Blog Posts

By Kate Fried

While I’ve been writing about water privatization for almost four years now, it sometimes still seems to me like an extremely abstract issue. Sure, I know that private water companies tend to raise consumer rates, scrimp on customer service, and downsize their work forces. But how often do I meet consumers who have been personally affected by the problems inflicted by private water companies? Not terribly often. Yes, perhaps I should get out more.

Therefore, when a series of emails floated through my inbox detailing some of the frustrations that customers of Aqua America and its subsidiaries have encountered in recent months, my attention was piqued because they connected the problems of privatization to actual humans. Join me as I introduce you to a few of them and their water woes.

Meet Ruby Williams. Ms. Williams, a 78-year-old Aqua Pennsylvania customer, gained nation attention not long ago for being hit with a $40,000 water bill after a leak left her plumbing lines gushing more water than it takes to fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool. The leak occurred on the side of her water line that Aqua Pennsylvania does not claim responsibility for, so instead of offering solutions for resolving it, they sent her a bill that rivaled the cost of tuition at a private university and offered to set her up on an installment plan. Only after Ms. Williams’ situation garnered national media attention, and only after a county social services agency began collecting donations to help her pay her bill did the company agree to reduce her bill to hundreds of dollars instead of tens of thousands.  

Now meet the Price family of Stallings, North Carolina. Aqua North Carolina recently cut off their wastewater service despite the fact that they had paid their bill, and then demanded $1000 to restore it. According to state regulators, the actual cost should have been $645–still a hefty price, but about a third less than what Aqua asked. Luckily, the state intervened, and the company restored their service at no charge. An investigation is now underway.

Finally, meet the residents of Newlin Greene, a subdivision of Newlin Township in Chester County, Pennsylvania. Residents there are facing a drinking water bill increase less than a year after their provider Aqua Pennsylvania raised sewer rates by 60 percent. They are already paying nearly $2000 a year for sewer service on average, and if the company gets it way, they will ending up paying more than $1000 a year for water service. That’s a total of about $3000 a year for water and sewer service.  Ouch.

Not long ago, presidential contender Mitt Romney opined “corporations are people,” but the experience of these Aqua America subsidiary customers suggests that some corporations are not people who should be trusted with our valuable water resources, nor should they necessarily be invited into our homes. After all, what would you do if your life and your wallet were turned inside out by one of these companies?

Crossposted from Ecocentric

by Chris Hunt

Download the podcast.

When I first met Carole Morison in 2006, she and her family operated an industrial poultry facility on the Delmarva Peninsula where they’d been raising chickens under contract with agri-giant, Perdue, for two decades.  In her spare time, Carole was an outspoken critic of factory farming, a staunch advocate for farmworkers’ rights and an effective organizer intent on exposing the ills of the industrial livestock production system in which she was so deeply involved.

Purdue couldn’t stand Carole.  I liked her immediately.

It was clear to me from the start that Carole wasn’t a follow-the-crowd sort of person; indeed, she demonstrates the classic characteristics that make the American farmer great: fierce independence combined with a strong dedication to community, a steadfast commitment to justice and the unwavering resolve to voice her beliefs.

In 2008, Carole was featured prominently in Food, Inc. In it, she described her experience as a contract poultry producer, telling one of the most compelling – and heart-wrenching – stories included in the landmark film.  The same year, Purdue terminated the Morisons’ contract, leaving them with empty single-purpose industrial poultry barns in which they’d already invested hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The American farmer has always been known for the ability to solve problems through prudence, resourcefulness and innovation – and Carole Morison is no exception.  Ultimately, she and her husband repurposed one of their old industrial chicken barns and transitioned the facility into a humane, sustainable farm for laying hens.

But the American farmer has always been known for ingenuity and the ability to solve problems through prudence, resourcefulness and innovation – and Carole Morison is no exception.  Ultimately, she and her husband repurposed one of their old industrial chicken barns and transitioned the facility into a humane, sustainable farm for laying hens.  The fruit of their labor, Bird’s Eye View Farm, was recently certified as the first Animal Welfare Approved farm on the Delmarva Peninsula.

