Concerns with Selling Water System to an Investor Owned Company
At the July 18th meeting of Emmaus Borough Council, Councilwoman Joyce Marin announced to borough council that she had heard many concerns from the public about the privatization of the borough water system.
She summarized these concerns in a memo which she had distributed to council. At the July 28th meeting of the Water Committee, Councilwoman Marin read the memo to the committee. The memo appears below:
From: Joyce Marin
To: Borough Council
July 17, 2005
Concerns with Selling Water System to an Investor Owned Company
1. Loss of Local Control. Selling our water system to an investor owned company represents a loss of local control of an asset we need to sustain life.
2. Highest Cost to Citizens. The individuals who put their money into investor owned companies require a return on their investment. This additional cost adds to the amount the customer pays for the service, making this choice the most expensive alternative by far. The bills that the customers pay under this scenario are two to three times more expensive than the bills they would pay under any other alternative.
3. Investor Owned Companies, even with “America” or “USA” in their names, are owned by foreign firms, most notably the French and Germans. Our country is presently at war. It is extremely unwise for us to sell our water system, which is needed for our community’s continued life and prosperity, to people living in countries that may not feel friendly toward us and who may have different motivations.
4. International Trade Agreements Unfairly Benefits Foreign Investors. Foreign firms are buying US water systems and US firms are buying foreign water systems. This is occurring because international trade agreements of NAFTA and GAF create advantages for foreign investors. NAFTA and GAF provide protections to investors, allowing these agreements to supersede local, county, state and federal laws that may interfere with international business.
5. Responsibility for the Future. There is a recognized world wide water shortage underway. These investor owned companies are aggressively seeking water assets, including our water system, in order to profit by this situation. We have a responsibility to protect this asset for the future of our community.
6. Corporations First Responsibility is to its Shareholders. The purpose of a corporation is to maximize profits for its investors. Investor owned companies who purchase water systems maximize profits in a number of ways:
a. Cut staff
b. Cut costs through cutting quality of services. Cutting quality has resulted in increased “boil days” in some communities, most notably Atlanta, GA.
c. Raise rates, usually 2 to 3 times what a non-profit authority would charge.
d. Bottle water and ship it out of the community.
e. Pump more than they are permitted since enforcement of limits is lax.
7. No priority to local customers. Once increased customers and bottling operations are established if there is a water shortage or drought there will be no priority given to local water customers. Bottling operations are more profitable than local customers. If water resources are limited, simple economics would determine which operation would take priority.
8. Questionable Practices. It has been the practice of investor owned companies to make sizable donations to the campaigns of local politicians in order to encourage favorable votes to put their systems up to the highest bidder.
She summarized these concerns in a memo which she had distributed to council. At the July 28th meeting of the Water Committee, Councilwoman Marin read the memo to the committee. The memo appears below:
From: Joyce Marin
To: Borough Council
July 17, 2005
Concerns with Selling Water System to an Investor Owned Company
1. Loss of Local Control. Selling our water system to an investor owned company represents a loss of local control of an asset we need to sustain life.
2. Highest Cost to Citizens. The individuals who put their money into investor owned companies require a return on their investment. This additional cost adds to the amount the customer pays for the service, making this choice the most expensive alternative by far. The bills that the customers pay under this scenario are two to three times more expensive than the bills they would pay under any other alternative.
3. Investor Owned Companies, even with “America” or “USA” in their names, are owned by foreign firms, most notably the French and Germans. Our country is presently at war. It is extremely unwise for us to sell our water system, which is needed for our community’s continued life and prosperity, to people living in countries that may not feel friendly toward us and who may have different motivations.
4. International Trade Agreements Unfairly Benefits Foreign Investors. Foreign firms are buying US water systems and US firms are buying foreign water systems. This is occurring because international trade agreements of NAFTA and GAF create advantages for foreign investors. NAFTA and GAF provide protections to investors, allowing these agreements to supersede local, county, state and federal laws that may interfere with international business.
5. Responsibility for the Future. There is a recognized world wide water shortage underway. These investor owned companies are aggressively seeking water assets, including our water system, in order to profit by this situation. We have a responsibility to protect this asset for the future of our community.
6. Corporations First Responsibility is to its Shareholders. The purpose of a corporation is to maximize profits for its investors. Investor owned companies who purchase water systems maximize profits in a number of ways:
a. Cut staff
b. Cut costs through cutting quality of services. Cutting quality has resulted in increased “boil days” in some communities, most notably Atlanta, GA.
c. Raise rates, usually 2 to 3 times what a non-profit authority would charge.
d. Bottle water and ship it out of the community.
e. Pump more than they are permitted since enforcement of limits is lax.
7. No priority to local customers. Once increased customers and bottling operations are established if there is a water shortage or drought there will be no priority given to local water customers. Bottling operations are more profitable than local customers. If water resources are limited, simple economics would determine which operation would take priority.
8. Questionable Practices. It has been the practice of investor owned companies to make sizable donations to the campaigns of local politicians in order to encourage favorable votes to put their systems up to the highest bidder.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home