FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Life, Death and Water Policy

In May 2008, the major law firm Hunton & Williams launched the Water Policy Institute (WPI), a think tank-esque, industry-supported consortium formed “to address water supply, quality and use issues,” according to its website.

After the initial flurry of press releases, WPI appeared to languish. Then, ten months after its formation, WPI issued its first white paper. “Water Wars: Conflicts Over Shared Waters” focuses on two river basins in the Southeastern United States. The paper urges the states involved — Georgia, Florida and Alabama — to put aside litigation and work with federal mediators to reach an agreement on water allocation. It also supports further study of seasonal water use, ecological issues and efficiency measures.

The white paper’s conclusions seem reasonable, even obvious. So much so that it’s unclear why Hunton & Williams felt the need to recruit major public relations and corporate powerhouses when forming WPI — and what they, and the law firm, get out of the effort.

What is clear is that WPI, Hunton & Williams and their corporate allies have a long history of siding with (or being) polluters and attempting to undermine water quality safeguards. It seems reasonable, therefore, to worry that whatever WPI is up to, it’s likely to do more harm than good.

WPI’s usual suspects

The Water Policy Institute’s chair is former New Jersey governor and Environmental Protection Agency head Christine Todd Whitman. After leaving the EPA, Whitman founded her own public relations firm. The Whitman Strategy Group’s clients include FMC Corporation, a chemical and pesticide manufacturer; the oil company Chevron’s Environmental Management Company; and the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), an industry lobby group. Since 2006, Whitman has co-chaired the NEI-funded and Hill & Knowlton-managed Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, a pro-nuclear front group.

“I have, for many years now, believed that water is the greatest environmental challenge facing the world in the 21st century,” Whitman stated, in a speech at WPI’s inaugural meeting. Since first being elected to public office 25 years ago, she said, “I have been wrestling with water issues.” WPI “will help policymakers in every sector better understand — and more effectively communicate and advance — the need for action,” she added.

There are also financial incentives for Whitman’s involvement with WPI. Whitman “is now helping to bring clients to the law firm of Hunton & Williams as chairwoman of its new Water Policy Institute,” reported Congressional Quarterly in June 2008. “Whitman’s firm will get an undisclosed fee for its work.”

In addition to Whitman’s political star power, WPI presumably benefits from the connections and resources of its founding corporate members: BP, GE Water and the Central Arizona Project. As a multinational oil, gas and fuels company, BP’s interests in water issues are significant. For example, the company is invested in Alberta’s tar sands, where oil development requires — and pollutes — large volumes of water. Last year, BP was party to a $423 million settlement compensating U.S. public water systems for contamination from the gas additive MTBE.

GE Water describes itself as “a leading global supplier of water treatment, wastewater treatment and process systems solutions.” In an August 2006 press release, the company enthused, “Globally, the water market is $365 billion and offers a high growth potential.” Its products range from water treatment chemicals, filters and membranes; to industrial water management systems; to “mobile water” emergency back-ups. GE Water boasts “the world’s largest base of desalination systems,” which use an energy-intensive process to produce fresh water from seawater or salty water. GE Water is also involved with Canada’s tar sands, as part of a $15 million effort “to improve water usage” during oil extraction.

The Central Arizona Project is a “336-mile long system of aqueducts, tunnels, pumping plants and pipelines” that directs Colorado River water to three Arizona counties. The “quasi-governmental entity” that runs the project has hired the Hunton & Williams firm to weigh in on several water-related legal cases. Due to growing population, drought and climate change, the Central Arizona Project is likely to face increased competition for water resources. It’s also nervous about possible carbon tax or cap-and-trade policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as it relies on the coal-fired Navajo Generating Station for its substantial power needs.

Hunton for Robb

The Water Policy Institute’s home, Hunton & Williams, isn’t the most environmentally-friendly law firm. In a landmark 2007 case before the U.S. Supreme Court, the firm argued that the EPA shouldn’t be allowed to regulate carbon dioxide. By the time the court ruled against them, Hunton & Williams “had built up a team of energy lobbyists who could … work to minimize the potential damage to their clients through legislation,” reported The Hill.

Hunton & Williams’ lobbying clients include the oil giant ConocoPhillips, the electric industry’s Edison Electric Institute, infamous polluter Koch Industries and the powerful National Association of Manufacturers lobby group. Also on the list is “Americans for Affordable Climate Policy,” a front group formed by coal interests to ensure that any cap-and-trade system gives free emissions credits to industry. Hunton & Williams’ non-lobbying clients include Altria (formerly known as Philip Morris), military contractor General Dynamics, drugmaker Pfizer and Texas energy company Luminant (formerly known as TXU).

On water issues, Hunton & Williams lobbies for the Waters Advocacy Coalition, another industry front group whose members include the National Mining Association, the anti-regulatory and industry-funded Western Business Roundtable, the pesticide industry group CropLife America and the American Forest & Paper Association, which represents the “forest products industry.”

WPI’s director is Kathy Robb, a Hunton & Williams partner focused on resources, regulatory and environmental law. In a 2005 filing with the U.S. Supreme Court, Robb argued that hydroelectric dam operators shouldn’t be regulated under the Clean Water Act. In 2005 and 2006, Robb filed briefs on behalf of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District, which operates the Central Arizona Project. The briefs supported a canal lining project that environmentalists and local groups feared would dry up wetlands and harm rural communities. Robb’s clients include “developers, electric utilities, investors, chemical manufacturers, and paper mills,” according to Hunton & Williams’ website.

