A+World+Without+Water

Katelyn Kelly

Annotation #7, Privatization of Water

11/15/12

Word Count: 1703


 * Title:** A World Without Water


 * Director:** Brian Woods

The central argument of this film is whether or not water should be a commodity as it has become and be privatized and traded, or if it should be a basic human right and made accessible to everyone on Earth. The film leans heavily towards making water a basic human need as it pertains almost wholly to the negative impacts of the privatization of water and the effect that it has on human populations. The film opens by stating the obvious; water is not an infinite source, it will continue to be depleted thanks to climate change. This depletion and fear of depletion of water has taken the largest toll on third world countries in “water wars.” For example, the opening argument of the film was Coca Cola and local farmers in India fighting against water. A representative of Coke made the argument that they and the farmers own land above aquifers, however there is no jurisdiction on who owns the water aquifers as they flow underground in various locations. This is where the film starts to draw on emotions and carries on throughout its entirety. Through more interviews with Coke, local farmers, and leaders of the local village, it is concluded by the film that Coca Cola doesn’t recycle the water as farming and agriculture do. Wealthier villagers aren’t affected as much by the depletion of water and Coke is such a large player in the local economy that village leader says no farmers are against Coke, however when asked, the farmers disagreed. Coke also claimed that the recent water drop in wells is from poor rainfall, not from their factory. The film then transitions into following two main families and their stories. The first is in Bolivia where water is owned by a private French water company. Sewage in Bolivia costs nine months of an average Bolivian’s income. Diarrhea killing thousands of children, 10% of mortality rates due to waterborne diseases due to dirty water. Bolivians are willing to pay for clean water, but not if the cost is so high, public service has gone up but service doesn’t necessarily mean they all have water; they just have access which means there is a pipe available, but they are not connected to the pipe and therefore do not have water. (shareholders before people) This particular family lives just outside the water treatment plant and has a pipe flowing under their property but can’t afford to pay the water bill. The film then shifts to a more relatable first-world problem with water privatization. In Detroit, people in poverty that can no longer afford their water bills have to fetch water daily; go from house to house to collect water from neighbors. The particular family being interviewed couldn’t afford water bills after the father and husband was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. Hundreds of thousands in Detroit cut off water to make it more profitable for those who couldn’t afford water. Furthermore, the privatization of water departments would allow for politicians to escape blame for water board’s failings. The film follows these families as it goes in and out of policies and past events regarding water. The happy ending suggested by the film is when both families becomes desperate enough to illegally tap into the pipes to gain use of water, and neither of the families care as there are too many people to imprison for the same crime for the water board to keep up. The main sustainability problems drawn out by the film were organizational and economic in the sense of corporations ruling the water industry and behavioral and educational in that the lower income bracket is being cut off from a necessity for human life. As a first world country, when we consume things that rely on water, such as crops, we are unaware of the toll that that depletion of water takes on a lower income or third world population. For example, in Southern Spain there have been heavy droughts the past could of decades due to the production of crops such as lettuce; one head of lettuce takes ten bathtubs of water to grow. Furthermore, the World Bank has been promoting the privatization water in third world countries in order to increase the efficiency of public water services. Thanks to the privatization, water company giants in the UK owned by Margaret Thatcher (World Bank who pushed for privatization) are now booming and at one point owned the main water service in Tanzania. The effect this had on the country was, however, negative. In one case, Biwater (UK company in Africa) took over and slowly less and less water came from a resident’s tap. The resident couldn’t afford to keep up with water so she started buying off of her neighbor; water board came from Biwater to cut off her water, also confiscated taps and filled pipes with concrete. Furthermore, they continued to send her bills for water she couldn’t afford in the first place. As for water boys, business boomed as more and more people couldn’t afford to pay for the water that was coming from the taps. In this case, Biwater would like to call themselves a private consultant, however, the report is different for company and for Tanzanian government; favorable in the company’s eyes, not so in the Tanzanian’s. Eventually the system broke down, Biwater left and the two groups are now meeting in court (Biwater feels wrongly discredited). The most persuasive parts I found for the film were the cases in which the so-called happy endings were people illegally tapping into water pipes. If tens of thousands of people in Detroit alone are without water thanks to water boards simply trying to reduce the cost of water, then this is obviously a world problem, which the film did an excellent job in portraying. The film used emotional appeal successfully; it was never too over-the-top as it always had a very human feel, especially with interviews and following certain families. However, there seemed to be a lack of water depletion across the spectrum. For example, crops were touched on, however only in the sense of how much water it takes to grow an average crop. I would have preferred to see a more set number of this is how much water a person uses in a day and this is where it comes from, as opposed to this person in a third world country that has limited to no access to water. The film best addresses the upper class and wealthier first world populations that may have some say in the matter of privatization of water as well as the general public, if they can get enough of a movement behind something such as the protest of privatizing water. Basically the film pertains to people who could potentially influence the World Bank and their view on water as a commodity. Again, the film could have added more factual statistics rather than rely on a that’s what he said/she said argument with emotional cases as evidence. This would have broadened the audience impact spectrum and would have better driven home the point to skeptics. In the case of the Bolivian Water Wars, where people are starting to protest, politicians are fearful of a repeat of the 2000 Water Wars when Bechtel of US rose prices of water when the controlled the Bolivian water service. Bolivian army and police were sent against people; leaders were arrested and it became martial law for people to stay off streets at night. Live ammunition and tear gas were starting to be used until eventually Bechtel fled and the government was overthrown. In 2006, government was overthrown again and newly elected leader became the water minister and is with the protesters. In small villages in Africa fights over water are becoming more and more violent as remote bureaucrats decided water should be charged for irrigation, leaving little water left for those who can’t afford to pay for their water. The interviewees are aware of what is going on as well; they know people are pushing the plan to put a price on water in order to make farmers value it are economists that want efficient irrigation and can ignore the humans that need but no longer have water. When told the that the goal of World Bank to eliminate poverty through water privatization, they are speaking out that plans don’t bode well with people they affect; bank doesn’t own the river. The film ends by focusing on a rather negative impact the depletion of water has had on the world as it shows barges transporting water in bulk as property in order to start thinking about water depletion and starting to make water a country’s property and bringing it from rivers to countries and companies. The film goes onto conclude that the only way to ensure that everyone has access to water is to make it available to everyone as a basic human right. This film shed light on a problem we know is inevitable but hardly think about due to our everyday use with water. Therefore, I looked up the average water usage per person across the world, and predictions to water wars with water as an idea of property or commodity. [] []
 * Release Year:** 2006
 * What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**
 * How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?**
 * What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?**
 * What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**
 * What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**
 * What audiences does the film best address? Why?**
 * What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**
 * 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? (Provide at least two supporting references.)**