marcszar_flow


 * Flow: How Did a Handful of Corporations Steal Our Water? -** //Irene Salina, 2008//

//What is the central argument or narrative of the film?// //Flow// argues that the privatization of public water resources makes clean water unaffordable to the vast poverty-stricken populations of the third world. By shutting down public water distribution networks (or forbidding such networks from being established), private water companies gain for-profit monopoly power over a public resource and end up charging too much for water - typical charges are far too high for the average third-world citizen to afford. Many people are thus forced to collect water from local (often polluted and contaminated) water sources - ditches, ponds, rivers, canals - and end up contracting numerous diseases. The film also discusses the overwhelming problem of toxins (pesticides, pharmaceuticals, industrial pollutants) in public and private water supplies in both the third and first worlds and discusses methods for the public to organize and spread awareness about the problem.

//What sustainability problems does the film draw out?//
 * //Political?//
 * Particularly eye-opening is the film's discussion on the virtual lack of regulation of the bottled-water industry in the United States. Bottled waters have been found to contain a variety of toxins and chemicals (the film uses a humorous anecdote of an individual pumping water from near an industrial brownfield site and reselling it to various bottled water companies) but there are virtually no regulators in the EPA or any other agency testing the purity of bottled water.
 * //Legal?//
 * The film also discusses how the World Bank saddles the third world with loans and debts; as a result the World Bank becomes the "owner" of entire countries and political systems. Many countries, once going into debt for funding supposed infrastructural improvements, are forced to turn over their public infrastructure to the World Bank. The WB in turn usually privatizes these public systems and sells them to multinational resource corporations (oil, electricity, water) who impose usage fees that place the system out of reach of the majority of the population. Furthermore, the promised infrastructural improvements are rarely made, and in most cases resource management practices deteriorate much rapidly under private management than under previous public management. The film used Bolivia (the water supply of the city of Cochabamba) as an example, though the scenario can be found all over the world. (//Flow// didn't mention this but other films have: in the case of Cochabamba, when the water supply was privatized, local public water pumps were closed down and //it was even made illegal to collect rainwater from roofs// and to store it.)
 * //Economic?//
 * The problem, as made obvious by the film, is that privatization of a resource (imposing usage fees on a resource that is seen by many people to be a fundamental right) always places it out of reach of vast portions of the population who cannot afford the fees for the resource. The poor cannot simply "go without" this particular resource - everyone needs water to survive, so they are forced to collect water from whatever remaining source is available - usually local drainage ditches and rivers that are severely polluted.
 * //Technological?//
 * The film makes a compelling case for how wasteful bottled water truly is - 1/4 of the same bottle used to hold water would be filled up with oil if we were to analyze how much energy it takes to process, package, and distribute the bottled water. Bottled water is truly a waste of energy and - as shown elsewhere in the film - it isn't even safer or "cleaner" than tap water anyway. In the case of water supplies in the third world, the film discussed the destructive nature that large dams had on local populations and ecosystems and questioned whether it would be more technologically efficient and sustainable if small-scale rainwater-collection and irrigation systems would be more effective at meeting the needs of communities. Also discussed was the worrying fact that the southwest states in the US were running so low on water (depleting their aquifers and draining so much from the Colorado River that the flow never reaches the delta) for massive cropland irrigation, watering suburban lawns, and watering golf courses (all in the desert!) that these states will have looming water problems in the near future.
 * //Media and informational?//
 * The film alludes to cases in the third world where governments have promised their citizens that the privatization of water supplies will rapidly expand the infrastructure and provide "water to all." As most citizens quickly discover, this is almost never the case - the infrastructure deteriorates and heavy usage fees are imposed on a formerly-public resource. Third world citizens often organize and protest this inevitable outcome but are frequently met with violence (i.e. Cochabamba). As for the first world, there is a general lack of media discussion or awareness on the nature of bottled water - few of us are aware of how energy-intensive and wasteful it really is, and many of us naively assume it is cleaner and safer than tap water when it in fact contains the same amount (or even more) of contaminants as tap water.
 * //Organizational?//
