ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS: A COMMUNITY RESPONSE

TO THE ‗NEOLIBERALIZATION OF NATURE‘ IN THE UNITED STATES

By

Soren Mikayla Newman

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS IN SOCIOLOGY

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Sociology

December 2010

To the Faculty of Washington State University:

The members of the Committee appointed to examine the thesis of Soren Mikayla Newman find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted.

Daniel Jaffee, Ph.D., Chair

Scott Frickel, Ph.D.

Erik Johnson, Ph.D.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost I would like to express my gratitude to Dan Jaffee for the time, insight and resources he has generously invested in this project and for always challenging me to make it better. I would also like to thank the sociology faculty at Washington State University and especially the other two members of my committee, Scott Frickel and Erik Johnson, for their input and guidance during my time here. Other outstanding professors have worked with me as well. I will always appreciate the mentorship of Pat Gillham, Debbie Storrs, and Leontina

Hormel at the University of Idaho. On my first day of graduate school, my peer mentor,

Meredith Williams, referred to the sociology graduate students as the ―Group Hug.‖ I doubt I could have completed this program without the strong community you all create both in and out of Wilson-Short Hall. I especially owe Kyle Knight for giving me hundreds of ideas and articles, Michelle Edwards for her thoughtful feedback on the first draft of this thesis, and

Ardavan Davaran for keeping the whole M.A. process lighthearted. I would like to thank the community of Cascade Locks and the others who agreed to be interviewed as well as Matt

Carroll and Sarah Stadler for helping to speed up the transcription process. Last but not least, I owe a debt of gratitude to my lovely family and friends who have always given me support and encouragement. Any accomplishments in my life are shared with you.

iii

ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS: A COMMUNITY RESPONSE

TO THE ‗NEOLIBERALIZATION OF NATURE‘ IN THE UNITED STATES

Abstract

by Soren Mikayla Newman, M.A. Washington State University December 2010

Chair: Daniel Jaffee

A crisis has intensified throughout the world leaving millions without access. Two perspectives dominate the discourse around water policy. One perspective views water as a public commons to be democratically controlled in the political realm while another sees it as a best managed by the . In both the global North and South, a water justice movement is growing in opposition to the trend of what some scholars conceptualize as the

‗neoliberalization of nature.‘ A range of management controversies over two facets of drinking water—municipal supplies/delivery and bottled water—are being negotiated. While the water crisis is gaining interest as a global controversy and topic of inquiry especially in countries like

Bolivia, less attention has been given to the effects of economic on water resources and grassroots responses to water in Northern countries such as the United

States. Through an ethnographic study conducted in Cascade Locks, Oregon, where Nestlé

Waters North America has proposed to open a water bottling facility, this research explores how the control of water is negotiated at the community level.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iii

ABSTRACT ...... iv

LIST OF TABLES ...... vi

LIST OF FIGURES ...... vi

CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2. COMPETING FRAMEWORKS: COMMONS OR COMMODITY? ...... 6

3. WATER MARKETS: MUNICIPAL, BULK AND BOTTLED ...... 23

4. THE NEWEST ―WATER WARRIOR‖ BATTLEGROUNDS ...... 38

5. METHODS ...... 53

6. FINDINGS: COMMUNITY, ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMY ...... 57

7. DISCUSSION ...... 99

8. CONCLUSION: TRANSNATIONAL CONNECTIONS ...... 117

REFERENCES ...... 124

APPENDIX

A. Semi-Structured Interview Protocols ...... 133

v

LIST OF TABLES

1. U.S. Bottled Water Market Growth and Per Capita Consumption, 2000-2008 ....32

2. Company Ranking by Market Share in 2005 ...... 33

3. Bottled Water Use in 2009 by Region ...... 33

4. Demographic and Economic Trends in Cascade Locks and the Hood River Micropolitan

Statistical Area (MSA) ...... 40

5. Unemployment Rate in Cascade Locks, the Hood River Micropolitan Statistical Area

(MSA) and the State of Oregon ...... 44

6. Substantive Themes and Subthemes ...... 56

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Columbia River Gorge Region ...... 39

2. State of Oregon, Average Annual Precipitation from 1961-1990 ...... 39

3. Ratio of Jobs to Population ...... 42

vi

Dedication

This thesis is dedicated to ―Mu-Ma,‖ Granny J. and Nan

who inspire a better world in their own way

vii

CHAPTER ONE

Introduction

There are an estimated 884 million people in the world without access to clean drinking water and 2.6 billion lacking basic ( News Service 2010; Joint

Monitoring Programme 2008). The situation is likely to worsen as two out of three people will face ―water resource-based vulnerability‖ by 2025 (Kulshreshtha 1998). There has been increased awareness matching the urgency of this crisis from the public, policy makers and scientists in recent years as many have become concerned about how existing water problems will be exacerbated by population growth and . While there is optimism in the fact that at this point we technically still have sufficient renewable water resources available to meet the basic needs of everyone on Earth, the debate on how to best achieve that unattained goal is ongoing. From a sociological perspective, the global water crisis is an embodiment of contemporary social, economic and environmental relations. Many scholars argue that it is a manifestation of the social inequality and environmental degradation inherent in the structure of our socioeconomic system.

There are two dominant positions regarding water policy. One side of the debate is represented by proponents of neoliberal economic policies or ―market environmentalists‖ who believe that natural resources like water can best be managed by economic institutions, as opposed to the inefficient state. Instead of viewing markets as the source of socio-environmental problems, the ability to use market mechanisms like to internalize environmental costs and to promote more efficient use is seen as a solution to and a fair mode of allocation. The neoliberal perspective has become dominant over the last 30 years, due in part to

1 the liberalization of international trade and the influence of the international financial institutions, whose policies have in many cases mandated the deregulation and privatization of national economies. One result of the neoliberal project has been a global transformation of ideology, economic systems and political institutions. Development projects aimed at privatizing and commercializing formerly public water service and delivery systems around the world and, in many cases, commodifying drinking water, have become controversial examples of what is commonly referred to as the ‗neoliberalization of nature.‘

In other words, as events such as the 1999 ―Battle in Seattle‖ protest against the World

Trade Organization illustrate, neoliberal globalization has not gone unchallenged. A significant body of literature and an alter-globalization campaign—known as the global justice movement— have also emerged, critically exploring the impacts and implications of neoliberal policies.

Those supporting ideas of alter-globalization highlight the existing and potential negative consequences to society, nature and democracy as citizens are transformed into customers and transnational corporations gain more power over the fundamental elements necessary to life itself. Those favoring alter-globalization and other anti-privatization perspectives see the neoliberalization of water resources as putting a on life, and therefore conclude that such policies are unlikely to solve issues related to equity of access. Instead, skeptics argue, shifting control of water resources and services from the public to the private sector has only created greater social inequality while accelerating the contamination and exploitation of water resources—an outcome that in turn only produces a more robust and profitable water market.

As even many critical scholars have pointed out, however, is comprised of multiple processes that do not necessarily have unilinear, negative social and environmental

2 outcomes. At the least, neoliberalism can be understood as a dynamic process in which the roles of public and private realms are being constantly renegotiated, with varying consequences for society and nature. Therefore researchers engaged with questions of the commodification of nature have called for a more precise analysis and application of the concepts and processes involved in what is otherwise collectively referred to as ‗neoliberialism‘ (Castree 2003; Castree

2008a, 2008b; Bakker 2005; Peck and Tickell 2002; Ferguson 2010). Most research exploring the processes, merits, and shortcomings of the ‗neoliberalization‘ of water resources has focused on the delivery and service sector (i.e. tap water), particularly in the global South where the trend has been facilitated by new trade agreements.

In this thesis, I contribute to this literature by extending the application of concepts and theories on neoliberalization and the capitalist mode of production in general to a specific case of water commodification playing out in the global North. Instead of focusing on tap water, I examine the phenomenon of bottled water as another facet of neoliberalization processes and the expansion of . In order to gain insight into social responses generated by cases of the neoliberalization of nature from a variety of perspectives, I present ethnographic research that I conducted in Cascade Locks, Oregon, where Nestlé North America is attempting to site a water bottling facility. During the spring of 2010, I conducted semi-structured interviews with community members, officials, and representatives of both Nestlé and the ―Keep

Nestlé Out of the Gorge‖ activist coalition. This case proved to be an ideal lens through which to explore the themes of commodification and privatization, as well as to better understand how and why these processes continue in spite of deleterious outcomes and powerful opposition.

These observations are described in greater length below.

3

In the ―Competing Frameworks: Commons or Commodity‖ chapter, I review the ideological perspectives, sociological theories and literature underlying the different conceptualizations of the global water crisis. Here I introduce Karl Polanyi‘s notions of

‗fictitious ‘ and the ‗double movement‘ as well as (neo)Marxist concepts such as

‗accumulation by dispossession‘ and the Treadmill of Production theory.

The chapter titled ―Water Markets: Municipal, Bulk and Bottled‖ is an overview of the substantive background that links the neoliberalization of water in various forms—ranging from municipal systems and bulk water exports to the international bottled water industry. In this section I explain how the operations of the bottled water industry connect to the same issues and controversies raised by private sector participation in water delivery and service systems around the world. In short, I link the conversation on private sector participation in drinking water provision to opposition to bottled water in the United States, an example of which is

Food & Water Watch‘s anti-Nestlé campaign.

The following chapter, ―The Newest ‗Water Warrior‘ Battleground,‖ provides a transition from the nationally focused Food & Water Watch campaign to the most recently proposed Nestlé bottling site in Cascade Locks, Oregon. In this section, I provide the background and context for my case study and introduce the cast of characters involved in the negotiation of the water bottling proposal.

In the ―Methods‖ chapter I describe the approach I used in conducting the fieldwork, as well as the coding and analysis involved in this research project.

In the findings chapter titled ―Community, Environment, and Economy,‖ I explain how an overwhelming pro-Nestlé orientation among Cascade Locks residents has been shaped by a

4 history of economic hardship and socioeconomic tensions with other cities in the region as well as by the perception that the bottling facility would not incur any direct environmental costs.

Overall I find that, in the minds of most residents and community leaders, the potential for the city of Cascade Locks to double its revenue and enjoy other direct economic benefits outweighs any indirect social or environmental costs.

In the ―Discussion‖ chapter I return to the theories and concepts presented at the beginning of the paper. I argue that, because it is usually unnecessary and explicitly undermines social and environmental well being, bottled water should be considered not only a ‗fictitious commodity‘ but a ‗contestable commodity‘ as well. That is, instead of offering a solution to the global water crisis, the bottled water commodity deepens the problem at its roots. Consistent with Bakker (2005), I find that commodification and privatization are best conceptualized as distinct dimensions of the neoliberalization of nature because commodification is occurring in this case without an actual transfer of water rights. I also explore the implications of the case of

Cascade Locks for democratic natural resource management, the growing ―treadmill of production,‖ and the role of the state in facilitating commodification as opposed to its potential to decommodify water resources. Finally, I conclude that in the context of neoliberal globalization, national and state-level regulation is the only solution powerful enough to both safeguard democratic forms of governance and the natural environment. While this assertion is not unproblematic, considering the restructuring of the nation-state under neoliberalism and the inherent growth imperative of the capitalist system, progressive transnational policies are imperative to ending the global water crisis.

5

CHAPTER TWO

Competing Frameworks: Commons or Commodity?

The frameworks for the conceptualization and management of our water resources are currently being renegotiated. Water policies, ideologies and practices directly reflect powerful cultural, political and economic institutions and have significant implications for the trajectory of societies. Fundamentally stated, there are two prevailing discourses with competing explanations of and solutions to the global water crisis and general water resource management.

One is based on neoclassical economic theory, which assumes that people are independently acting rational maximizers who have access to and make decisions based on relevant information

(Ritzer 2007). The second framework asserts that subjecting vital elements of the environment to market forces is irrational. Adherents to this view insist that water is a commons that must be managed as such to protect the true interests of nature and society (Shiva 2002; Barlow 2009;

Barlow and Clarke 2003).

Capitalism and the Commodity Perspective

The first framework is the normative ideology of free market capitalism. This perspective has arguably dominated the course of history since the industrial revolution and it is at present increasingly characterized by a neoliberal globalization agenda (Harvey 2005).

Proponents of this perspective include various representatives of the United States and other economically prominent nations, transnational corporations (TNCs) and the Washington

Consensus (i.e. the World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and

World Bank). Harvey (2005:2) defines neoliberalism as ―a theory of political economic practices that proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual

6 entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade.‖ For the various international institutions and others promoting a neoliberal perspective, and commodification are key goals, and ‘ proclivity for inefficiency and corruption are seen as the cause of current problems (Robbins 2003).

In other words, the market perspective sees water as being best managed as a privatized commodity. In 1968 the biologist published an article in Science titled ―The

Tragedy of the Commons.‖ In this article, which takes a Malthusian perspective to the issue of global population growth, Hardin famously advances a justification predating neoliberal policies.

Hardin describes herders sharing an historic English common pasture. In Hardin‘s words,

―freedom in a commons brings ruin to all‖ because the lack of private ownership provides no incentives for rational individuals (herders) to prioritize the community and environment over their own self-interest in maximum returns (1968:1244). Hardin‘s ideas now echo in global water policy; this justification for private sector ownership of common resources was articulated, for example, in the Dublin Statement on Water and Sustainable Development,1 which explicitly defines water as an economic good (Principles 1992). The statement‘s Principle Four is illustrative as it reads:

Within this principle, it is vital to recognize first the basic right of all human beings to have access to clean water and sanitation at an affordable price [emphasis added]. Past failure to recognize the economic of water has led to wasteful and environmentally damaging uses of the resource. Managing water as an economic good is an important way of achieving efficient and equitable use, and of encouraging conservation and protection of water resources.

1 Also known as the Dublin Principles, the Statement was developed at the International Conference on Water and the Environment (ICWE) in Dublin, Ireland, in January 1992 and later adopted by the United Nations at the Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992.

7

While not uncontested, neoliberal globalization is one of the most powerful forces shaping not only economic development throughout the world, but political institutions and environmental policies as well.

Unearthing „Commodities‟: The Commons Perspective

The second framework, dominated by civil society ―…in both the global North and the global South who see water as a Commons and seek to provide water for all of nature and all humans,‖ is a perspective defined by its overarching opposition to market ideology and a neoliberal agenda (Barlow 2008:1). This framework guides a social movement seeking to safeguard human well-being, the environment and democratic processes. Contrary to and other theories justifying neoliberal globalization, the commons view2 contends that capitalism subverts the needs of communities, future generations and the environment because of its myopic focus on current profits and the selfish interests of corporate shareholders. For adherents to this viewpoint, relying on the free market is an unacceptable path in part because they see pricing water as tantamount to putting a price on life itself. This perspective is expressed in the Canadian Blue Planet Project ―Treaty Initiative to Share and

Protect the Global Water Commons‖ (2001):

the nations of the world declare the Earth's supply to be a , to be protected and nurtured by all peoples, communities and governments of all levels and further declare that fresh water will not be allowed to be privatized, commodified, traded or exported for commercial purpose and must immediately be exempted from all existing and future international and bilateral trade and investment agreements.

2 Laxer and Soron (2006:16) define the commons as “areas of social and natural life that are under communal stewardship, comprising collective resources and rights for all, by virtue of citizenship, irrespective of capacity to pay.”

8

(Neo) Marxist Theories: From „Enclosure of the Commons‟ to „Accumulation by

Dispossession‟

With their theoretical assumptions primarily (albeit not completely) grounded in (neo)-

Marxism, supporters of the commons perspective would consider Hardin‘s ―Tragedy of the

Commons‖ to be a myth. Critics have called the assumptions of the ‗tragedy‘ illogical and ahistorical, contending that the English commons that Hardin uses as the exemplar was itself not unmanaged and overexploited by selfish herders (Angus 2008; Feeny et al. 1990). Challenging free market assumptions about common property, scholars have pointed out that to the contrary, in fact, communities depending on a commons resource frequently develop effective local norms and institutions that prevent such environmental degradation at least as well if not better than private ownership (Ostrom 1990; Freese 1997; Shiva 2002).

Some of the most respected research on commons governance has been conducted by

Elinor Ostrom3, whose prominent work contradicts the assertion that privatization is the only way to protect commons resources (1990). Many scholars have built on Ostrom‘s research on economic governance and the commons. In the article ―The : Twenty- two Years Later,‖ for example, Feeny et al. (1990:3-4) critique Hardin‘s oversimplified prediction beginning with their own useful explication of common-property resources:

Common-property resources include fisheries, wildlife, surface and groundwater, range, and forests…Common-property resources share two important characteristics. The first is excludability (or control of access). That is, the physical nature of the resource is such that controlling access by potential users may be costly and, in the extreme, virtually impossible. Migratory resources such as fish, wildlife, and groundwater pose obvious problems for regulating access. Similarly, range and forest lands typically pose problems of exclusion. For large bodies of water, the global atmosphere, and radio frequency

3 In 2009, Ostrom was the first woman to be awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for her work on commons economic governance (Indiana University Media Relations 2010).

9

bands, exclusion is even more problematic. The second basic characteristic of common- property resources is subtractability, that is, each user is capable of subtracting from the welfare of other users. Even if users cooperate to enhance the productivity of their resource, for instance by replanting trees, the nature of the resource is such that the level of exploitation by one user adversely affects the ability of another user to exploit the resource. Subtractability (or rivalry) is the source of the potential divergence between individual and collective rationality…Hence, we define common-property resources as a class of resources for which exclusion is difficult and joint use involves subtractability.

After a careful review of evidence compiled from 1968-1990, Feeny et al (1990:13) found that

―the Hardin argument overlooks the important role of institutional arrangements that provide for exclusion and regulation of use‖ as well as cultural factors that make state and communal property equally viable management models.

The true tragedy, from a Marxist perspective, is the privatization of land and resources— or the ‗enclosure of the commons,‘ which began in England and enabled the rise of the capitalist economic structure to begin with. That is, the enclosure of the commons was not necessary as a means of protecting natural resources from overexploitation as Hardin would argue, but was instead the first essential step toward accumulating private capital (i.e. ‗primitive accumulation‘) and proletarianization. To quote Marx (1867) directly:

The parliamentary form of the robbery is that of Acts for enclosures of Commons, in other words, decrees by which the landlords grant themselves the people‘s land as private property, decrees of expropriation of the people…The spoliation of the church‘s property, the fraudulent alienation of the State domains, the robbery of the common lands, the usurpation of feudal and clan property, and its transformation into modern private property under circumstances of reckless terrorism, were just so many idyllic methods of primitive accumulation. They conquered the field for capitalistic agriculture, made the soil part and parcel of capital, and created for the town industries the necessary supply of a ―free‖ and outlawed proletariat.

The geographer expands upon Marx‘s concept of primitive accumulation.

He sees privatization not as merely the original condition of capitalism, but as an ongoing

10 process advanced by the neoliberal project, which he labels ‗accumulation by dispossession.‘

Harvey explains that ―the brilliance of Marx‘s dialectical method… is to show that market liberalization—the credo of liberals and neoliberals—will not produce a harmonious state in which everyone is better off. It will instead produce ever greater levels of social inequality…‖

(Harvey 2003a:144). Intertwined with the concept of expanded reproduction, Harvey sees accumulation by dispossession as the second process through which modern day capital accumulation occurs:

If the current period has seen a shift in emphasis from accumulation through expanded reproduction to accumulation through dispossession, and if the latter lies at the heart of imperialist practices, then it follows that the balance of interest within the anti-and alternative globalization movement must acknowledge accumulation by dispossession as the primary contradiction to be confronted. But it ought never to do so by ignoring the dialectical relation to struggles in the field of expanded reproduction (2003:177).

Overall, Harvey (2005) represents a neo-Marxist perspective in that he does not view the neoliberal project as promoting environmental and social well-being, but as a deliberate project of restoration and protection of elite class power internationally. Harvey‘s influential ideas have been extended by others. For example, applying the concept of accumulation by dispossession to struggles against water and privatization in Bolivia, Spronk and Webber (2007:32) explain their view that the concept encompasses ―…not merely privatization of formerly state or public resources but their acquisition by transnational capital in the U.S. and other core economies.‖ Where primitive accumulation was perhaps conceived by Marx as a primarily national phenomenon, the notion of accumulation by dispossession looks at how globalization has been a process of expanding the reach of capitalism and the neoliberal project throughout the world.

11

Other neo-Marxist theorists take on similarly global perspectives—especially those who subscribe to a world-systems theory approach, originating in the work of Immanuel Wallerstein.

According to Sklair (2002:40), ―the world-system approach is based on the distinction between core, semi-peripheral, and peripheral countries in terms of their changing roles in the international division of labour dominated by the capitalist world-system.‖4 Such scholars challenge the notions of neoclassical economics by highlighting disparities and unequal access to goods and services as well as consumption among countries. (2007:1369), for example, builds upon the theory of ecological unequal exchange, which ―…suggests the structure of international trade shapes disproportionate access to global environmental space in a manner substantially predicated upon hierarchical position in the world system.‖ He goes on to argue that ―countries advantageously situated within the structured interaction networks of global exchange, in part a consequence of , and political and military strength, are more likely to secure favorable terms of trade‖ (Rice 2007:1370). Other scholars have also examined the impacts of economic globalization on society and the environment.

The Treadmill of Production

Schnaiberg (1980) and O‘Connor (1994), who developed the Treadmill of Production

(ToP) theory, are neo-Marxist scholars who challenge the possibility of an ecologically sustainable capitalism. 5 For them, the irrational economic logic promoting relentless growth is at the root of social and environmental degradation; hence, common resources like water that are

4 The global division of labor is seen as continuously reinforcing the dominance of core countries, which focus on capital-intensive, high skill forms of production while semiperipheral and peripheral countries are the sources of raw materials, low skill and labor-intensive forms of production. 5 ToP theorists may or may not consider themselves Marxist. For example, Schnaiberg would not label himself a neo-Marxist, but scholars with competing theories (e.g. theorists such as Mol and Spaargaren) certainly do.

12 brought into the economic realm are inevitably overexploited. Gould, Pellow, and Schnaiberg

(2004:297) summarize the main components of the ToP approach:

In essence, the ―treadmill‖ component recognized that the nature of capital investment led to higher and higher levels of demand for natural resources for a given level of societal welfare (including wages and social expenditures). Each round of investment weakened the employment situation for production workers and worsened environmental conditions, but it increased profits. For workers, this treadmill implied that increasing investment was needed to employ each production worker. For ecosystems, each level of resource extraction became commodified into new profits and investments, which led to still more rapid increases in demand for ecosystem elements…The treadmill theory presented an image of a society running in place without moving forward. It represented a decrease in the social efficiency of the productive system. This decreased social efficiency of natural resources utilization produced a shift towards vastly increased rates of ecosystem depletion (resource extraction) and ecosystem pollution (dumping wastes into ecosystems). Moreover, workers and their families politically supported the expansion of this new capital-intensive form of production. As workers were cast off by the growing treadmill, their major consciousness was that accelerating this new form of investment was necessary and sufficient for ―social progress.‖ Thus, each round of socially dislocating growth generated increased, rather than decreased, social support for allocating investment to accelerating the treadmill of production.