Robb has said that WPI is interested in issues of water “scarcity and pricing and … how you can encourage people to conserve,” “recycling and reclamation,” “the interconnection between energy and water,” and “the intersection increasingly of water quality and water quantity issues.” How do those laudable goals square with Robb’s legal work to restrict the application of the Clean Water Act, with the interests of WPI’s corporate members, or with Hunton & Williams’ clients?

I called Robb’s office to request an interview. Her assistant quickly identified a time, several days later, when I could speak with her. Then, just before the interview was supposed to take place, the assistant called back to cancel it. I repeatedly contacted the office to reschedule. At one point, a nervous-sounding woman asked me where the interview would appear and what questions I would ask Robb. More than two weeks, several phone calls and emails later, it seems safe to conclude that Kathy Robb doesn’t want to talk with me.

Life, death and water policy

Kathy Robb’s silence doesn’t bode well for WPI. Serious policy groups realize that, in order to have any credibility, they must either scrupulously avoid or fully disclose potential conflicts of interest. If WPI has any such policies, they’re not public. WPI’s website doesn’t even include a list of its members.

In 2003, former United Nations Secretary-General Boutros Boutros Ghali stated, “Water will be more important than oil this century.” Today, an estimated one billion people don’t have access to clean drinking water. In 2025, the UN predicts that 1.8 billion people will live in areas with “absolute water scarcity.” According to a June 2008 technical paper for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there is “very high confidence” that “adverse effects of climate change on freshwater systems [will] aggravate the impacts of other stresses, such as population growth, changing economic activity, land-use change and urbanisation.”

These are serious, complex and urgent issues. The last thing we need is another corporate front group muddying the waters.

DIANE FARSETTA is the Center for Media and Democracy’s senior researcher. She can be reached at: diane@prwatch.org

More articles by:

DIANE FARSETTA is the Center for Media and Democracy’s senior researcher. She can be reached at: diane@prwatch.org

Weekend Edition
August 17, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Daniel Wolff
The Aretha Dialogue
Nick Pemberton
Donald Trump and the Rise of Patriotism 
Joseph Natoli
First Amendment Rights and the Court of Popular Opinion
Andrew Levine
Midterms 2018: What’s There to Hope For?
Robert Hunziker
Hothouse Earth
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Running Out of Fools
Ajamu Baraka
Opposing Bipartisan Warmongering is Defending Human Rights of the Poor and Working Class
Paul Street
Corporate Media: the Enemy of the People
David Macaray
Trump and the Sex Tape
CJ Hopkins
Where Have All the Nazis Gone?
Daniel Falcone
The Future of NATO: an Interview With Richard Falk
Cesar Chelala
The Historic Responsibility of the Catholic Church
Ron Jacobs
The Barbarism of US Immigration Policy
Kenneth Surin
In Shanghai
William Camacaro - Frederick B. Mills
The Military Option Against Venezuela in the “Year of the Americas”
Nancy Kurshan
The Whole World Was Watching: Chicago ’68, Revisited
Robert Fantina
Yemeni and Palestinian Children
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Orcas and Other-Than-Human Grief
Shoshana Fine – Thomas Lindemann
Migrants Deaths: European Democracies and the Right to Not Protect?
Paul Edwards
Totally Irrusianal
Thomas Knapp
Murphy’s Law: Big Tech Must Serve as Censorship Subcontractors
Mark Ashwill
More Demons Unleashed After Fulbright University Vietnam Official Drops Rhetorical Bombshells
Ralph Nader
Going Fundamental Eludes Congressional Progressives
Hans-Armin Ohlmann
My Longest Day: How World War II Ended for My Family
Matthew Funke
The Nordic Countries Aren’t Socialist
Daniel Warner
Tiger Woods, Donald Trump and Crime and Punishment
Dave Lindorff
Mainstream Media Hypocrisy on Display
Jeff Cohen
Democrats Gather in Chicago: Elite Party or Party of the People?
Victor Grossman
Stand Up With New Hope in Germany?
Christopher Brauchli
A Family Affair
Jill Richardson
Profiting From Poison
Patrick Bobilin
Moving the Margins
Alison Barros
Dear White American
Celia Bottger
If Ireland Can Reject Fossil Fuels, Your Town Can Too
Ian Scott Horst
Less Voting, More Revolution
Peter Certo
Trump Snubbed McCain, Then the Media Snubbed the Rest of Us
Dan Ritzman
Drilling ANWR: One of Our Last Links to the Wild World is in Danger
Brandon Do
The World and Palestine, Palestine and the World
Chris Wright
An Updated and Improved Marxism
Daryan Rezazad
Iran and the Doomsday Machine
Patrick Bond
Africa’s Pioneering Marxist Political Economist, Samir Amin (1931-2018)
Louis Proyect
Memoir From the Underground
Binoy Kampmark
Meaningless Titles and Liveable Cities: Melbourne Loses to Vienna
Andrew Stewart
Blackkklansman: Spike Lee Delivers a Masterpiece
Elizabeth Lennard
Alan Chadwick in the Budding Grove: Story Summary for a Documentary Film
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail