![]() |
|
|
April 11, 2008 at 21:28:35
Water Resoration Act is anything But....... by Marti Oakley Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
|
The Water Restoration Act of 2007, brought to you by Jim Oberstar of Minnesota, along with others, gives the federal government complete control over every waterway, river, stream, lake, aquifer, creek, slew, swamp, underground spring and even the rain that runs off your roof. Why? Well to better protect you from polluters and to ensure water safety, and of course “national security”. Here’s the real deal. Oil which has been deemed the worlds most valuable commodity (remember that word) is quickly being replaced by water. Water is the new “gold”. Under the Public Trust doctrine, the government is prohibited from converting something such as water (a human right…we can’t live without it) to a commodity. It must remain in a public trust, meaning that it is so important to our survival that it should never be subjected to markets, trading or private interests. In other words, it should never be reclassified as a commodity. But this Act lays the groundwork for removing from the Public Trust this basic human right which is a necessity, and will facilitate it being reclassified a “needed commodity”. Enter the multi-national corporations. What is under way is the effort to classify water as a commodity and not a right. All of this actually started with NAFTA and then CAFTA. Both agreements, which are not enforceable as they are both unconstitutional have been parts of a puzzle that until recently seemed not to make any sense at all. Both are focused on giving multinational corporations the right to lay claim to food production whether it is agriculture or animal ranching, to force out family farms, to patent their new “frankenseeds” and put the resulting GMO food on our grocery shelves without labeling the foods as altered. The corporations can now sue the government (and have) if it acts in any way to prevent it from making profits it believes it is entitled to. This ability to sue for impaired profit making can be the result of environmental regulations, of Federal laws which may prevent the corporations from hiring illegal workers, or issues of eminent domain in which an individuals’ land stands in the way of corporate profiteering and the courts have not acted to protect the interests of the corporation. The corporation then claims “trade illegal” provisions of NAFTA and CAFTA and our federal laws and regulations are put aside, along with property rights.
All that was left to capture from the public was the water supply. CAFTA goes a long way in establishing the privatization of water supplies, including in-land navigated waters and the right to use and access the water supplies.
If the federal government is not able to gain total control of all water from whatever source, it is highly unlikely that water can be taken from the status of Public Trust and moved to one of a commodity, which is exactly what the Water Restoration Act of 2007 will enable.
If CAFTA protections and provisions for corporations and the provisions within CAFTA that put the rights of investors above those of the individual, or human rights, cannot come into play, it will be nearly impossible to expose our water supply to global markets. CAFTA’s primary aim is to protect and promote investors regardless of the cost to individuals or communities.
Water is not only a basic human right, but also a natural resource. Inland states like Minnesota have Public Trust Laws (in addition to federal doctrine) which maintain the use of waterways for drinking and for recreation purposes. Every lake here has public water access due to the Public Trust which everyone contributes to in one way or another. No one can claim land at the bottom of a lake……its commonly held. No one can claim private ownership of lake fish stocks, or other natural resources resulting from the lake’s existence. This applies to rivers also, including the Mississippi which runs through the state.
The Water Restoration Act of 2007 would federalize all inland and coastal waters from any source. This act is needed to set the stage for the privatization guaranteed to corporations under CAFTA and would effectively convert the entire water supply from any source into a commodity.
As it is, any corporate agriculture business operating in any area is allowed to bypass water treatment plants, sewage treatment and the associated costs and to tap directly into underground aquifers even at the cost of depleting the water supply to the surrounding communities. GMO seeds, especially “traitor” seeds require as much as three times the normal amount of water to activate and to grow, but any efforts to limit use or regulate disposal even by monetary assessment have been unsuccessful. The corporate rights now exceed that of the individual or community. CAFTA clearly states repeatedly that “investor protections” must be a priority.
Using the NAFTA provisions, along with even more detrimental CAFTA provisions, the World Bank along with the United Nations are active in the effort to convert the worlds’ water supply into a commodity to be controlled by private investors via global trade and investment agreements. If these efforts are successful, water will no longer be a community or individual right and resource necessary to maintain life, but a globally traded commodity subject to markets and your ability to pay.