Drawing conclusions congruent with those of David Harvey, Gould, Pellow and Schnaiberg argue that even in the contemporary context, ―…treadmill structures have adapted quite well…‖ to new challenges such as the increase in ―…state regulations, the empowering of global conferences and the emergent networks of progressive social movements (non-governmental organizations)…‖ (2004:305).

Polanyi: The Myth of the Self-Regulating Market and „‟

The argument presented in The Great Transformation by Karl Polanyi (1944) complements the notion of the enclosure of social and ecological realms by the market. In this influential work, Polanyi describes how the nineteenth century English Industrial Revolution marked the transformation of the international system to a ―self-regulating‖ market economy and its dramatically increased influence on our modern political and economic institutions. This has

13 been the starting place for many scholars attempting to explain, and in some instances change, the exploitive tendencies of market capitalism. According to Polanyi, ―…never before our own time were markets more than accessories of economic life‖ (68). He argues that preceding economic systems, such as tribalism, feudalism and mercantilism, had always been compatible with the social systems in which they were embedded. Even under the mercantile order, emerging markets were always controlled in some way by political institutions. Hence

―regulation and markets, in effect, grew up together‖ (68).

Contradictorily, a market economy assumes a separation of economic and political institutions. The modern day neoliberal agenda of deregulating markets through free trade agreements, for instance, appeals to this requirement of the market economy, which is by definition ―…an economic system controlled, regulated, and directed by markets alone; order in the production and distribution of goods is entrusted to this self-regulating mechanism‖ (68).

Polanyi believed that, partly because it is insensitive to the well-being of humans and the environment, the unregulated market presented an insurmountable contradiction. As he goes on to explain:

[A market economy] could not function unless society was somehow subordinated to its requirements. A market economy can only exist in a market society. A market economy must comprise all elements of industry, including labor, land and money…But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself to the laws of the market‖ (71).

An interrelated requirement of the market economy is the production of commodities or

―…objects produced for sale on the market‖ (72). As expressed above, for Polanyi, commodities become problematic in relation to land, labor and money. While land, labor and money comprise essential inputs of industry, Polanyi points out that they are not actually commodities. That is,

14 they cannot technically be produced for sale on the market, leading him to refer to them as

‗fictitious commodities:‘

Labor is only another name for a human activity which goes with life itself, which in its turn is not produced for sale but for entirely different reasons, nor can that activity be detached from the rest of life, be stored or mobilized; land is only another name for nature, which is not produced by man; actual money, finally, is merely a token of purchasing power which, as a rule, is not produced at all, but comes into being through the mechanism of banking or state finance. None of them is produced for sale. The commodity description of labor, land, and money is entirely fictitious (72).

In reality, if left unregulated even briefly the market would become an insufferable

‗satanic mill,‘ which no society could survive. The inescapable fact that a society left to the mercy of the unregulated market would be destroyed led Polanyi to the conclusion that the

―social history of the nineteenth century was thus the result of a double movement:

the extension of the market organization in respect to genuine commodities was accompanied by its restriction in respect to fictitious ones. While on one hand markets spread all over the face of the globe and the amount of goods involved grew to unbelievable proportions, on the other hand a network of measures and policies was integrated into powerful institutions designed to check the action of the market relative to labor, land and money (76).

The theory of the self-regulated market was never truly realized as the development of capitalism has not been completely unregulated, but rather has been accompanied by resistance and self- protection from certain segments of society. Nonetheless, critics of the expanding market economy point out that the process of neoliberal globalization has alarmingly accelerated privatization while stretching Polanyi‘s ‗fictitious commodities‘ beyond land, labor and money to include areas like genes, knowledge, and organs.

The „Double Movement‟: Capitalism vs. Democracy?

In their edited volume, Not for Sale: Decommodifying Public Life, Laxer and Soron

(2006:21) articulate a central argument in their agreement with Polanyi ([1944] 2001:71) that

15 commodifying the ―…dimensions of collective life means subordinating ‗the substance of society itself to the laws of the market.‘‖ They draw further on Polanyi‘s idea that the transition to a self-regulating market represented a transformation to a ―market society‖—inherently putting the economic and political spheres in conflict (1944:74). They conceive of Polanyi‘s notion of the double movement specifically as a conflict between capitalism (based on individualism and inequality) and democracy (resting on equality and the common good):

Attempts to expand capitalism have engaged pro-business forces versus their democratic adversaries over the extent to which people, nature, and essential services can be bought and sold for profit. The contest has been based on contradictions between two expansionary ethics—capitalism versus democracy. Capitalism is a revolutionary system, continually attempting to remake society by relentlessly pursuing profits. Success often depends on destroying bonds of community—aboriginals, farm families tied to the land, associations of workers—on narrowing the ―public‖ sphere over which the ethic of democracy applies. The bonds of community are necessary for the functioning of democracies. When a good or service is commodified for profit, the opportunity to make collective, deliberative decisions is replaced by the capitalist market. In contrast, struggles to win bottom-up democracy involve enabling people to determine their social, political, and economic lives as collectivities. The principles underlying capitalism and democracy are opposed. Capitalism is based on individual greed and inequality, while democracy is premised on the common good and equality (Laxer and Soron 2006:22-23).

Examining the rise and organization of the in response to corporate pollution, Cable and Benson (1993) observe that community-based grassroots groups emerge when state regulation fails. According to Cable and Benson (1993:467), the inherently conflicting imperatives of the state to both protect the public welfare and corporations‘ economic objectives are manifested in the ―…government‘s actions on environmental issues.‖ They too emphasize the incompatibility of democratic and capitalist ideologies, which they claim to a legitimacy crisis that the state must regularly resolve through symbolic reforms and policies:

The state is charged with the potentially conflicting tasks of facilitating corporations' economic objectives and providing for the public welfare. This dilemma arises from the

16

inherent contradictions between liberal and democratic principles which underlie public discourse and attitudes about government in democratic market-based societies. Liberal ideology demands that the state promote capital accumulation. At the same time, the state must maintain its legitimacy through popular support. According to democratic ideology, individuals participate in government so that decisions which affect the majority are made by the majority. Herein lies the contradiction: economic decisions that have consequences for the public are made without, and sometimes in spite of, public input. Such a course is consistent with liberal ideology, but in clear violation of democratic ideology (1993:467).

The tension between capitalism and democracy has been a focal point for scholars who explicitly advocate for alternative grassroots control of water resources at the community level.

Barlow and Clarke (2003), for instance, promote this perspective in their book Blue and in the abovementioned Blue Planet Project ―Treaty Initiative to Share and Protect the Global Water

Commons.‖ Eco-feminist Vandana Shiva‘s Earth Democracy (2005) is another example of advocacy for community-level resource management. Here she envisions an ecological democratic alternative to neoliberal globalization. Shiva‘s notion of an ―earth democracy‖ is based on principles such as reclaiming and sharing the commons, nonviolence, and inclusion. In an earlier work, Water Wars (2002:34-36), which analyzes the depletion and destruction of water resources in the global South due to enclosures, Shiva presents nine similar principles specific to water democracy. Fundamental in her principles are the ideas that markets cannot protect the basic human right to clean water, and that the value of the resource is finite in nature and cannot be accurately priced, hence cannot be appropriately regulated by the market.

The contradicting goals of capitalism and democracy are implicit in the ToP theory as well. In Local Environmental Struggles: Citizen Activism in the Treadmill of Production, Gould,

Schnaiberg, and Weinberg (1996:17) explain that ―the nation-state is both a facilitator of capital accumulation and a legitimator of the socioeconomic structure for the citizenry.‖ They offer a

17 slightly different perspective in seeing both labor (i.e. the public) and the state as equally complicit in the acceleration of environmental degradation, along with private capital. In this book, Gould et al. focus on activism by ‗citizen-worker groups,‘ which they characterize as being ―…concerned about the health and safety of their communities…‖ yet supportive of the unsustainable local development that comprises their economic base (3).

Rather than oppose the industrial economic development that degrades their local environment, citizen-worker groups are likely to support ―…―good neighbor agreements‖ and other tools for maintaining current forms of production and local development in more ―socially responsible‖ ways‖ (3). Gould et al. argue that struggles against the exploitative capitalist system need to move beyond the discourse around the notions of ―local‖ and ―global‖ to a transnational strategy that addresses the globalization of interwoven environmental and economic problems. They suggest the popular mobilization theme ―think globally, act locally‖ should be reframed as ―monitor locally, mobilize extra-locally‖ as free trade agreements, for instance, erode local, state and national governments‘ ability to manage ecosystem resources.

Nuanced Conceptualizations: Clarifying Commons, Communities and Commodities

Gould, Schnaiberg, and Weinberg (1996) are not alone in their call to explicitly define and deliberately apply concepts. The ‗neoliberalization of nature‘ literature, advanced primarily by critical geographers, along with the language used by anti-privatization activist groups and journalists, has been justifiably criticized for its implicit or conflated application of key themes and concepts, especially around the notions of commodification and privatization (Castree 2003;

Bakker 2005, 2007, forthcoming ; Castree 2008a, 2008b). Scholars like James Ferguson (2010) have even problematized what he calls the over-generalized, oftentimes contradicting uses of

18

‗neoliberalism‘ itself, suggesting that some neoliberal policies may, in practice, actually to progressive social policies and poverty alleviation. It is also noteworthy, for example, that some scholars have problematized the public/private dichotomy as well as conceptualizations of the

―local‖ and water as a human right. While the majority of the debate remains oversimplified, characterizing water resource management as either ―public‖ or ―private,‖ a growing literature is addressing the weaknesses of such arguments.

Gleick et al. (2002), for example, express doubt whether under economic globalization the trend of fresh water privatization can or should be stopped. They do not recognize an inherent contradiction between public and private management but instead conceive of water as both an economic and a social good that can and must be managed as such. They therefore posit that private management of some aspects of water has the potential ―…to help millions of poor receive access to basic water services‖ (43). At the same time, however, these authors recognize that water resources are too important to be placed entirely in the private sector, and believe that any commodification or privatization efforts must be preceded by democratic, human rights and controls. Fisher (2008:35) concludes that both public and private provision of water is ―…capable of providing poor services that are inequitable and unsustainable in the absence of adequate regulation and institutions.‖ She suggests recognizing water not only as a and an economic good, but as a political good as well.

Geographer Karen Bakker has been widely applauded for developing a nuanced examination of water privatization that has greatly contributed to the ‗neoliberalization of nature‘ literature (Loftus 2009). In her article ―Neoliberalizing Nature? Market Environmentalism in

Water Supply in England and Wales,‖ Bakker (2005) illustrates the distinction among

19 privatization, commercialization and commodification and argues that the trend of deregulation, beginning with the privatization of the British water sector industry in 1989 ultimately led to a process of re-regulation that has actually had positive impacts on the environment.6 As Bakker

(2005:544) explains, however, neoliberal re-regulation can ―…be interpreted in two ways: as the reconfiguration of the role of the state to ensure the continued functioning of capitalism, and as a continuous process of (re)production of socionatures.‖7 Because water‘s geography and sociocultural qualities render it an ―uncooperative commodity,‖ Bakker concludes that ―market environmentalism in water supply in England can thus be characterized as a case of successful privatization, broad-based commercialization, and failed commodification‖ (2005:559). Bakker identifies ―three idealized models of resource management: the public or municipal services model, the private sector commercial model, and the community cooperative model‖

(2006:143). She points out that, in spite of a literature making perfect separations and distinctions among them, in reality these idealized models are somewhat difficult to conceptually unpack as they often overlap in practice. For example, many water delivery and sanitation systems are municipally owned but managed and operated by the private sector.

Bakker (2007:438) argues that the most precise antithesis of ―commodification‖ is not

―human rights‖ but ―commons.‖ Instead of referring to one all-encompassing countermovement,

Bakker distinguishes two separate anti-privatization conceptual frameworks—the ‗human right to water‘ versus the ‗alter-globalization‘ model—and explains why she believes the latter holds

6 Bakker (2005:544) defines privatization as “…a change of ownership, or a handover of management, from the public to the private sector”; commercialization as “…changes in resource management practices that introduce commercial principles (such as efficiency), methods (such as cost-benefit assessment), and objectives (such as profit-maximization)”; and commodification as “…the creation of an economic good through the application of mechanisms intended to appropriate and standardize a class of goods or services, enabling these goods to be sold at a price determined through market exchange.” 7 ‘Socionatures’ are created ecosystems.

20 the most promise. She summarizes what she sees as the three strategic errors of the ‗right to water‘ framework: ―conflating human rights and property rights; failing to distinguish between different types of property rights and service delivery models; and thereby failing to foreclose the possibility of increasing private sector involvement‖ (439). The alter-globalization debate, in contrast, has disrupted ―the public/private binary…creat[ing] space for the construction of alternative community economies of water‖ based on ecological democracy, of public services and commons resource management (447).

In a forthcoming book chapter titled ―Commons Versus Commodities: The Ambiguous

Merits of Community Water Supply Management,‖ Bakker further interrogates notions of the commons, responding to arguments advocating decentralized water management (e.g. Shiva

2002). She proposes some compelling questions: ―So what are we to make of calls for

―commons‖ and ―community‖ water management? Should we pursue or dismiss them? And what might they mean in practice?‖ (2). Using the challenges faced by Cochabamba, Bolivia‘s public water system, SEMAPA,8 she concludes that such political organizations are not necessarily egalitarian, democratic or the best model for management. Here she argues, for example, that even the concepts of the local community and the commons have ambiguous applications, a broad political reach (for example, the notion is also compatible with conservative libertarian ideals), and are prone to romanticization. Bakker also points out that the biophysicality of water as a flow resource further constrains meaningful local governance. ―In the case of water, for these reasons, we should design nested scales of governance—rather (or in addition to) a local commons‖ (Bakker forthcoming: 18).

8 Discussion to follow.

21

The concept of ―decommodification‖ has also been presented as an alternative to the control of social and economic life by the market. Geographer John Vail (2010:313) is an example of a scholar who extends Gosta Esping-Andersen‘s conceptualization of decommodification beyond notions of labor commodification, defining it as ―…any political, social, or cultural process that reduces the scope and influence of the market in everyday life.‖

Laxer and Soron (2006:28), along with Vail, argue that the goal of decommodification is not necessarily the ―…rejection of commodities, consumption, and markets,‖ however, but simply the imposition of limitations on the scope of the market. Vail argues that most if not all alter- globalization policies and movements—from the slow food movement to the free listings on

Craigslist—are united by their attempt to challenge the extent to which economic activity should

―…be oriented to profit rather than social ends‖ (314).

22

CHAPTER THREE

Water Markets: Municipal, Bulk and Bottled

A literature debating the merits and outcomes of both the commons and commodity orientations has emerged that applies these concepts to specific water management issues. A diversity of studies, ranging from the appropriateness of private sector participation in municipal drinking water and delivery systems to the implications of bulk water exports under international trade agreements, reflects many of the processes currently playing out. These issues are conceptually situated within the broader trend of neoliberal globalization, which has primarily been pushed as a development strategy in the global South by the principal actors of the

Washington Consensus9 (McMichael 2007).

Municipal Water and Delivery Systems

In Development and Social Change, Philip McMichael (2007) explains the transformation of the post-World War II development project, which focused on public development beginning in the late 1940s, into the currently evolving globalization project, which emphasizes private development and started in the 1980s. McMichael describes the

―ingredients‖ of the development project as including universal claims of ―…development as rising living standards, rationality, and scientific progress‖; ―a national framework for ‖; and ―an international framework of aid (military and economic) binding the developing world to the developed world, and securing continuing access to its natural and human resources‖ (56).

9 The Washington Consensus is “a set of neoliberal economic policies (trade and financial liberalization, privatization, and macro-stability of the world economy) uniting multilateral institutions, representatives of the U.S. state, and associated G-7 countries that enable corporate globalization” (McMichael 2007:345-6).

23

According to McMichael, the main distinction between the two projects is that the globalization project views economic nationalism as inefficient and hindering of transnational trade and therefore promotes ―…market-based rather than state-managed development strategies‖ (151). Instead of relying on national governments to create and enforce policies, rules are implemented by multilateral agencies such as the WTO, IMF and . The outcome of the globalization project, according to McMichael, has been the concentration of power in transnational corporations, the ―realization of global development via new class, gender, race, and ethnic inequalities [as well as] resistance at all levels, from marginalized communities to state managers to factions even within multilateral institutions, contesting unbridled market rule‖

(151).

The objectives of the globalization project have been manifested in the marketization and/or privatization of municipal water services and delivery systems. The application of these market mechanisms have been instituted extensively, for example, through World Bank loan conditionalities and structural adjustment programs (SAPs) that require states to initiate infrastructural privatization projects in areas such as municipal water delivery and sanitation.

Thus, the most extensive literature applying notions related to the neoliberalization of water resources has focused on these municipal systems in the global South where neoliberal policies have been widely implemented.

The Basis for Private Sector Participation

Some research, mostly sponsored by the entities enacting these policies, has focused on the successes of private sector participation in the global South where SAPs and international trade regimes facilitated the acceleration of the process of privatization and deregulation

24 throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. Among other benefits, many of these studies argue that private sector participation improves water delivery to the poor (Cross and Morel 2005; Clarke,

Kosec, and Wallsten 2009; Cowen and Cowen 1998). Kessides (2005:82), in an article published on behalf of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank, describes the benefits of ―…private infrastructure to improve efficiency, promote innovation, and enhance services.‖ He argues that state monopolies have resulted in inadequate water services, especially in developing countries, and suggests that most would be better served by relying on

―unfettered competitive market forces‖ rather than regulation.

Others have written case-specific recommendations for maximizing the benefits of private sector participation in the water supply and delivery systems of developing countries (e.g.

Briscoe, Salas, and Pena 1998; Rivera 1996). In a World Bank report, Briscoe et al. (1998:1) identify three core conditions of success in the case of Chile: comprehensive water management, valuing water as an economic good, and ―…improved institutional arrangements, with greater participation of stakeholders, the private sector, and NGOs.‖

Negative Outcomes and Resistance to Private Sector Participation

Scholars such as McMichael (2007) and Harvey (2005, 2003a) have observed that neoliberal practice does not follow neoliberal theory. That is, instead of resulting in increased empowerment and development for states that adopt neoliberal prescriptions, privatization of formerly public infrastructure has redistributed wealth and resources to the economic and political elites who own the transnational corporations that take over. This argument is particularly compelling in the case of the transnational water corporations, which have seen dramatic growth due in part to the World Bank and other international financial institutions. For

25 example, three TNCs—French-based Suez and Veolia and the German utility corporation

RWE—have ―…dominated the global water business and are among the world‘s largest corporations… together they control subsidiaries in more than one hundred countries‖ (Snitow,

Kaufman, and Fox 2007:8). As a response to the alarm generated by the rapid concentration of power over water resources gained by these corporations in recent years, a number of studies have been published questioning the motives, practices and outcomes of these major players (e.g.

SERC 2004; Hall 2002; Robbins 2003).

The negative effects of neoliberal policies on water delivery services have been extensively researched. Reviewing the last fifteen years, Prasad (2006) found that private sector participation has had varied results in developing economies. He summarizes the ―unreliable record‖ of privatization as mixing successful added connections to the delivery infrastructure

(i.e. new people are actually being served) with high instances of ―bribery, corruption…, non- compliance with contractual agreements, lay-offs, tariff increases, and environmental pollution‖

(2006:682). He concludes that the private sector has not been more efficient in delivering services than the public sector and, contrary to the pro-neoliberal development literature, has greater difficulty providing services to the poor. Looking at the case of Argentina, Loftus and

McDonald (2001) examine the role of the IMF, World Bank and the Inter-American

Development Bank in promoting the private sector takeover of Buenos Aires‘ sewer and water services by Aguas Argentinas (a subsidiary of the French water company, Suez). The transition mirrors Prasad‘s findings as it resulted in improved water infrastructure for a minority of the city, but disconnections from services for the majority of poor residents.

26

A main current in this literature analyzes drinking water management controversies initiated by unsuccessful privatizations. For example, a significant body of work exists studying water service and delivery system privatization in the Bolivian context, which was the touted as the ―first great victory against corporate globalization‖10 that took place through the ―water wars‖ in 2000 (e.g. Assies 2003; Olivera and Lewis 2008; Perreault 2006; Spronk and Webber

2007). In this well-known case, thousands of people in Cochabamba, Bolivia organized, taking to the streets against a violent police force in order to reverse the takeover of their water services by Aguas del Tunari (a subsidiary of the U.S. based Bechtel corporation) (Olivera and Lewis

2004).11 Similarly, Taks (2008) investigated the complex tensions between Uruguay‘s water justice movement and the country‘s interests in opening water resources to private investment in order to strengthen the national economy and maintain autonomy. Taks shows how countries contesting poor services and inequity under private sector water management like Uruguay also are trying to construct alternatives to commodification that do not mirror the neoliberal model and outcomes.12

Private Sector Participation in U.S. Municipalities

While most scholarship has focused on neoliberalism in the context of the global South, scholars Peck and Tickell (2002:382) call the United States and Western Europe the ―neoliberal heartlands…which have been at the same time its principal centers of discursive production and

10 From Olivera and Lewis (2004). 11 The violent protests were sparked when Aguas del Tunari took over Cochabamba’s water services, raising many people’s water bills as much as 300 percent and making them impossible to pay (10). Eventually, the government did break its contract with the company and the Coordinadora de Defensa del Agua y de la Vida took over as an alternative, democratic water management body to represent rural and urban interests. As Bakker’s forthcoming book chapter illustrates, however, this collaborative, “water democracy” has not been so straightforward either in ensuring water justice and sustainability. 12 In a 2004 election, the population of Uruguay voted to approve a constitutional amendment that made water privatization illegal.

27 sites of intensive institutional reconstruction.‖ Private sector participation in various municipal water delivery and service systems in cities throughout the United States is a case in point, although 85 percent of tap water in the U.S. is publicly owned and managed. Several city governments, strained financially yet needing to repair aging water delivery and sewage infrastructure, have turned to transnational water corporations as an alternative solution to their expensive problem. This situation has led the largest existing private U.S. water to be purchased by the ―Big Three‖ water corporations that have taken over across the global South:

United Water Resources, U.S. Filter and American Water Works have been purchased by Suez,

Vivendi13 and RWE, respectively (Snitow et al. 2007; Varghese 2007). These same corporations are also entering into long-term contracts with many municipal water providers. For example,

Buffalo, NY has a 10-year contract with RWE; Camden, NJ has a 20-year contract with Suez; and Indianapolis, IN has a 20- year contract with Vivendi (Veolia) (SERC 2004).

