About COHA
Water for Sale
Water has been characterized as the oil of the 21st century. Blue gold. It is essential to life, and yet humanity faces a growing water crisis as a result of severe mismanagement in water and sanitation, which will be exponentially exacerbated in the coming decades by population growth combined with declining resources. Latin America has the greatest income disparity in the world and the population’s access to water reflects this inequality. Over 130 million people living in the region do not have access to potable water in their homes, and sanitation is in even poorer condition, as it is estimated that only one in six persons has adequate sanitation services. According to the 2007 Annual Report from the nonprofit organization Water For People, ???Every day, nearly 6,000 people who share our world die from water-related illnesses ??? more than 2 million each year ??? and the vast majority of these are children???There are more lives lost each year to water-related illnesses than to natural disasters and wars combined.??? It is clear that lack of access to clean water is a serious issue, one that has only started to gain international attention from a variety of organizations in recent years.
The Fifth World Water Forum took place in Istanbul, Turkey, from March 16-22, 2009, with over 25,000 people attending, representing 182 countries. The World Water Forum, the largest water policy event in the world, is held every three years. It is organized by the World Water Council, a private think-tank based in Marseille, France. The People’s Water Forum, a global water justice movement which has referred to the World Water Forum as ???false??? and ???corporate driven,??? also gathered in Istanbul to protest the Fifth World Water Forum. In the People’s Water Forum Declaration, they sharply criticize the World Water Forum, stating that it is motivated by private inter ests and attempts to create the misleading illusion of an utterly false global consensus on water management. The Declaration also asks that the next water forum be organized by the UN General Assembly, calls for water to be defined as a human right, and denounces all forms of privatization and commercialization of water and sanitation services. Joining the discussion, the International Water Forum, a by-invitation-only Forum sponsored by the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR), the City of Atlanta Department of Watershed Management, and CIFAL Atlanta will be held on July 9-10 of this year to discuss global water scarcity as well as methods for establishing a sustainable water supply.
For full article click here
This analysis was prepared by Research Associate Lisa Boscov-Ellen
Friday, June 19, 2009 | Press release 09.176
The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as being "one of the nation's most respected bodies of scholars and policy makers." For more information, please see our web page at www.coha.org
If you no longer wish to receive our press releases, you may unsubscribe
The “corpo-RAT-ization” of the planet is underway. We know Mr. Obama is the CEO of USA, INC., not the USA-Republic, now don’t we?
But, unbeknownst to most is the power of the “city ordinance.” Here is one to chew on regarding Licking Township. This works for water rights for counties as one township in Maine stopped Nestle Corporation from offering “Poland” water by rebottling the township water without control of the water by the county.
We stopped Fluoridation of the Honolulu City by a city ordinance, but not with the common sense approach the the Licking township has!
Licking says corporations don't have "people" rights
By Tom DiStefano, CLARION NEWS Writer
This article is reprinted with permission from the source.
LICKING TWP. - Licking Township March 12 became the second municipality in the United States to declare that corporations do not have the constitutional rights of people.
Supervisors voted unanimously to adopt what is being called the "anti-corporate personhood" ordinance, developed by the Community Environmental and Legal Defense Fund, based in Chambersburg. The ordinance is officially titled the "Corporate Rights Elimination and Self-Government Ordinance."
In December 2002, Porter Township became the first municipality in the nation to adopt such an ordinance
The bulk of the text in Licking Township.s three-page ordinance explains the basis for the authority to adopt the ordinance and why the ordinance is needed.
The specific purpose of the ordinance is a single sentence: "to eliminate the purported constitutional rights of corporations in order to remedy the harms that corporations may cause to the people of Licking Township by exercise of such rights."
And the meat of the ordinance is two short "statements of law." The first, also included in Porter Township.s ordinance, is that corporations will not be considered "persons" protected by the Pennsylvania and U.S. constitutions.
The second statement, only in the Licking Township ordinance, adds that corporations shall not be protected by the Commerce Clause and the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and a section of the state constitution regarding contracts.
