Mark Twain once noted that “Whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over.” As things stand currently, we are setting a course to prove Twain right in a way that he probably never imagined. Maude Barlow’s Blue Gold has documented well the impending water crisis that pollution and shortages may bring, and water-related conflicts have already erupted in many spots around the world. Some are verbal and legal (Nestle’s private pumping of Michigan’s water) while others have turned violent (riots forced Bechtel to abandon its water privatization-efforts in Bolivia).
Two camps, with two very different approaches to this situation, have begun to emerge. One views water as a commodity to be traded in the market, and the other sees water as a human right, and part of the commons.
The first camp consists largely of market libertarians with tunnel vision. They argue that we must let the market decide what water, and how much of it, should be for sale. They regard water as a no different than Crackerjacks, really, except for the fact that it has a stronger sales hook – it’s essential for life. The other camp counters that the market should not allocate access to something that should be a universal human right. Access to drinking water – and life itself – should not be available only to those who can afford it.
While the idea of selling water on a global mass scale would have been laughable a century ago, it has become a growing reality around the world, taking shape in the years following World War II, when the Evian company pioneered the advertising of water to bump up sales. It took several decades for this idea to catch on in large numbers in the U.S., but by 1997, bottled water had truly become a mainstream product. Some 109 companies were selling bottled water in the U.S. that year, shipping a total of approximately $786 million worth of “product,” according to the U.S. Department of Commerce.
According to the Beverage Marketing Corporation, bottled water consumption has more than doubled in the U.S. in every decade since the mid-70s, with approximately 7.5 billion bottles of water consumed in 2005. With the increased sales of bottled water, a subtle yet important shift began to take shape; water began to be regarded as a commercial product like any other. Stephen Kay, vice president of the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA), expressed this sensibility when he told FDA Consumer magazine, “Some people in their municipal markets have the luxury of good water. Others do not.”
Luxury. With one little word, Kay was attempting to redefine the traditional human-to-water relationship. We know better, of course. We need water to survive. By definition, it is not a luxury good, but a necessity. The distinction is much more than a matter of semantic debate.
When the municipal water supply was privatized in Atlanta, US News & World Report wrote in 2002, residents faced a stark new reality: “The tap water was so dark in Atlanta some days this summer that Meg Evans couldn’t see the bottom of the tub when she filled the bath. Elsewhere in her neighborhood, Gregg Goldenberg puts his infant daughter, Kasey, to bed unbathed rather than lower her into a brew ‘the color of iced tea.’ Tom Crowley is gratified that the Publix supermarket seems to be keeping extra bottled water on hand; his housekeeper frequently leaves notes saying, ‘Don’t drink from the faucet today.’”
Now imagine that the “today” referenced in this article becomes “every day.” Given water pollution and diminishing water supplies, this scenario is entirely possible unless drastic action is taken soon. In this hypothetical future, the Tom Crowleys of the world would have to pay high market rates for water, and the chances are great that the safety and quality of water would be worse.
But more importantly, what about Tom’s cousin a few towns over, who can’t afford bottled water? Maybe Tom would help his cousin, or maybe a charity would. Or maybe the income gap of today will explode into a hydration gap, requiring families to find new ways to obtain and ration water.
There is no reason to think that the market will sort this out, at least not in a way that is acceptable to any person of conscience. The gap between America’s rich and poor has already widened to a point comparable only to the Great Depression, according to figures recently released by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. So it’s folly to think that markets will be able to provide adequate supplies of safe, affordable water for everyone.
What, then, is the answer?
While legislative solutions are unavoidable, the first step may be cultural. We need to reach a new understanding about the meaning of water. Through skillful marketing, water companies have successfully imbued bottled water with a certain cool factor. It has become associated with purity, health and youthful energy (despite its lack of fluoridation). We need to find new ways to “uncool” bottled and privatized water, to borrow a phrase from Culture Jam author Kalle Lasn.
At the same time, we must renew our commitment to clean, publicly funded municipal water systems. In a recent report, “Faulty Pipes,” Food & Water Watch – a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit – documents the wide varieties of problems that accompany the privatization of municipal water: maintenance mishaps (Atlanta), sewage spills (Milwaukee), corruption (New Orleans) and political meddling (Lexington).
The report also notes how many cities have reorganized their water and wastewater systems under local, public control. “These reformed systems,” the report states, “have saved money, rewarded employees and enhanced services while maintaining or improving water quality and protecting the environment. But instead of these additional savings getting drained from the community in the form of corporate profits, they are re-invested back into the community.” (The report can be found at http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/publications/reports/faulty-pipes.)
Despite strong evidence that the privatization of city water supplies is a disaster, there are those who stubbornly argue that only “the market” will provide real solutions. And there will always be those who dismiss moral arguments by saying, as University of Waterloo Professor Jan Narveson has, that “there is no rational answer to the question, ‘How much does each of us deserve from the universe?’”
I disagree. Each of us deserves, if nothing else, that which is necessary to sustain life and which has traditionally not “belonged” to any one person or company: water and oxygen.
Fortunately, this perspective seems to be gaining ground. The Wall Street Journal reported in late June 2006, “Great Expectations for Private Water Fail to Pan Out.” It cited the case of the German company RWE, which is “in the midst of dismantling an international water empire that cost more than $10 billion to assemble and spanned more than 40 countries at its height.”
It turns out that, while water appears to be a perfect resource to “take private,” the economies of scale are often absent, and local communities are willing to fight to retain local control. Towns are coming to realize that local control is the best way to keep costs lower and assure equitable access. A community relations manager for RWE tried to dismiss such concerns as cultural obtuseness: “People are just kind of weird with water,” she told a reporter. Weird? That is not the word. How about “protective”?
Mark Twain was right: Water is for fighting over. It is a struggle that is at once cultural, political and ideological. It is a struggle about values. But if we can make the case that so many people agree upon – that water is a basic human right – perhaps we will have a shot at avoiding the worst aspects of the water wars that have plagued less fortunate nations in the developing world.
Mike Keefe-Feldman is an award-winning freelance journalist and a Master’s candidate in Georgetown University’s Communication, Culture & Technology program. He drinks Washington, D.C. tap water with a filter.