WaterWired

Review of the Film 'Blue Gold: World Water Wars'

I was warned by a colleague that "my head would explode" if I watched the film, Blue Gold: World Water Wars, that is based on the similarly-titled book by Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke. I viewed the film three times, and all is still intact. I have not read the book.

I could spend far more time reviewing some of the claims the film makes but cannot afford the time, so I will stick to brief mention of the good points and the most blatant examples of misinformation.

Some background is in order. Maude Barlow is National Chair of the Council of Canadians and Tony Clarke is Executive Director of the  Polaris Institute, another Canadian organization. Barlow was also recently appointed as UN Senior Water Adviser. Both Clarke and Barlow are featured prominently in the film, which is directed by Sam Bozzo, who provided me with a signed DVD of the film.

Before continuing, let me say that several previous posts have questioned Barlow's grasp of certain water facts: in an interview with Amy Goodman and an interview in The Progressive.  I made some comments about the film a few months ago. I took issue with some statements Barlow made in the film FLOW: For Love Of Water.

What I Liked

• Visually impressive
• Discussion about sea water desalination and its high current energy costs
• Emphasis on community-based actions and solutions
• No great affinity for bottled water
• Prior appropriation water law and its seeming discouragement of conservation (from Robert Glennon of Water Follies fame)
• Pollution problems
• Owens Lake - Los Angeles' "'water grab" in the early 20th century
• Ryan's Well Foundation, founded by Canadian Ryan Hreljac
• Discussion of the Atlanta-Suez and Cochabamba-Bechtel fiascos
• No fondness for the World Bank
• Deleterious effects of dams  (but neglected decommissioning issues)
• Urban vs. rural water issue - retiring ag land for urban water
• Support for a human right to water
• Effects of excessive ground water pumping: sinkholes, land subsidence 

So What Didn't I Like?

• Provocative, undocumented statements such as: 'Much of the world's fresh water is polluted beyond human use'; 'Every single drop of fresh water will be privately owned and controlled'.

• Then there is Dr. Michal Kravcik, a Slovak hydrologist who runs an NGO, People and Water, that has done some good work in watershed restoration. But what he talks about is a link between ground water pumping and earthquakes, and thence to tsunamis. This is unbelievable, as it is presented as fact with no documentation. Kravcik claims that more runoff from the land and pumped ground water have increased the ocean's water level, producing more weight on the ocean floor (and less weight on the land), which can cause faulting, and tsunamis. In 1994 Frank Schwartz and colleagues published a paper in Nature (Sahagian, D., F. Schwartz, and D. Jacobs, 1994, "Direct anthropogenic contributions to sea level rise in the twentieth century", Nature, 367: 54-57) in which they calculated the additional sea level rise from ground water pumping and other anthropogenic sources to be 57 mm, or a little over 2 inches. Given the great ocean depths, this additional water is insignificant and I doubt it can produce earthquakes, then tsunamis. I was unable to find any reference to this mechanism in the scientific literature.  This kind of blather has already been reported as 'fact' in some film reviews I have read. As an aside, Kravcik might be interested in knowing that ground water pumping can actually limit earthquakes and that injecting fluid can cause earthquakes. This pumping-injection scenario has been proposed to control terrestrial earthquakes [but that's fodder for another post].
  
• Kravcik also discusses soil loss due to urbanization, then states that we are about at the half- way point [to what?], and "in fifty years there will likely be a collapse of the planet's water sources." Come again? I must've missed the logic and the documentation.
  
•  Misinformation about water privatization in USA cities. Across the screen is flashed a sequence of cities' names (e.g., New York, Chicago, Riverside, Houston, Tampa, Pittsburgh (misspelled) , Las Vegas, Seattle, et al.) followed by "Buyer: XYZ Company". The implication is that the water supply of these cities is now owned/controlled by some multinational corporation. I checked four of the cities: Las Vegas (Suez), Seattle (RWE/Thames), Chicago (Veolia) and New York (Suez). The water supply of each is not controlled, in whole or in part, by the private firms mentioned - Suez, Veolia, RWE/Thames. I checked the WWW sites of each city and called Seattle, New York, and the Las Vegas Valley Water District.
  
• A similar visual trick is used for the Great Lakes, although it says Potential Buyer: Nestlé. I am sure the governors of the eight states and premiers of Ontario and Quebec would be interested in this statement. Nestlé is not going to buy the Great Lakes, folks.
  
• Innuendo is made that the USA's military operations in the Great Lakes region are somehow related to the USA's interest in claiming/stealing the Lakes' water. Yes, Virginia, the USA does have military bases in the Great Lakes region, just like they have them in the Pacific Northwest. Does the latter fact that mean that the USA is planning a BC invasion? Barlow and Clarke seem to forget that some of their countrymen have suggested that Canada supply some of its water to the USA.
  
• Implication that because companies like GE supply pollution control/water  cleansing equipment they will then "own" the water they clean. Why is that a logical conclusion?
  
