and campaign finance resources to take command and win the They hired independent consultants that differed with the day against poorly financed volunteer citizens groups. They city’s consultants on the estimated price savings. The citididn’t always succeed in spite of this mismatch, but sometimes zens organized to take the issue to the voters, but literally they did. Water companies put in the kind of money that has right before the citywide election that was supposed to take never been seen before in local political campaigns to finance place, the mayor scheduled a City Council vote. That vote, and to influence the outcome of an election or an opinion a four-to-three decision, resulted in a 20 year, $600 million poll. In a number of cities, the companies created grassroot contract with global consortium OMI-Thames, which was front groups – called astroturf groups – to get their message the largest water privatization in the West. Huge. The city out without it seeming that the message was coming from a was very divided, but there was a nagging little problem: profit-making enterprise. The contract exempted the private companies from doIn Michigan, the son of the key anti-bottled water orga- ing an environmental impact report, and according to the nizer was threatened with a slap suit, a suit aimed at shutting Concerned Citizen’s Coalition of Stockton, the Sierra Club up opposition when the campaign against Nestle got heated. In Atlanta, the former mayor – now “The more the wealthy opt out of drinking tap water, in jail – was charged with returning favors to a private water company in return for an all- the less political support there will be for investing and expenses-paid trip to Paris with his mistress. He maintaining America’s public water supply.” – Snitow was acquitted on that charge, but the company was thrown out of Atlanta anyway. In California, we are seeing what some activists are now calling “regulatory and the League of Women Voters, who all banded together, capture,” in which companies yield enormous influence over that was illegal. They began a challenge in the courts. Nonetheless, in 2003 the privatization began, and here their supposed regulators. Recently here, a water company and water association pushed legislation, deemed to be technical- is what happened between 2003 and now. Rates that had only, which would have extended the maximum length of been stable increased, and a stink wafted over the south side water and other infrastructure contracts from 35 years to of town, because chemicals that cost too much weren’t be99 years. It also got rid of requirements that such contracts ing used. There was a sewage spill into the river that people require environmental impact statements. This kind of stealth swam in during the summer. There was a major fish kill. And legislation passed the state Assembly unanimously as a mere generally there was something called “run to fail,” which was technical bill until the Sierra Club, Food and Water Watch the private company’s failure to do preventive maintenance and other groups noticed it and fought to have it changed necessary to keep the pipes from leaking, so there were a lot or defeated. That legislation, AB1261, is still being battled of increased leakages reported. On top of it all, there was the court case based on the failure to undertake the environmental out in Sacramento. impact report. The citizens groups won in the court, but the Kaufman: The recent battle over water in Stockton, return to public control was stalled by continuous appeals. Then last July, after intense negotiations, the city voted California, was raising all these issues that have just been mentioned and answering them in some pretty decisive ways. unanimously to cancel the private contract that they had Like in other cities, there was a visceral bipartisan response to worked so hard to create. Apparently after all these problems, a perceived takeover of a public asset that had been built and enough was enough. Even Gary Podesto, now out of office as mayor, agreed with the cancellation of the contract. paid for by the people of Stockton over many years. In fact, their water utility was award-winning and in the black, and it served the people of the Delta very well. People Snitow: We need billions of dollars to upgrade universal afwere very shocked when Mayor Gary Podesto decided that it fordable water service for everyone. But will taxpayers and rate might be a good idea to consider privatization of the utility. payers support the relatively inexpensive effort to strengthen It turned out he had been part of a team within the United public water services when they are spending much more States Conference of Mayors called the Urban Water Council, for water bottles? A New York Times editorial from August which had been lobbied heavily by the private water industry 1, titled “In Praise of Tap Water,” put it concisely: The more to promote the privatization of urban water utilities. As a the wealthy opt out of drinking tap water, the less political businessman, he was inclined toward free-market solutions to support there will be for investing and maintaining America’s budget problems that he might have within the city that were public water supply. Access to cheap, clean water is basic to unrelated to water. He succinctly summarized his point of the nation’s health, and the editorial concludes that consumers view by saying, “It’s time that Stockton enter the 21st century are realizing that they can save money and save the planet by and think of our citizens as customers.” turning in their water bottles and turning on the tap. Ω The mayor wanted to streamline government and get his award-winning municipal utility off the books, and he be- This program was made possible by the generous lieved that rushing it into privatization was the way to go. The support of The David and Lucile Packard Foundation and citizens feared private company collusion with government. The Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund. NOVEMBER 2007
THE COMMO N WE AL TH
19