While municipal water privatizations and/or marketizations continue in various ways throughout the country,14 Barlow (2008:20) notes that ―…a powerful movement in the United

States led by Food and Water Watch has successfully fought water privatizations in New

Orleans, Louisiana; Laredo, Texas; Atlanta, Georgia and Stockton, California.‖ Well- documented privatization failures similar to those experienced in the global South (e.g. in

Buenos Aires and Cochabamba), typified by rate-hikes and diminished and services in cities such as Atlanta, GA, have led to strong public anti-privatization sentiments and

13 Now Veolia 14 San Jose, California is currently in the process of selling its municipal water system to San Jose Water Company (Rogers 2010).

28 a trend of re-municipalization (Tsybine 2001).15 Anti-privatization activists observe, for instance, that private sector management is incompatible with high quality public service in part because the profit motive conflicts with good maintenance and promotes the exclusion of those who cannot afford to pay the rates. The unanticipated outcomes or ―broken promises‖ of water delivery and sanitation privatization occurring across the globe have led places including

Cochabamba, El Alto and La Paz, Bolivia; Buenos Aires, Argentina; Paris, France; Hamilton,

Canada; and Felton, CA to de-privatize services and delivery—returning ownership and operation to various forms of public management models (Corporate Europe Observatory 2010).

Neoliberal Trade Policies

A pressing aspect of the debate considers the appropriateness, legality and irrevocability of specific neoliberal trade policies. This issue is significant as privatization itself is ―…a political strategy which creates new rules and allocates new roles among the state, the market and civil society‖ (Prasad 2006:672). For instance, Laxer and Soron (2006:16) comment on the ability of structural adjustment programs (SAPs) in the South and trade agreements (e.g.

NAFTA) in the North to bind countries into the neoliberal framework. The central concern is how water rights are conceptualized and legally allocated among public versus private stakeholders. This literature struggles with questions of how international agreements will be interpreted. For example, will international trading rights be respected over local human and environmental water needs? Will new laws prevent governments from regulating or subsidizing rates to allow water access to the poor?

15 For information tracking the remunicipalization trend around the world see http://www.remunicipalisation.org/welcome

29

Essentially, subtleties embedded in unprecedented international trade agreements, such as

NAFTA and the World Trade Organization‘s (WTO) General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

(GATT) and General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), may make democratically developed water management practices and policies difficult to actually apply and legally defend. These ambiguities are particularly relevant for the topic at hand when water becomes a tradable, ‗value-added‘ product, as it does once it is bottled or contained for bulk export. Gleick et al. (2002:11-19) outline the current trade in water. They begin with this distinction between water traded as a raw (unprocessed) good and water as a value-added product. Due in part to the unequal geographic distribution of fresh water resources, most of this debate is centered on the international bulk water market (12). Several regions, including arid areas of the United States, the Middle East and Asia, are negotiating proposals to transfer great quantities of water as a commodity for municipal or industrial purposes, while water abundant regions worry about the repercussions of exporting water from their ecosystems (e.g. Little 1996; Obeidi, Hipel, and

Marc Kilgour 2002; Nardone 2003).

In other words, controversy over the implications of WTO policies, especially focused on the GATT and GATS, has intensified over the question of how international rules may conflict with national regulations and policies. There is much uncertainty as to how laws established by international trading regimes such as the WTO are to be interpreted and will impact civil society, local economies, and the environment (Gleick et al. 2002; Shiva 2002; Bakker 2006). One problem is that trade agreements do not explicitly identify what freshwater can be considered an economic good. Highlighting the complicated trade rules for bulk water, for example, Gleick et

30 al. (2002:18) quote the joint declaration of the U.S., Canada and Mexico under NAFTA and

GATT16:

Unless water, in any form, has entered into commerce and becomes a good or product, it is not covered by provisions of any trade agreement, including the NAFTA. And nothing in the NAFTA would obligate any NAFTA party to either exploit its water for commercial use, or to begin exporting water in any form. Water in its natural state, in lakes, rivers, reservoirs, aquifers, water basins and the like is not a good or product, is not traded, and therefore is not and never has been subject to the terms of any trade agreement.

In spite of arguments such as those by the WTO titled ―GATS: The WTO is Not after

Your Water‖ (2006), many still fear along with Gould (2006:96) that GATS is an agreement that ties ―…governments‘ hands and…take[s] policy decisions permanently out of the political domain.‖ Analyzing in depth the GATS‘ legal ability to restrict social regulation of the water sector, Lang (2004) finds that due particularly to ambiguous wording, human rights advocates are justified in their apprehension. He concludes that ―…there appears to be every reason to think that a significant amount of water sector regulation could potentially violate GATS non- discrimination provisions—particularly Article II on MFN [most favored nation] treatment‖

(837). The issue remains highly contentious as solid legal precedents have yet to be established.

International trade rules are a principal concern of advocacy groups who worry that they will have the potential to ―…complicate the efforts of local governments and citizens to hold the bottled water industry accountable‖ (Food & Water Watch 2009a).

16 Another controversy is the binding legality of such joint agreements themselves.

31

The Bottled Water Phenomenon

Production of a Market

As previously observed, the phenomenon of water bottling is an interesting yet neglected second facet of water management controversies. The bottled water market, which has grown rapidly since the late 1970s, is directly connected to the perception in the global North that the drinking water delivered by aging public systems is unsafe and also to actually existing water safety and availability issues in the global South. Due to an effective marketing campaign on the part of leading transnational corporations like Nestlé, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Danone to convince consumers that it is safer to drink bottled water than tap, bottled water sales have increased exponentially (Clarke 2007). For example, Table 1 illustrates bottled water market growth and consumption in the United States from 2000 to 2008 and Table 2 shows the top three bottled water corporations that dominated the market in 2005. Perceptions of bottled water as a convenient, healthy alternative to tap water and other bottled beverages have made it a

―…beverage industry phenomenon…as the second-largest beverage type in the U.S. market and for many years also ranked as the most vigorously growing category‖ (Rodwan 2009:12).

Table 1: U.S. Bottled Water Market Growth and Per Capita Consumption, 2000-2008

Year Millions of Gallons Annual Change (%) Gallons Per Capita 2000 4,725.0 -- 16.7 2001 5,185.3 9.7% 18.2 2002 5,795.6 11.8% 20.1 2003 6,269.8 8.2% 21.6 2004 6,806.7 8.6% 23.2 2005 7,538.9 10.8% 25.4 2006 8,253.6 9.5% 27.6 2007 8,757.4 6.1% 29.0 2008 8,665.6 -1.0% 28.5 Source: Beverage Marketing Corporation cited in Rodwan (2009)

32

Table 2: Company Ranking by Market Share in 2005

Rank Company Market Share 1 Nestlé Waters North America 29.2% 2 Coca-Cola/Danone 9.7% 3 PepsiCo 6.4% Source: Beverage Marketing Corporation cited in Clarke (2007a)

This increase in consumption has been observed despite the fact that the vast majority of people within the largest bottled water consumer countries have inexpensive or free access to safe tap water provided by the public sector (see Table 3), and that up to 40 percent of all bottled water products are actually municipal tap water anyway (Food & Water Watch 2009a; Natural

Resources Defense Council 1999; Clarke 2007). The price of bottled water compared to tap is a major argument against the bottled water industry. The Natural Resources Defense Council

(1999) finds that consumers are charged between 240 and10,000 times as much for bottled water as for tap and, since a lot of bottled water is merely filtered tap water, people are paying thousands times more for what is literally the same product.

Table 3: Bottled Water Use in 2009 by Region

Region Percent Share of volume North America 30.3% Europe 28.9% Asia 27.1% All others 13.7% Source: Beverage Marketing Corporation (2010)

33

Social and Environmental Injustice

Bottled water is sometimes justified as a means of bringing potable water to the world‘s poor. However, it is widely regarded as an unacceptable solution to the problem of inadequate or non-existent municipal water supplies in developing countries where access to clean drinking water is actually a legitimate social problem (Gleick et al. 2002; 2008). The line of argument from scholars like Harvey (2005) would suggest that the production of created by the arguably deliberate disinvestment in water delivery infrastructure in both the global North and

South not only legitimizes private sector participation in municipal services but also creates an otherwise nonexistent market for bottled water. In other words, the inability of the public sector to provide safe tap water to millions throughout the world facilitates the creation of a bottled water market, while reproducing social inequality and power relations. The most powerful

TNCs continuously produce new markets as well as exploit and deepen the vulnerability of the poor. The Human Development Report, ―Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis,‖ argues that the lack of clean water and sanitation, especially for the world‘s rural poor, is not the result of scarcity but of the political and economic disempowerment of the poor and the related lack of economic and political will on the part of the rest of the world (UNDP 2006). Gleick et al.

(2002:12) say that ―we believe that bottled water sales must not be considered acceptable substitutes for adequate municipal water supply. Bottled water rarely provides adequate volumes of water for domestic use, and the costs of such water are typically exorbitant.‖

In his book, Shopping Our Way to Safety: How We Changed from Protecting the

Environment to Protecting Ourselves (2007), Andrew Szasz uses bottled water as an example of how individualistic, consumer-based solutions to addressing environmental problems (e.g.

34 buying organic, ―non-toxic‖ and ―natural‖ products) are dangerous because they diminish citizens‘ will to participate in meaningful collective political action. While many bottled water consumers are motivated by the perception that they are reducing their individual exposure to environmental hazards, the outcome is actually the opposite result, because the bottled water industry has a great impact on the environment as well. As Food & Water Watch (2009a:17) summarizes, ―bottling water is [ecologically] inefficient:

Producing a one-liter bottle of water can require three liters of water. Annual U.S. plastic bottle production requires more than 17 million barrels of oil, enough to fuel one million vehicles on our roads each year. But it‘s not just the production of the bottles that has an ecological impact. The energy used to pump, process, ship and refrigerate bottled water amounts to 50 million barrels of oil, enough to run 3 million cars. Unfortunately, the bad news doesn‘t stop after the last drop is drained from the bottle. About 86 percent of the empty plastic water bottles in the United States land in the garbage instead of being recycled, amounting to about two million tons of PET plastic bottles in U.S. landfills each year.

The North American Front: Food & Water Watch takes on Nestlé

Bottled water has recently become an issue within the United States as well. Rural communities here have been selected by transnational corporations as sites for water bottling facilities, due to their combination of ecological health and economic stagnation (Food & Water

Watch 2009a; DeGraw 2010) as well as for their proximity to centers of growing consumer demand (Nestlé Representative Personal Communication, 2010). Consumer and public advocacy groups like the non-profit Food & Water Watch have mounted a national campaign against bottling companies, especially the number one bottler, Nestlé Waters North America.

With 26 bottling facilities located throughout North America, Swiss-based Nestlé currently bottles seven domestic brands (Arrowhead, Calistoga, Deer Park, Ice Mountain, Ozarka, Poland

Spring, and Zephyrhills) and one national brand (Nestlé Pure Life) (Nestle Waters 2005). In

35 addition, Nestlé has four imported brands (Perrier, San Pellegrino, Acqua Panna, and Contrex), which help the company maintain its status as the largest food processing and packaging company in the world (Clarke 2007).

In the United States, Food & Water Watch (2009) accuses Nestlé of ―prospecting for water in communities across the country‖ including in California, Florida, New England,

Wisconsin and Michigan in order to further expand their transnational operations. Recently, the non-profit group began a new campaign titled, ―Help Keep a Nestlé Water Bottling Plant out of the Columbia River Gorge‖ (2009b), to dovetail with their nationally focused efforts. Based on a series of case studies where Nestlé has been operating, the broad Food & Water Watch campaign highlights a number of socio-environmental concerns related to water commodification and the bottling industry in particular. Portland-based Food & Water Watch organizer, Julia DeGraw, summarized the organization‘s presence in the Columbia River Gorge in a May 2010 interview:

…It‘s a very big thing to unpack, but basically Food & Water Watch… I think one of their major imperatives, why they opened up an office in the Northwest, was because it was becoming increasingly apparent that Nestlé was looking to open up a water bottling facility somewhere in the Northwest and we wanted to have an on-the-ground organizer to help resource any kind of on-the-ground campaign that would need to happen in the Northwest to stop a water bottling proposal. Especially from Nestlé…moving forward because Nestlé specifically has this track record of going into rural communities that have been hit with hard economic times and of…taking advantage of that and extracting this resource, often with adverse impact, in order to make a large amount of profit. And what has happened in Michigan and Maine and other locations has kind of made it very clear that once they set up shop, it‘s very, very hard to undo what has been done. So the way we‘d have the largest impact on the industry in general and the way we handled the largest impact on the most egregious practices of the industry, which are being practiced by Nestlé, are to stop these water bottling facilities from going in in the first place.

One key argument to come out of Food & Water Watch‘s case studies is that the economic benefits, particularly concerning job creation, promised by Nestlé have typically been unrealized. According to Food & Water Watch, Nestlé cannot legally guarantee that they will

36 hire from the local job pool, and typically fail to pay living wages to their employees either way.

The advocacy group also alleges that, instead of giving host communities an economic boost,

Nestlé facilities put new financial pressure on the public infrastructure, for example, by increasing truck traffic on local roadways. Food & Water Watch asserts that, because the high social and environmental costs of bottled water are incurred by the host community and society at large, companies like Nestlé generate huge profits and have very few expenses. Small, disempowered rural communities are particularly vulnerable to predation by powerful multinational companies because such communities are grasping for economic development and there are few laws at any level to protect them and their water resources from exploitation.

Therefore, the non-profit group concludes, companies such as Nestlé are able to reallocate resources from local watersheds and shift power from local people to company stakeholders.

The potential impact in the Columbia River Gorge, highlights Food & Water Watch, is deepened because operations in Cascade Locks also have the potential to reduce waterway flows, thereby putting sensitive fish ecosystems at further risk (Food & Water Watch 2009b).

37

CHAPTER FOUR

The Newest “Water Warrior” Battlegrounds

Portrait of Cascade Locks, Oregon: An Old Town in the New West?

Cascade Locks, Oregon is a community of 1,100 located in the Columbia River Gorge,

15 miles west of the City of Hood River and 45 miles east of Portland on Interstate 84 (U.S.

Census Bureau 2010). While they have notable demographic and economic differences, Cascade

Locks and the City of Hood River comprise the only two urban centers in Hood River County

(see Table 4). Significantly smaller than Hood River, Cascade Locks is a four mile-long sliver constrained by the interstate on one side and the Columbia River on the other, and is in close proximity to both Oregon‘s Mount Hood and Washington State‘s Gifford Pinchot National

Forests. Surrounded by the spectacular scenery for which the Gorge is known, in 1986 Cascade

Locks became officially restricted inside the congressionally declared Columbia River Gorge

National Scenic Area as well.17 Along with Stevenson—a Washington community directly across the river—Cascade Locks enjoys its particularly lush ecosystem due to a localized precipitation phenomenon created when moisture is channeled upriver from the Pacific Ocean and collects at a bend in the Cascade Mountain Range (See Figure 1 ). Compared to neighboring Hood River, which receives an average of 30 inches of precipitation a year, Cascade

Locks gets around 90 inches—an environmental novelty that has been integrated into the town identity (OWRD 2010).

17 “The Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area has two purposes: 1) To establish a National Scenic Area to protect and enhance the scenic, cultural, recreational and natural resources of the Gorge; and, 2)To protect and support the economy of the Gorge by encouraging sustainable growth in existing urban areas and by allowing future economic development in a manner that is consistent with the above purpose” (Friends of the Columbia Gorge 2010).

38

Figure 1: Columbia River Gorge Region

Source: U.S. Forest Service (2010)

Figure 2: State of Oregon, Average Annual Precipitation from 1961-1990

Source: Cooperative Institute for Oceanographic Satellite Studies (CIOSS 2010)

39

Table 4: Demographic and Economic Trends in Cascade Locks and the Hood River Micropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Cascade Locks Hood River, OR (MSA) Total Population 1970 n/a 13,187 1980 838 15,835 1990 930 16,903 2000 1,115 20,411 2006 1,110 20,806 Population by Race/Ethnicity Total (1980) 838 15,835 White 95.7% 90.2% Other races 4.3% 9.8% Total (2000) 1,115 20,411 White 84.9% 70.7% Other races 15.1% 29.3% Poverty Rate (Percent) 1969 n/a 13.6% 1979 10.5% 9.5% 1989 15.7% 15.7% 1999 19.0% 14.2% 2003 17.5% 12.6% Median Family Income in 2006 Dollars 1969 n/a $46,209 1979 $49,428 $54,171 1989 $41,999 $47,163 1999 $45,284 $50,117 Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (2010)

Cascade Locks is an understandable choice for a water bottling facility due to its appealing lush setting and convenient location near Portland on I-84. These factors, along with the fact that a Columbia River Gorge plant siting would fill a geographic gap in their regional production and distribution,18 are Nestlé‘s only interests in the city, according to the company representative who I interviewed in May 2010. If only coincidentally, the unanimous portrait painted by residents of Cascade Locks of economic hardship, however, is also reminiscent of

18 The closest existing Nestlé bottling facilities are in Hope, BC, Denver, CO and Calistoga, CA.

40

Food & Water Watch‘s observation that Nestlé tends to select rural communities with socioeconomic vulnerabilities. According to U.S. Census data (see Table 4), Cascade Locks suffers from chronically high poverty and unemployment rates. As this Cascade Locks public official explained:

I mean we‘re a community on hard times because of our economic situation and we‘re a community in transition…where our economy died with the timber industry and we really haven‘t come out of that…A bunch of individuals have said ―well, I still want to live here, but I‘m going to work somewhere else‖ and the economy really hasn‘t taken a new direction. I mean it‘s just, it‘s nascently trying to turn it to some tourism and we‘ve got…two or three hotels that do okay. You‘ve got some restaurants that some do better than others. I mean that East Wind really does actually a pretty good business, but the other ones, they‘re not booming. They just get by and manage to stay open, but in no way are they a prosperous, you know, enterprise. And so there‘s that, like I said, that nascent, you know, direction of the community, but I wouldn‘t call it a success yet. We have not successfully transitioned to…a Sisters, Oregon or…even a Joseph, Oregon who has really capitalized on some things and made themselves a more bustling tourist town, you know? And so we‘re a bit lost, if you will, in redefining ourselves and there have been some great efforts. I mean this effort with; this partnership with the tribe to bring a resort casino here would certainly transform us and take us into a new age or a new prosperity. But it‘s stuck, it‘s stuck in federal policy review and so we‘re still in limbo. I think that this Nestlé project could bring a renaissance to the community and not only from just a pure job perspective and everything, but I mean from my position…it would generate a significant amount of new revenue for us to do our job. (CL 42) 19

This city official (CL 42) voices the common assertion that the community has struggled to redefine its economy through tourism alone. The claim that since the downturn of the timber industry there aren‘t even enough local jobs to support the small city‘s population is validated by statistical evidence. That is, for example, the number of Cascade Locks residents who must

―commute out of town for jobs due to this lack of local employment opportunity‖ is comparatively lower than in Hood River County and the State of Oregon (see Figure 3) (Hovee

& Company 2009:11).

19 Coded identifier

41

Figure 3: Ratio of Jobs to Population (2007)20

0.6 0.56

0.5 0.46 0.41 0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 Cascade Locks Hood River County State of Oregon

Source: Portland State University, Population Research Center; and Oregon Employment Department cited in Hovee & Company (2009)

While the socioeconomic circumstances of Cascade Locks, Oregon parallels the experience of rural communities throughout the United States and in other countries, the story playing out here has certain regionally-significant variables as well. For example, as described by local residents such as the above-quoted CL 42, this case typifies the ―Old‖ versus ―New‖

American West dynamic that has become a dominant framework for social scientists studying changes and tensions in the region over the past 30 years. While the theory of the New West has been criticized for its failure to adequately recognize the global context (e.g. Robbins et al.

2009), because the location of the case study within the Columbia River Gorge does prove important, I will use it briefly as a reasonably accurate depiction of regional dynamics. In other words, in this section I am arguing that Cascade Locks can be usefully characterized as an ―Old

West‖ town in the ―New West.‖

20 “A useful indicator of local economic performance and need can be provided by assessing the ratio of jobs to population…This comparison shows that Cascade Locks has a relatively low proportion of jobs in town for the number of local residents” Hovee & Company (2009).

42

The theory of the New West starts with the assumption that ―population change represents more than a simple redistribution of people; it is an indicator and, in many instances, an instigator of a wide range of economic, social, cultural, political/policy, and environmental transformations‖ (Shumway and Otterstrom 2001). According to researchers developing this paradigm, a New West transformation happens when people migrate from metropolitan areas to natural amenity-rich settings located relatively close to an urban center, yet adjoining

―…National Forest lands, major river and lake resources, mountain environments, and other natural attractions [that] provide both recreational opportunities and an aesthetic backdrop‖

(Winkler et al. 2007:480). The demographic change is concurrent with an economic restructuring in which communities move away from the primary commodity production of extractive industries like logging, mining and agriculture, and toward tourism, recreation, construction, professional businesses and consumer service industries (Shumway and Otterstrom

2001; Winkler et al. 2007; Morris and McBeth 2003; Robbins et al. 2009). This ―rural restructuring‖ typically involves conflict, as the long-established and newly arrived populations tend to clash over differing values and needs, which contributes to ―…strains that reduce the potential for civic engagement and limit capacity for collective action in the pursuit of common interests‖ (Winkler et al. 2007:483; Wilkinson 1991).

In short, the common factors that characterize communities transitioning from ―Old‖ to

―New‖ West orientations, including political disorganization and economic insecurity, at least superficially fit Food & Water Watch‘s description of places where Nestlé has a strategic motivation to open bottling operations. Further reflecting the ―New West‖ paradigm, as Table 4 indicates, Cascade Locks lags behind on indicators of social well being compared to other Gorge

43 communities, such as the City of Hood River, which is known (at least according to many

Cascade Locks residents) for its ―New West‖ qualities such as a thriving recreation sector. For example, from 2003 to 2007, the most rapid job growth in Hood River County as a whole was in leisure and hospitality services (increasing 4.4% annually) where in the Cascade Locks zip code the most rapid job growth was ―…experienced in the industrial sectors up by 3.6% per year‖

(Hovee & Company 2009:10).

