming increasingly important for independent media to uncover some of the corporate abuses that are taking place under cover, especially when so much of the mainstream media is just dealing with celebrity and in general just playing it safe on the touch economic and social issues we all face.

_______________________

Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman: Thanks to everyone who participated. We enjoyed your questions. Please tell your friends about "Thirst". If they missed it, the film is re-broadcast on many public television stations, and you can purchase a copy of the "Directors' Cut" from Bullfrog Films at www.bullfrogfilms. com.
Best, Alan and Deborah

_______________________