 * The film cites an excellent case study in India where a community has formed a local municipal water purification and distribution facility. The infrastructure is far from elaborate - the facility uses ultraviolet radiation to purify the water and distributes it through public taps on the outside of the facility (there is little or no indoor plumbing that goes to the actual houses in the village), but the system employs local people, is financially, technologically, and ecologically sustainable, and it meets the basic needs of local residents quite well. The organizers of the facility acknowledge that they have only met the needs of one small village and that there is much more work to do to spread the expertise to more communities.
 * //Educational?//
 * One particularly poignant scene in the film was the confrontation between local community organizers and executives of the water industry in a South African town - one water industry executive said he didn't understand why locals were making the choice to take water from polluted streams when the company had installed clean pay-per-use water pumps and he was wondering if a lack of education/exposure about the new water system was responsible. The frustrated community organizers said that locals were perfectly aware of the water pumps but that their lack of use was not due to an unfamiliarity with their installation but with their extreme cost- locals know about the water stands but they just can't afford to use them. As one angry organizer pointed out, it was the affordability of the pay-per-use water stands that was the problem and that it should not be surprising that locals will turn to other sources if the water stands are too expensive. This disjuncture between the expectations of the locals and the expectations of the water executives calls into question not the education of the locals but rather the education of the executives: Do they understand how poor people live? Do they understand the concept of affordability? Do they understand that if they price water out of reach of most people that those people will be forced to turn to other sources to get their water? Many of these wealthy executives truly don't understand "how the other half lives," so it is not surprising to see them resort to denigrating and dismissing the poor when they fail to adopt the unrealistic consumption practices espoused by the executives.
 * //Behavioral?//
 * The film did an excellent job in portraying the irrational ways of thinking we (the first world) resort to when consuming bottled water. We automatically assume such water is cleaner and/or of higher quality than tap water - why exactly? A humorous scene in the film depicted several restaurant customers lauding the taste of several supposedly upmarket bottled water brands while in the back of the restaurant those same bottles were being filled with mere tap water (water from a garden hose).
 * //Cultural?//
 * The film emphasized that the belief that water should be a free (at least free in the sense that it is supplied via public or tax-supported infrastructure) resource available to all is pretty much universal in both the first and third worlds. However, the two societies have been pushed towards water privatization in different manners: a public water distribution network exists in the first world but people have gravitated towards private bottled water for inexplicable reasons. A few third world nations have public water distribution networks but these tend to be inadequate. These networks face increasing pressure to privatize and the trend towards private water distribution systems is increasing throughout the third world just as in the first world (though not in bottle form).
 * //Ecological?//
 * Before moving to the topic of water privatization, the film discussed the numerous environmental issues with our water supplies. Besides the aquifer depletion and desert irrigation issues discussed above, there also was a frightening discussion on the increasing amount of toxins discovered in the first world water supply - pharmaceuticals such as prozac have been discovered in animals, pesticides and fertilizers have been found in groundwater, and so on. Few of these chemicals have been analyzed for their effects on animal and human life, and there have been even fewer analyses done to test their cumulative effects (What happens to us when we ingest a combination of chemicals in our water?). The film also discussed the prevalence of industrial pollution in third world water sources (there is little regulation controlling the disposal of waste) and the destruction that the construction of dams wreaks on local ecologies and villages.

//What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?// I felt the film was particularly effective when describing the water supply situation in the Indian village (discussed above in the 'organizational' section). Here they showed us a scenario where local government turned away from the pressure of privatization and implemented a modest, cost-effective water supply solution for the local population. Simple, time-tested solutions for sanitation (irradiation) and distribution (free public taps) were implemented and made available to locals with a resulting tremendous positive impact. The benefit of such a solution/system for small third-world settlements is clear - there are low infrastructural costs, there is employment for locals, and there is the possibility for bypassing the hopelessly corrupt and ineffective provincial and national governments by dealing only with the more practical and reliable local governments.