Table 5: Unemployment Rate in Cascade Locks, the Hood River Micropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and the State of Oregon Cascade Locks Hood River, OR (MSA) State of Oregon Unemployment Rate 1980 15.3% 10.4% 6.7% 1990 12.8% 8.6% 5.2% 2000 7.3% 6.6% 5.0% 2010 8.9% 8.6% 10.7% Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (2010) and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010)

At least from the period of the early 1980s recession until the most recent economic downturn, the city of Cascade Locks had poverty and unemployment rates consistently higher than the Oregon average (see Table 5 above). Local residents often reminisce about the period from the post-WWII timber boom to the 1980s, along with the construction of the Bonneville

Dam, as past times of prosperity and vibrant community life in Cascade Locks. As this resident expressed:

I‘ve lived here since about 1962, in the community area. My wife as well. Raised family here. All of us went, you know, my wife and I went to high school here [and have] two daughters…in my younger days [Cascade Locks was] pretty booming with, you know, the timber industry being the heavy employer. After that started going downhill I think we became more of a bedroom community for the Portland area. We were kind of tasked

44

to, I think for our economic issues, to get involved with the tourism. But [Cascade Locks is a] pretty tight community and obviously we lost our high school this year which was quite a blow to our little town. (CL 33, Cascade Locks Resident)

Where Stevenson, WA and Hood River have developed fairly successful ―New West‖ tourism and recreation-based economies,21 numerous failures mark Cascade Locks‘ comparable endeavors. Examples include a cable car intended to connect the downtown with a nearby mountaintop that would have afforded tourists a view of the Gorge, and the highly controversial proposal by the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a casino resort in town—a proposal that is still pending after 11 years of litigation and politicking

(City of Cascade Locks 2010). Although the National Scenic Area surrounds the town, legally restricting the type of activity allowed outside of the urban growth boundary, the Port of Cascade

Locks retains a 120 acre industrial park along the Columbia riverfront that is zoned for commercial uses—many of which do not appeal to the aesthetic economic interests of the neighboring towns like Stevenson. If the casino is approved, for example, it would eventually be built in what is currently part of the Port‘s industrial park. One Cascade Locks resident (CL 39) explained the town‘s economic development efforts in this way:

They‘ve tried a lot of things. They spent a lot of money and time to get a tramway up to that point up there back in the 60s. And they got it all the way through the permit, they got it all the way through the Forest Service, all the way through the Feds, all the way through the state and then the Sierra Club stepped in, found a way to stop it and it got stopped and it would‘ve required probably going to the Supreme Court. It was before the National Scenic Act and the Port didn‘t have the money to go to the Supreme Court so that project was killed. That would have been a boom [sic] to the town. So, I mean, it‘s just been case after case where they‘ve brought and they promote things and they‘ve tried to get things going and then…like the casino. Something shoots it down! You know? The [Confederated Tribes of the] Grand Ronde jumped up and said ―no, you‘re not going

21 Stevenson and Hood River have promoted themselves as tourism and recreation destinations. For example, Stevenson is home to the high-end Skamania Lodge and golf course and Hood River has greatly benefitted from its promotion of windsurfing, novelty shops, restaurants and microbreweries (e.g. Full Sail Brewing).

45

to build this!‖ And then you‘ve got all kinds of in-fighting going on and nothing ever happens. And now here we are with the bottling plant.

As the New West paradigm predicts, the transition away from the timber industry, followed by a series of failed economic development efforts over the years and the closure of the town‘s secondary school in 2009, have resulted in a sense of frustration directed at those cities, organizations and citizens who assert ―New West‖ values. From the perspective of many old- time Cascade Locks residents, outsiders are to blame for the city‘s economic stagnation. For example, the Sierra Club barred plans for the Cascade Locks tramway and the City of Hood

River and Hood River County are responsible for imposing the closure of the Cascade Locks

School. In addition to the perceived antagonism by outsiders, multiple interests both from within and outside the town have lobbied on both sides of the casino proposal—another illustration of the disparate visions and goals that exist even within city limits. The cumulative effect of this collective frustration was summarized by one Cascade Locks resident (CL32) who said, ―The town is broken! It‘s been broken for a while.‖

Nestlé: Economic “ Bullet”

Overall Cascade Locks could be seen as locked in a stymied transition from an Old West extractive economy-based community to a New West town based on the environmental preservation typically demanded by newly arriving urbanites as they recreate, retire or establish homes a commutable distance from their city careers. Conflicts of interests both from within and outside of Cascade Locks have left some town representatives seeking what others have referred to as a ―silver-bullet solution‖ to reconcile the economic base with the new requirements of environmental and community vitality imposed by necessity, from within and by the larger public.

46

In early 2007, the City of Cascade Locks was approached with a plan that seemed to have

―silver bullet‖ potential. If it worked out, many residents and City Council members thought, it would represent an uncontroversial rejuvenation of their extractive economy and a reconciliation of ongoing social conflicts. Nestlé Waters North America was interested in the resource almost everyone in town can agree they have in abundance. This Nestlé representative22 explained their interest in the area:

In approximately early 2007 the part of our company that looks out into the future— where we might need additional bottling capacity to support consumer demand— suggested that we need to be looking for a location in the Portland-Seattle corridor beginning in that 2007 timeframe. The exact timing of when we would need that facility was, at that time, unspecified. But from experience we know it typically takes several years to go through the evaluation processes and permitting processes to find such a location. The closest plant that we had at the time…we had the small bottling facility up in Hope, British Columbia. And then the next closest facilities were down in the central/northern California area—the Calistoga area. But for all practical purposes, some of the water that was found in the stores in Portland and Seattle was being shipped from southern California. So there were business and environmental reasons we wanted to try to more localize the source of that product to our consumers. Cascade Locks came to our attention in the same way that some of these communities did or other private sources would. We learned that Cascade Locks had a number of spring water sources along the mountain—I‘ll call it the mountain front. The Gorge front right along the Columbia River. And so as we identified it we came out to the community, looked at the overall setting. Very, very high precipitation area in the Gorge. Beautiful back drop and protected recharge area in the [Mount Hood]National Forest with the springs and we initially approached the city manager and asked if it was something he thought the city might be interested in and then we…I stood up in front of a public meeting at the city council and introduced myself and let them know that we understood that they had springs and spring water in the area and we were in the very early stage of exploring for a new location and that we would be continuing to be updating the city council and the community on our project as we went through an evaluation process to see if any of the springs in the area would work for a project like this. (Nestlé Waters North America Representative May 2010).

The water bottling project proposal eventually evolved to include a water exchange that, if it is approved, would involve the City of Cascade Locks, Nestlé and the Oregon Department of

22 The Nestlé representative insisted on anonymity.

47

Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). The Nestlé facility would become a customer of the city utility in order to produce two lines of bottled water: spring water would be used for the Arrowhead

Mountain Spring Water brand and city well water would go into the Nestlé Pure Life brand. The estimated 300 gallons per minute (gpm) of water required for such a plant would come from

Oxbow Springs, which is currently owned and utilized by ODFW‘s Oxbow Fish Hatchery to raise endangered salmon destined for Idaho. Through an intergovernmental agreement, the city would exchange its well water for the spring water currently used by the state hatchery. The spring water would then be purchased from the city by Nestlé Waters at a similar or lower rate paid by municipal customers in Cascade Locks23 (Boschler 2010).

The proposal is lauded by supporters as universally beneficial, bringing economic development to the city and enabling the hatchery to expand operations while minimizing the environmental impact of pollution by allowing Nestlé to locate production closer to their expanding Pacific Northwest market. Nestlé Waters North America maintains a public relations website as a venue to explain the benefits of bottled water, post informational updates on its various projects and, importantly, respond to criticism.24 Addressing health and environmental concerns expressed by opponents, Nestlé asserts that bottled water is a healthy alternative to the sweetened drinks most people buy, that the bottling facility would meet LEED standards

(Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), and that they are working to reduce their environmental footprint through the development of their ―…second generation Eco-Shape bottle

[that] uses 25 percent less plastic than the previous Eco-shape bottle, and 60 percent less than

23 The rate Nestlé will pay if the proposal passes is still under negotiation and may actually be lower than that paid by residential municipal customers. 24 http://www.nestlewaterspnw.com

48

[their] original half liter PET bottle‖ (Palais 2009). On its website, Nestlé describes the plan and potential benefits of the proposal to the Cascade Locks community as ―…providing jobs and benefits, paying taxes and building public infrastructure‖ (2009).

Another Controversy After All

Even while the Nestlé proposal generated excitement and momentum among key elected officials and community leaders, both on the City Council and at the Port of Cascade Locks, an unexpected yet familiar air of controversy emerged. By the summer of 2009 various organizations and individuals had become aware of and concerned about Nestlé‘s Cascade Locks proposal, pointing to potential negative environmental and social impacts that bottling the city‘s water could produce for the region and as a broader ideological precedent. As Nancy Matela, organizer for the group Alliance for Democracy, explained in March of 2010:

We don‘t have any idea…what that 100 million gallons will do each year to the aquifer. And by the aquifer I‘m meaning all that sustain it or that is sustained by it, including the salmon, the people, etcetera. So, to me, that‘s where the solution lies is that anybody who is going to take water for a new purpose should be made to protect the good of the whole of the water that, you know, the Hippocratic oath has something like ‗first do no harm.‘ That‘s kind of what I believe has to come in here is ‗okay, water is going to be used, whether it‘s by Nestlé or by California comes in and trucks it or pipes it down to California. Someone‘s going to use that water and we need to set up stipulations on how it can be used. They can‘t just pay two cents, two-tenths of the cycle. That is not a cradle-to-cradle understanding of water. That is just a tiny bit of the cycle. So I think if the environmentalists are effective in getting rid of Nestlé, someone else is going to come and it might be California. And if California starts after that water or the Columbia River water, Oregonians are going to lose. We‘ve already seen that happen with electricity. When it becomes a commodity and it goes to the highest bidder, Californians will get thirstier quicker than we will. They will pay more money and, if it‘s a commodity, it will go to the highest bidder (Matela 2010).

The issue was already gaining attention on blogs and in local newspapers when the popular Oregon Public Broadcasting program ―Think Out Loud‖ picked up the story and promoted even broader regional awareness, inviting commentary from guests and callers on both

49 sides of the debate (Oregon Public Broadcasting 2009). Proponents of the plan emphasized economic development, while opponents highlighted Nestlé‘s past and pending controversies in various communities around the U.S.25 Opponents also emphasized the facility‘s potential to deter tourism, increase truck traffic through town, and negatively impact the environment, as well as the uncertainty of meaningful job creation.

At the same time, with their national anti-Nestlé ―Take Back the Tap‖ campaign already well-established and with an office in Portland, Food & Water Watch was uniting local activist groups in a coalition (called simply ―Keep Nestlé Out of the Gorge‖26) against the Cascade Locks plant proposal. At a press conference at the regional ODFW office in Clackamas, Oregon on

March 29, 2010, the Keep Nestlé Out of the Gorge coalition presented the Oregon Department of

Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) public information officer Rick Swart with a petition of almost 4,000 signatures by Oregonians opposing the water swap. At present, however, ODFW support of the water swap proposal is contingent on a year-long study assessing Oxbow Fish Hatchery‘s ability to successfully raise fish in well water as opposed to the spring water (Boschler 2010). In the meantime, Nestlé continues to develop plans with the city of Cascade Locks while the opposition builds.

Transnational Processes in the Regional Context: New Waves of Enclosure

Basically, it‟s [Cascade Locks] pretty much just a microcosm of the whole United States. Whatever is going on in the United States you have it happening here in its own dynamic, especially politically. It‟s kind of a big mess right now. Just like everywhere else, I mean, it‟s just…it‟s interesting. I love it. It‟s just a small town. (CL 35, Cascade Locks Resident)

25 For a good overview see (Snitow et al. 2007) 26 The coalition is led by Food & Water Watch and includes Alliance for Democracy, Bark, Cascadia Wildlands Project, Columbia Riverkeeper, Community for Earth, First Unitarian Church of Portland, Environment Oregon, EJAG of the First Unitarian Church in Portland, Green Sanctuary, Unitarian Universalist Church of Eugene, Gifford Pinchot Task Force, Native Fish Society, Oregon Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, Sierra Club, and Trout Unlimited, Oregon Council.

50

I see us as a microcosm of a macrocosm that‟s happening right now in the country. The same sort of, „I hate you, I‟m never going to vote on your side,‟ four-three split that we have in the city council is also occurring in our own Congress. And seriously that‟s, we‟re almost a reflection of that. I see us becoming the United Corporations of America. I see them coming in and essentially buying a town. And in a way it feels like we‟re sitting here on the slave block waiting for which owner‟s going to run us. Because, they‟re, if it‟s the casino, if it‟s Nestlé, they will be given a greater voice in a local government. I don‟t care if it‟s economically, if it‟s sheer population like the casino will do. But I see us giving away, what they‟re so proud of here is their independence. (CL 32, Cascade Locks Resident)

The processes playing out in Cascade Locks, Oregon provide an excellent case study through which to examine notions of privatization, commodification and the control of commons resources. This case is ideal not only in that it dovetails with the global water justice movement and focuses on an understudied yet archetypal commodity—bottled water—but it also brings the

American West into the transnational context. This case addresses a shared weakness of at least two literatures. That is, researchers studying socioeconomic dynamics in regions within the global North (as in the case of the ―New West‖ literature) have typically disregarded larger, transnational processes while researchers (as in the ‗neoliberalization of nature‘ literature) who are interested in the transnational context have often neglected cases in the global North.

Robbins et al. (2009:373) call on researchers to ―…reconceptualize the West as part of a larger political, cultural, and ecological transition,‖ saying that ―…not only can practical lessons be derived from previously overlooked sites (both within the United States and around the world) but insights emerging from research on the U.S. West will inform research in other places.‖

While the changing socioeconomic landscape of Cascade Locks is located within a unique region, the community‘s experience speaks more broadly to an international environment as well in which neoliberal globalization is transforming the fabric of society and of our relationship with nature. What Cascade Locks is experiencing is not unique but represents global processes

51 such as resistance to the increased power of transnational corporations over citizens and states as well as the acceleration of commodification into new areas essential to our lives.

Research Questions

While it represents a unique case study focused on site-specific circumstances, the issues raised by the Nestlé bottling plant proposal in Cascade Locks are obviously sketched on a larger conceptual and theoretical canvass. In the following sections I explore to what extent, if at all, the water bottling phenomenon fits into the ‗neoliberalization of nature‘ framework. I use the case of Nestlé‘s proposal in Cascade Locks to better understand how actually existing forms of neoliberalization evolve and can be understood in various contexts, particularly in the under- theorized United States. Specifically, I ask how this process is experienced by the local community. I also offer insight into how neoliberalization processes adapt in the face of opposition and, overall, why privatization and commodification of water resources continue, in spite of the formidable successes and growth of the environmental and water justice movements.

Considering the controversial manner in which cases of water bottling are portrayed in the literature and in popular media, I investigate the conflict and resistance that is actually expressed within or by the ―exploited‖ community and question how (un)democratic water bottling plant sitings really are.

52

CHAPTER FIVE

Methods

Interviews

Ethnographic data were collected primarily through interviews with a total of 22 participants, including seven city officials (five of whom were elected); ten Cascade Locks residents; Doug Boschler, Facilities & Engineering Program Manager for the Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife as well as the agency representative on the Nestlé proposal; a representative from Nestlé; and three representatives from member organizations of the Keep

Nestlé Out of the Gorge Coalition (Alliance for Democracy, Food & Water Watch and the Sierra

Club). Interviews were conducted between March and May of 2010. Most interviews were conducted in-person at a location mutually agreeable to the participant and researcher(s),27 ranged from 45-90 minutes and were audio recorded. Due to limited participant availability and travel constraints two interviews—with the Nestlé representative and ODFW‘s Doug Boschler— were conducted via telephone. Interviews were semi-structured with open-ended questions.28

This study used a modified snowball sample to recruit Cascade Locks residents, meaning that the names of potential participants were solicited from other participants at the end of each interview. The first round of interviews was conducted with Cascade Locks elected officials, whose names and contact information were retrieved from various city websites. In most cases, participants were first contacted and informed about the study through an e-mail that was followed up by a telephone call 2-5 days later; however, those without available e-mail addresses were initially contacted by telephone as well. Similarly, contact with Alliance for Democracy

27 Seven interviews were conducted by me alone and 15 were conducted by Professor Jaffee and me together. 28 Interview protocol is Appendix A.

53 and Sierra Club representatives was facilitated through recommendations from the Food & Water

Watch organizer, Julia DeGraw. Contact information for the Nestlé representative and Doug

Boschler was retrieved from company and ODFW websites. Of the 26 people who were asked to participate, only three opted not to participate and only one of the potential participants did not respond at all. Participants are indicated below by anonymous coded identifiers.

Other Ethnographic Data

In the spring of 2010, I made four trips to Cascade Locks during which I not only conducted formal interviews, but also attended a town hall meeting sponsored jointly by Nestlé and the Port of Cascade Locks and spent time becoming familiar with the town. The town hall meeting and other more impromptu events (e.g., I unexpectedly found myself at a Chamber of

Commerce wine tasting event in Stevenson, WA where many Gorge community business owners and elected officials were hobnobbing) afforded me opportunities for informal interactions that added depth to my understanding of the community. For example, while they were ultimately not included in my sample, I was able to visit with members of the Umatilla tribe, town residents who have treaty fishing rights, who were otherwise impossible to reach because they did not have e-mail addresses or any other contact information available.

Portrait of the Researcher

At this point it seems essential to briefly describe some of the potential biases that I bring to this research. Growing up on a farm just outside of Orofino, a small logging town in

Clearwater County, Idaho, I experienced the impact that several lumber mill closures had on my community. By the time I was a student at Orofino High School (1998-2002), Clearwater

County had become one of the poorest counties in Idaho in terms of unemployment and poverty

54 rates (Tacke 2010). In this context, I was fascinated by yet also conflicted about our local culture that revolved around a shared love of nature and a rural lifestyle, and also what I perceived as the contradictory adherence to local mentalities and politics that seemed to perpetuate the destruction of those same fundamental bonds. In the end, my experiences in

Idaho taught me that loggers and natural resource-dependent communities can be deeply invested and knowledgeable environmentalists, although most would be likely to scoff at the label.

It is because I grew up in this community that I became interested in the natural environment and motivated to do research that contributes to conservation efforts, which I have come to understand through my work and studies as having inseparable socioeconomic and ecological components. I strongly believe that the well being of human communities must be reconciled with the health of the natural ecosystems on which we depend. During the course of my fieldwork I discovered that the residents of Cascade Locks are not entirely the economic victims that I had envisioned them to be. They are also neither heroes nor villains as the story unfolds, but human beings who seek the best life possible for themselves and their community.

Any positionality evident in the following sections comes from my deep empathy and respect for the participants of this research, as this critical look outward at Cascade Locks is also a critical look inward.

Data Analysis: Coding

After all of the interviews were transcribed, I read them thoroughly multiple times. The major interview themes were largely dictated by the interview guide, which was informed by my research questions exploring the characteristics and culture of the community, as well as participants‘ knowledge and opinions about the proposed Nestlé water bottling plant and its

55 potential effects (see Appendix A). I coded and recoded interviews as new themes emerged and substantive themes were broken into subthemes. My final, refined coding schema includes three interrelated major substantive themes (shown in Table 6) that will be further described and explored in the following sections.

Table 6: Substantive Themes and Subthemes Community Environment Economy Stagnation (Un)sustainability Benefits: Jobs and City Revenue Outsiders Abundance Nestlé: the ―Good Neighbor‖ Plastic Privatization/Commodification The Lesser of Evils Commodity Comparison (Lack of) Alternatives

56

CHAPTER SIX

Findings: Community, Environment, and Economy

Community

As already briefly elucidated in the ―Portrait of Cascade Locks‖ section, one of the most salient themes to emerge in this study was the notion of community. Most significantly, Cascade

Locks residents and city officials frequently described or alluded to agents of change that are transforming their community both from the outside and from within—a dynamic I characterized above as paradigmatic of ―Old West‖ versus ―New West‖ socioeconomic and cultural tensions.

While conveying a sense of frustration and despair that their community is suffering economically (a subtheme I coded ―stagnation‖), there is among many long-time residents a corresponding attitude of antagonism toward new arrived community members and other

―outsiders‖ who would interfere with current and future economic development plans. That being said, I do not mean to represent Cascade Locks residents, especially long-time community members, as necessarily being a unified group lacking a diversity of characteristics, perceptions and opinions. For instance, even established community insiders have expressed clashing opinions about the Warm Springs Casino prospect. I explore the subthemes of community

―stagnation‖ and ―outsiders‖ in greater depth below.

Community Stagnation: From Timber Boom to Bedroom Community

The, you know, decline of the logging industry, which has impacted so much of Washington and Oregon. There used to be three lumber mills in town, and they‟re all closed. And you could keep going down the list. A recent experience here in town that I‟m familiar with was they closed our high school…we had a…have you heard about that? (CL 34, Elected City Official)

One major goal of this research is to explore and describe the specific socioeconomic and cultural context in which this Nestlé bottling plant proposal is being developed. Better

57 understanding the background, perspectives and interpersonal dynamics of the Cascade Locks community might help to explain how and why bottling plants are or are not approved in rural communities. As this Cascade Locks resident emphasizes, the influence of the timber industry was a central piece of the town‘s history:

A mill came in here in…the late 1800s until about 1980…I grew up with a big mill here. The people who worked at the mill—which were people from all over—some were from Stevenson, some were from Hood River, some from White Salmon. So they weren‘t all from Cascade Locks. A good size of them though…were here. They lived here, their life evolved here; their kids went to school here. We ran a K through 12 school and they were involved in the community…It was a vibrant community; it was a vibrant town…At that time it was, I would say more of a…we had bars, so we had a nightlife going. We had a restaurant that stayed…open all night long every day. There was enough that came in. The mills ran around the clock, so there were enough shifts coming off to keep businesses going around the clock and the bars kept going from the mills and the timber industry. I mean, timber was key! As it was in a lot of areas. (CL 37, Resident)

When asked to characterize their community as a whole, many residents of Cascade

Locks described their present and future as dismal compared to their vibrant and thriving past.

Participants typically illustrated the disparity between good and bad times by contrasting two examples: the period of a perceived timber industry heyday and the recent loss of the secondary school. The following respondent summarizes such a perspective and its effect on the Cascade

Locks community life:

I‘ve lived here 37 years and when we first moved here, it was a town where most people were employed either by the city, the county, the state, or worked at a lumber mill. So now, you know, people have to go out of town to work because there just aren‘t that many jobs here in town for people so they have to commute somewhere else. But it used to be a more thriving community when we came and years before that it was really thriving with more businesses, a movie theater and grocery stores and just more things available. Although I don‘t think the population has changed that much over the last 50 years, I think it‘s just kind of been about the same. So now it‘s, you know, people can‘t find work here and so they are either unemployed or have to leave the area. And then the school closed. The high school closed last year, which isn‘t going to help if people want to come to the area. If you don‘t have a school to offer…so that‘s been another negative and it‘s had a negative impact on the community. The school was always the center

58

where people would go whether you had kids in school or not, go there for the games and run into everybody and now that‘s gone and I was talking to one of the moms of one of the high school kids and she said it‘s just splintered everything, even their friends because some of the kids went to Hood River, some went to Corbett, a couple went across the river to Stevenson and so they‘re not seeing their kids‘ friends or the parents either, so it just kind of feels like the whole community is splintering many directions for whatever reasons. (CL 40, Resident)

Another theme related to the perception of Cascade Locks as a community ―splintering in many directions‖ is the common view that the town has lost its autonomy and unique identity.

Instead, many Cascade Locks residents unhappily claim that the town has become nothing more than a ―bedroom community‖ to Hood River.

I would describe it as a bedroom area for Hood River. You couldn‘t be describing a town or even a city, you know, there isn‘t enough people here...because there‘s nothing, there‘s going to be nothing else here but a bedroom community, because there‘s no jobs here. (CL 43, Resident)

Other Cascade Locks residents echo the sentiment, but see the town as more of a bedroom community to other cities, such as Portland, as well.

