The Institute for Nonviolent Economics

Water Privatization or Water Democracy?

by Sarah Laeng-Gilliatt with contributions from David Benavides

Acequias may not be the first thing most people think of when considering critical water issues facing New Mexico; many people are only dimly aware that Northern New Mexico's unique and historic irrigation systems are threatened, the reasons for this, and the significance of it. However, if one looks closely at acequias and the issues surrounding them, we can see that they touch on some of the central questions in the worldwide debate over water. Acequias stand as examples of "water democracies" that writers like Vandana Shiva assert are necessary in response to the global trends towards water commodification and privatization, and globalization in general. By exploring acequias against the backdrop of the broad principles of globalization, the contrast between the two systems becomes quite stark.   Acequias then not only represent a clear, positive alternative to the worldview of globalization, but they also provide much wisdom about why and how to resist globalizing forces and create alternative policies.   How we regard acequias in our water policy, far from being an issue that has meaning only for New Mexico, in fact says a lot about the role we as New Mexicans will play in the events that are now increasingly occupying the center of the global stage.  

But what principles will we hold to as we make decisions about growth and development? Certainly our water policy should protect water institutions like acequias that for so long have operated sustainably and compatibly with their local environment, and not weaken or dismantle them, through water transfers. It appears that there's no question that people in New Mexico do not want to see the acequias sacrificed for the sake of doubling the population of Santa Fe County or Bernalillo County or Sandoval County. However, it remains to be seen whether that sentiment is insisted upon, politically, so that our elected leaders are "led" to the most appropriate water policy.

Why not seize the vital and powerful opportunity that New Mexico has to put its local water issues into the broader globalization context, to celebrate acequias and contrast them to the unfortunate policies that have led to the demise of entire rural areas in neighboring states due to export of water, to take a firm stand on water policy, and to even inspire communities elsewhere with our commitment to sustainable, democratic, and life-affirming practices?

The Globalization Vision
Economic globalization involves a particular worldview and one can see many clear principles undergirding it and flowing from it. Some of these principles are: privatization and a tremendous faith in market forces for the betterment of societies, commodification, economic growth (defined as increase in GDP), mobility of capital and goods, urbanization, centralization, standardization, the embracing of modern technologies, and trade.

In communities the   planet over, the pressure is on to privatize water. It is said that the private sector would manage the resource most efficiently and effectively. Admittedly, some governments have been poor stewards of water, however it doesn't follow that therefore deregulated and largely unaccountable corporations are up to the job. It is also often argued that the market should be allowed to allocate this precious resource. However, letting the market decide means that water goes to money rather than need.

Part of privatization is commodification. And indeed, in many trade treaties, water has been deemed a "good" — something that can be bought and sold. Both the World Bank and the United Nations consider water a human need rather than a right. This distinction is crucial, for needs can be met in many ways, including through commercial transactions, whereas no one can buy or sell a human right.

When water is privatized and commodified then the dictates of growth determine its fate.   Corporations' legal requirement to meet the growth needs of   shareholders forces them to extract vast amounts of natural capital and to give little heed to environmental and human costs-“externalizing,” or abdicating responsibility for as many negative impacts as possible. Many water companies are buying up farmlands, indigenous lands, wild areas, and entire water systems, depleting them, and then moving on. Governments also are putting aside natural resource protection in the name of economic growth and to do the bidding of corporate lobbyists who determine more and more policy.

Mobility of goods and capital is a cornerstone of modern liberalism. Water privateers are planning the mass transport of water through pipelines and by supertanker. Locally, water and water rights are transferred without sufficient discussion of the full impacts. And Santa Fe hopes to divert water through the San Juan-Chama Project to help meet its water needs.

The planet over there is a flow of resources, money, decision-making power, and people from rural to urban areas. Locally, we are told that cities can make much more efficient and productive use of water compared to acequias and acequia crops, which are said to be water-intensive. It is argued, therefore, that water rights should be moved to urban areas.

A globalized system also leads to increasingly large-scale structures—having a rather inexorable momentum of their own. There are fewer and larger, global economic institutions; rural areas die and cities sprawl into megalopolises; small businesses merge into larger and larger corporations. It is thought that the larger the scale, the greater the economy of scale (that the more you produce of a product, the cheaper each is to produce), but there is decreasing evidence of this by the day.

In a global economy, standardization and homogenization is requisite, for in order to globalize economic policy, each country has to "harmonize" its rules with the others. But economic policies do not occur in isolation-their impacts ripple into culture, politics, religion, even what it means to be human-thus we see the homogenization of culture, the growth of a “global monoculture.” In terms of water policy, one way of "managing" this resource predominates, one that is based on Western scientific knowledge. In a global economy, there is no space for location-specific knowledge about water in a particular bioregion. Acequias thus can begin to appear a relic of the past to be romanticized rather than the way into the future.

It has been said that modern technologies, and the science underlying them, are the flip side of the globalization coin. Modern technologies often seek to overcome limits of nature, so for example, rather than seeking technologies to match nature, we re-make nature to fit our technologies and the human sphere. In terms of transporting water, it is even being proposed to change the directional flows of rivers, if need be.   Or, as more and more crises emerge, technologies are sought to overcome them, even if the technosphere contributed to the crises in the first place. For example, desalination may solve one problem, but it creates many more in the process — it is extremely expensive and energy-intensive, requiring fossil fuels that contribute to global warming, while also producing a lethal byproduct of saline brine.