On a practical, immediate level, the ordinance is about the township's ability to monitor and regulate the use of sewage sludge as fertilizer.
Licking, Porter, and several other local townships in recent months have adopted ordinances requiring that projects to spread sewage sludge on land register with the township and pay fees enabling those townships to inspect the site and test the sludge used to insure the projects are obeying state regulations on sewage sludge.
Tom Linzey of CELDF said the corporate personhood ordinance was first developed in response to a case now in federal court in which the Synagro Corp., a sludge application and management firm, challenged a sludge ordinance adopted by Rush Township, Clearfield County, claiming the corporation.s rights were violated.
Licking Township supervisor Mik Robertson explained the ordinance in detail to a half-dozen citizens at the township meeting, emphasizing the new ordinance will not interfere "with any business doing business under the laws of Pennsylvania or the U.S."
"It's saying corporations can't claim the rights of an individual," Robertson said. "It does not affect the ability to conduct business."
Nor does the ordinance have any impact on the protections against personal liability that corporations provide their owners, Robertson said.
A major reason for incorporating a business is so that the owners will not be held personally and financially responsible for the actions of the business.
Un-incorporated businesses, such as sole proprietorships, are not affected by the ordinance at all, Robertson noted.
"It closes up the loopholes," added supervisor Tim Larkin.
Robertson used an example apparently inspired by a current controversy in Clarion Township.
If a corporation that operates strip clubs wants to open such a club in Licking Township and says it has the right to do so under the constitutional guarantee of free speech and expression, Robertson said, "we could say - you don't have that right in Licking Township."
If a sole proprietor opened such a club, however, then that proprietor would have the constitutional right to operate.
Clarion Township legal counsel Bill Strong has issued an opinion that Clarion Township cannot enforce a ban on clubs with nude dancing, based on a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that nude dancing is protected by the state constitution's guarantee of the right to free expression. A "gentleman's club" opened last month just north of Mechanicsville.
"What we are looking for is individual liberty and local control," Robertson said.
That sentiment is reflected in some of the paragraphs outlining the general purpose of the ordinance.
Section 3, paragraph 8 states: "Buttressed by these constitutional rights, corporate wealth enables corporations to wield the coercive force of law to overpower citizens and communities, thus infringing upon or denying the people's exercise of their constitutional rights."
And Section 3, Paragraph 11 states the ordinance is needed because: "The ability of the elected officials of Licking Township to protect the health, safety and welfare of township residents can be infringed upon or denied by the wielding of constitutional rights by corporations."
John Elliot asked if the ordinance would affect "the right to earn a living" of a farm set up as a corporation.
"Broadly, it would," said Robertson. "Individuals have rights, corporations don't."
A farmer that is a sole proprietor could claim the right to make a living, but would also have personal responsibility and liability for the farm.s operations, Robertson said.
"With corporations, there is no personal responsibility," Robertson noted.
Corporations would not have constitutional rights under the ordinance, and while this would limit the arguments a corporation could make in a court case, they could still argue other points of law, Robertson said, and it would not affect a corporations ability to operate a business under state and federal statutes.
"I don't think anyone can interpret this ordinance as regulatory on business," Robertson said.
He pointed out that there is no legislation giving corporations constitutional rights; they were established by court decisions.
Robertson issued a warning about the anti-corporate personhood ordinance.
"It might be a lightning rod for threatened or actual legal action, so take that into consideration," Robertson told fellow supervisors before the vote to adopt. "But I think it is very defensible."
Linzey told the Clarion News his organization is committed to defending, free of charge, any municipality with an anti-corporate personhood ordinance should that ordinance be challenged.
When Robertson asked if supervisors were ready to vote on the ordinance, Larkin asked for a few minutes to read over the document.
"It sounds right," supervisor Ray Bailey said of the ordinance. "Just so it doesn't give people the wrong idea."
After a 10-minute break while Larkin and Bailey read over the ordinance, Larkin moved to adopt it and Bailey seconded. The vote in favor was unanimous.
------ End of Forwarded Message
No comments:
Post a Comment