Well, for a long time [Cascade Locks] was made up of people who lived here forever, I mean, they moved here and they stayed. You know, so most of them have died because, over the years I‘ve lived here, most of the population has passed away and so now we‘re getting more and more young people here. A lot of the people live here, it‘s like a bedroom community—they don‘t work in town because there‘s not a lot of jobs, so they work in Portland or Hood River or Bonneville Dam. Basically, there are more and more people coming in now who are coming here just for the activity that‘s here. We have kind of…Hood River‘s always kind of treated us like we‘re the stepchild and so they‘ve not said good things about Cascade Locks. But Cascade Locks, you know, it‘s a great place to live. And, so there‘s more and more, I would say middle, people in their thirties moving into town that are taking advantage of the safe road to jog on, and the hiking trails right outside the town and all the water sports. And so we‘re getting people who would have gone to Hood River are coming to Cascade Locks because of the cost of living in Hood River. (CL 46, Resident)

59

Community Outsiders

Consistent with the New West thesis, which describes amenity-rich areas as recreational home-bases from which former urbanites commute to their city jobs, Cascade Locks is characterized by its residents as a once-thriving economic center that has gradually dissolved into a bedroom community of Portland and Hood River. While some residents see this as a positive or at least natural transition, the characterization of Cascade Locks as a ―bedroom community‖ is connected, in most cases, to the perception that they are no longer an autonomous, thriving community and indicative of a frequently expressed sense of disempowerment that Cascade Locks community members widely share.

Throughout the course of the interviews, Cascade Locks residents consistently cast their

―Old West,‖ long-established community as a victim to newly arrived residents, other Gorge towns and activist groups—I coded such sentiments and characterizations with the subtheme

―outsiders.‖ In the words of Cascade Locks Mayor Brad Lorang, ―You know, we‘re a little community and we feel like we‘re just getting beat up. By people we have no control over. And we, we get really irritated and angry about people trying to tell us how to live in our community.‖

New Residents: Community Infiltrators

A significant subtheme to emerge from interviews with community members was not only the perception that Cascade Locks is changing economically, but that it is also changing culturally from the inside out.

As our community is changing, things are changing. When I grew up the community was, most of the people that lived in the community were…people who came here to work in the temporary, you know, work in the mills, work at the dam. Workers from the dam were in here and all. They worked around the areas; they were all working families,

60

whether they were either jobs over here or jobs over close to here. And anybody who was living here that wasn‘t employed…was retired here from the employment they had here. They were just still staying in…their same house. Now though, we‘re starting to get people who are retiring who are…coming from California, from Portland, they‘re coming from different, people look at the commute between here and Portland, as nothing. We look at; we look at it as quite a ways...So the town is changing in that respect. I would say those kind of people are not interested…they want this town to be a town of no more traffic, no trucks in it, no more, you know, [they say] ‗we don‘t want industry in the town. This is a town we just want to live in, and we…just need a store and we need, we need…a post office and that‘s all we, and a couple of restaurants and that‘s all we need.‘ So, there‘s some of that…influence coming in…right now that influence is…a boisterous influence because they‘re…well educated. They‘ve got their opinions, and they‘re not going to sit at home and not let us know what their opinion is. There‘s not a lot of them, there‘s not a lot of them…even though their opinion will be out there, that opinion is only, in my opinion right now, is only a few votes. (CL 33, Resident)

While expressing a slightly different understanding of the community, this elected official similarly explains that the root of most conflicts among Cascade Locks residents can be attributed to this change from ―old‖ to ―new‖:

Right now we‘ve got the conflict of new versus the old. You‘ve got the old train of thought and you‘ve got people moving here from the city who want to make this a city and not leave it as a town. We‘re trying to make it a place where people can come for employment and I really don‘t know that this town can support that kind of dynamic because, really, we are a bedroom community. A lot of people come here to get away from where they work or what they deal with in the cities. So I think there‘s that frustration…we‘re having a clash of personalities with people who want to remain the bedroom community that it is versus the people who want to make it an entertainment or employment thing that it‘s not. And a lot of this also has to do with the fact that the casino issues are really huge. This has been a 12-year process and everybody… everything‘s been put on hold because of waiting for this decision that a lot of people see as a good thing. I personally don‘t. (CL 35)

The overwhelming majority of participants I talked to in Cascade Locks described this clash of ―new‖ versus ―old,‖ regardless of their position on the issue. Cascade Locks newcomers reflected on the difficulty of being accepted into the community. As one Cascade Locks resident

(CL 32) who has lived in the community for almost four years lamented about what she referred to as ostracism, ―you can‘t belong here really, until you are accepted, which could be years.‖ The

61 experience of isolation was similarly described by another relatively recent migrant to the community:

If you weren‘t born here or related to someone or went to school with them, you can forget about the in-group. It‘s all about this clique in town and it‘s been, I understand, for years, absolute years, and there‘s cronyism and City Hall and it‘s unbelievable. I just…the more I got involved with the No Gorge Casino group and trying to volunteer for some of their committees and stuff in town. Well, they don‘t want me. [Laughs] I have an opinion. And so…they don‘t… I have never been selected. (CL 38, Resident)

From another perspective—that of established community members—newly arrived residents are retirees or others who are simply not invested in the collective goal of economic development. Therefore, any opposition by newcomers to job creation endeavors such as that proffered by the Nestlé bottling plant (and sometimes the casino) is attributed to selfishness at the expense of the greater community. In the words of Mayor Lorang, "it‘s funny, we do have a few people here who have moved here in recent years from elsewhere, like San Francisco or from urban areas and their attitude is, they‘re retired, this world I have now is just perfect, and I want nothing to change." The Mayor went on to include other Cascade Locks residents in this category as well:

But there are those that never were really part of the community and it‘s kind of this, I‘m just fine, thank you very much, my world is perfect, and please don‘t change it. So, we don‘t want trucks, we don‘t want some of the potential impacts of a casino. Really don‘t care if anything ever changes and there‘s also a faction of the community that moved here because they wanted to live someplace where nothing was going on. They don‘t make their living here, they don‘t do their shopping here, and once again, it‘s like, ‗my town is perfect just the way it is and don‘t change a thing.‘ So, the mindset of, ‗I don‘t care whether we get local jobs, my job‘s not local.‘

A second common perception was expressed by another elected official (CL 34) who said, ―The folks that are in opposition to this project [Nestlé] tend to be in opposition to most things. Most new ideas. That‘s been my experience.‖ Aware of opposition to the Nestlé

62 proposal from within the community, most respondents claimed that the majority of people in

Cascade Locks are either supportive of the Nestlé proposal or are intrinsically opposed to change.

You know, I‘ve sort of lost touch with the community since I‘ve been retired, I just kind of go home and hunker down, but my thinking is that more are for it than against it. So I don‘t know; 75 percent maybe for it. That‘s just a step, just a guess. You know, there‘s always a small group of people that seem to be against any kind of change and some people moved here because of the way the town is or was; quiet, unassuming and they don‘t want to see…see things change and some of the old-timers don‘t like to see change either. But I think people are afraid of change if they don‘t know, you know, what it‘s going to mean. So [it‘s] the fear of the unknown (CL 44, Resident).

Through various lines of reasoning, all of the Cascade Locks residents opposed to the Nestlé proposal were considered in some way to be community outsiders. Supporters of the proposal were able to disregard dissenting views by labeling them as unwarrantedly selfish, fearful of change and/or, as in the case of the following example, radical:

Okay, there‘s, there are some people in town that I think probably, and they‘re fellow citizens that, you know, that I try to show respect for. Their thought process is a little bit different as far as environmental issues and things of that nature; they‘re a little more radical than mine. Although, I care just as much as anybody else about those sorts of things, and I look at them, but their ideas are a little more radical and they seem to go on the more radical side. Those are the people that I see that oppose it. For example, I grew up with Tim29…you know, the Native American? We all respect Tim‘s opinion and you know, and he, Tim, has his concerns about things changing. You know, some people don‘t seem to want to deal with change, you know, and…One of the issues, and it was brought up by a couple of others…about trucks, and leaking [oil] and this and that, you know, the issue that he brought up there… There used to be, there was a fish plant which was right down over the hill, from the Nestlé plant, there was the, the lumber mill there…at one time and between those two operations right there, I know at times they were running as many or more trucks out of that same area, you know. They were carrying his fish that he caught, you know, to market…So I‘m just going, was there a problem then? Not one that I saw. But everybody has, they have a right to have their concerns. (CL 33, Resident)

29 Pseudonym

63

The Gorge Community: Neighboring Cities

Hood River has a tendency to be a lot of…kind of liberal, Birkenstock-wearing, environmentalists. (Mayor Brad Lorang)

That decision [to close the high school] was made by people in Hood River, not by anyone who lives here in town. And our voices were known. We were not in favor of that and they went ahead and made that decision anyway. And so…that‟s, those kinds of things from the grand scale of the federal rules on logging down to, you know, the small scale of the school being closed have kind of led to what I see as the mentality that people that don‟t live in Cascade Locks shouldn‟t tell us what to do. (CL 34, Elected Official)

The neighboring Gorge towns comprise another category of ―community outsiders.‖ The neighboring cities were described by most Cascade Locks residents as populations who hypocritically stand in the way of Cascade Locks getting what it needs to survive as a community. One Cascade Locks resident, however, conveyed a different perspective when she described the common town sentiment in this way:

They [Cascade Locks residents] have always felt resentful of other small communities within the Gorge area. They have what I‘d like to call lodge envy; I‘m referring to Skamania Lodge [in Stevenson, WA]. There‘s this, we deserve it, there‘s always been, at least in the last three and a half years, and from what I understand from other people, since the casino fight came along, this low grade mad. This resentment. I fully believe part of the reason Nestlé is here is because they were aware of this broken community that they could slide in on. (CL 32, Resident)

Perhaps because Cascade Locks is in the same county as Hood River where political and economic power is concentrated, many participants described a particularly contentious relationship with that community.

They‘re [Hood River] going to say, they can go out on our beaches, wind surfers and kite boarders and they can build their whole town up and spend money on tourism and make their wineries and put all their water into making wine and making booze and all that and we can‘t even put our water in just for water. You know, and they‘re [Hood River] in the scenic area with us. But everybody gets to dictate to us, ‗you‘re not going to do this, you‘re not going to do that.‘ Well, fine. I‘m okay with that, but, but let us survive, give us something to survive, give us something else. (CL 37, Resident)

64

However, other communities, especially Stevenson due to its proximity, were frequently mentioned as well.

I almost fell out of my chair [at the town hall meeting], when the guy stood up from Stevenson and said we‘re going to ruin his view. You know, I understand the concept of what he‘s trying to say, but to say that, to me just was…out there. You know, if he would have said something like, ‗oh gee I hope you guys make this so it looks nice…I know you guys need some work.‘ You know, people need work. We‘re going to ruin his view…by putting up a plant...This was a guy from Stevenson, a household owner over there. You know, he‘s got his view, are we going to build something that‘s going to block the mountainside…It‘s probably not going to be much higher than the railroad track, you know. (CL 33, Resident)

In sum, the neighboring Gorge cities are characterized by the majority of Cascade Locks community members as having greater power and resources while Cascade Locks is being left behind, in part, as a result. The sense of animosity expressed toward neighboring Gorge cities by many Cascade Locks residents represents cultural conflict consistent with the New West thesis.

According to the New West literature, cultural disharmony between extraction-based ―Old West‖ communities and the recreation-based ―New West‖ erupts when their economic needs and values compete.

Just like in Oregon and in Washington, you know, lots of communities have changed from a timber-based community to a recreation or a tourism and that‘s what we‘ve, that‘s what they tell us to do, that‘s what we‘ve attempted to do. It‘s been difficult for us, cause again, unless somebody comes here…we‘re a poor community. I mean, we don‘t have the resources really to attract or compete with anybody else. Hood River could spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to attract somebody to the tourism lodge and everything. We can…only spend ten thousand, twenty, that‘s all we got so we can‘t compete. Stevenson, Hood River—any of them. Stevenson is a county seat with the county, so even though it‘s a small town, that‘s the county seat. So all the county money kind of focuses into Stevenson. Our county money focuses into Hood River…We‘re both pretty different. They‘re really an agricultural community, but we‘re in their county. We pretty much have to live off of them too and we‘re dictated a lot of things by them, and we don‘t feel that we get, we don‘t get everything we should from them because we‘re two different entities. (CL 37, Resident)

65

Activist Groups

They‟re [Friends of the Gorge] mostly out of Portland. They‟re Portland people for the most part, you know, highly educated, intelligent…probably much better than average salaries, that want to play in the Gorge. So they want to come here on weekends and play and they don‟t want anybody to disturb their playing area, which is us, you know. (CL 40, Resident)

From the perspective of many Cascade Locks residents, the work of activist groups in the

Gorge is closely intertwined with what they experience as the unjust interference of neighboring cities. Both neighboring cities and activist organizations are largely viewed as community outsiders working together to further their own political agenda and development interests while telling Cascade Locks that it cannot do the same. Therefore, the collective outside ―Gorge

Community‖ made up of special interest groups and population centers has become the target of great animosity.

All I‘m asking is you guys don‘t, Friends of the Gorge are after us all the time, and now the water people are. Everybody‘s after us, ‗cause we‘re…they don‘t do nothing to stop the railroad…you look along the railroad tracks down there, nothing grows there and there‘s a reason why nothing grows there: they‘ve dump stuff along there to make sure nothing grows there. But nobody hassles…that big entity. Nobody, ‗cause they‘re too big! And they get to keep doing more trains and more trains and more tracks and everything else! …what drives me crazy is Hood River. Is all the environmental and the water people up there, you know, looking at us. Hood River was almost a dead town in 1990. And Hood River spends hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to attract tourism. But yet we can‘t have an Indian casino here, which is just all it is, is just a box. It‘s a box to put people in. That‘s all it‘s going to be. It‘ll drive the people…here and put them in a box. So they‘re not out in your woods, not going on your trails, they‘re sitting in here and they‘re giving, and frankly they‘re giving money to the Warm Springs. Who, if you look at Warm Springs, they‘re very simple living people. You look at the people in Hood River and all of the, so-called environmentalists, which I like environmentalists because I think they‘ve done a lot of things for us. But I, it irritates me when, you know, when they want to build, when they want to drive the big nice car, you know and they want to live, and they want to live in the 5,000 square foot house… lot of hypocrisy toward, they‘ve got what they want, and they don‘t want, but they‘re watching us like we‘re a bunch of Podunks down here. We can‘t hurt nothing and neither do the Warm Springs. The Warm Springs is going to take that money that they make off that casino and they‘re going to be here because…they do love the land. And they‘re not going to do nothing; they‘re going

66

to spend that money protecting the land. More so than, than all the rest of them. (CL 37, Resident)

A significant number of the Cascade Locks residents included in my sample do not view activist organizations in the Gorge as allies working on common interests, but as groups with a well-established history of opposing their economic well being. The perception of community stagnation as largely the outcome of various combinations of outsiders dictating and interfering with Cascade Locks‘ economic development plans has implications in the context of the Nestlé bottling plant proposal. As the following participant explains, the experience of a dissolving economic base and the resulting loss of past community cohesion and vibrancy have contributed to a predisposition to welcoming industries like Nestlé:

...when things like your high school closes, I mean, that was a storm to this community and it was just this slap in the face that we‘re dying, we are dying as a community and it just, I think it energized a lot of people for a project like Nestlé. I mean, again, I see it…you could feel it. It was just like emotionally distraught when they shut down the high school. Everywhere you went there were down faces. It was incredible. And I‘m looking at this as [a city official] going, again, we need an economic win. We need something to give these people hope because they see their community just dissolving into a ghost town and it‘s…sad for me as an observer to see that happen. (CL 32, City Official)

The dominant predisposition to welcome Nestlé into Cascade Locks is also sustained by a new kind of cohesion created by many residents‘ shared desire not to be interfered with by community outsiders.

Nobody‘s been actually discussing the Nestlé [proposal]…people here in town have a great desire not to be interfered with by people outside of town. So when you have people mentioning Food &Water Watch or River Keepers or people like that, people automatically put their—‗okay, I don‘t hear that‘—their fingers in their ears [laughs]…The Friends of the Gorge stopped us from having a tram here. I don‘t know if you‘ve already heard that story? But we were going to have a tram that took people up to the top of the hill and back down, but Friends of the Gorge said, ‗no you can‘t do that.‘ And, you know, because of these past frictions in dealing with these things…and Hood River County…Hood River closing our school down…Everybody‘s…dug in now…Like

67

‗I‘ll be dammed if you‘re going to tell me what I can do in my town.‘ And, I mean, yeah, these things happen that we don‘t have any control over. (CL 35, Elected Official)

Environmental Considerations

The natural environment was another major substantive theme in the interviews. Issues related to the environment were often raised by respondents during the natural course of the conversation; however, respondents were also directly asked to identify any environmental benefits or disadvantages involved in potentially siting a water bottling facility in Cascade

Locks. The theme of environmental impact was important to consider in this research because many of the arguments leveled against water bottling facilities are based on their potential to damage the local and extended environmental commons. Instead of focusing on potential environmental problems, participants in this study more commonly described possible environmental gains or explained why commonly-highlighted problems are not a legitimate issue due to the special qualities of Cascade Locks and/or Nestlé. Respondents‘ explanations of potential environmental costs and benefits fell into four subthemes that I coded ―abundance,‖

―(un)sustainability,‖ ―plastic,‖ and the ―lesser of evils.‖

Abundance: A Water-Rich Environment

[Cascade Locks] has its own climate—we measure our rain in feet and not inches—it‟s beautiful. I‟m disappointed in our politicians, but I love looking out my window at the foothills and trees and everything. It‟s pretty. (CL 38, Resident)

…We get a lot of rain here, you know, 80, 90 inches a year is pretty much the standard. So, it‟s a lot of rain. Especially, you know if you‟re from an area where you get in the teens, or the low twenties. So, it dumps, the rain dumps rights here and that‟s part of our, you know, I‟ll use quote-unquote “depression” in our town is it does rain a lot here. Portland gets half of what we get; Hood River gets half of what we get…But it just falls right here. So, well, the Cascade Mountains, so the clouds are rising up, dumping the rain and we‟re just right under that, cloud rise up, or whatever, there‟s a term for it. (CL 36, Resident)

68

When describing the surrounding natural environment, Cascade Locks residents, regardless of their position on the Nestlé bottling proposal, typically began by mentioning their impressive yearly rainfall. As one Cascade Locks resident (CL 33) asserted, ―water is pretty abundant here so it is a natural resource.‖ The fact that the community does have an annual precipitation rate above that of other cities in the Gorge area is commonly cited as evidence that their water resources are abundant (if not infinite) and therefore able to support robust industrial development.

So when something like Nestlé comes along and they see the value of a resource that we have in abundance, which is incredible water…I mean…like I said, we get over 80 inches of rain a year here. So people‘s fears of, we have some people that are, you know, trying to feed the community some rhetoric about, ‗well if you sell water to Nestlé, you won‘t have water to do other industrial development.‘ Well, we projected that with expansion…if we get the resort casino…the projected use of the water there and with the water resource of Nestlé, we‘ll only be at 50 percent of our current water resource that we have in our wells, let alone tapping into this additional 4,500 gallons. So we‘ll be using about, even with all of expansion and Nestlé and everything, we‘ll be at about 900 feet, or 900 gallons per minute. So certainly a manageable use of our water. There‘s no, in my mind, no chance that we will use it all. (Mayor Lorang)

While no geologic assessment or environmental impact study has yet been conducted, as expressed in the above quote, Cascade Locks residents widely believe that the city has an extensive reserve of ground and spring water resources available should they become necessary.

These extensive ground and spring water rights held by the city are also perceived by many as key evidence that Cascade Locks could environmentally support economic growth. Uncertainty about the true abundance of the spring and aquifer involved in the current Nestlé proposal is neutralized by most city officials and residents by referring to other, currently unutilized water sources that could possibly be developed and used in the future, particularly in the case of a water shortage.

69

The well, even adding a casino…the city use, the hatchery use, the Nestlé use, there‘s still…an abundance of water in the city‘s water right and that‘s even without using the Dry Creek water right that the city still has…where we took surface water. If things got leaner down the road, the city could develop that surface water right and then maybe do that to the hatchery instead of well water. So there‘s some other combinations to satisfy, you know, a huge water source. There‘d be some purification filtering needs because they don‘t want, you know, any bacteria…they‘ve got to have perfect water. Or to exchange that water right out there to a subsurface water right rather than a surface water right. (CL 36, Resident)

A city official also relays this sentiment, adding a commonly stated reassurance that a government agency (in this case the Oregon Water Resource Department) would ultimately not approve an unsustainable or otherwise environmentally harmful water exchange:

…everything we‘re seeing today doesn‘t show that [we could run out of water], just because we‘re in such a water rich environment…like I said, there‘s enough capacity up there to…supply I think a city of 50,000…In 2008 we pumped 112 million gallons of water out of our aquifer, which I bet you some way is connected to the Herman Creek watershed. And, I mean, that thing flows like nobody‘s business, man, I mean we‘re a town of 1,100 in a watershed that I bet you could support a city the size of Portland, you know? I mean we...are surrounded by water and I just, I can‘t imagine…that 0.5 [cfs]30 less out of our aquifer is somehow going to have this domino effect into Herman Creek, which flows at like 200 cfs, you know? I mean it‘s just, I don‘t know. I‘m not seeing that. We‘re going to have some scientists look at it and, the thing is…whether we want to or not, OWRD looks at that as well. OWRD has a, you know, a statutory obligation to consider fish wellness when they do a water rights exchange. They won‘t allow it if it harms Herman Creek (CL 42, City Official)

While most respondents expressed the belief that the local water resource is so abundant that it is unlikely to ever run out as a result of the city‘s economic development plans, many also briefly entertained the possibility of finiteness. As in the following example, several participants referred to other cities in the Gorge where water shortages have become a salient public issue:

―We‘re going to run out of water!‖ Give me a break, you know. It‘s just not…it‘s just not very realistic to think that a town in the Columbia River Gorge where it rains is going to run out of water. Although, White Salmon, I‘ve understood, has been, you know,

30 ‘Cubic feet per second’ (cfs) is a standard water measurement. For example, 100 cfs is equal to about 750 gallons per minute (gpm).

