Rovereto+Blue+Gold+World+Water+Wars


 * Title:** Blue Gold: World Water Wars
 * Director:** Sam Bozzo
 * Release Year:** 2008

Beginning in elementary school, we are told that there is a water cycle on Earth that keeps going forever and ever, so we will always have water. But will it be like the saying, “Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink”? The film discusses the unsustainability of the world’s usage of the world’s fresh water supply, a mere 3% of the earth’s entire water supply and the only portion drinkable by humans. In this discussion, it points out the roles water privatization, water relocation and allocation, groundwater depletion and pollution, and conflicts over diminishing water supplies play in this sustainability issue. Its main message is that people in industrialized nations may take water for granted, but it must be looked at as a global issue if anyone is to have a reliable water supply in the near future.
 * What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

One issue the film spends a great deal of time on is the usage of ground water. The film specifically talks about the integral part ground water plays in any ecosystem, and how little is actually known about it. This lack of understanding is an issue in and of itself, as the difficulty of the science of studying aquifers means that less research is done than is necessary, and possible problems are not caught early enough. Too much ground water pumping is what led to the collapse of the city of Ubar in South Oman. When the Spaniards first conquered Mexico City (Tenochtitlan originally), it was a city in a lake. But they wanted the city to look like Madrid in Spain, so they had the natives cut down all the protective trees and water blockages, and the city has been sinking ever since. Only one original canal remains. We are pumping more than 15 times more ground water than is recharged. This ties into our land-ownership and usage laws as well.
 * What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**

The film talks about how farmers in the United States are allowed to pump an unlimited amount of water to irrigate their land. However, they must continue to pump water, or else it is possible for them to lose their land. Therefore, even if an environmentally conscious farmer wants to pump only as much as he needs, he must keep pumping water if he wants to keep his land. Tied to agriculture are the issues of soil erosion and desertification. Clearing land for crops, especially annual crops, removes the root systems of trees that once held the soil in place. Without something to hold the soil, it just washes away, and if this continues it can lead to desertification. The film ties in urban development as a contributor to desertification, as the large amount of impermeable surfaces in cities (streets, building foundations, etc.) mean that water just runs off into sewers and into the ocean, without soaking into the soil.

Another issue with the US legal system that is explored is the ability of water companies to bottle municipal water and sell it. This occurs because corporations are treated like people under US law, and so have the right to use water on their land. They pump hundreds of gallons a minute, bottling this water and selling it back to the people they basically took it from. If people protest this practice, the corporation’s lawyers can issue a SLAPP suit to try and intimidate the individual. If people win a legal battle to stop the water company, the appeals process in our legal system, as well as the influence companies have over our government makes it relatively easy to overturn the previous ruling and allow the water company to keep pumping and bottling water.

Another huge contributor to the issue of water consumption that the movie explores quite a bit is the privatization of water. The commoditization of water makes it a good like any other, when water is clearly different. It was at a UN conference in 1992 when the UN first named water as a good. The water companies were shown to have lots of problems, from poor water municipal system management to poor water quality management. There is also the point that whenever a municipality privatizes their water, there is a large increase in the price of this formerly cheap resource.

The film also ties water privatization to the problems with today’s international organizations. The World Bank seems to be in cahoots with the multinational water companies, as whenever a developing nation asks for aid from the World Bank, one key condition of their aid is that they privatize their water. This has led to several disasters, one of which being the privatization of Cochabamba’s water supply to Bechtel, after which the people protested to remove Bechtel from Cochabamba. Riot police came out and many people were injured and arrested, and several were killed. The scarcity and misappropriation of fresh water has led to many conflicts over water, which gives the film its subtitle.