The vision of globalization sees trade as beneficial to all. The economic theory of "comparative advantage" (that each region should specialize in what it is best at producing, produce it on a large scale, and export it) seems to make a lot of sense, for in this way regional strengths can be capitalized upon while weaknesses can be overcome by importing products. With water scarcity, such thinking becomes more appealing-water-rich areas can export water to water-poor areas. However, this system contains many environmental costs that are externalized onto future generations-for example the use of fossil fuels by supertankers or the ecosystem disruption due to massive water pipelines.

Guiding Principles and Values of the Alternative agenda
Globalization is often portrayed as inevitable-that there are no positive alternatives and certainly the activists in the streets haven't a clear articulation of what they are for! But both claims are far from the case-very well-thought-out alternatives are not only viable, but they actually exist in many parts of the world and have existed and served societies for millennia. Acequias are one such example.

Like the globalization “mind,” there is a culture-a set of beliefs and values guiding the activists for global justice. While there is no blueprint regarding new societal structures-there are as many ways as there are ecosystems-one can make certain generalizations.

One guiding principle is that of the commons. Many gifts of nature upon which all life depends for survival- water, air, plant biodiversity, the gene pool-have always been considered a commons, a collective heritage, and out of bounds of monetized activity. The alternative agenda involves restoring the commons and clearly delineating realms of life where the market should and shouldn't be allowed to operate.

Economic growth, as usually measured, focuses solely on GDP, on how much money is circulating the economy. The organization Redefining Progress in San Francisco has developed the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) which, by taking into account over 20 indicators, subtracting for negative ones and adding for positive ones, comes up with more nuanced measurements of societal well-being than the GDP.   Pollution and depletion of water impact the calculus negatively, whereas when water is commodified and becomes more expensive, the GDP goes up and quality of life is seemingly improving even while life support systems may be collapsing.

Rather than the mobility inherent in the globalization model, the alternative path emphasizes the importance of a strong sense of place, intimate connection over time with the natural rhythms and processes of one's particular bioregion. Certainly living in systems of acequias-clearing ditches in the spring, shoveling soil and directing water flows, tending one's land-strengthens one's sense of place and deepens one's knowledge of the local ecosystem.   In the context of the lure of the travel and anonymity that comes with globalization (for those who can afford it), being rooted in place can seem boring, in contrast. But what could be more deeply exciting than being part of natural systems and participating in the rhythms of life?

Interdependence between urban and rural areas is also part of the alternative path. Without this, megalopolises become highly unsustainable because of their almost complete reliance on trade and the macroeconomy rather than local resources. It is vital that New Mexican water policy strengthens rural areas.

The alternative perspective puts much emphasis on the need for small-scale structures. Such a "human scale" allows for people to see the effects of their actions and to take responsibility for them. Acequias could not be a more perfect model of a human-scale system. One interacts with one's neighbors regularly, and from small-scale structures relationships flourish in all their rich and multi-dimensional ways.

Diversity is a cornerstone of the alternative agenda. Cultures and knowledge-systems have always emerged out of ecosystems, so cultures have been as diverse as ecosystems have been. By reconnecting practically with local resources, knowledge and regional character can become location-specific once again.

Appropriate technology is a crucial component of the alternative vision. Acequias epitomize appropriate technology for they are small-scale, gravity-operated systems that use no fossil fuels in delivering water.

The alternative model-often called localization-seeks import-substitution, or the capacity of regions to provide for their staple needs locally, whenever possible. Trade can then be practiced for specialty items that can't be made locally.

The Way Forward in New Mexico
If New Mexico is to take a path that is different from the trajectory seen in so many Western states, it will only be because policy-makers and the public are presented with policy alternatives that reflect deeper values than simply satisfying the needs of the market. These deeper values address critical questions of what our water use and water institutions ideally should look like. It is essential that we ask a whole series of questions regarding potential policy. Do we value appropriate technology? Do we value sustainable water use? (Acequias are inherently sustainable systems; they do not "mine" the water supply the way many underground water systems unsustainably mine out aquifers, but only use what the surface water system supplies.) Do we value expanded riparian areas in a semiarid environment (which acequias have created)? Do we value safe and healthy agricultural products (i.e., pesticide- and herbicide-free)? Do we value self-reliance, non-dependence on governmental largesse (unlike the subsidized mega-water projects in the agribusiness regions of California)? Do we value the survival of rural communities? Do we value family farms? Do we value a food supply that is locally produced? Do we value local democratic decision-making, community-building, and public participation in water management?

All these things that we value and try very hard to incorporate into other facets of our society, acequias have been doing for centuries.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barlow, Maude and Clarke, Tony. 2002. "Who Owns Water?" in The Nation, September 2/9, 2002.
The International Forum on Globalization. 2002. Alternatives to Economic
Globalization: A Better World is Possible. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler Publishers, Inc.