70

running their water source dry so maybe that‘s not quite as hysterical. You know, but I think when you look at the figures with water, the water rights that we have, our capacity to supply water to the citizens and businesses in town compared to what we‘re actually taking now—which is about, my understanding, is it‘s about 2 percent of our capacity— to what we‘d be taking…the numbers that have been thrown around are—if they‘re talking about two lines—then they‘re talking about 10 percent of our water capacity being used. Well, I just don‘t think it‘s reasonable to think we‘d run out of water at that point. (CL 34, Elected Official)

(Un)sustainability: Water for Our Children‟s Children

Related to the commonly held belief that Cascade Locks has practically inexhaustible water resources available due to its location in the Columbia River Gorge is a subtheme that I coded ―(un)sustainability.‖ The distinct subtheme of sustainability was sometimes brought up as a broader issue to consider in the Nestlé proposal, for example, in the case of this interview:

Okay it‘s kind of a good idea; pragmatically [the] town could use it [Nestlé‘]. I will be honest about that and I have been honest all along. Personally, it‘s wrong. What, we sell off the fish; we sell off the lumber, now we‘re selling off the water. We‘re leaving nothing for children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren. It cannot be a viable community if all you do is settle somewhere and sell off the resources. Sooner or later they run out. And that‘s what I‘ve seen happening the last century in this area, and it‘s going to keep happening if we don‘t stop it. (CL 32, Resident)

The following respondent directly expressed concern about the commonly assumed sustainability of siting a Nestlé water bottling facility in Cascade Locks based on the appearance of abundance:

I do know we have a lot of water here. Do we have an unending supply? That I do not know. When we had the landslide out here…10-11 years ago…my [spouse] did ask the Forestry Service, ―Why did that happen?‖ And they basically said because every third step you take over here you‘re stepping on a water source. And I do know that because we do have water…we have a stream, an underground stream that runs through this property, through this property next door…and there‘s another spring up on the next corner. So we have a lot of water saturation here in town. Does that mean it‘s unending? That I don‘t know. And I do know that Mosier has…their water table‘s dropped 200 feet from what I‘ve been told...I‘ve heard rumors that...their water table has dropped. That people are having to drill deeper for their wells…Does that impact us? I…you know…somehow it impacts all of us because we‘re right in the middle of the Cascade Range. (CL 35, Elected Official)

71

While the dominant community perception is that Cascade Locks enjoys an abundant water resource, most community members were still concerned about the environmental sustainability of potential Nestlé bottling plant operations. Participants expressed doubt over perceived water resource abundance when exploring environmental impacts and also, most frequently, when respondents were asked if there are any conditions under which they would change their position on the water bottling proposal.

That‘s what drives the whole thing for me. That‘s my question to the [Nestlé representative] constantly, you know, it‘s about water, it‘s about our water rights. Do we have enough for us, and do we have enough to give them and if we have the casino is there going to be enough for the casino? Is there enough for this town to grow into, you know, if we doubled the town size, how much we use right now, if we doubled the town size can we handle, you know, because we know what that is. They‘re all pretty much, they‘re not unknown things, they‘re all calculable things. How much water we‘re going to need, the deal is, is how much water we can get. (CL 37, Resident)

When Cascade Locks community members explored the theme of potential environmental costs and benefits, the issue of the sustainability of the water resource was one of the most commonly expressed concerns, and was sometimes considered grounds for rejecting the proposal. City residents also referred to other environmental issues, such as pollution caused by truck traffic and plastic. However, while most community members identified potential environmental problems, most residents of Cascade Locks hold a common belief in technological fixes, which means some environmental problems are perceived by many respondents as more problematic than others.

The future of the water supply. I think that‘s the biggest issue. Plastic, I mean, plastic‘s going to come and go. Ten years from now we‘re going to find some way to reuse it or something. I mean technology changes that much. I, you know, I can see that that problem can be resolved, but we can‘t replace water. (CL 35, Elected Official)

72

Plastic: A Legitimate Concern?

[Hood River was] playing a movie this last week called “Tapped” which is, kind of like the “Inconvenient Truth.”…And it‟s sponsored from Food and Water Watch and, I think, Columbia River Keeper…that basically insinuate that because…only 20 percent of plastic is recycled that 80 percent of it ends up in the Pacific Ocean, you know. So…[they] think that, stopping, somehow stopping bottled water is going to save the planet and, you know, I‟m not quite as convinced of the impacts of bottled water because 80 percent of everything is in plastic. (Mayor Lorang)

Participants mentioned some aspect of plastic water bottles, including their production, transportation and disposal, in most, if not all, interviews. The most interesting facet of the subtheme I coded ―plastic‖ was most participants‘ apparent neutralization or dismissal of the notion that plastic water bottles are a legitimate environmental concern, regardless of their overall support of or opposition to the Nestlé proposal. The majority of Cascade Locks residents

I interviewed identified environmental problems commonly associated with plastic bottles and then explained why they themselves do not consider them an important factor in approving the

Nestlé bottling plant proposal in their city. Consistent with this pattern of plastic being ultimately considered a non-issue, many residents emphasized individuals‘ ability to recycle.

I‘ve thought about the plastic. I guess I‘ve got a mixed bag about that. My belief is that as long as you recycle, you‘re good, but nobody ever, not everybody recycles so, that‘s probably a frustrating thing. But I‘m not totally, that‘s not a [deal-]breaker for me. (CL 41, Resident)

This respondent also emphasized recycling, arguing that the proliferation of plastic water bottles and littering creates a promising economic opportunity for ―a lot of people‖ and that the alternative of not bottling freshwater actually leads to more environmental waste:

To me you‘re losing all of that, that water, you‘re, you‘re just dumping your clean, your nicest water, instead of taking it out there, the freshwater, taking it out there and being… I look at us and I feel good about it frankly. I‘ve got more water than I need, and as long as…I don‘t let them tap into more than what I need, you know that I can still get it, I feel I‘m giving water out to people who need it. Out to the world who needs it, and whether

73

it‘s in a plastic bottle or not, you know, put a, put a charge on the darn thing. I got guys here in this town that live making a living off of picking those things up. You know, put a dime on it, put a, I don‘t care what you charge Nestlé for them. Put enough on them that people will go pick the darn things up what somebody throws it out a window. As far as I‘m concerned, and that creates, and that keeps, there‘s a lot of people who are staying alive doing that. (CL 37, Resident)

Central to the discussion about plastic was the common premise of personal responsibility and an emphasis on individualism. That is, because any environmental problems caused by plastic should hypothetically be alleviated by the behavior of individual consumers, the outcome of plastic water bottles is not a legitimate ―deal breaker‖ for the expansion of the water bottling industry into places like Cascade Locks.

I‘m not a big fan of plastic. But I…after you watch that movie, ―Tapped‖…they sort of take a turn in the movie. They start talking about bottled water and that, but the second half of the movie is about the impacts of plastic in general on the environment. And I think they are trying to draw a connection between the plastic that‘s put in bottled water and the huge…the huge, floating plastic reef thing they have going on in the Pacific Ocean and the San Diego Beach thing made up of, you know, 25 percent plastic instead of sand. You know, stuff like that. And the impacts of some of the chemicals that are in plastic. So…it‘s a hard one for me because I really see that as a personal choice. If I choose to buy a beverage in a plastic bottle, then I become responsible for that plastic. And what am I going to do with that? Am I going to throw it in the river or out in the ocean or [in] a garbage dump somewhere? Or am I going to get it recycled? You know? That‘s a matter of personal choice and I can‘t put that decision at the feet of Nestlé or one of these other companies and say ―you‘re responsible for that bottle after you sell it.‖ Because I think, I mean, that‘s my choice… bottle bills have been shown to be so effective—to encourage individuals to make that choice to recycle… that would be an interesting issue to focus on…what‘s the…public role in encouraging recycling and mitigating the negative environmental impacts? (CL 34, Elected Official)

Interestingly, conversations about the potential impact of plastics on the environment were also neutralized by many participants by describing the unique environmental conscientiousness demonstrated by Nestlé as a corporation. For example, as the previously- quoted elected official (CL 34) continues, Nestlé is a bottling industry leader in its support of individual behavior-targeting, state-level recycling incentives:

74

Yeah… and so when you talk about the broader environmental impacts. That‘s the first thing I think of is what happens to all that plastic? In the first meeting I had with someone from Nestlé…one of my big issues is that…the packaging industry in general…is against things like Oregon‘s bottle bill and the five cent deposit. And where does your company stand on that? And they‘ve [Nestlé] supported it. They are a company that‘s supported that. Which is not common in the bottling industry.

Several other participants also made claims about Nestlé‘s environmentally responsible behavior by referring to the corporation‘s development of a special plastic water bottle. For example, according to Mayor Lorang, Nestlé‘s bottles ―…use 40% less plastic than any other bottling company. They pioneered a bottle called the Eco-bottle ..." Another resident supported the Nestlé proposal for partly the same reason. This resident alluded to the work of activist organizations and seemed confident that environmental groups have and will continue to encourage Nestlé to be technologically innovative, leading to improved environmental practices by the bottler:

Nestlé has probably got one of the most environmentally friendly bottles as far as that is concerned and I don‘t know that a lot of people know that, even though they‘ve put that word out. You know, you guys are probably aware that their plastic bottle is like really, I mean it‘s, and I feel, because of pressure, some pressure from these organizations and the good part about what they do is maybe Nestlé will be the one to come up with something different. You know, they‘ll force that and that‘s okay, you know, in my opinion. (CL 33, Resident)

Clearly the impact of plastic water bottles on the environment is on the minds of many

Cascade Locks residents and politicians. Most respondents admitted in some way that there are legitimate environmental problems associated with the prospective bottling plant, such as water resource sustainability and plastic waste. However, when faced with a decision between addressing these potential environmental concerns and the prospect of economic development, most respondents would choose the latter option. The tension between the economic and

75 environmental realms arguably conveyed by even the most pro-Nestlé respondents is precisely articulated by this long-time resident:

Well I‘m an avid recycler, so the plastic bottle isn‘t a concern, you know, to me. I think the water issue will take care of itself, with the testing, and I hope that that will be a good enough, extensive enough test so that, you know, that won‘t be an issue. You know, I don‘t know about the bottles. It is bothersome. So that‘s kind of why I ride the fence on it, too. I‘m really torn. I want something to happen here but I don‘t like plastic bottles. Although we use water, bottled water, just to have available for the car or if someone comes and they want to leave, you know. We send them off with a bottle of water, but it is a big deal. So I don‘t know how I would really respond if it came to that. I guess I would just agree that there is a concern, but I don‘t know what the answer is. (CL 44, Resident)

Over all, the issue of plastic waste and pollution is not a big enough problem in the minds of most Cascade Locks residents to prompt opposition to the Nestlé proposal. While expressing conflicting perspectives on the environmental issues, participants on both sides of the plant proposal did not typically consider opposing water bottling or the siting of water bottling facilities in general as appropriate strategies to address the environmental problems associated with plastic. Because the majority of participants were able to conceptualize the environmental costs of economic development not as a collective social problem but as the problem of individuals, opposition to Nestlé was not a solution even to those who identified themselves as concerned environmentalists. Even though the majority of Cascade Locks residents lamented the waste and pollution caused by plastic bottles, they also believed that such problems are not the responsibility of the corporation manufacturing the commodity, but perhaps better solved through state-level incentives aimed at influencing the behavior of individual consumers. The collective mentality in Cascade Locks that solutions to pollution and waste should focus on swaying individual consumer behaviors instead of on imposing regulations also illustrates

Szasz‘s (2007) argument that individualist, consumer-based solutions to collective environmental

76 problems have given people a dangerous false sense of security and undercut collective political action targeting social problems. In sum, the consensus to emerge from residents of Cascade

Locks pertaining to plastic bottles seems to be that harmful environmental practices can be resolved without opposing industrial development in their city.

The Lesser of Evils: Nestlé as the “Greenest” Option

I‟ve lived in the Gorge since…1962, I love the Gorge. I don‟t want to see it polluted, I don‟t want to see it anything else. And quite frankly, the next thing that may come here may be something that may be more of a polluter. But they‟re not bottling water, you know? (CL 33, Resident)

The sentiment that deleterious environmental impacts may be the inevitable unintended consequence of necessary economic growth was often used as another justification to support the

Nestlé proposal. In other words, many elected officials and other Cascade Locks community members portrayed Nestlé‘s proposal to open a water bottling facility as the ―lesser of evils‖ both environmentally and, as I will later discuss, economically.

Cascade Locks, I believe, should do their due diligence and consider embracing this opportunity. I can think of a whole lot of things worse than water that could come to this community. They have a history of turning industry away. Well industry‘s going to come here, but it doesn‘t have to be out of control. The community has turned down some… industry that would have served the community well without overwhelming it. (CL 45, Resident)

The popular mentality that Nestlé offers the most environmentally friendly option compared to alternative industries that could approach the city in the future was linked, in many cases, to the perception of Cascade Locks‘ abundant water resources. Some community members argue that, because the consumer demand for bottled water is not going away, siting a bottling plant in

Cascade Locks may actually be the best option to minimize the unavoidably harmful environmental impacts.

77

The Columbia is a huge body of water, and the amount that we‘re extracting is probably only seconds of its flow out to the Pacific. So…my thing and I guess one of my messages is: I firmly believe that this bottling plant is going to go in somewhere. Maybe not here, [but] it‘s going to go in somewhere. And our situation is probably such that the study‘s going to show if it‘s true or not but…since it‘s going in somewhere maybe this is the best spot when you look at a global, or a nationwide location of a potential plant or a Northwest plant. Since they‘re looking just here in the Northwest right now, maybe this is the best spot, ‗cause I don‘t believe—but again the study is going to show—but I don‘t believe that…a body of water is going to dry up somewhere, like in the Midwest or the Northeast where…a lake went dry, and this controversy...You know, I buy water, bottled water—well, I use tap water a lot—but I do buy bottled water for convenience and there‘s a lot of choice, there‘s a lot of people buying bottled water and I don‘t think that it‘s going to stop. So I think people will continue to buy bottled water and that, you know, maybe this is the best location to have a bottling plant. (CL 36, Resident)

Other participants, such as the following elected official (CL 34), similarly view siting a bottling plant in Cascade Locks as a solution to environmental pollution:

But it does bother me seeing cars go up and…trucks go up and down the Gorge and polluting the air, but I think they‘re going to be…I think they‘re already going up and down freeways delivering the same bottled water that this plant would be. Instead of going from Cascade Locks, they‘re going from Sacramento to Portland. Well, that‘s a bigger impact. If you build this plant, you‘ve actually shortened the amount of time, of pollution, that‘s going into the air through truck traffic because you‘re putting the production closer to the market. And that makes sense financially, I think, for a company like Nestlé, but it also makes sense for the environment.

Overall Nestlé has been successful at convincing many Cascade Locks community members that it is a ―green‖ company that has taken into serious consideration the best environmental interests of the town.

This is the first, one of the first companies that I feel is about as green as can be except for a couple things. That‘s the trucks, and that‘s the plastic. Everything is pretty green, what, the smokestacks, they‘re not going to get, they‘re not going to pollute anything. Yes, your trucks are going to be filled with…diesel and oil and, yeah, trucks and motors leak. We‘ve talked about that…the ODOT people who we are communicating with, made that question to them, you know. ‗What are you going to do, how, if you…are going to have fifty or a hundred trucks down there next to the river, how are you going to prove to me that you‘re not going to put oil…[and] gas in, seepage?‘ [Nestlé] says partly it‘s how you build your parking and what you expect your trucks to do and I understand

78

that, I accept that. I mean…they‘re willing to look at those kinds of things, take care of those kinds of things. (CL 41, Resident)

Economic Considerations

The economy—from ongoing stagnation to current development plans—was a dominant theme interwoven throughout most interview topics with Cascade Locks community members.

Economic considerations underlay even discussions in which respondents characterized the local community as well as the potential environmental costs and benefits. While economic issues were typically integrated into the other substantive themes as well, the topic of ―economy‖ also emerged in various ways as a theme of its own. I coded interview respondents‘ descriptions, perceptions and opinions pertaining specifically to the economy into the five subthemes that emerged: ―economic benefits,‖ ―good neighbor,‖ ―privatization and commodification,‖

―commodity comparison,‖ and ―alternatives.‖

Economic Benefits: “It‟s Like the Lottery”

They‟re just so hungry for jobs. Jobs [are] a biggest key issue. To have something on the tax roll is the biggest key issue, you know, because we don‟t have…anything of its [Nestlé‟s] magnitude in this town. (CL 47, Resident)

Cascade Locks community members highlighted two economic benefits of approving the

Nestlé water bottling proposal during the course of these interviews: job creation and revenue generation for city hall. For example, as Cascade Locks Mayor Brad Lorang explained, referring to potential changes to the community‘s lifestyle and environmental quality:

The best we can hope for is to help control that change and make it positive. But in general, people are excited about the potential of 50, of at least 50 local jobs. Of course, a doubling of our city tax base…we‘re looking at about the neighborhood of $150,000 a year in additional general fund revenues to support the city.

79

While potential job creation was frequently mentioned by residents, the prospect of ―doubling‖ the city tax base produced more excitement as many city council members and other officials described at length new anticipated city revenues in the form of property taxes and utility fees.

The following city official calculated the additional income that a utility customer the size of

Nestlé would bring to the City of Cascade Locks, which would enable a planned downtown improvement project:

It‘s [the Nestlé proposal] huge, you know, so I‘m going to sell them the water. It‘s going to be a tremendous money maker for the water utility, which by the way is underfunded and we need to raise our rates, but that‘s a whole other story. I‘m going to sell them their power. We own the electric utility and they‘re going to buy the power to a tune of one average megawatt for their first line and…it‘s supposed to be a two line plant. Once they get their second line up and running, that‘s another one average megawatt. So definitely one and soon to be expanded to…two. Right now, our entire electric utility, we do about a million and a half in electric sales a year and…our average megawatt demand is 2.7. So if we go from 2.7 to 3.7 with that first line, I mean, we by a third, it‘s about a half a million dollars in electric sales to Nestlé that our electric utility benefits from. And again, low cost, you know, we have one meter to read and it‘s a big old flat electric number every month…so, you know, low overhead but high return…we always; we have a profit margin in there, so we can properly…run our utility and sustain it for the long term…so from those two sources we collect a [5%] franchise fee and so…it‘s going to come to the city. $300,000 from water and say half a million from electricity, so whatever 5% of $800,000 that comes to the general fund. And all cities do that. They charge a franchise fee on their watt utilities, electric utilities, etcetera, and so that comes to the general fund… so that‘s $40,000 of general fund revenue for the city and that gets added to what will eventually be a new property tax revenue. So right now that property is barren where they want to build it, and…we‘re getting, you know, we‘re getting very little revenue from property taxes on that. If they put a $50 million plant on there, which is what we propose, it would equal to about $140,000 of new property tax revenue just for the city. So now we‘ve got 140 plus 40—$180,000 of new property tax revenue. I‘ll just tell you right now…we want to do a transportation enhancement grant to do this downtown plan I talked to you about. (CL 42, City Official)

Many participants, excited about the significant additional revenue the Nestlé plant could bring to the city, like the official quoted above, emphasized that huge economic benefits would be enjoyed at little to no additional cost.

80

Another thing to think about that sometimes gets missed is…this could be very little cost to the city of Cascade Locks in putting in the infrastructure. Nestlé is paying for most of that. But there‘s a significant benefit to the city in terms of having a huge customer, not only for the water that we would be selling, which brings more money to the city utility, but also the energy required to run a water bottling plant is significant and, again, in our city we have…our own… municipal electric company. So having that extra industrial plant there purchasing electricity from us as well is a benefit to the city—a benefit to all the ratepayers because there‘s more money being generated in that utility. And then there‘s going to be some tax benefits as well. So, money‘s, you know, the value of that property is going to go up. Right now if it‘s Port property the Port doesn‘t pay taxes. If it becomes Nestlé Waters‘ property, then they start paying taxes. I think it‘s over $100,000 a year, which is very significant to a town this size, you know. 600 to 700 homes and a few businesses scattered around. So that‘s…an impact that will benefit the city. (CL 34, Elected Official)

In short, the collective impression relayed, especially by city officials, is that Nestlé‘s presence in Cascade Locks would be synonymous with winning the lottery. At little cost to the community, many residents maintain, Nestlé would greatly bolster the city‘s annual budget and potential for future growth.

The city‘s in a situation with our limited population where the services that the people want become, almost, we don‘t have a lot of potential for growth of being able to provide those services such as water, sewer, electric…just city services. So we…could really use a customer that doubles our water department‘s budget. With very little real expense, you know, it‘s not like we‘re going to buy a house and we‘re making $20 a month, you know, we‘ll make $160,000 a year on one connection. It‘s, from a water system perspective, it‘s like—oh my gosh—it‘s like the lottery! To get that big of a customer with…their sewage load‘s going to be minor, because their products, you know just, putting the water in bottles. So it‘s going to be a very lucrative contract for the city. I don‘t see any, plus the power that they use is a city provided utility and so I see the upside as far as budgetary kinds of things. Being able to help to stabilize those utilities that we…offer. In an era where we haven‘t had any growth, we‘ve had decreased customer load. (CL 36, Resident)

For influential community members and politicians, the Nestlé proposal offers an immense augmentation of city funds that would facilitate economic growth and allow projects like the above-mentioned Main Street improvement plan. In addition to formal economic benefits, other desirable incentives are mentioned as well:

81

And the other issue is the property that Nestlé is looking at is not, they‘ve talked a few times but there has been nothing firm on any of that at this point. It‘s a big gravel pit where, you know they‘ve put fill in and done different things over the years. However one of the neat things that came out of this to the Port was, is that we want to build a walkway all the way from our Port property out to our industrial property, which is up clear on the east end where the casino‘s going to go. And…there‘s only a very few pieces left that we don‘t either own or have access to in some way. Well that whole property, Nestlé has already promised that if they do this job, they would give us that waterfront property. (CL 33, Resident)

Nestlé: Trusting the “Good Neighbor”

Another prevalent subtheme related to the anticipated economic benefits in the form of job growth and a substantially larger city budget is the perception that Nestlé would be a ―good neighbor‖ if the proposal is approved. Many Cascade Locks community members indicated, with varying levels of concern, being familiar with Nestlé‘s negative reputation in other communities throughout the United States. Prompted no doubt by bad publicity as well as the claims and warnings leveled by anti-Nestlé organizations like Food & Water Watch, many community members had researched the corporation‘s history for themselves. Most respondents, however, contrasted Nestlé‘s unsettling reputation with their personal experience of dealing with company representatives and concluded that the corporation‘s alleged offenses against other communities are untrue or at least unlikely to be repeated in Cascade Locks. As this local resident (CL33) (who is affiliated with the Port of Cascade Locks) explains that, contrary to expectations established by Nestlé‘s reputation, company representatives have not been at all dishonest or manipulative, for example:

I expected somebody different…They‘re allowing me to do my own thing as a person. You know…they‘re not prompting me…which I think is pretty cool. You know, I feel very open to say or do whatever I want. They obviously knew I was a supporter and I‘m [associated with the Port of Cascade Locks] which is, you know, helpful to them. But, I think that it‘s very good. They‘ve had, what, two community meetings now? You guys sat in one, so you saw…what was being brought up. You can see they‘re taking in, you

82

know, feedback from the community. And from what I can see, they‘re applying it. I think, of course Nestlé, I‘ve gone on the internet and read articles about other places they‘ve been and have a little understanding of…some of the issues that have come up. (CL33, Resident)

Most city officials, elected and otherwise, describe their interactions with Nestlé as forthcoming, cordial and overall engendering of trust. Some city officials assert, contrary to what they argue is Nestlé‘s unfair reputation, that other communities have formed similarly positive relationships where the company has proposed and/or opened water bottling operations.