For me, one of the most compelling parts of the film was when a list of places in the world that have privatized water was displayed. That list was much longer than I expected, and the sheer number of cities and counties in the US that have privatized water was astounding. I did not know New York City’s water supply was bought by Suez.
 * What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

I found the film’s presentation of the control companies like Coca-Cola have over developing nations like those in Africa to be very persuasive. The price differences between Coke and Dasani water was significant, and in the interview with the Coca-Cola representative, he said the difference was due to the glass bottles for Coke being less expensive than the plastic bottles for Dasani, when a visual showed that the representative was blatantly lying.

The story of what water privatization does to communities in Africa was startling. People have so little money to spend on water that they keep their water passes away from their children. When a woman was at work one day and her children were at home, their shack caught fire. She didn’t have any water at home to put her fire out, and neighbors didn’t have enough money to put out her fire. The children died.

While the main points of the film were conveyed well and in a compelling manner, there is some ‘evidence’ given that did not leave me convinced. One such piece of evidence is given to show that former Mexican President Vicente Fox was giving preferential treatment to Coca-Cola through economic concessions. The evidence they give for this is that he was the general manager for Coca-Cola Mexico before his presidency. This does not seem like legitimate evidence, as it could just be coincidental. The images of Coke all over Mexico were also fairly pointless, as Coke advertising is all over the world, as it is a global brand. Another point I found improbable was that the Bush family was trying to buy up land in Brazil to get a share of the world’s largest aquifer under Brazil, switching from oil tycoons to water tycoons. All the evidence they gave was here say, and none of it was proven. In the film, it is even said that this is speculated.
 * What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**

This film is made to address the people in the world who take water for granted, and for those who don’t even consider water management and allocation important issues. This could be anyone from a non-arid industrialized nation, like much of the US, Canada and Europe. There are many people that believe that the water cycle is infinite, and that in itself means we shouldn’t worry about water scarcity. This movie is for those people. This film is meant to introduce and familiarize the viewer with the problems with water scarcity and management and the issues that fuel these problems. This is why the presented solutions to these problems ranged from individual to large scale projects. This allows the viewer to do whatever they can at any level and feel like they are making a difference: from watering their lawns less to community water management or participation in worldwide foundations.
 * What audiences does the film best address? Why?**

The film, as a whole, did an excellent job of presenting the problem as a matrix of issues, and of informing the viewer of the facts and problems with water distribution today. With the solutions given, it seems as if the viewer would be compelled to investigate these individual-level solutions, as they range greatly in their required levels of participation, allowing anyone to get involved. However, I feel that if solutions at a municipal, state, and national level were explored as well, this would give a more complete picture of the global reform needed to resolve the problem, and would make people more willing to get involved with the political end of the solution.
 * What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?**

The film suggested many kinds of action to be taken to help ease the problem, but the most comprehensive of these was to return water to being a public resource, rather than a private commodity. This would return control of municipal water to the local government, and slow the exploitation, sale, and export of water by corporations. It also promotes local activism, showing the people of Wisconsin and Michigan and their battle against Nestle as an example. The film also discusses many technological solutions, like permeable pavement, small water catchments to allow water to absorb into the soil, and toilets that have two flush modes, one for urine and one for feces. At a personal level, several suggestions are given, like not having a lawn if grass can’t grow in your climate normally, turning off the faucet when you brush your teeth, and low flow shower heads.
 * What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.**


 * What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?**

At the end of the film, it mentioned the website for the film, so I checked it out ([|Blue Gold]). The action plan section of the site was very interesting, offering everyday things people can do to help ease the water scarcity problem, as well as other things people can do in politics or how to become more involved. It also has a link to the Blue Alternatives project, which is run by Michal Kravcik, award winning Slovak scientist and founder of the NGO People and Water.

The film also talked about knowing what watershed you live in, so that you can become more involved in its protection and care. I didn’t know what watershed I lived in, so I decided to find out on the [|EPA’s] website. It turns out that my city, Kingston, NY is in the Middle Hudson Watershed – 02020006, which just happens to be the same watershed Troy is located in, although Troy is at the upper limit, and Kingston at the very lower limit.