Private-Public Water Partnership, UN Agenda 21
“Your failure to be informed does not make me a wacko.”—John Loeffler
Water is a precious and scarce commodity for some nations who are geographically located in areas prone to draught or with a predominant desert landscape.
It is priceless in certain locales and so abundant in others that the marginal utility of an additional gallon of water is very low. When something is overabundant people tend to abuse it.
Water pollution affects industrialized, developing, and under-developed nations. We should not worry though, the United Nations has a plan for that; we are living in the “water for life decade 2005-2015.” Its website, “UN Water,” proclaimed at the January 8-10, 2013 conference, “Preparing for the 2013 International Year. Water Cooperation: Making it Happen!”
How is this going to happen? It is called “water diplomacy,” forming private-public partnerships, “supporting all stakeholders, including those in governments, international organizations, private sector, civil society, and academia at an appropriate level while considering cultural aspects in different cooperation initiatives.” It sounds purposefully complex and confusing but it is just another arm of the United Nations’ ever encroaching agenda.
This conference proclaimed the World Water Week which was held September 1-6, 2013, during the “International Year of Water Cooperation” under the theme “Water Cooperation—Building Partnerships”. The event was an addition to the World Water Day, held on March 22, “to generate general attention on the importance of water and to advocate for the sustainable management of freshwater resources.”
The United Nations has been seriously involved in controlling water use policy in the 178 countries that have signed the 40 chapters of the UN Sustainable Development, June 3-14, 1992 Rio Conference on Environment and Development, better known as UN Agenda 21.
Section II, chapter 17 (17.1-17.136) is dedicated to specific “protection of the oceans, all kinds of seas, including enclosed and semi-enclosed seas, and coastal areas and the protection, rational use and development of their living resources.”
Section II, chapter 18 (18.1-18.90) is dedicated to the sustainable development of water, “protection of the quality and supply of freshwater sources; application of integrated approaches to the development and use of water sources.”
The estimated cost of running just these two “programmes” annually runs into billions of dollars in taxpayer and non-governmental (NGOs) contributions.
Section 18.11 established that by the year 2000, all 178 signatory states of UN Agenda 21 should have efficient water-use programs in place to attain sustainable resource utilization patterns.
Section 18.12 (c) makes it clear how to do that—“develop interactive databases, forecasting models, economic planning models and methods for water management and planning, including environmental impact assessment methods.” The problem is that forecasting and modeling have been proven wrong in the case of manufactured “man-made global warming” that UN and all its affiliates have been peddling.
UN further suggests in 18.12 (g) the promotion of “schemes for rational water use through public awareness-raising, educational programmes and levying of water tariffs and other economic instruments.”
The UN report also recommended that water should be rationed for sustainable food production in agriculture. We know what happened in San Joaquin Valley, California, a few years ago when the fate of a tiny fish (the smelt) overrode the survival of thousands of acres of farms and orchards. Hundreds of farmers who had raised fruits and vegetables for generations were bankrupted when water for irrigation was withheld in spite of national protests.
Nicknamed “The Food Basket of the World” for its 12.8% contribution to the U.S. food production that comes from California, the eight county San Joaquin Valley has another unique problem. Because of environmental opposition to urban sprawl, the eight counties adopted another UN Agenda 21 pet project, the “regional blueprint planning process” that will result in denser high-rise developments and more public transportation. Would the land thus saved be designated for agriculture? Not necessarily because UN Agenda 21 proponents are fond of re-wilding.
Section 18.12 (n) endorses “the enhancement of the role of women in water resources planning and management.”
Section 18.39 (d) recommends that urban residents should have access to 40 liters of water per capita, per day, the equivalent of less than 10 gallons.
On September 13, 2013, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack and Coca-Cola Americas President Steve Cahillane announced a “public-private partnership to restore and protect damaged watersheds on national lands.” This partnership between USDA, Coca-Cola Americas, the National Forest Foundation (NFF), and National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), business, and community organizations (NGOs) is presented as a better way to “protect our nation’s watersheds and further enhance restoration efforts, even during challenging budget times.” Federal dollars were matched two-to-one by Coca-Cola, NFF, and NFWF.
The claim is made that more than a billion liters of water will be returned to the National Forest System which provides drinking water to more than 60 million Americans. Coca-Cola claims that it supports more than 100 water projects in the U.S. in order to balance the water they use and to “ensure clean water supplies for communities.”
The private-public partnership claimed in 2012 to have restored natural resources and wildfire-damaged watersheds. Two examples were given:
- “Stream channels impacted by severe wildfires are now rehabilitated and help provide clean water for the greater Denver area.” No description how that was accomplished.
- “In California Sierra Nevada Mountains, water is returned to its natural flow through a meadow improving the watershed that supplies the East Bay area.” How was that accomplished?
Four more plans are in the works for the private-public partnership between USDA and Coca-Cola with all its interested stakeholders:
- “Near Chicago, water will be restored to a wetland that had once been drained, replenishing the aquifer.” Will it involve confiscation of someone’s land, currently used for agricultural purposes?
- “Invasive weeds on California’s Angeles National Forest will be removed, improving water supplies for residents of Los Angeles and forest wildfire.” I visited this particular National Forest and I saw nothing but brush and rocks. I actually photographed two trees on a stretch of miles. How will the weeds be removed?
- “A New Mexico stream, altered by historic mining activity, will be redirected to its natural flow, improving water quality and groundwater storage.” Will this natural flow flood other people’s properties and/or arable land?
- In the Lake Michigan watershed, a stream will be restored to its natural flow, reducing flooding, enhancing aquatic habitat, and improving water quality.”
I am a bit skeptical. The projects seem more habitat-related, protecting and improving the wildlife and its habitat. Furthermore, corporations are not known for environmental friendliness. They obey the EPA rules, pay fines when they don’t, and care for the bottom line of their shareholders.
Cahillane said, “Our experience combined with the knowledge and resources of USDA and other partners will exponentially increase efforts to create healthier, more sustainable communities for all Americans.”
It sounded lofty, conscientious, and responsible, and I am certainly applauding any effort to clean our water supply. But then I became suspicious when I saw the words, sustainable communities for all Americans, right in line with UN Agenda 21 stated goals of controlling all forms of water supply, fishing, recreational activities on water, transportation and passage on water under the guise of sustainable everything.
By 2020, Coca-Cola wants to replenish 100 percent of the water used in soft-drinks. It partnered with WaterAid, an international non-profit, to supply drinking water to Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso’s capital, in West Africa and in two rural communities in southern Ethiopia.
Liberals drank the UN Agenda 21 Kool-Aid and are now in full mode forcing it down our throats in the name of saving us from ourselves.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]