The World Trade organization in collusion with provisions of NAFTA, have been instrumental in converting water into a tradable commodity and as such subject to international trade policies which favor no one but the giant corporations. In each instance of corporations attempting to overturn domestic environmental laws or regulations, the laws have been rendered null using the “trade illegal” provisions of both NAFTA and CAFTA which declare that the right of the corporation cannot be superseded or infringed upon by laws or regulations that hinder the amount of profit they estimate can be attained.
The World Bank already has established a system whereby credit or loans will not be issued to Third World countries and even less stressed countries, unless they agree to allow foreign investors access to privatize the water supply. In Bolivia this resulted in mass demonstrations that finally forced out a subsidiary of Bechtel that had privatized the water supply, increased costs three-fold minimally, dispensed with upkeep and left ¼ of the rural homes without access to water.
England has privatized their water system and costs rose 45% overnight, all but skeleton crews remained of the maintenance sector and the quality of water has dropped significantly.
In one Canadian town several people became ill and one died from an ecoli contamination in the water supply. This occurred after the supply had been privatized, and the owner of the water supply knew of the contamination. The public was never notified until after people became ill.
In March of 2000 at the Hague, a meeting occurred where water executives stated that as long as water was coming out of the tap the public had no right to any information as to how it got there….. Or its quality.
1 | 2
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 6 comments |
|
corporations are things, not people
Scarey stuff Marti. Thanx for the heads up. I believe that corporations are not persons and possess only the privileges we grant them. However, granting corporations the status of legal "persons" in the late 1800's effectively rewrote the Constitution to serve corporate interests as though they were human interests. The doctrine of granting constitutional rights to corporations gave and continues to give a thing illegitimate privilege and power that undermines our freedom and authority as citizens. While corporations are setting the agendas on issues in our Congress and courts, We the People are not; for we can never speak as loudly with our own voices as corporations can with the unlimited amplification of money. The deck is stacked and until we break apart this corporate personhood inequality, the ongoing pilfering of our rights as individuals will continue to be incrementally removed. I do not see how we can stem the tide unless this is addressed and soon. peace by mikel paul (14 articles, 1 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 570 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 11:50:04 AM
|
|
Reply: Ruling
A recent ruling by a federal judge determined that some corporations have human rights and some humans (like POW's) are not humans after all and have none. by Marti Oakley (27 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 84 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 3:56:39 PM
|
|
A fellow blogger gave a heads up...
that this was on the way. We need to remember that what is driving this neocon agenda is power and greed. If they don't think there is a profit to be made, they are not interested. They will not stop until they control all of the resdources that make up the fabric of humanities' very existance. Thank you so much for an excellent article. by And the beat goes on (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 1:32:46 PM
|
|
Klamath Basin
Hi Marti, Here in the Klamath Basin we had several "water" meetings regarding the supposedly endangered sucker fish, and the Federal government's water theft several years ago. The fight is still raging, although not as public. When I went to one of these meetings, a government official was there, but I do not remember which one. He made the statement that all the water belonged to the state in Oregon. I went right up to him and asked him if I heard him right. I asked him if he was saying that even the rain water that hits our land is the state's, and he said YES. In oregon one has to get permission from the Water Master to drill a well for any type of irrigation, so I knew that the state considers underground water as the property of the state, and one must have permission from the same Water Master to use water from the rivers, but was unaware that the state claims to own rainfall as well. There is also talk of the state imposing water meters on our private wells. I say good luck, we have guns and backhoes. Anyway, the way my mind thinks is, if the rain and snow that falls on my property is the property of the state, then can I charge the state storage and removal fees for its snow and water? Just a thought... by Barbara Peterson (73 articles, 109 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 541 comments [98 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 1:40:25 PM
|
|
Access fees too....
Hi Barb! I would charge them access fees too and fines and penalties for storing without authorization from you, and then an easement fee for accessing your property. I read the document on the sucker fish. What a scam! I agree with you, I don't know anyone who could tolerate the taste of a sucker fish, much less have it considered a diet staple. Marti by Marti Oakley (27 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 84 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 3:49:35 PM
|
|
Water Rghts
Worthy of a revolution. Thanks for the heads up. by Babette Hogan (12 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 14 comments) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 4:14:00 PM
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |