Tag: water commodification

Ontario advocates shut down BlueTriton bottling plant; score big win against water commodification

Arlene Slocombe, Wellington Water Watchers

In a major victory for citizens opposed to the packaging and sale of water as a commodity, advocates in southwest Ontario successfully campaigned for the shutdown of a water bottling plant in the township of Puslinch owned by BlueTriton, which bought the facility from Nestle in 2021. BlueTriton announced in November that it would shut down the facility, which was estimated to bottle 56 million cases of water annually. Additional environmental benefits of the shutdown will include the conservation of hundreds of million gallons of groundwater and the elimination of millions of tons of plastics used to make bottles. But the plant closure will also mean the likely layoff of 144 workers.

A leader in the effort to stop the bottling operation was the Wellington Water Watchers, who have been fighting local water privatization since 2007. The group’s director, Arlene Slocombe, spoke with FLOW about the significance of the group’s campaign.


How does the commodification of water factor in your opposition to the bottling facility, or were you focused on direct environmental impacts?

The commodification of water was always central to our opposition, right from the early days. Of course there were concerns about environmental impacts and over time we developed a much deeper analysis that this type of water taking is a justice issue. But right from the outset, people in this community were outraged about a mutli-national company profiting off of precious and life-giving water. Our mantra became Water for Life, Not Profit!

How much resistance did you meet in trying to convince provincial authorities that the withdrawal was harmful? Does any advice to other citizens groups grow out of that?

The short answer is – lots of resistance.

In fact, we have not yet been successful in having the province phase out permits to take water for the purpose of water bottling. This is our ongoing work, and our next steps. Nestle and now BlueTriton (BT) are leaving because the grassroots advocacy here has made their ongoing viability a challenge.

There are other water bottlers in the province – and we know that BT is trying to sell their operations here – so our work is not yet done. We have more to do to ensure that permits for water bottling are phased out completely.

We started to understand that environmental regulations are primarily there to regulate environmentalists.

Our current regulatory framework that supports all sorts of resource extraction is doing exactly what it was designed for. We came to the understanding that to make meaningful change requires building overwhelming political pressure that will drive the changes needed for environmental and social justice. In essence, we started to understand that environmental regulations are primarily there to regulate environmentalists. And this is what I would share with others.

Working “inside the bubble” alone will not drive the changes needed. The bubble is the framework established by the government for pathways of interaction and influence. We grew to understand that we needed to work “outside of the bubble” to have success.

What do you tell local officials who say that the loss of jobs is more important than the protection of water?

It is a part of the corporate playbook of large water extraction companies to situate in small rural (and typically under-resourced) communities that then become dependent on the tax base and other small handouts offered by the company. Shorter-term needs then tend to outweigh real long-term impacts and needs.

In a world where we now understand that we have surpassed six of nine planetary boundaries, we have to take a mature and sober look at the viability of extractive industries.

The tax base loss that Puslinch may experience pales in comparison with the cost of having to seek new water sources to meet local drinking water needs. Money isn’t life, but water is life and needs to be prioritized as such.

Throughout our advocacy opposing the water taking for profit, we have been consistent in our call for a just transition for employees in an industry that can not be sustained indefinitely. Everyone needs to put food on their table and a roof over their heads. I’m sad to say we haven’t seen a more proactive approach from government leaders at local and provincial levels, and from the industry itself to support workers in these sunsetting industries.

Water Watchers has been in this advocacy game around bottled water for almost 18 years now and the pressure has just continued to grow. Governments of all levels have continued to ignore this, and the workers are paying the cost. We need government to be more proactive around planning for these transitions towards a more just and sustainable economy for industries where working class people will be left behind.

What does this victory mean not only to the community but to the Great Lakes and communities in general?

Fundamentally, this is a justice issue.

We understand the power of the global bottled water industry in undermining confidence in public water systems and marketing their products as more safe, reliable and convenient. I believe we need to take steps to rein in the industry by banning false advertising and greenwashing. All water extraction proposals must be subject to robust environmental impact studies; we must stop allowing firms to bottle municipal water for sale, or charge a large amount for this, or make this through public agencies as an interim measure.

We understand the power of the global bottled water industry in undermining confidence in public water systems and marketing their products as more safe, reliable and convenient.

Bottled and packaged water are central to the global process of water commodification and is a key impediment to realizing the human right to water, not to mention a major environmental threat.

It is often positioned as a needed solution in emergencies, but this is a false solution. There are real, viable alternatives like bringing in water tankers and setting up water stations.

Single-use plastic needs to be banned. Recent studies are also showing the increased health risks of drinking water stored in plastic bottles because of the “shedding” of nanoplastics. We understand that the growing market for bottled water is in lower socio-econominc communities who disproportionately tend to be communities of Black, Indigenous, or People of Colour. And if these communities are facing greater health risks because of the impacts of nano and microplastics – this is fundamentally a justice issue.

Not to mention the egregious situation where First Nations communities across what is now called Canada continue to face water insecurity and boil water advisories. This includes the community at Six Nations who are less than 1 hour south of the bottling operation – and they have never given consent to Nestle – nor to BlueTriton to extract water from treaty lands. And in many cases, these community members are forced into dependence on bottled water (because of the lack of appropriate infrastructure) and have to buy that same water from their treaty lands in order to have clean drinking water. It’s appalling.

What happens when we treat water as a commodity?

Does water serve public needs and interests, or should it be a commodity available for private investment, ownership, and management?

Those who believe water should remain public are deeply troubled by this question. The investment community is increasingly interested in developing markets in water. In the year 2020, the transition from water as a public good to water as an attractive private investment entered a new phase, when the Chicago Mercantile Exchange added water to gold, oil, and wheat as a traded commodity. Cities and farmers can now buy futures in California’s water, betting on rising water prices based on an index that tracks the market price of the five largest water supplies in the state. Touted as a way to efficiently manage the state’s scarce water through market mechanisms, this approach alarms human rights advocates.

In response to the new water futures market, over five hundred human rights organizations (including FLOW) signed a petition to governments reading:

The impacts of “water markets” already implemented in several countries are catastrophic. In Chile, rivers are sold at auction and acquired by billionaires who use the water to mass-irrigate avocados or supply mines, while millions of people attempt to survive widespread drought caused by the water grabbing. In Australia, the water market, which is supposed to support the economy while preventing water wastage, ended up inciting investors and agriculture industrials to speculate, based on forecasts regarding shortages and future water prices, to the detriment of small-scale farmers’ access to water.

Because water is the source of life, it cannot be considered a commodity, nor a financial investment or an object of speculation. Given the threats posed by the pandemic and climate crisis, we must urgently realise this. Allowing the markets to dictate the way water is distributed and managed is unacceptable given human rights and is grossly irresponsible given the world’s perilous ecological and health situation.

The trend of treating water as a market commodity also concerns some Great Lakes experts, including Cameron Davis, a commission member of the Metropolitan Chicago Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago. Formerly head of the nonprofit Alliance for the Great Lakes and senior advisor on Great Lakes in the Obama Administration, Davis won unanimous approval from his fellow Reclamation District commission members for a cautionary resolution on the commodification of water in June 2021. The resolution agrees that clean drinking water and sanitation are a human right. “[T]he value of water is immeasurable, as water shapes every component of our lives. Commodifying water improperly leads to neglect of this valuable resource, which ultimately leads to degradation of the environment and is a dominant element in global illness and famine.”

In an interview, Davis said, “the threat is in thinking about water as if it were any ordinary raw material. The reality is, we need water to survive and thrive. Even in our water-rich region, it’s taken for granted, so I thought a strong statement through the resolution would help articulate that water—before, during, and after we use it—deserves special attention.”

He added, “What we’re saying with this resolution is that the right to water and sanitation is every bit as critical as the right to free speech. Or the freedom to worship. Or the freedom of association.”

The Davis resolution was one of the first official government agency warnings about the danger of water commodification and the need to affirm access to clean, safe, and affordable water as a human right. The Traverse City Commission, at the request of FLOW, approved a similar resolution in December 2021.

The protection of millions of lives in this century will require the provision of water to those who have no access to it. Religious scholar Richard Hughes proposes that water should be considered part of the “sacramental commons” and adds, “Conserving water in reverence and sharing water in equity ennobles the human spirit. The crises of water scarcity, emerging in many places around the world both now and in the future, require that finite freshwater resources be protected by the public trust and neither be commodified nor privatized.”