An effective shift from the industrial food system of the past to the sustainable model of the future will require widespread implementation of exactly this sort of agricultural transition. Ultimately, Carole’s is a story of hope and triumph, not just for the Morisons and sustainable food advocates, but for all of us.

In this Our Heroes podcast, Carole discusses her own transition to sustainable agriculture, the challenges currently facing other industrial producers hoping to make similar transitions, the impact of her involvement in Food, Inc.and the joys of raising Rhode Island Red hens.

Listen to the 34-minute interview by clicking on the audio player (above left), download as a podcast or read a PDF transcript. Find an excerpt from the interview below.

You can learn more about Carole’s transition to sustainable egg production (along with her outstanding insights into the food system) by reading her blog, Food for Thought.

Q: For those who are unfamiliar with the poultry industry and with your involvement in it, can you give us some background?

We raised chickens under contract for an international corporation for 23 years.  It was industrial production… I married into it. When I first started, I was under the impression that that’s the only way you raise chickens. Throughout the adventure of raising the chickens under contract, it became more and more evident that there were a lot of things wrong with the whole system of industrial production. And that kind of led me to speak out about the industry practices… I didn’t like what we were doing, and chickens were like a number. We just counted flock after flock of chickens.

So that led me to speak out about things: environmental issues, public health issues, worker issues. I mean, the industry is just rampant with all kinds of issues and it’s a system that I finally came to understand is not sustainable. I think the biggest problem is that there is no care about how the animals are raised, how they go to market, just as long as we mass produce. There is no concern for the farmers, or the workers, or their welfare; they’re just another cog in the wheel that’s going to move these chickens to market… And to me, it’s driven by greed. The corporations that dominate the industry, their bottom line is the dollar, and nothing else matters… There were really no scruples or morals within when it pertained to anything. I think that’s what bothered me the most, was the lack of care for anything.

Q: How did you make the transition from industrial farming to sustainable?

Between 2010 and 2011, I had the opportunity to see a lot of different ways of farming. And you know, it started giving me ideas. Well, maybe we could do this on the farm, or maybe we could do that on the farm. We wanted to do meat – chicken, pasture raised. However, the infrastructure here on the Delmarva Peninsula doesn’t exist to support independent production; everything is owned by industry… So then we came up with the idea of laying hens. There is not a lot to the processing; we do everything right here on the farm. And transportation – we’re working that out now; we’re going to piggyback with someone who is hauling another load to where our market is. And that way we can cut down on costs.

We were able to retool one of the chicken houses using some of the equipment that was already in there. The major thing was taking off the curtains that were on the sides; they were what they call “dark-out curtains,” which made everything inside really dark. So we took them off and put clear on so the chickens have fresh sunlight and air all the time, unless it’s really cold out. But they still have the sunlight with the clear curtains, which I love.

And we cut access doors so that the chickens could roam in and out freely as they want to during the day. We do put them up at night for predator control; we have a lot of foxes here. So yeah; it was fairly simple. First I kind of looked at it as a real daunting task, but it was fairly simple to do.

Q: Do you get the sense that there are many other industrial producers who would like to make a similar transition?

Definitely…We’ve already had farmers come to visit individually and take a look at what we’re doing. Yes, there’re definitely farmers out there who would like to get out of the system they’re in. And right now they’re stuck simply because, like I mentioned earlier, there’s no infrastructure to help the independent farmer or that the independent farmer can use. There’re no government programs that the farmer can go through to get up and running, and there’re just a whole lot of roadblocks there.

Q: How did the experience of being featured in Food, Inc. affect you and your work?

I think it made me seek out answers instead of always pointing out the problems. For a long time, even before Food, Inc., I worked on problems within the poultry industry, whether they were environmental, worker related, public health, whatever. However, after Food, Inc. and being in touch with so many different people around the country, it was kind of like, well, yeah, there’re problems there; they are not going away. But let’s see if we can’t find some solutions that will give both farmers and consumers choices, instead of being stuck in one system of producing food.

Q: What can people do to support sustainable chicken production and sustainable egg production in the US?

I think the biggest thing that people can do is to support their local farmer – your small farmer who is producing locally… And when you’re in the grocery store, if they are not carrying a product, talk to the manager in the grocery store and ask, “Why not?” Or say you’d like to see that product on the shelf. Consumer demand is what’s going to be the ultimate drive…  And without the support from the community and the consumers, it’s not going to happen. That’s just point blank the way I see it…

The biggest thing that I’m hearing from potential buyers is that the supply can’t meet the demand. They need more farmers; they need more people producing food to be able to carry the local foods. So we need to find farmers. And I think there’re more and more people who are doing it, getting into it on a smaller basis. You can produce a lot on five acres, believe it or not. It doesn’t take hundreds or thousands of acres to be able to do it. So I just think that we’re going to see it moving forward, rapidly.

See Our Video: The Washington Burger and Tell Obama: Protect Our Food Safety

“I will not back down from … making sure that our food is safe and our water is clean.”

This quote from President Obama’s State of the Union speech last week expresses the very reason Food & Water Watch exists. It’s great to hear that the President supports our mission in such forceful terms. But when it comes to putting those words into action, he has room for improvement. Food inspection independent of corporate control is under attack by this administration, and frankenfoods are green-lighted. Food & Water Watch pushes back on these issues and we have had successes against a food industry that lobbies for profits over food safety. Public pressure on legislators and the administration is making a difference and we can turn the tide against these dangerous practices that the public does not want.

But the public’s need for clean water is another issue entirely. That’s colliding with the ultra-powerful fossil-fuel industry and their number one profit scheme for the 21st century — fracking. This is what the President had to say: “We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly one hundred years, and my Administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade.”

This quote could have come from an energy company TV commercial. The President made no reference to ground water contamination or earthquakes or the problems of fracking fluid disposal. And we know the fossil fuel industry has overestimated job creation from fracking. The environmental toll and health risks are glossed over by industry just as they were glossed over in this speech. The public is opposed to fracking, but it will take a massive outcry to counter industry pressure.

You may have already signed this petition, but now you can get it to other people who already oppose fracking and to people who need to know the truth. This will be a long and tough fight, but with enough support, we can win this together.

Parting thoughts:

The director of our water program, Emily Wurth, also had some thoughts on the SOTU speech.

Until next week,

Lane Brooks
Chief Operating Officer
Food & Water Watch
See my recent messages

By Tim Schwab, Food Policy Researcher

Last week’s State of the Union Address found President Obama bragging about how few regulations he had implemented as president and how much support he’s going to continue offer the private sector. This sounds an awful lot like business as usual for the White House—promoting innovation at any cost, no matter the impact on human health and the environment. 

Case in point: nanomaterials. 

The National Research Council (NRC) released a long report last week identifying major gaps in environmental, health and safety research of nanomaterials. Its conclusion: “Despite the promise of nanotechnology…the future of safe and sustainable nanotechnology-based materials, products, and processes is uncertain.” 

This warning follows a growing body of science demonstrating potential dangers associated with nanomaterials—a new class of chemicals developed through shrinking the particle sizes of existing elements, like carbon and silver. Turns out that changing the size of particles radically changes their behavior, properties and risks. Read the full article…

By Scott Edwards

Whenever I hear the name Monsanto I can’t help but think about one of the greatest environmental crimes in the history of the United States. Back in 1935 Monsanto bought out a small chemical company located in Anniston, Alabama, a struggling town of about 22,000 poor and working class people. Monsanto spent the next 36 years using Anniston as its manufacturing headquarters for PCBs, an industrial coolant. Tragically, the company was also recklessly poisoning the local community, environment and its own workers with hundreds of tons of this highly toxic material.

For decades Monsanto used Snow Creek, a small local waterway that flowed past its plant, to dispose of PCBs. The company claims that they just didn’t know any better – that as soon as they became aware that PCBs were a human and environmental health problem, they took steps to stop the dumping and to protect local residents and workers. But as documents that the company was forced to turn over during a series of lawsuits that began in the late 1990’s show, their claimed ignorance of the harmful impacts of PCBs is just another in a long, ongoing list of Monsanto’s endless lies. Read the full article…

By Emily Wurth

As I watched President Obama’s State of the Union address this week, I thought he had some good ideas about how to address some of our country’s serious problems, but I think he really got it wrong on energy policy.

In his speech, President Obama lauded natural gas from shale as a key part of his clean energy plan, but the truth is there is nothing clean about it. Fracking shale for natural gas is an intensive extractive process that has polluted the water and air of communities across the country.

Unfortunately, the energy portion of President Obama’s speech sounded like it could have been written by the oil and gas industry. He cited the industry’s deceptive claims and grossly inflated the jobs numbers, rather than actual labor statistics. President Obama needs to hear the truth about shale gas. Read the full article…

By Kate Fried

Be honest–this morning when you first turned on the tap to hop into the shower, make coffee, or engage in one of the other countless everyday tasks that requires water, you probably didn’t take a moment to reflect on the fact that clean water flowed from the faucet. No, you turned on the tap and beautiful clear liquid flowed from it—just like it did countless other times, as you’ve come to expect as a resident of a developed nation. Because that’s what happens when we take a resource for granted—we cease to think about it until something goes horribly wrong.

Well, if you live in Pontiac, Michigan, that day may be lurking right around the corner. A while back, the state appointed an Emergency Financial Manager to help whip the city’s troubled finances into shape. Last year, the manager handed the city’s water and sewer systems over to United Water, which if you follow such matters, you know has a track record of raising consumer rates and providing unreliable service. It was also charged with conspiracy and felony violations of the Clean Water Act in a 26-count indictment in Gary, Indiana last year.

Its performance in Pontiac hasn’t been terribly illustrious either. So far the Emergency Financial Manager has raised the price of drinking water for consumers by five percent, and sewage service by 14 percent. Additional increases are expected in 2012.

And now, it appears that the situation may worsen. The Emergency Financial Manager authorized that effective next month United Water will deny service to anyone who fails to pay their water bill. With nearly a third of Pontiac living below the poverty line, the prospect that some won’t be able to pay their water bills is a very real one, especially if rates continue to increase. So if you’re poor and living in Pontiac, cross water off the list of basic human rights you’ll be able to enjoy.

So far few have taken note of this situation, except for some financial gurus, who expect this strategy to raise money for the city. I guess it hasn’t occurred to them that people don’t pay their water bills because they can’t afford to, so threatening service cutoffs is unlikely to bring in much money.

Luckily, there may be a happy ending for some in all this gloom. Activists in Michigan are close to getting a referendum on the November ballot that would repeal recent changes to the state’s Emergency Financial Manager law. If those changes are repealed, emergency financial managers would no longer have sweeping authority over city finances and operations, and other cities would not have to suffer the same fate as Pontiac.

For more information visit Michigan Forward.

Take action with Food & Water Watch to stop genetically engineered food.

The presidential primaries currently underway have provided vast entertainment but precious little policy substance on issues that effect people daily. Over the course of what feels like thousands of hours of debates, I don’t recall a single question about the safety of our food. There have been many questions touching on the problem of imported energy but nothing on imported food with its growing safety problems. Where are the questions about the shrinking number of farmers combined with the ballooning number of factory farms with their widespread use of antibiotics and other drugs as well as the unprecedented pollution they generate? And what about the unanswered health questions (largely because they are not being asked in public forums) surrounding the rapid rise of genetically modified foods?

Food & Water Watch is working on many fronts to tackle all of these issues, and one thing you can do is to tell your friends about the specific issue of genetically modified foods. Please help spread the word by sending this petition to people you know. The more people who are concerned and vocal, the more likely we are to check the willy-nilly spread of under-tested frankenfoods. If you want to get even more involved, you can attend or start a meeting in your community, to move us closer to a better food system.

