Long+Film+Annotation+3

Arunesh Ghosh, Annotation #3 12/29/11 Thirst: Fighting the Corporate Theft of Our Water

1. Title, director and release year?

The film is titled //Thirst: Fighting the Corporate Theft of Our Water.// The piece was released in 2007 and was directed and produced by Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman.

2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?

The film centers around the horrific new threat of privatization of water. Much like most other things that would seem like basic human rights, such as access to healthcare and an education, water too is slowly being taken out of the control of governments and put in the hands of corporations. The film shows several different cases in different countries from active and successful efforts resisting water privatization in India and Bolivia to unsuccessful efforts in the United States. The film clearly has a very anti-corporate attitude towards the privatization of water

3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?

The documentary is presented by detailing various cases around the world and the methods by which they have addressed the growing threat of water privatization. Though not highly scientific in nature, the narrative does show the various political forces at work in determining water policy and rights. One conflict the film pays attention to particular is the conflict surround water privatization in Bolivia. After a single company managed to gain control of most of the water supply in the country, its citizens began to riot. Despite government resistance and heavy use of troops to quell the unrest, in time, the people prevailed. Much of the story is told through footage and interviews with resistance leaders. The film then shifts gears as it explores the methods by which the Indian State of Rajasthan has managed to deal with its water problems. This in particular struck home with me since my father’s side of the family all reside in Rajasthan and I visit there often. Perhaps most concerning is the segment devoted to the fight over water privatization within the United States in a small town in California. The film certainly has a degree of emotional appeal overall as water, simply put, is life. Without water, humans cannot exist, simply put. One must keep in mind however that most individuals within the United States have never experienced a true water shortage and perhaps the possibility of unaffordable water would seem a little foreign to them.

4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?

The film centers around the main sustainability problem of water, its regulation, and whether or not to view access to it as a commodity or as a right. The mere fact that privatization of water supplies is even an issue is abhorable and alarming. Over the course of history many commodities that could be considered essential have been privatized such as electricity and heating, but water has avoided such a fate because it is considered essential to life. Upkeep and maintenance costs have often been collected by governments for system upkeep and maintenance. Supporters of water privatization claim that leaving control of water supply in the hand of government means there is no motivation to improve or upgrade existing facilities. Though this might be somewhat true, this problem can easily be rectified by putting in place regulations that are updated each year to meet new needs. Privatization of water however has precisely the opposite effect. Companies would only improve facilities to meet the minimum regulations. Their motivations instead would be how to cut costs so as to provide people with water at the lowest possible price. Consumers also would seek companies that provide water at the lowest possible price resulting in a spiraling trend of cost cutting measures to boost profits. Those who claim that not privatizing water is simply not possible can take lessons from around the world. In India, in the state of Rajasthan, consumers have taken the issue of water sustainability and anti privatization efforts to a whole new level. Using the resources available to them, most individuals in the state have fashioned rainwater collection and purification systems throughout the state. Using these intuitive methods, the people of Rajasthan have avoided the pressures of water supply privatization. In the United States however, in a town in California, the local government recently opted to privatize its water supply. Despite what was presented as a strong and valiant campaign to fight the push for privatization by the city mayor, the city council voted in favor of privatization. How was this possibly permitted? As it would appear, even within the politically active community in the town, widespread awareness and community involvement was not present. If community awareness about the issue of water privatization could be increased, then perhaps this unfortunate outcome would not have come about.

5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?

The segment of the film that was especially persuasive for me was the portion dedicated to detailing alternative water systems in India. I have seen firsthand the simple and practical methods used in my own grandfather’s house in Rajasthan. Rainwater collection tanks lead through a filtration system and feed into the water supply for the house. Drinking water is then passed through an independent electric filtration system. Even water collected by rain gutters is rerouted to water plants and the surrounding foliage of the lawn. This verified the material presented in the film regarding use of rainwater as an alternative water source. There are key differences however between the promotion of these systems in India and implementing such creative systems in other countries. For one, municipal water supplies in India are not universal in accessibility nor are they held to the same high standard as they are in the United States. If I consume the municipal water in India for example, I tend to get really sick probably due to bacteria or other impurities within the water supply. As was the case with //Burning in the Sun,// and the ease with which solar panels were implemented, the system of rainstorm collection is made possible mostly due to lack of existing infrastructure for many people. Within the United States and much of the developed world, existing water systems are of relatively high quality and ingrained in our infrastructure. As such it is much harder to wean people off of relying on municipal water and shifting to independent, consumer driven models. The safest bet would be to retain control of water in the hands of the government rather than in the hands of corporations.

6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?

I did not quite understand the Tokyo convention on water supply and access. Usually, when I think about conventions and conferences in Tokyo it usually brings to mind efforts to curb environmental degradation through reductions in emissions and the like. This conference however, featured the heads of various water corporations across the globe.

7. What audiences does the film best address? Why

The film best addresses individuals who are aware of the impending water crisis as the human population continues to explode. Most people are largely unaware, atleast within the United States, about water and the challenges that arise with its delivery and availability. For most of us within the United States, it’s a simple matter of turning the tap on and off. If anything, the film does a good job of at the very least, introducing the issue to viewers within the United States.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Though the film does a terrific job of detailing the issue of water privatization and community responses around the world, it does not go far enough in my opinion. If more of the film was devoted to highlighting the terrible, negative effects of water privatization, the issue would be more pertinent and relatable to American viewers. For most of us within the United States, water affordability is not too much of a cause for concern, but subsequent decline in water quality might be cause for concern. Highlighting the negative consequences of water privatization would significantly increase the environmental education value of the film.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">9. What kind of action points of intervention are suggested by the film. If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can’t imagine being effective.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">There are many actions that I cannot imagine being effective. Despite what companies declared at the World Water Council and the inevitable need to privatize water, this is most certainly not the case. Privatization of water would lead to similar problems throughout water supply systems. These problems would include a decline in water quality in more developed nations as companies attempt to cut costs to boost profits while in less economically affluent countries, water would become unaffordable to the most impoverished individuals and neighborhoods. Local efforts to fight water privatization through petitions and signatures simply do not seem like effective tactics to prevent political action, there simply is not enough public awareness or support to counter strong ad campaigns by politicians. Instead, perhaps using more modern and innovative social media such as facebook, twitter, etc might have been more possible. Then again these forms of media may not have been as popular when the documentary was filmed. It is important to keep in mind however, the capacity of these forms of communication and its power especially for our generation.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">The film did not really delve into the purpose of the World Water Council, its mission and what it does exactly. As it turns out, the Council’s purpose according to its mission statement is; “ <span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">to promote awareness, build political commitment and trigger action on critical water issues at all levels, including the highest decision-making level, to facilitate the efficient conservation, protection, development, planning, management, and use of water in all its dimensions on an environmentally sustainable basis for the benefit of all life on earth. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">” In reality however, it more often than not promotes the agenda’s of private multinational corporations. This explains why those who were running the conference were representatives of some of the largest water corporations. The conference as a whole is often times described by activists as “a smoke screen” for water privatization efforts. I still wanted to delve deeper and get more involved. This led me to the movie site itself which surprisingly had a get involved section. This led me to the Public Citizen’s site which got me intensely interested in the organization. After reading further into the group I am strongly considering becoming a member once I have the funds to join.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 22pt;">Links

[]

[]