…so fortunately the city of Black Diamond in Washington, they were considered…by Nestlé for a water-bottling plant and Nestlé withdrew from them, but Black Diamond didn‘t want them to withdraw. Nestlé just did it on their own decision and it had to do with the difficulty of getting the water to the industrial land, but Black Diamond, you know, Food & Water Watch showed up there and was throwing bombs at Nestlé. Saying you shouldn‘t allow them to come to Black Diamond. So Black Diamond said ‗okay, well we need to do our own homework on this‘ and they…put together a survey for about ten communities in America who had recently received a Nestlé plant. I don‘t know if you‘ve seen that study yet? …every city official was like ‗they‘ve been great, they‘re giving scholarship money, they promised this many jobs, they delivered this many jobs…They‘re great.‘ The survey was awesome. I mean I think…they did a hell of a job....so the questions they ask: [reading from survey] ‗is Nestlé Waters North America willing to partner with other business or community efforts to promote natural resources and environmentally friendly practices (i.e. parks, non-motorized transportation options, conservation projects, recycling, etc)?‘ ‗Do you consider Nestlé Waters North America good stewards of your water resources or not, why?‘ ‗Does NWNA get involved in the community and support local business, how?‘ ‗Did NWNA guarantee a certain number of jobs; did they provide that number of jobs?‘ So those are the types of questions they asked and then so Mecosta Township in Michigan responded, Zephyrhills in Florida responded, Ontario, this is in California responded…so you‘ve got like five or six. They have a Nestlé plant there and then you can read their responses and like I said, you read it, it was like they‘re being phenomenal partners. They‘re not being evil, they‘re not trying to, you know, just stomp all over small towns and kick the crap out of them. (CL 42, City Official)

Based on evidence gathered through their research and personal experience, most

Cascade Locks city officials are convinced that Nestlé will be a good neighbor and city partner.

83

At least one other elected official offered a different interpretation of Nestlé‘s presentation thus far, however, expressing a degree of skepticism:

It seems to me that Nestlé's been very proactive as to present themselves as a very nice neighbor to deal with, to work with. That they‘re not here to hurt the community because why would they do that? They would put themselves out of a job. And for me, reading other material outside, I like to see both sides and I have friends that are against it and people who are for it so…that‘s my job as councilor is to hear both sides and protect the citizens of Cascade Locks…so it‘s in my best interests to pay attention and see what they‘re saying and, you know, the stuff that I‘ve read where they‘ve dealt—how they‘ve dealt with other—it‘s kind of like they‘re wooing the town right now, basically. It‘s what they‘re doing. They‘re wooing…They‘re going to talk about all the benefits and…I want to know what the shoe is that‘s going to drop. I want to know what… we‘re going to deal with because it‘s just in my best interests to know how to prepare for them before instead of scrambling to catch up afterwards. I mean already we‘ve already had issues. We‘ve had resolutions brought before us. Contracts brought before us to approve this to work on and Nestlé…I can‘t remember what it was, but I basically asked the question: ‗where did we get the template for this document?‘ and was told that Nestlé had provided it. Then why do we have our own attorneys? Why don‘t we already, you know, Nestlé: ‗oh here, we already have this and you can just use ours‘ and, you know, it‘s…that lull and because of that I don‘t think we‘re paying as close attention as we should. We‘re just trusting that Nestlé‘s doing the right things and that‘s—it‘s scary. (CL35, Elected Official)

Privatization and Commodification: “We Control the Tap”

We control the tap on this project. The city controls it. Any time there‟s going to be an agreement written anytime in the future, you know, depending on what our global situation is, we control the tap. It‟s not a Nestlé control of the tap. We own the rights, they will not own the water rights…Guys, this is where the Port and the city, we have to do our job. We have to do our due diligence, and this is where most people I think get lost in this whole process. I think a lot of people think that they‟ve got a wild card running around here, you know, that‟s going to do whatever they want to do and they‟re big and they‟re strong and powerful. But we have the Port and the city has the ability to write resolutions and procedures and things of that nature to control these people before we ever allow them to come in here. We‟re already talking about those sorts of things; Nestlé‟s been very open about those issues. (CL33, Resident)

In order to explore participants‘ conceptualization of and the privatization and commodification of water resources, interviewees were asked to describe their opinions on the issue of public versus private management of water supplies. Many participants focused on the

84 more familiar issue of water privatization and responded by denying that what is currently happening in the case of the Nestlé proposal in Cascade Locks is a case of privatization. For example, Mayor Lorang said, ―sometimes the issue of privatization of water comes up. Well, it‘s not the case. We are essentially selling them a water resource.‖ Most participants, however, considered the issues in more depth before concluding that the Nestlé proposal does not represent a case of water privatization.

Well, I‘m only really familiar with like a public water municipal utility. I‘m not, I‘ve not seen a private one, but I know there are some private water…providers. In fact, there‘s one up in Parkdale that provides water to a small community. It‘s private, but I think most people would think it‘s the same as paying a water bill to city hall. It‘s like a little water company that has a little water right and a distribution system. So I‘m, I guess I would say I‘m opposed to private water ownership because I think it‘s a little bit like…gasoline…it could get out of hand at some point, you know with water rationing or water control…I don‘t think private water is in the public interest. The city…in this case would be selling water to Nestlé. They would not own any water rights. So the city just has a big customer that‘s moving into town. So I guess I‘m able to separate the two issues out…it‘s really not a private water thing. They‘re not…taking over the city‘s water system; they‘re just going to be a big customer. There will be some natural partnerships; they‘ve got water experts that the city probably could never afford. You know, down the road I‘m sure they will lend expertise to the city so it could be a win-win relationship. (CL 36, Resident)

Similar to the above example, many community members express personal opposition to privatization in the philosophical sense, but point out that the city‘s water will not be privatized in the water exchange with Nestlé. Underlying the issue of water privatization is the concept of power. Frequently, residents‘ discussions about water privatization revolved around an emphasis on the city‘s ability to hold Nestlé accountable for its bottling operations due in part to the city‘s retained ―control over the tap.‖ Most community members argue that, as long as the city technically owns the water rights, then the issue of having the power to hold Nestlé accountable will be adequately addressed. For instance, this Cascade Locks resident (CL 44) articulated the

85 community concern that abated when the language of the Nestlé proposal changed from referring to a ―water rights exchange‖ to simply a ―water exchange‖:

People are just concerned about…what‘s it going to do about the water issue? Are they [Nestlé] going to have water rights? And I think that was the rumor for a while was that, yes, [Nestlé] was going to buy some of the city‘s water rights, but my understanding is that that isn‘t the case, that…the water rights will remain with the city.

Most concern conveyed by community members related to accountability in the water exchange was neutralized by a faith that the city will be protected by a combination of experts and a well-written contract. This Nestlé proposal supporter, for example, offers an example of this orientation:

[The opposition] look at Nestlé as again—right or wrong, they very well could be right on it…I don‘t know enough about it—but their argument‘s going to be they look at these bad guys who‘s out there going, we are going to control. One of those multi-national outfits and we‘re going to control all the fresh water in the world and we‘re going to dictate how much you‘re going to pay—everybody, to get water. So we‘re going around and, what we can legally do right now, is grab peoples water rights. So anybody who‘s unsuspecting to us, we‘re getting their water rights and once we got it we‘re not giving it back…They‘re [City Council] the ones that‘s supposed to [be sure there is accountability]. But obviously we‘re small. We‘re not as; we‘re just citizens of the town. We‘re not geologists or water people and all that stuff. Unfortunately, and that‘s where little towns get beat up by all sides is we don‘t have the expertise to rely on. We have to rely on our experts and it‘s just a matter of whether our experts want to…tell us the truth or not. (CL 37, Resident)

Similar to many residents‘ treatment of environmental concerns, the issue of water privatization

(and implicitly in the power to manage, sustain and control water resources) draws some acknowledgment of distrust, doubt or disbelief that the city government has real power over an entity as resourced as Nestlé. Nonetheless, when the apprehension over possible power struggles is weighed against the potential economic benefits and growth, most residents ultimately support moving forward on the water bottling proposal. As this elected official argued, the city should

86 approve the water exchange, but with a degree of caution that residents commonly assume will be embedded in the final contract:

I don‘t think it‘s realistic to think that…our town‘s going to run out of water if Nestlé builds a two-line plant in our industrial park. But I also think it‘s important as we go through the process—let‘s say that they do decide to apply for rights and put in a plant— that we be real careful about protecting our source and that the language of any contract that‘s written would say, you know, would give priority to the citizens versus the company. But I think they‘re going for a different source than what we use to provide. You know what I mean? We use well water for…our water utility and they‘re not interested in well water.31 So I think it‘s a whole different source. So if they were to change their minds and say ‗let‘s not go for spring water, let‘s go for well water and call it spring water‘ or whatever, you know. Some of those companies have done that. That has to be, I mean, we just have to be real careful about it. (CL 34, Elected Official)

The American Dream: Market “Civil” Society

Another fascinating line of reasoning emerged in numerous interviews with Cascade

Locks residents that contributed to a welcoming posture and overall support for the Nestlé bottling facility. As the following respondent (CL 33) speculates, privatization and commodification are fundamental aspects of American socioeconomic and cultural institutions.

This Cascade Locks community member voices the popular sentiment that economic development and the rights of private industry are protected in this country:

Well in this particular case…the city is going to own the water, you know, they‘re selling it to Nestlé. So I‘m not sure. The other thing is I guess the other take I would have on that question would be I think we‘re a country of our Constitution and private enterprise, and, you know, the American Dream, aren‘t we? I mean if somebody figures out a way to make some money, as long as they‘re doing it legitimately, I guess I don‘t have a problem with it. Everybody‘s got controls, you know, and I‘m sure they [Nestlé] do as well.

Other respondents also appeal to the rights and abilities of free private enterprise within a

―capitalist society,‖ making arguments that are compatible with neoliberal ideology. For

31 Nestlé is in fact proposing to bottle well water for their second line called “Nestlé Pure Life”.

87 example, several residents consider the capitalist economic structure to be not only compatible with democracy, but also necessary to balance the power and inefficiency of government:

The government doesn‘t manage anything well and if someone can give me an example of something they‘re managing well, then that may be an option. But I think based on the fact that we have a capitalistic society and we are a republic, that private business should be handled by the private sector and the government should handle government issues, but I mean if we were in an area that was under constant threat and…we‘re basically fighting [for] this glass of water, well then, yeah, the government really needs to step in and regulate something. But that‘s just not the case here. Ideally I‘d like to see the private sector be able to handle everything. I think that we do a better job than the government. The government wastes more of our money. If they‘ll start, if the government would start running efficiently, then maybe that would be an option, but it is the sloppiest; they don‘t know how to run a business. They don‘t make anything; they don‘t know how to run a business…they don‘t produce anything, they don‘t earn money, they just take tax dollars and squander. As a private businessman, I know that every dollar that I spend has to yield some sort of a profit. It has to pencil out. That‘s because they‘re all my dollars. The government spends money that it doesn‘t own. It‘s not the government‘s money; it‘s our money, so they‘re quick to squander it. So that‘s why I believe in private industry. Private industry, unfortunately these days, we have an overwhelming amount of corporate welfare, but I believe in private industry. I believe in us. I believe in what we‘re all about here in this country, which is we left Europe because big government. We came here so that we could have a republic. I can‘t remember which one of the founding fathers said this, but I give you a republic if you can keep it. That‘s kind of where I stand on that. (CL 45, Resident)

David Harvey (2005:48), highlights the tendency of neoliberal rhetoric to emphasize the supremacy of individual freedoms over social justice and the role of the government ―…to create a good business climate rather than look to the needs and well-being of the population at large.‖

As the above quote illustrates, along with appeals to freedom, democracy and justice (Bakker forthcoming:18), the romanticized ideal of decentralized resource management is problematized by its compatibility with many aspects of neoliberal ideology.

Commodity Comparison: What about the Breweries?

If you want attack somebody because they‟re using plastic, go after these, all these soda beverages that are, you know, today‟s youth are getting a third of their calories from beverages. Diabetes is at an all time high, [but] bottled water, I just don‟t see the, I don‟t see the

88 impact. I heard that 50 percent of Americans are chronically dehydrated. So, you know, I don‟t see stopping bottled water as being a way of saving the planet. All it does is inconvenience people who might want to get something to drink." (Mayor Brad Lorang)

The subtheme of ―commodities,‖ which I later relabeled as ―commodity comparison,‖ also emerged as a significant topic among participants. Consistent with the mentality that the

United States is a country founded on the ideals of individual liberty and private industry, bottled water was often compared to commodities such as beer and soda. Specifically, many respondents in Cascade Locks argue that it is unfair to hold Nestlé as a corporation and bottled water as a product to higher standards than other companies and commodities that operate within the same legal framework. Respondents holding this perspective view opposition to bottled water as an infringement on individual consumer rights.

Should the private sector [be] allow[ed] to bottle water? I mean, I kind of say what the consumer wants to spend money on…then who am I to say ‗no‘? You know, the adverse impacts of putting water in a bottle versus Coke or…Pepsi or whatever…we don‘t tell consumers you can‘t drink Pepsi or Coke, you know? Why would we try to rule out water? …Weigh a Coke bottle empty and weigh an Arrowhead, a Nestlé water bottle; oh my God! Nestlé's is so much thinner! I mean, as far as environmentally, for a beverage—a much lower impact than a Coke bottle. Coke has done nothing to be…kind to the environment on the amount of plastic they‘re producing in the waste can. I don‘t know about their water bottle brands, but their Coke—like a bottle of Coke, they‘re terrible and again the beverage market is about 50 percent sodas…as far as plastic produced, the vast majority is done in sodas, you know? And again…I wish they would work on that. I‘m sure it has something to do with the carbonation…you can‘t make the bottle too thin because, I don‘t know, I‘d like to think that‘s the problem because they‘re wasting a lot of materials. We do have a recycling problem and right now there‘s not enough after-market needs for recycled plastic... (CL 42, City Official)

For some Cascade Locks community members, the ―commodity comparison‖ resonates with the perception of hypocrisy within the Gorge community. These participants reacted strongly to what they attribute to outsider Gorge communities—especially Hood River—again taking advantage of their own rights as citizens in a capitalist system, yet refusing to allow

89

Cascade Locks to do the same. The fact that no one protests Hood River‘s breweries or wineries yet singles out Cascade Locks‘ proposed Nestlé plant is, to these respondents, a poignant illustration of that unfairness and hypocrisy.

Early on, the ―Think Out Loud‖ [Oregon Public Broadcasting program]…did a thing on Nestlé Waters‘ proposal and right at the end a guy had called in from Portland and said, ‗you know, you guys wouldn‘t be having this discussion if it was a brewery going in.‘ And I think it was, you know it kind of sounded trite at the beginning and then it‘s like, he‘s right. I mean…of course they have other ingredients, but what leaves in a bottle, or a keg, in huge quantities would be extracted from your resource base and leave by truck. And…I think he‘s right, there wouldn‘t be that negative, ‗you‘re bottling a water source up.‘ I don‘t know, so I kind of thought of it that way then I thought ‗well, gee, could you take it another way?‘ Say we had some acreage out there and somebody wanted to put in a farm, to grow apples like they do in Hood River Valley. You know it‘s in Hood River Valley for a reason but, if it was possible to do it, the amount of irrigation water would be very comparable to what Nestlé would be extracting…That fruit would be leaving by truck and the fluids contained in the fruit through evaporation, it would be leaving your water source. So I thought ‗well, gee, what‘s the difference?‘ Not only from a brewery, what‘s the difference to a farm? So in the end it‘s the water source that has to be reviewed and I‘m not, personally, I‘m not going to take a real stance on the political side of whether it‘s a, you know, bottled water, a multi-national corporation. I think if you track down a lot of corporations they end up being multi-national. (CL 36, Resident)

Others see opposition to the Nestlé plant in Cascade Locks as merely an opportunity for a political victory on the part of progressive groups and others with ―New West‖ interests. While corporations like Nestlé, Coca-Cola and Pepsi may be too big for activists to affect, the City of

Cascade Locks is simply an easy target:

There is a big push, which I don‘t get. Well, in a sense I get it…there‘s…the plastic…You know, we‘re trying to clean up our world. Plastic is, it‘s like nuclear energy: it sits there in the ground and sits there and sits there and sits there and nothing happens. What I don‘t understand is why are we being, why is everybody showing up here? Why wasn‘t anybody after Coca-Cola or Pepsi? Nobody‘s—all these plastics have been out here forever. All the sudden, it‘s water; it‘s the…healthiest thing you can put in plastic. Nobody‘s hassled anybody with the unhealthy things in plastic, but they‘re hassling everybody with the healthy things in plastic. So I don‘t get that. What I look at is…the way timber and the way everything else goes, is you don‘t go after the big boys, you go after the littlest ones who can‘t defend themselves and you get your foot in the door there. And, right or wrong, it doesn‘t mean it‘s wrong, they got to get their foot in

90

the door. So the people who believe that have got to get their foot in the door and we‘re easy to beat up. We‘re defense[less], we can‘t spend the kind of money to battle them...Easy for them to shut down, to turn us around and say ‗Nestlé, we finally beat you somewhere.‘ You know, you‘ve been getting this place…but you‘re not getting Cascade Locks because we‘re going to ride on those people. Those people, they want you there... But we‘re going to run those people right into the ground, you know, we‘re going to beat, we‘re going to convince them, we‘re going to keep driving them until they cry uncle. And, my opinion, a lot of people cry uncle before, before somebody big cries uncle. So, it‘s a foot in the door and again, not to say that it‘s right or wrong, but it‘s that foot in the door. So we‘re stuck in that situation of the foot in the door. (CL 37, Resident)

The perception that Nestlé in Cascade Locks has been targeted by opposition groups over other corporations and commodities because it happens to be the low-hanging fruit turns out to be somewhat accurate. For instance, Nancy Matela of the Alliance for Democracy admits:

It‘s not a matter of ethics; it‘s a matter of a low-hanging fruit. It‘s easier to explain to a person that taking water from a tap, putting it in a bottle, putting a top on it and charging you $1.50 for that is ridiculous. If they took the water and added vitamins to it or processed it and made it into beer and put a cap on it and then charged you five dollars for it, which argument is easier? I mean it‘s the low-hanging fruit; it‘s the ridiculous one that we go after first. And, of course, it stops at some point. As I said, environmentalists are not going to win when they say no water in any bottle at any time.

Finally, some respondents struggled with the commodity comparison as it relates to questions of private versus public ownership and management of water. Even the few residents who connected the Cascade Locks‘ proposal to the issues of water bottling and privatization on the international scale ultimately dismissed the problematic facts.

What‘s the difference between the water that goes into beer, or a soda pop or a Gatorade and the water that goes into a…bottled water, right? If I‘m thirsty, you know, I might just as likely buy a Gatorade as buy…Am I…is anyone going to protest me buying a Gatorade? Probably not...They happen to throw some sugar and whatever in it, coloring, versus the…bottled water. So, I think there‘s a difference between that…I think…I equate that Gatorade and bottled water closer than I would equate being thirsty for that 45 minutes it takes to get here and then turning on the faucet. So I guess I draw that line too. It‘s—now, you follow that argument full-circle, though, then it comes to an issue. What happens when the bottled water industry is so strong, bottled water replaces what soda used to be and they start soaking up the sources of drinking water for…public entities to provide to people in their houses—tap water? That, you know, that‘s the real heart of it.

91

And that movie ―Tapped,‖ when you listen to the beginning of it—is it more important for Nestlé to have this water to sell or for the people of Frederiksberg, or whatever the town is, to have a source of drinking water for their town? And I think that, yeah, at that point I think that any reasonable people would come down on the side of the public entities providing water to people in their homes. Tap water versus, you know, you can‘t limit the ability of people to turn on the faucet and get water so that some company somewhere can make a profit. But I don‘t think we‘re there yet, though. But maybe people in Israel and Palestine would have a different take on it because, gosh, one of the things that, you know, when you study the history of that region, it‘s like, which is more important: oil or water? And some people would say that some of the wars that go on between Israel and their neighbors have more to do with water rights than they do with oil. So maybe there are some places in the world where they are starting to get to that. And I think it‘s important to keep in mind as you move forward and start to see this market growing, but I also have to say in my talks with [the Nestlé representative] and people from Nestlé. I think there‘s less water that goes into bottled water than there is that goes into a can of soda. In terms of…they [Nestlé] actually use less water. And I know that‘s true of beer because they‘re boiling and all that stuff. And so I don‘t think you can hold, necessarily, the people that are bottling water as the culprits at the exclusion of these other beverage companies. (CL 34, Elected Official)

Overall many Cascade Locks community members presented similar versions of the argument that bottled water is either better than or comparable to other bottled commodities such as beer and soda, and therefore should not be targeted by activists. While some of their arguments are tempting, most of the above assertions are unfortunately unfounded or perhaps based on misinformation. For example, besides that bottled water now has the largest market share in the beverage bottling industry, the argument that most plastic waste comes from soda products can be challenged by the fact that a marked decrease in the percentage of bottles that actually get recycled has a positive relationship with the increase in bottled water sales32 (Llanos

2005). Furthermore, both Coca-Cola and Pepsi are similarly under attack by consumer advocacy and human rights groups for their hyper-exploitative water bottling practices and abuses of communities around the world (e.g., Rahman 2010); however, even as the second and third

32 The overall rate of plastic bottle recycling fell 34% with the increase in bottled water consumption between 1994 and 2003 (Llanos 2005).

92 ranked largest water bottlers in the world, Coca-Cola and Pepsi still have much smaller market shares than Nestlé (see Table 2).

Arguably, the issue of bottled water as an illustration of the encroachment of the market into spheres of public life makes it conceptually distinct from other commodities. In the bigger picture, the issues being raised by the anti-Nestlé coalition go beyond the bottling industry to the legal and operational precedents that the outcome in Cascade Locks could set for the state of

Oregon and beyond. As Nancy Matela from the Alliance for Democracy argues, the current negotiation of water commodification in the Columbia River Gorge potentially goes against the public‘s interest in protecting local water resources from future ―highest bidder‖-based allocation of the resource (i.e. the California question). Finally, because Nestlé is the most powerful transnational corporation in the world, it is a different player than local wineries, farms and microbreweries, although the points made by Cascade Locks residents do illustrate why local bottlers‘ use of the commons resource should be regulated and limited as well. Either way, bottled water really isn‘t a comparable commodity.

