WATER PRIVATIZATION
FROM STOCKTON'S PERSPECTIVE
From the League of Women Voters of San Joaquin County
League members excel at reading impending signs of the times; we are ahead of the wave in that sense. At the same time, our comprehensive study process sometimes takes so long, it leads us to believe we are behind the wave in being able to speak out and take action. But by this painstaking procedure, League has earned wide public respect.
At LWVC Convention 2003, a resolution was passed, directing an examination of League positions to see which, if any, are relevant to water privatization. The LWV of San Joaquin County delegates voted in support of this motion, because multinational corporations are acquiring rights to own, operate, and/or maintain water purveyance around the world.
Our League has had a quick and intense course on water over the past three years. A new mayor decided the city of Stockton should privatize the municipal drinking water, wastewater, and storm water system. Thanks to the efforts of one of our League members, Eleanor Shimeall-who was a state board water director in the 1970s-we have a water position, (based on a 1974 study), with which we were able to oppose the city's plan. Our position reads:
"Support the concept of a single publicly owned water agency for the Stockton Metropolitan Area that can plan, develop and operate our water resources to the best interest of all citizens.
... Support of efforts to acquire and distribute a supplemental surface water supply to this area and support of management control of pumping of the under-ground water basin. Support of measures to preserve water quality in the Delta."
Over a two-year period beginning in 2002, we took several actions. We submitted a petition to the city council to let people vote on such a major public policy decision; they declined. We then gathered 18,000 signatures for an initiative to allow citizens to vote. On March 4, 2003, it passed by a 60 percent margin. Our newspaper opposed the initiative; their editorial stance was that elected officials are voted into office to make public policy decisions, and the water contract was too complex for the public to understand.
Unfortunately, our initiative was not retroactive, and to circumvent public input, the city council deliberately signed a contract with OMI-Thames of Germany 14 days prior to the passage of our ballot measure. This had the effect of making the public very angry. The League began a drive to collect signatures for a referendum, which must be done at the local level within 30 days. We came up 800 short; thus, we could not overturn the council's vote.
There is a lesson in Stockton's experience for those Leagues who may plan referendums on land use or any other local governmental actions. Opponents often have a lot of money, and this money can out-bid grassroots organizations for trained, paid signature gatherers, needed for a 30-day time span. In addition, savvy opponents have begun to circulate counter-petitions, to suggest people sign another petition to have their name removed from the first petition (yours)-in effect, saying that they misunderstood or have changed their mind. Counter-petitions were also used in the recent gubernatorial recall campaign.
Having won an initiative and lost the referendum, it seemed we were back to square one; however, on a parallel track, we had asked for a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) hearing, prior to the contract being approved. The city held one hearing, and then declared the contract and all the associated capital projects were exempt-and there were many. We filed a suit and asked that the court overturn the contract and require the Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) be done.
We won! On October 17, 2003, a local Superior Court Judge ruled 100 percent in our favor ... no caveats. This should be a happy ending, but the judge has backtracked, at least verbally, during a routine scheduling meeting, claiming his written ruling was misunderstood. A final Remedy Decision will not be rendered until December 5, 2003. There will undoubtedly be an appeal by the losing side.
I wanted to recount this experience for other Leagues, because international companies are and doing aggressively seeking profits from public water, so one community at a time. But Leagues can undertake better prepared their own local studies, and thereby, be to address water privatization should it come to their community. New Orleans LWV learned this late and did a study concurrent to a major privatization effort in their city. Our local League joined a coalition of individuals and organizations to address water issues. We are co-plaintiffs in the CEQA lawsuit along with Sierra Club and the Concerned Citizens Coalition of Stockton. If you would like to read a copy of Judge McNatt's decision in our case, it can be found at www.CCCoS.org.
In his ruling McNatt says: "Common sense dictates that methods of operation will differ between a government and private sector based on (at a minimum) the profit motive," and also, "There will always be situations in which profits verses environment considerations will militate a decision which negatively impacts the public."