• Tenuous (really!) connection between possible Bush family land purchases in Paraguay and the taking of ground water from the Guaraní aquifer, the largest fresh ground water source in the world, and arguably the largest fresh unfrozen water body in the world. So how would the Bushes and/or the USA get the water from the aquifer to the USA? I addressed this issue in a previous post.

Any Other Thoughts?

There is very little mention of climate change and its effects on water resources. I view that as far more of a threat than privatization.

Some of the people discussing ground water did not display a very good understanding of it. I also think a lesson in the finer points of the hydrologic cycle might be warranted.

I am unsure that Barlow, Clarke and their compatriots understand the difference between owning water and owning a right to use water. In the Western USA, you own a right to use water. I am sure in some places you can actually own water, but in the Western USA and other places you own the right. There is a huge difference.

Robert Glennon says that "We now pump 30 billion gallons of ground water" each day, but doesn't say who "we" is. This has been (mis?)interpreted as meaning the world pumps 30 billion gallons per day, but that is actually too small for a global figure. Thirty billion gallons is about 92,000 acre-feet, about the annual pumpage by the City of Albuquerque when I lived there a few years ago.  The daily global pumpage is about 600 billion gallons. According to Kevin McCray of the National Ground Water Association, the daily pumpage in the USA is about 80 billion gallons per day and in the world, about 408 billion gallons per day (see his presentation).

A few people discuss living within your watershed and not transporting water long distances to fuel growth. Okay, that's fine, but how do you control growth? By law? The case of Bolinas, CA, was mentioned, but there was no mention of some of the negative effects, such as potentially unaffordable housing.

Profligate water use is decried, but I detected no mention of pricing as a means to reduce demand and extend supply [David Zetland's smiling now!]. In fact, supply, demand, and economics in general seem to be absent from the discourse.

No mention is made of privatization that appears to be  working, e.g., Veolia's management of Oklahoma City's wastewater treatment facility (contract just renewed) and Indianapolis' drinking water system.  I suspect there are other examples. Let's have some balance.

Barlow, Clarke and others appear to want free water for those in developing countries. That is a recipe for disaster, regardless of whether the system is privatized or not. Why is that bad? Because when people get water for free, they will waste it because there is no need for conservation(see"'profligate use" above). Sorry folks, that is human nature. This does not preclude supplying a limited amount ['lifeline'] for free, then charging for an amount greater than that. 

The theme "private is bad" permeates the film, and I really get tired of that mantra. The protagonists don't realize that privatization can work if it is done right [clear ground rules; oversight; and consideration for the poor]. It is possible to have privatization without surrendering one's right to use water. And sometimes governments are too incompetent or corrupt to run water supply systems. Who is going to build the systems, especially the large ones, to supply water to the over 1 billion people who lack access to it and the 2.5 billion who do not have access to sanitation?

WaterWired's Take

When you  set yourself up as being morally/ethically (choose a similar adverb) superior, then try to strengthen your case with some serious distortions of facts, you are no better than the "bad guys" you disdain. You've ceded the high ground, and that's what I think Barlow, Clarke, et al., have done. The film makes many good points, then blows it with some egregious distortions.  

And let me say again, since Barlow is now a UN Senior Water Adviser, she should endeavor to get her facts straight.

Is the film worth seeing? Yes, but wear your crap detectors.

And no, your head won't explode.

Now I must rest.

Note added on 3 May 2009: Here's a review from mcjoan at The Daily Kos.

"The purpose of education is to teach children to be crap detectors." -- Unknown (John Holt?) 

Canadian Complaint Against Nestlé Waters Canada: False Advertising?

My friends over at Stop Nestle Waters should be happy. Five Canadian groups - Friends of the Earth Canada, the Polaris Institute, the Council of Canadians, Wellington Water Watchers, and Ecojustice - have filed a complaint against the Nestlé Waters Canada for some of its advertising claims, which the groups claim are not true:

• Most water bottles avoid landfill sites and are recycled
• Bottled water is the most environmentally responsible consumer product in the world [WTF?]
• Nestlé Pure Life is a Healthy, Eco-Friendly Choice

These claims were made in a full-page ad in the Toronto Globe and Mail last October. You can read more about this at HV120.CN, where you can find these comments:

"They can spin the bottle all they want, but the truth is there is no green solution to bottled water," said Joe Cressy, Campaigns Coordinator, for the Polaris Institute, in Ottawa.

"We welcome the opportunity to show that we have, in fact, been honest in our conversation with Canadians, with the media and with government of the environmental stewardship exercised by our industry," said John Challinor, a spokesman for Nestlé Waters Canada.

See more from Defending Water in Maine. Here is a copy of the complaint:

Download Advertising Standards Canada Complaint-Nestle Waters  (thanks to Linda Hunn)

We'll see how this plays out. In the meantime, Nestlé might want to consider sticking with the chocolate business.

"Advertising is the art of convincing people to spend money they don't have for something they don't need." -- Will Rogers

Aaron Wolf: Bridging Troubled Waters

Friend and Oregon State University colleague Aaron Wolf is the subject of an article in Miller-McCune magazine about his work in mediating water disputes around the world. 

Aaron is the magazine's latest 'Wonking Class Hero', and they've got that right, as he is a charter member of the WaterWonks.

Aaron has been the subject of numerous articles throughout the years and this ranks as one of the best, as it starts "from the beginning".

And as you can see from the photo, Aaron doesn't quite walk on water, but what you can't see is that his feet aren't really touching bottom.

The first few paragraphs of Tom Jacobs' article:

In 1991, as Aaron Wolf was finishing his doctoral dissertation, the Madrid Middle East peace process was just getting under way. The two sides decided to tackle five sets of regional issues, including the equitable division of water resources. As a budding expert on the subject — his research focused on the Jordan River and its dual role as "a flashpoint and a vehicle for dialogue" — Wolf agreed to advise the U.S. team designing the talks.

Fifteen years later, one remnant of that failed attempt at Palestinian-Israeli peacemaking remains: the water negotiations. "They still go on," Wolf says. "The two sides have cooperative projects. In the second intifada, when they realized how much violence there was going to be, they took out a joint advertisement asking both sides to try to protect the water infrastructure."

The lessons of that enduring success have stayed with Wolf as he has pursued his remarkable dual career, as an Oregon State University scholar studying water-resource issues and a hands-on mediator of water disputes around the world. Water, he has come to understand, is so central to the human experience that it can help even bitter enemies find common purpose.

Aaron has lately begun to address and explore the spiritual aspects of water in his work.

On the other hand, Wolf notes that "all spiritual traditions — not just (those) in the religions that come out of the desert — seem to tap into water as healing, soothing and cleansing." This shared sense of sacredness gives him hope for the future, as does the resilience of many water agreements. "India and Pakistan have a water treaty that has survived since 1960 — through two wars," he says. "In the middle of one of the wars, India made payments to Pakistan as part of their treaty obligations."

"I think water hits us at a profoundly different level than other resources," he adds. "People are willing to do horrible things to each other. What they seem not willing to do is turn off each other's water."

He is someone who is truly making this world a better place to live, and I am proud to have him as a friend and colleague.

An appropriate post for this Christmas Day.

"I was told this joke: 'In America, what's the opposite of speaking? Waiting to speak!'" -- Aaron Wolf

Doing the Right Thing: Donating to Water Charities

Publisher Tom Bell has a wonderful editorial, Water professionals are obligated to support charitable water causes, on page 9 of the December 2008 issue of U.S. Water News. It's about donating to charities that bring safe water to villages.

Bell points out that the world annually spends $300B on agricultural subsidies, $50B on bottled water, yet only about $3B on foreign aid specifically devoted to water and sanitation projects. About $10B - $20B per year would be enough to provide clean water to the entire world.

Bell provides some water charities to which you can donate. Here are some more that will make excellent use of your contributions. These are all small organizations that put 'boots on the ground' and most emphasize helping those in need help themselves. In my view this latter aspect is key to success and sustainability.

Shameless plug: my own nonprofit, the Ann Campana Judge Foundation, welcomes tax-deductible contributions as well.

Do you have a favorite water charity? Let us all know by commenting.

"Our failure to help those in the developing world gain access to clean water must surely rank as one of the greatest development failures of the last century." -- Peter Gleick 

James Lovelock on Geoengineering

I posted two days ago on a fascinating geoengineering session at the recent AGU meeting in San Francisco. I did not intend to maintain this thread, but friend Clay Cooper sent me an article that I thought worth sharing.

The article is by Dr. James Lovelock, shown here in Daisyworld, the scientist who first proposed the Gaia hypothesis. He weighed in on geoengineering in an article published last summer, "A geophysiologist's thoughts on geoengineering".

Download Lovelock - Geoengineering 

Here is the abstract:

The Earth is now recognized as a self-regulating system that includes a reactive biosphere; the system maintains a long-term steady-state climate and surface chemical composition favourable for life. We are perturbing the steady state by changing the land surface from mainly forests to farm land and by adding greenhouse gases and aerosol pollutants to the air. We appear to have exceeded the natural capacity to counter our perturbation and consequently the system is changing to a new and as yet unknown but probably adverse state. I suggest here that we regard Earth as a physiological system and consider amelioration techniques, geoengineering, as comparable to nineteenth century medicine.

Lovelock argues that we really don't know enough about the Earth to start fiddling with it on a planet-wide scale to mitigate the effects of global warming. He also cautions against placing too much reliance on geophysics.

Among other things, he suggests that if we used stratospheric aerosols to ameliorate global warming, that "fix" would eventually lead to increased ocean acidification, for which we would need another medicine, and so on. We might have to undertake the "onerous permanent task of keeping the Earth in homeostasis. "

Not a pretty sight.

"We could find ourselves enslaved in a Kafka-like world from which there is no escape." -- James Lovelock