//What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?// The film covered two themes - the contamination of water supplies in both the first and third worlds and the trend towards water privatization in both the first and third worlds. I have difficulty seeing what one issue has to do with another - for example, in the US we have the overwhelming problem of toxin contamination in our water supply yet we have a public water supply system. In the third world, those countries that still have public water supply systems still have to deal with (or ignore) water contamination. I strongly agree with the film's premise that privatization is NOT the solution for equitable water distribution, but municipalization of water distribution does not necessarily solve the issue of water purity - after all any bureaucracy, whether public or private, can easily bungle issues of public health, especially when the public takes such a system for granted and does little to hold it accountable.

//What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?// The film provides compelling cases for the public to begin examining/questioning how toxins and other contaminants are inflitrating our public and private water supplies. While the film encourages organizing, protesting, and spreading awareness on the nature of water privatization and groundwater drainage by bottling companies, it offered little discussion on what the public could do to confront the issue of water contamination - is there a way for locals to test for and filter out toxins in their water supply? Do we have to wait for a bloated, failed federal bureaucracy to finally come around to addressing the issue or would it be more feasible for locals to confront the contaminating businesses in their areas in order to demand cleanup? What lifestyle changes (bathing, cleaning, suburban living, commuting, consuming) would we have to make in order to realistically reduce the amount of toxins in our water supply - the film did little to address possible solutions to the contamination problem even though it very thoroughly described the contamination problem itself.

//What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?// The film makes a good attempt at humor to show the average American consumer of bottled water that such water is not actually much purer or better than tap water itself. If shown in enough places, the film might encourage more people to give up the ridiculous practice of consuming bottled water (already gradually happening in some places where refilling water bottles is becoming more popular). The film could also raise the attention of the average consumer in its discussion on water contamination - the startling statistics and scientific findings might encourage locals to at least look into the manner in which their local water supply is obtained and processed - for example, I looked up where the water for Troy's Water Department (the public utility that provides this region with our tap water) comes from and what particulates the water might contain.

//What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?// As shown in various parts of the film, organizing, protesting, litigating, and implementing local infrastructural solutions are likely to have the greatest impact in securing water supplies. Of course, as shown all too well in the film, this does not rule out the possibility of setbacks (such as the example of the Michigan residents struggling against court rulings stating that bottling companies are not doing anything to threaten property or local livelihoods).

//What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?//
 * Does the film convey different perspectives on the issues?
 * The film did present the views of the multinational water companies who stated they were driven by the goal of providing "water to all" though it correctly debunked their true motive as merely seeking to monopolize and make profit off of another natural, public resource.
 * Is it overly “balanced”?
 * I felt that the film (rightly) did not overindulge in the invalid arguments of the multinational water companies; it also did not indulge in the current fad of "technotriumphalism" as a means for solving our problems since it stressed that local, technologically simple solutions (rainwater collection, small-scale irrigation, public water taps) were more effective in solving the water access problem. Thus I think the film was not at all wishy-washy in promoting myriad solutions and viewpoints to the same degree - it specifically emphasized certain solutions and viewpoints, but not to an extreme.
 * Does it enhance scientific literacy? If so, what kind of scientific literacy is promoted?
 * The film did discuss the issue of toxins in water supply through it did not usually elaborate much on the scientific findings/studies in water contamination (unlike Homo Toxicus, for example). I feel that the issue of water contamination could have been removed from the film entirely and discussed in greater scientific detail in a separate film. Since the film focused on the problems of privatization it obviously couldn't delve into greater scientific detail without becoming too long.
 * Does it enroll viewers, or preach at them?
 * The film was dramatic and rarely preachy. It relied on stunning/disturbing findings and imagery to convey a sense of urgency rather than resorting to flowery language and unrealistic idealism.
 * Does it include images or examples that are likely to stick with viewers?
 * There were many powerful and disturbing scenes - the blood-filled stream in Bolivia filled with the waste of stockyards, the waiter filling water bottles from a garden hose, the trash-filled canals in third-world urban areas, and so on. The film used confrontational imagery very well in a manner to evoke emotion and reaction in the viewer.

< Back to my portfolio