If you think that the government agencies tasked with ensuring the safety of our food can resist industry pressure, then you should know that this past week that the USDA approved a plan to let poultry factory farms inspect themselves. One barn with up to 35,000 birds pumped with chemicals is already a recipe for filth and disease and we need more government oversight, not less. Without your voice and that of your fellow Americans, we can’t reverse the trends that are turning our everyday food supply into an unwholesome stew of chemicals, filth and genetic mystery.

Parting thoughts:

One person CAN make a difference. Ecosalon names Food & Water Watch board chair Maude Barlow one of ten women to watch. Maude says: “Do not listen to those who say there is nothing you can do to the very real and large social and environmental issues of our time.” Absolutely.

Until next week,

Lane Brooks
Chief Operating Officer
Food & Water Watch
See my recent messages

By James Mitchell

It seems like the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) can’t get enough of belittling our nation’s fishermen. In a recent Seattle Weekly blog entitled, “New Study Sounds Rare Optimistic Note in Sustainable Seafood Conversation,” an EDF staffer compared “fishing management strategies to a parent’s handling of the situation that unfolds after a piñata’s broken at a child’s birthday party,” further adding that traditional fisheries management (focusing on rules that regulate boat size, gear type, and calendar date), “is analogous to a parent trying to slow a candy rush by insisting each child only use one hand.”

In EDF’s piñata candy analogy, our fishermen are compared to greedy candy-hungry children, and the federal government is portrayed as, not merely paternalistic, but actually the parents of these little children. This is coming from the same group whose west coast vice president famously described fishermen as “unskilled, unprofessional,” and prone to “high drug use,” at a conference to woo private investors into a scheme to privatize our fisheries (Page 7).

So what’s the purported solution to solve the crisis of the split piñata?  Just like at the investor conference: privatizing our nation’s fisheries with catch shares.  As EDF puts it, “You can each get 10 pieces of candy. You have to stay within your limit or find someone willing to give you [their] candy.  Go after sugary candy, go after chocolate candy, go after whatever you like.”

Apart from being condescending, this analogy is overly simplistic and completely inaccurate.  If these kids were under a “candy catch shares” regime, they would soon come to a rude awakening.  

First, they would discover that not every kid is given the same 10 pieces, because in the real world, not every kid is treated equally. Some kids get preference because of who their parents are, because they’re popular, etc. Next, they would discover that they are not allowed to go after whatever candy they like—they have to pick the same kind of candy every year because the quota is species – er, candy-type specific. That means if their candy type isn’t even in the piñata that year, they don’t get any candy. Finally, the “smaller” children would soon witness how the big bullies acquire the bulk of the candy by teaming up on the little ones to force them out of the room.

As the icing on the birthday cake, the parents might even ask one of the bigger children how the piñata party went, to which he would cheerfully reply in chocolate-stained teeth, “Great!  Let’s have another!”

The list of flaws with the candy analogy goes on, but one thing remains clear.  Candy catch shares don’t work, and neither do real-life catch shares on our nation’s fisheries.

By Royelen Lee Boykie

In my mind’s eye, I see President Obama, in his address to the Congress tonight, saying, “Craig and Julie Sautner of Dimock, Pennsylvania are here. The EPA is delivering water to him and to his family because it’s been made undrinkable by fracking. We need energy alternatives that DON’T destroy our precious water resources and poison our citizens. I will ask Congress to protect our American families and institute a national ban on fracking.”

It’s a wonderful image, but it’s not likely to happen–yet. Today’s Wall Street Journal and others are reporting a big focus on harnessing domestic sources of U.S. energy, to include fracked gas. We’ll be watching what he says about the issue, but we already know that fracking will not solve our economic woes. We’ll also pay close attention to what he says about streamlining government given his recent announcement, and see if tonight’s speech gives us a preview of what his 2013 budget will have in store for food and water protections. (Hopefully better news than last week, when the USDA announced the privatization of poultry inspections.)

Watch with us tonight and let us know what you think–and if you haven’t already, sign up to protect your food and water.

Read the full article…