Manila not thrilled with water sale, Patriot Act By Matt Kapko Eye Reporter The Arcata Eye February 25, 2003 Far-reaching issues of water privatization and threatened civil liberties came to the Manila Community Services District Board of Directors last Thursday, Feb. 20. Carol Rische, general manager of the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District, presented a multinational company’s proposal to purchase water from the district’s Mad River supply base. After going through the presentation, which has already made its way to most of the water district’s customers, Rische put the Aqueous Inc. proposal in figures that Manila residents could relate to. She said if the proposal is approved, the wholesale fee to supply water to the Manila Community Services District would be reduced $16,800 to $19,000 (12 to 22 percent) from its current rate. Rische brought other issues up for thought, bringing perhaps a cause for alarm. She said there has already been a $1.3 million cost increase to the water district’s municipal customers over the past two years. Additionally, a $1.2 million increase would come into play if the Simpson pulp mill were to ever cease operation. In that case, Manila’s share of the cost hike could be $21,500 to $31,500, Rische said. The district’s water permit may come under pressure in the years ahead, Rische remarked. She thinks the district’s failure to put its water to full beneficial use may put its rights in jeopardy if the state doesn’t resolve its water supply from the Colorado River. The district is currently riding on a 10-year extension to fully utilize the water, and is already well past its deadline for bringing its permitted water to full beneficial use, Rische added. “What if we continue to not use water under permit?” Rische asked. “We feel remiss if we didn’t even look at this,” but “we’re going to go the way you want us to go,” she concluded. Trade, environmental concerns One member in the crowd offered a common concern that many community members hold regarding this proposal to extract water from the Mad River. Under the confines of international trade agreements, if this international company obtains a contract with the water district, other international companies will be able to sue for equal access, regardless of the community’s lack of want, the attendee said. Under current North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) laws, which supersede any state or local laws, it would be considered bad trade practice to deny future proposals, she said. Further, many are not comforted by the notion that this water is not intended for local use, but for a multinational conglomerate to privatize, then sell under its terms to the thirsty, water-deprived communities of Southern California. Director Helene S. Barney said, “We’re helping them defer” the need to become more sustainable in their water usage. The proposal engaged lengthy dialogue among the audience. “To export water is to export development. Once you got it in your hands, you’re not gonna let it go, it’s gold,” said Manila resident Sven Kahle. Manila resident Michael Fennell said, “It’s happening internationally – the privatization of water – it’s not a good thing.” Jerry Martien, another in the audience, offered a comment his wife said regarding water: water will get us much further along in times of no money, than money will get us on in times of no water. A representative from the Redwood Chapter of the Sierra Club came to present the organization’s unwavering stance of opposition to the proposal. She called it a “half-baked proposal to export water from Humboldt County” and said the Sierra Club objects to the any consideration of the proposal. The district may think it has excess water, but it could be better used to rectify the impaired Mad River and bringing life to the water dependent aquatic habitat in its watershed, Barney added. “I’m very concerned about, and not in favor of exporting water to a private company,” she concluded. Manila says no The board’s president, Michael Hollrigel, said he thinks this consideration would be beneficial to the community in assuring continued water rights. Looking into export of water is “the right way to go,” Hollrigel ended. Director Tim Dellas said the Aqueous Inc. proposal is generating the bulk of controversy. “We would be remise to go forward on the Aqueous proposal,” he said, but added that he wanted to move forward with examining the complex issues and concerns. Director Linda Lee said, “The water wars in California are just beginning.” She said she doesn’t like the idea of exporting water, and in the long run, Southern California is going to have to get used to not having enough water. “I’m a bit disappointed in the district proposing a rosy portrayal of this proposal,” she added. Director Daniel Edrich said, “I vote no on sending water south.” Dellas, under the admitted assumption that the first motion was most likely to pass, made one to not consider the Aqueous Inc. proposal “until” the aforementioned concerns were further researched and resolved. Many among the audience and a few directors seemed to find Dellas’ motion vague and ambiguous – perhaps a perceived pragmatic approach to pursue water export as a valid option to the water district’s servicing shortcomings. Barney remarked that she didn’t want to mimic the Eureka City Council’s “proceed cautiously” approach to exporting Mad River water. “I do not have a lot of confidence in the agencies looking into this,” she said, regarding the apparent comfort with allowing the involved agencies to be included in water rights research that hits so close to home. Even after attempts at rectifying some of the controversial language, Dellas’ motion did not pass. Instead, an alternative motion with deliberate clarity passed. It said no to looking into the Aqueous Inc. proposal and no to looking into further consideration of water export sales. Money and rights After the water bag proposal was turned down, fiscal affairs came to be a recurring concern. Every project that required funding approval was met with scrutiny from the board. Edrich said he felt a little overwhelmed by a flawed tracking of grant funding and their allocated use. He said he is concerned with grants being overused and funds being slated for the wrong project – essentially overlapping grants with other grants. “I’d like to see that we work to get into the black. We have to have a black budget and not be in the red all the time. Red tells me we’re in trouble!” Edrich commented. Dellas said, “There are problems financially in how we’re using our money. There’s an uncontrolled spending problem going on. We’re playing a lot of big juggling games.” Financial concerns were temporarily put to rest as the board moved on to consider passing a “Resolution in Support of the U.S. Constitution.” The resolution called on departments in the government to overturn “several acts and orders recently enacted at the federal level, including sections of the USA PATRIOT Act and several executive orders,” which “now threaten those fundamental rights and liberties” protected in the Constitution. The resolution passed unanimously, with little need for convincing debate. Director Dellas said, “If it were up to me I would repeal the dang thing and get it over with.” He offered a quote from Ben Franklin: “People who give up their freedom for security get neither.” While there are many who argue that matters such as this are out of the board’s jurisdiction, “Personally, I think it’s our job as citizens to speak out when we see injustice,” Dellas said. Barney offered reinforcement to this philosophy of speaking out and said, “We really have an obligation to do what we believe is right.” Home