Geo-Politics / World War III > International News

Government Wants to Control the Water; The new "Oil"

(1/12) > >>


Friday, June 20, 2008
US Government wants to control water, but is it theirs to begin with?
I keep saying that soon clean drinkable water will soon be one of the most sought after commodities competing with oil in value. There are companies all over the world already selling water, both in bottles and for water piped into your home. Now the US Government is working on the Water Restoration Act of 2007. This would give the US Federal Government control over all water in the US. The idea is that this would give the US Government control over water so that it can be protected. It seems water may be a potential terrorist target and they also want to be able to have control over the pollution and said clean up of polluted water to insure the US has safe water to drink.

The problem is that it also opens the door to privatization of the water supply. If there is money to make someone will and controlling water is a sure way to make some. I don’t think that it would be a good idea to give control over our water to someone looking to sell it back to us. It is one thing to pay for water usage in our homes to cover the cost of piping, pumps, maintains and cleaning the water. It is another thing completely to have to pay for the actual water. Right now I can buy a bottle of water if I want to, which is fine because I am not forced to buy the water I can choose to. I already know that it is going to be the poor that suffers if suddenly you have to buy water.

Once you have control over the water you have control over the people. We cannot live with out it. I do agree that pollution must be reduced or stopped and cleaned up. There is less and less clean water everyday. It is a valuable commodity that is used in just about everything from drinking water, production and manufacturing. Do I want the same type of people in charge of water, as we have in charge of oil and gas, no way! I do not want to have price hikes on every Friday or to be denied water because I am poor. Once someone has control over the water they can decide who gets it and trust me it will be the people, county, city or state that can pay the most for it.

I can also see this causing an international issue. The great lakes are not 100% US though at times they seem to believe that they are. The water is not just for them. I live in Canada, on the edge of one of the lakes. We use it for our water, and trust me it needs to be cleaned up. However if a company in the US is given the right to sell the water from the Great Lakes we are going to have a problem.

First all the water there is not theirs to buy or sell. Second with the potential for abuse, already seen in the fishing industry, how much water would they remove from the lakes to supply people? Canada and the US would soon have very strong words over the control of the water. And let me tell you Canada and Canadians are not going to sit idly by as some company sells off our water. This is not just a US issue, with US rights and laws. Just because the US decides this is the way it is going to be does not make it so. Canada has some say over what happens with the water and who gets what.


The Water Restoration Act of 2007, along with others, gives the federal government complete control over every waterway, river, stream, lake, aquifer, creek, slew, swamp, underground spring and even the rain that runs off your roof. Why? Well to better protect you from polluters and to ensure water safety, and of course “national security”.

Here’s the real deal. Oil which has been deemed the worlds most valuable commodity (remember that word) is quickly being replaced by water. Water is the new “gold”. Under the Public Trust doctrine, the government is prohibited from converting something such as water (a human right…we can’t live without it) to a commodity. It must remain in a public trust, meaning that it is so important to our survival that it should never be subjected to markets, trading or private interests. In other words, it should never be reclassified as a commodity. But this Act lays the groundwork for removing from the Public Trust this basic human right which is a necessity, and will facilitate it being reclassified a “needed commodity”. Enter the multi-national corporations.

What is under way is the effort to classify water as a commodity and not a right. All of this actually started with NAFTA and then CAFTA. Both agreements, which are not enforceable as they are both unconstitutional have been parts of a puzzle that until recently seemed not to make any sense at all. Both are focused on giving multinational corporations the right to lay claim to food production whether it is agriculture or animal ranching, to force out family farms, to patent their new “frankenseeds” and put the resulting GMO food on our grocery shelves without labeling the foods as altered.

The corporations can now sue the government (and have) if it acts in any way to prevent it from making profits it believes it is entitled to. This ability to sue for impaired profit making can be the result of environmental regulations, of Federal laws which may prevent the corporations from hiring illegal workers, or issues of eminent domain in which an individuals’ land stands in the way of corporate profiteering and the courts have not acted to protect the interests of the corporation. The corporation then claims “trade illegal” provisions of NAFTA and CAFTA and our federal laws and regulations are put aside, along with property rights.

All that was left to capture from the public was the water supply. CAFTA goes a long way in establishing the privatization of water supplies, including in-land navigated waters and the right to use and access the water supplies.

If the federal government is not able to gain total control of all water from whatever source, it is highly unlikely that water can be taken from the status of Public Trust and moved to one of a commodity, which is exactly what the Water Restoration Act of 2007 will enable.

If CAFTA protections and provisions for corporations and the provisions within CAFTA that put the rights of investors above those of the individual, or human rights, cannot come into play, it will be nearly impossible to expose our water supply to global markets. CAFTA’s primary aim is to protect and promote investors regardless of the cost to individuals or communities.

Water is not only a basic human right, but also a natural resource. Inland states like Minnesota have Public Trust Laws (in addition to federal doctrine) which maintain the use of waterways for drinking and for recreation purposes. Every lake here has public water access due to the Public Trust which everyone contributes to in one way or another. No one can claim land at the bottom of a lake……its commonly held. No one can claim private ownership of lake fish stocks, or other natural resources resulting from the lake’s existence. This applies to rivers also, including the Mississippi which runs through the state.

The Water Restoration Act of 2007 would federalize all inland and coastal waters from any source. This act is needed to set the stage for the privatization guaranteed to corporations under CAFTA and would effectively convert the entire water supply from any source into a commodity.

As it is, any corporate agriculture business operating in any area is allowed to bypass water treatment plants, sewage treatment and the associated costs and to tap directly into underground aquifers even at the cost of depleting the water supply to the surrounding communities. GMO seeds, especially “traitor” seeds require as much as three times the normal amount of water to activate and to grow, but any efforts to limit use or regulate disposal even by monetary assessment have been unsuccessful. The corporate rights now exceed that of the individual or community. CAFTA clearly states repeatedly that “investor protections” must be a priority.

Using the NAFTA provisions, along with even more detrimental CAFTA provisions, the World Bank along with the United Nations are active in the effort to convert the worlds’ water supply into a commodity to be controlled by private investors via global trade and investment agreements. If these efforts are successful, water will no longer be a community or individual right and resource necessary to maintain life, but a globally traded commodity subject to markets and your ability to pay.

The World Trade organization in collusion with provisions of NAFTA, have been instrumental in converting water into a tradable commodity and as such subject to international trade policies which favor no one but the giant corporations. In each instance of corporations attempting to overturn domestic environmental laws or regulations, the laws have been rendered null using the “trade illegal” provisions of both NAFTA and CAFTA which declare that the right of the corporation cannot be superseded or infringed upon by laws or regulations that hinder the amount of profit they estimate can be attained.

The World Bank already has established a system whereby credit or loans will not be issued to Third World countries and even less stressed countries, unless they agree to allow foreign investors access to privatize the water supply. In Bolivia this resulted in mass demonstrations that finally forced out a subsidiary of Bechtel that had privatized the water supply, increased costs three-fold minimally, dispensed with upkeep and left ¼ of the rural homes without access to water.

England has privatized their water system and costs rose 45% overnight, all but skeleton crews remained of the maintenance sector and the quality of water has dropped significantly.
In one Canadian town several people became ill and one died from an ecoli contamination in the water supply. This occurred after the supply had been privatized, and the owner of the water supply knew of the contamination. The public was never notified until after people became ill.

In March of 2000 at the Hague, a meeting occurred where water executives stated that as long as water was coming out of the tap the public had no right to any information as to how it got there….. Or its quality.
Here in the States, private investors have in some places succeeded in taking over community water supplies, in other places the communities have fought back against the sale of publicly held supplies realizing that this most important element of human survival should never be under the control of private corporations whose one and only duty is to make a profit for investors.

As water has historically been deemed a human right and necessity, so much so that the Public Trust Doctrine was put on paper, how could anyone in good conscience believe water is, or promote water as, a tradable commodity? How can there be so many callous and greedy individuals running around out there who would willingly see another human thirst to death just so they can make a buck? Apparently there are many.

The Water Restoration Act 2007 relies heavily on promotion based on protecting the water supply from pollution, from terrorists, and of course “national security”. The truth is it has nothing to do with any of these things. The WRA will allow unfettered pollution with no recourse for communities or individuals and “trade illegal” treatment of local and state laws. Before the entire water supply can be sold off to private interests the federal government must gain control of the entire water system. This is what the WRA will do.

This Act would be more aptly titled “The Water Confiscation Act” as this is exactly what is intended. All it is set to do is to strike down the Public Trust Doctrine and facilitate the conversion of water from a basic human right into a commodity. The only threat to “national security” here is from the government and the massive corporations who are behind it.

I guess we shouldn’t be surprised by any of this. After all, the Security & Prosperity Partnership refers to people as “human capital”. I wonder how long it will be before they refer to us as a “needed commodity” and trade and sell us on the global market.

Control the food, control the water and you control the people. I believe it was Henry Kissinger who first made this observation when speaking about the importance of depopulation through the use of eugenics. Obviously good old Henry realized that overtaking the food and water supplies would go a long way in deciding who had a right to life.

Uncle Guber just wants  to make sure we all get our fluoride
 :P  and pay out the nose for it..
As long as we have a nickle left, we are too rich for the nwo

mr anderson:
The State Government took over my Council's water supply.

Ratepayers face $230 rise

AN average Redland ratepayer faces a $230 yearly rise in council rates and charges, including a 79 per cent increase in water usage charges largely blamed on the State Government's water takeover.

Redland City Council's new budget, released today, reveals a household using 200 kilolitres of water annually will pay almost $275 a year in consumption charges - about $120 more than now.

In 2008-09, the council will have to buy water from the State Government.

Mayor Melva Hobson says the State will be charging the council much more to buy bulk water than it currently costs the council to produce from its own supplies.

The council's acting chief executive officer, Ray Turner, said 63 per cent of the water usage charge rise was a result of the State's takeover.

The yearly water access charge will rise by $10 to $207, the sewerage charge will rise $40 to $635, and the environment charge will rise by $15 to $87.80 to fund bushland acquisition and key actions of the koala strategy.

The waste and recycling charge will rise $5 to $230. For the first time, the council will charge residents $4 to visit the dump to dispose of their waste.

Cr Hobson said the dump fees were based on the user-pays principle. If the gate fees were not introduced, all ratepayers would face a greater increase to their waste charges, she said.

Southern Bay Island property owners face an increase of about 22 per cent in their total rates and charges. Apart from the water rises, this increase is due to a doubling of the money raised for a special fund to pay for island infrastructure.

Last year the council introduced a differential rate to raise about $80 per island property for this special fund. This rises to about $160 this time.

we are so screwed!


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version