Economic Development: Take What You Can Get

They just approached us. [Unannounced] to us, they just showed up one day and said, „hey, we‟re interested in your water here, we‟d like to put a water plant in.‟ So our first, you know, our first thing—you know, we‟ve been handling the casino already, we can handle on anything we do here. And some of it, I‟m going to say, when I first, we had some industry here that probably [was] not appropriate industry, but again it was coming. So you take what, you try and take what you can get. (CL 37, Resident)

The subtheme ―economic alternatives‖ emerged from opinions offered by respondents who split into two dominant camps: those who see no viable economic alternative to Nestlé‘s proposal and those who would like to capitalize on the town‘s location in the National Scenic

Area by promoting more tourism. As the previously quoted respondent explains:

93

We‘re looking for some private enterprise. That‘s all. We‘re looking for some jobs here. And we‘re on our right; we‘re on our right to go after whatever…shows up. And…we‘re not totally; I would not say that all of us are totally knowledgeable of everything that‘s going on out there in the world. Sometimes…what‘s going on out there comes to us a little bit later, because we‘ve all got our own little issues of trying to get by. We had the…casino going, we needed jobs. [The] casino showed up and we said yeah, now some people would say…when you need jobs, you take what you can get. We‘re supposed to be tourism, the National Scenic Act allowed for, not only allows for it, it demands, that one in the Scenic Area…protect the lands, scenic-wise. But it also says that anywhere— where any of the cities are—are not in the scenic area. They‘re their own entity and we‘re supposed to support industry in those cities. We‘re supposed to do all we can, to make those cities that are within the Act, vibrant economic-based cities. (CL 37, Resident)

Partly as a result of the failures of past economic development plans, there is a widely- held attitude among residents that Cascade Locks is being forced to ―take what it can get.‖

Respondents on both sides of the Nestlé proposal often refer, for instance, to the stalled casino plan. The following participant voices such a perspective along with what I coded as a ―lesser of environmental evils‖ mentality:

It‘s an important issue controversially because most people are either really okay with it or environmentally they think it‘s a bad idea. I‘m sort of in the middle there…I would like to see something come to provide jobs and that‘s what happened with the whole idea of the casino was just to bring some jobs and that has been stalled for ten years. But if you don‘t see anybody else coming in and saying, ‗well then how about us? We‘ll come in and we‘ll do this for your community and have jobs.‘ But the plus that I see about Nestlé is that it would be a clean industry. It wouldn‘t be a noisy industry with dirty smoke stacks and that. (CL 44, Resident)

As I mentioned earlier, the casino proposal is not universally championed, but is rather another ongoing economic development controversy in Cascade Locks. Interestingly, opposition to the casino does not necessarily align with opposition to the Nestlé proposal. For example, when asked to estimate the proportion of fellow Cascade Locks citizens who are supportive versus opposed to the Nestlé proposal, most (if not all) respondents said that they believe that at least three-quarters of the town are in favor. When asked if there is similar support for the

94 casino, however, most residents said something along the lines of: ―No. No, the casino‘s almost split right in half, fifty-fifty‖ (CL 46, resident).

Whether or not participants prefer an economic development alternative to the Nestlé plant or not, the majority recognizes the challenge of reconciling environmental and community concerns with economic development plans.

I think if you surveyed the people everybody says they want more jobs; they want good family wage jobs like every other community in the country. And then if you also surveyed people they would say, ‗we really don‘t want trucks and we don‘t want any impacts, and don‘t make my shopping experience at our little convenient store any slower.‘ You know, so…that‘s the dynamic of…how do you have growth but not have impacts? And, you know, of course you try to accommodate that but there‘s no way that you can have job growth without having people needing to get to work or shipping or receiving of products…Well, there are [alternatives], but…Cascade Locks has gone through a thing where an idea comes up—like the industrial park—an idea will come up and then an idea will subside. And there hasn‘t been, most industries when they move into a town it‘s got to be a town that the, I mean statistically the CEO loves. It‘s not meant necessarily for taxes or for, you know, that CEO, he or she needs to just love the community and want to be there. And we‘ve had companies look at Cascade Locks, and we just don‘t get, you know, don‘t get that next step. And having recently lost the high school there‘s a lot of feelings, you know, how can we attract new companies to Cascade Locks? Some people say all you got to do is ask, but every, every community in America is trying to find some customer. You know, and lots of communities have economic development experts working on their staff to try to get a company to lay in…their area, but it seems to be it‘s got to be reliant on a resource, or uniqueness of some regard to that area…for them to locate in that area. (CL 36, Resident)

As this Cascade Locks resident seems to imply, the uniqueness of the Columbia River Gorge area and resource upon which they could become reliant is water. Hence Nestlé is the best option. Many residents do not necessarily consider a Nestlé water bottling facility the only possible plan, but considering the economic benefits, remain supportive of what they see as the best option.

So, as far as my perspective and many, many, many people that I talk to…the Port is trying to hustle business. We‘re trying to do something. And we see this as the number one, I mean they‘re [Nestlé] here, you know? They‘re offering. They‘re putting up…the

95

dough. They‘re doing their thing. And they‘re offering, from what I can see, some living wages and benefits, and things of that nature that would serve our community well. The city is going to make revenue off of water… And have something for them to offer. I mean, I know people love to come to the Gorge and drive. It‘s a beautiful place; I love it too, you know. And, you know, I don‘t know of anybody that‘s in positions that I am here in the Gorge that would do things to destroy it. You know, or make it look bad…but we do have to sustain ourselves or, what? Are we all; are we all going to become park rangers? (CL 33, Resident)

While this Port of Cascade Locks representative seems to be saying that a recreation- based economy is not a viable option, others have suggested that becoming ‗park rangers‘ may not be such a bad idea. These people wonder why the town, which the Pacific Crest Trail passes through and is in an area renowned for its windsurfing, doesn‘t focus more energy on developing tourism.

Why Not Tourism?

In addition to envisioning industrial development along the lines of the Nestlé plant proposal, many Cascade Locks community members think that tourism offers promising economic development potential. According to this Nestlé opponent:

To have a good, viable, small community you have to have a decent tax base. They‘ve been messing with their tax base for a long time here. They haven‘t done things like tried to bring business downtown, look at the downtown area. There‘s nothing that makes you say, ‗wow this is up and coming. I want to move here.‘ And this has been part of my argument. People ask, ‗what do you want to do?‘ you know. Okay, fine. You don‘t want this, what do you want and what are you going to do to make it? Well, I would really, really like to stop fighting the casino and stop fighting the water and do something— maybe a citizens‘ group of economic, there‘s a book called Small-Mart Economy. We need to do that. We need to, but, bring in water trucks—okay, we have money but we just ruined what we have as tourist space. They‘re trading one for another and they don‘t see that. (CL 32, Resident)

Along with the above-quoted resident, several respondents wonder why the city of Cascade

Locks has not done more to promote tourism, especially considering the success surrounding cities have experienced.

96

I think the ideal thing probably at this point is to just concentrate on tourism. I wish that the tribes would have built a resort and had that going. Have a little nine-hole putting golf course out there to draw tourists and then if the casino was given the okay, they‘d be set up and ready to go. I see Stevenson and what they do across the river with little shops and I don‘t know why this town just sits here, stagnant; I don‘t know what the difference is if we just have more people complaining rather than doing? But I would like to see maybe just something more for the tourists. That seems to be what we‘re going to have to do, you know, have a shop that sells kites and bikes and…people drive up here to fish and hike and boat, picnic. And there are golf courses all around, so why not provide these kinds of things? (CL 44, Resident)

Several local residents and influential city officials do offer an explanation as to why tourism is not a viable option in Cascade Locks. According to this respondent, the city‘s greatest asset in the case of the Nestlé proposal becomes its greatest liability in a recreation-based economic development plan:

Well, I mean, unfortunately, no—the tourists; the tourism economic business model is limited because of our weather. I mean you go anywhere in the Gorge and…Hood River‘s not immune to it either. Hood River shuts down restaurants in the winter. They say ‗we‘re closed for the winter because we can‘t make it…and there‘s more rain here, my friend. Yeah, so there are limitations to that. The casino is great because it‘s…tourism base that had a roof on it, you know. Then that would change that. The reason Hood River does as well as it does is because it has Meadows [ski resort]. Meadows hires 1,000 people every winter and most of them live in Hood River, so they get this little winter boost in the off-season. But no one‘s going to drive from here to Meadows. There‘s no ski resort being built, that‘s just not an option for us, you know. The answer, the way I would answer that is not to pursue—a…recreational tourism definitely has limits because of the weather, you‘re just not going to get there from here. Hikers, you know, they do a little hiking but they‘re just not going to drive an economy… You need some real business energy, you know. Now, to me, a fit that I would like us to pursue...is something with the wind industry. We‘ve got this great wind resource, we‘ve got open land. To me, if I had my dream come true, you know, somebody like Vespa would site a research and design facility in Cascade Locks and when we got, you know, 40 mile per hour east winds, they‘re out working on …turbine blades and they‘re testing different materials and we become this fabulous place to test wind turbines in some of the…windiest places on the planet…To me, there‘s a tremendous possibility there because we have such a great consistent resource which is unique to us. You want to capitalize on something that‘s unique, you know, you can build a golf course anywhere…all you need is some open land. You can build a race track anywhere, all you need is some open land, but a wind thing you need wind, you know, it‘s not windy everywhere…Nestlé, you need an abundance rain source. There‘s not abundant rain

97

sources everywhere, you know. Frankly you can build a casino anywhere…so those [wind energy and water] to me are niches…and, you know, if Nestlé doesn‘t show up, I still say there‘s something we could do with our water source…We‘ve got some land, man, but again, I‘ll tell you the wind industry design facility, they‘re not going to come here if our downtown looks like shit. They don‘t want to live in a community like that. (CL 42, City Official)

Even if influential city officials agree that recreation and tourism offer promising potential for future economic development plans, the Nestlé proposal is viewed as a prerequisite necessary to facilitating even alternative development. In the end, it seems that a majority of

Cascade Locks city officials and residents are supportive of Nestlé‘s proposal.

98

CHAPTER SEVEN

Discussion

Cascade Locks: Revisiting the „Tragedy‟

In light of the well-publicized, controversial practices of the beverage bottling industry internationally along with the anti-water bottling campaign directed at Nestlé in the United

States, the results of this case study in Cascade Locks are somewhat surprising. Where water bottling operations and siting proposals have created various environmental and legal problems leading to contention in many communities throughout the world (Food & Water Watch 2009a),

I found that a large majority of Cascade Locks community members are supportive of the Nestlé water bottling proposal in their city. I was surprised to discover that, according to respondents, most resistance to the proposed bottling facility does not come from within the community itself but from the ‗Keep Nestlé Out of the Gorge‘ coalition, whose campaign is supported by individual allies residing mostly in the surrounding cities of Hood River, Stevenson and

Portland. The Cascade Locks residents who do openly participate in the anti-Nestlé campaign are few and widely regarded as ―outsiders,‖ which enables their marginalization in the community.

I found that a commonly shared pro-economic growth orientation, inviting to industries like Nestlé, is related to preexisting socioeconomic and cultural tensions as the region experiences an uneven transition from extractive industries to recreation and tourism, leaving

Cascade Locks with economic challenges to somehow overcome. Also contributing to the majority support is the widely held perception that Nestlé would be, if not a perfect company, at least the ―lesser of evils‖ environmentally compared to other economic development plans and

99 industries that could approach the city in the future. In other words, water bottling is commonly viewed within the community as an alternative extractive industry well-suited to the environmental characteristics of the Columbia River Gorge—therefore, according to many participants, a water bottling facility represents a win-win-win scenario for the environment, town and corporation.

In addition, many of the cultural norms and values frequently expressed by community members mirror, or are at least compatible with, a neoliberal ideology that promotes marketization, privatization and commodification. For example, several participants emphasized the importance of individual liberty, private industry, and the superiority of market mechanisms to resolve environmental and economic problems. Overall, the majority of Cascade Locks community members‘ support is at least implicitly reminiscent of the type of ecological tragedy that Garrett Hardin (1968) had controversially described in that it is based on the perception that potential environmental and social costs will be largely externalized to society as a whole, while the promised economic benefits of a Nestlé plant will be enjoyed locally.

Hardin‘s conceptualization of the tragedy of the commons was insightful insofar as his observation that action that is rational on an individual level has the potential to lead to irrational group outcomes. Hardin‘s belief that market mechanisms such as privatization are the best or only means through which we can protect the global commons, however, has long been challenged by respected scholars such as Elinor Ostrom (1990) and, in the case of drinking water provision, by an extensive body of research showing the mixed or simply negative outcomes of market-based approaches (e.g. Castree 2003; Gleick 2008; Bakker 2006; Snitow, Kaufman, and

Fox 2007; Olivera and Lewis 2008). As explored in more depth above, notions of the

100 environmental commons are generally theorized from two dominant perspectives: one, that supported by Hardin, views human beings as selfish utility maximizers and hence promotes market logic or ―market environmentalism,‖ while the other perspective emphasizes a human interdependency and fundamental dependence on resources such as water that precludes private sector involvement. Three general commons resource management models have logically evolved out of these broad, contrasting assumptions. They tend either to emphasize the superior ability of the state, the market or the local community—which is typically proposed as an alternative to both market forces and the state—to best protect the water commons (Bakker

2007).

Among other implications, this case study in Cascade Locks, Oregon helps to illustrate some shortcomings of so-called market environmentalism as well as of neo-Marxist assumptions about human nature, the underlying causes of commons resource ―tragedies,‖ and the cast of characters involved. On one hand, for example, this study shows how the market, instead of promoting , gives individuals, corporations and governmental entities strong incentives to maximize short-term profits at the expense of a commons resource. At the same time, however, the overexploitation of nature that is enabled through commodification of water in this case is not merely perpetuated by capitalists (civil society, municipal and state governments are complicit as well) and the process is not necessarily undemocratic (the majority of people in Cascade Locks support the water bottling proposal).

Feeny et al. (1990) have argued that the right combination of norms, institutional arrangements and cultural factors can contribute to environmentally sustainable natural resource management practices regardless of the specific model employed. However, as my research

101 reveals and as I will explore in more depth below, social institutions, norms and mentalities are in large part the product and reflection of the structures and realities in which they are embedded.

At least one unfortunate conclusion can be drawn from this case study as well as from the collection of research exploring both the merits and consequences of the three idealized resource management models. That is, environmental conservation is not intrinsically guaranteed by the market, the state or the ―local community,‖ but in any case requires the emergence or imposition of environmentally compatible social arrangements and regulations.

Bottled Water: The Enclosure of a „Contestable Commodity‟

The commodification of water through bottling as well as through the privatization/marketization of delivery structures lead to the same problematic questions about the continuing negotiation of political power, social justice and environmental sustainability. In other words, bottled and tap water commodities are two sides of the same coin. While these issues are inseparable in the ―big picture,‖ in many ways, the water bottling phenomenon better illuminates the irrationality of allowing economic globalization to continue on its present course.

While there are new lessons that can doubtless be learned by further exploration as dynamics evolve, the privatization and marketization of tap water systems has already been extensively researched (e.g. Bakker 2005). Scholars in the meantime have failed to equally examine the water bottling industry as a second facet of commodification, leaving a wealth of new conceptual, theoretical and practical insight untouched. Better understanding how the two modes of drinking water commodification differ in practice would be useful for scholars and activists alike.

102

For example, opposition to bottled water as an alter-globalization strategy has great potential in part because of its unique characteristics compared to tap water. Fundamentally, bottled and tap water carry very different cultural and symbolic meanings. Where tap water has long been considered a non-commodity, bottled water is explicitly produced for its exchange- value. Also, pro-market scholars who laud private sector participation in drinking water provision (e.g. Hardin 1968; Briscoe, Salas, and Pena 1998) would find it difficult to convincingly argue that bottling water is a legitimate means of protecting the resource from overexploitation. On the contrary, environmental and social detriment has followed the path of transnational corporations‘ bottling operations. As I previously argued, the bottled water commodity represents the explicit production of a market for the lone purpose of expanding opportunities for private industry and maximizing profits otherwise prevented by universal availability of free or inexpensive municipal sources. The bottled water market would be completely indefensible if public water systems that service the world‘s middle and lower classes were promoted and maintained instead of being the targets of political and economic disinvestment that they became under neoliberal policies. Bottled water represents the redistribution of power and resources to transnational corporations twofold: first by literally enclosing a commons water resource for the good of the industry and then indirectly by attenuating the political will to repair or provide public water services.

Overall, the concepts and theories proposed by neo-Marxist scholars are in many convincing ways supported by the results of this case study. For instance, the phenomenon of bottled water is a provocative illustration of the modern forms of enclosure that Harvey (2003a) describes, such as expanded reproduction and accumulation by dispossession. While largely

103 unexplored in the ‗neoliberalization of nature‘ literature because the process is playing out in the

United States as opposed to the global South, water bottling in Cascade Locks is an exemplar of

Harvey‘s argument on accumulation by dispossession. In this case, if the proposal is approved, the Swiss-based, largest food and beverage corporation in the world (Nestlé) will further accumulate capital and power through the commodification of spring water in the Columbia

River Gorge while simultaneously establishing political and ideological precedents in the state of

Oregon to facilitate future expansion of the industry and other forms of water commodification

(e.g. bulk exports).

As I have suggested, bottled water has socio-environmental consequences that both parallel and deviate from issues raised by tap water commodification. Bottled water is also an exemplar of what Polanyi referred to as the ‗fictitious commodity‘ of land. However, the case of bottled water conceptually offers more than tap water in that it typifies the expansion of the market into a product that is completely unnecessary.33 That is, bottled water is particularly powerful because it is not merely a ‗fictitious commodity‘ as Polanyi described, but what I would call a ‗contestable commodity‘ as well because it fails to satisfy any true human need while explicitly deepening the socio-environmental problems characteristic of the ‗satanic mill‘.

Unlike the commodification of tap water that can through some lenses be seen as justifiable, bottled water in most applications is little more than an example of rampant waste and consumerism.

Another important observation, particularly for those seeking to advance the global water justice movement, is the fact that water bottling persists as a beverage industry phenomenon

33 An exception for bottled water can perhaps be made in emergency situations or in areas in the global South where potable water really is unavailable.

104 even though consumers are generally well aware of the many resultant environmental problems.

While ultimately supportive of the bottling plant proposal, many residents of Cascade Locks also conveyed concern about the potential to overextend their local water resources as well as the detrimental impacts of plastic waste and pollution. This finding indicates that emphasizing the environmental consequences of the water bottling industry is not a sufficient oppositional strategy. The case of Cascade Locks suggests that even people with a vested interest in extractive industries are apprehensive about environmental impacts, yet capitalism continues to expand into new realms. Why then, when a majority of people seem to be at least on an ideologically or philosophical level troubled by this type of expansion into a ‗contestable commodity,‘ does the trend continue?

Commodification without Privatization?

One answer to that question relates to corporations‘ ability to assimilate criticism by engaging in public relations and marketing campaigns that pacify consumer concerns—a practice sometimes referred to as ‗green washing‘ (Carlson, Grove, and Kangun 1993; Peattie and Crane

2005; Pearce 1991). For instance, several respondents in Cascade Locks referred to Nestlé‘s newly developed ―Eco-Bottle‖ as evidence that the corporation is socially responsible and making strides toward environmentally sustainable practices—a move that undercuts environmental arguments against the bottling industry.

Similarly, Nestlé‘s decision to become a municipal water customer in lieu of pursuing actual water rights (as it has done in the past and continues to do in other communities) can be viewed as a strategic response to successful anti-privatization activism by organizations like

Food & Water Watch. The knowledge that Nestlé would be ―just another city utility customer‖

105 certainly has defused suspicion and opposition to the bottling facility proposal in Cascade Locks.

Many respondents believe that the arrangement in which the city continues to hold the actual water rights will prevent the possibility of Nestlé becoming a ―wild card,‖ as it has in other places in the United States, because the city of Cascade Locks will continue to ―control the tap.‖

As a Nestlé representative and Doug Boschler of the ODFW corroborated, Cascade Locks community residents are accurate in their belief that this proposal is unlikely to involve a case of actual water privatization—at least as it has unfolded in the past. Privatization is technically defined as ―…a change of ownership, or a handover of management, from the public to the private sector‖ (Bakker 2005:544). While a water rights exchange is not currently proposed in

Cascade Locks, can the water resource swap between the state and city, enabling the subsequent sale to Nestlé, still be considered privatization by an alternative means? Or, if this case cannot be accurately conceptualized as privatization, then to what extent does this move by Nestlé represent a new phenomenon of water commodification without privatization?

Even if the terms of the proposal do not represent water privatization as it has been understood in other places, the claim is irrelevant if the consequences are the same. While it is too soon to know what environmental degradation could ensue, it is clear that a private corporation with a controversial history will gain ownership and control over the water, at least in terms of its end-use. Also significant to consider is that, while Nestlé may be in some ways treated by the city as ―just another utility customer,‖ the water withdrawal is not comparable.

Nestlé proposes to commodify at least 300 gallons per minute, 24-hours a day, all year long.

Unlike the city and corporation, the residential utility customers are not commodifying the water resource in order to accrue a profit.

106

Instead of being a safeguarding mechanism limiting the extraction of water from the source, it is possible that the fact of Nestlé becoming a municipal customer is another form of privatization that will simply circumvent opposition while achieving the same detrimental socio- environmental outcomes. As Bakker (forthcoming: 7) explains, one characteristic of common- pool resources like water is the difficultly of establishing private property rights because the exclusion of others dependent on the resource is impossible. In other terms, fresh water is what

Bakker (2005) describes as an ―uncooperative commodity.‖ Therefore, in this case, by going through the public water system Nestlé is actually better able to secure its ―right‖ to extract the otherwise limited common-pool resource. Nestlé greatly benefits by optimizing its exploitation of the established public infrastructure, water holdings and security. While a superficially depoliticized strategy, commodification without a technical change from public to private ownership remains problematic in terms of legal and procedural precedents at the state level, for the health of commons resources and the environment as well as for focusing resistance to new gains in corporate access to formerly public resources.

Democracy, the Treadmill and the State

Democracy

Laxer and Soron are among scholars who explore the implications of Polanyi‘s (1944) conception of the ―market society.‖ In their edited volume Not for Sale (2006), Laxer and Soron convincingly argue that the transition towards a market economy inherently put our economic and political spheres in conflict. They posit that Polanyi‘s ―double movement‖ describes a fundamental tension between the ethics of capitalism and democracy because the relentless pursuit of profits upon which capitalism is based destroys the ―…bonds of community…

107 narrowing the ‗public‘ sphere over which the ethic of democracy applies‖ (23). This claim is evident in free trade agreements and neoliberal policies that promote and even mandate (as in the case of Bolivia, for example) privatization and deregulation. In a way a degree of tension between capitalism and democracy is also manifest in the case of Cascade Locks, where the city council and other officials have arguably been forced to choose between the interests of economic growth and environmental sustainability. In some versions of the story, economic hardship and the structure of the capitalist system have forced the city government to seek revenues in ways a private business might, instead of prioritizing the long-term viability of the community as a public agency would. The series of controversial economic development plans, including the casino and bottling facility, however, has resulted in antagonism both within the community and with other cities in the region.

While their argument is compelling, Laxer and Soron‘s conceptualization of democracy has limitations and may not be a realistic way to actually ―decommodify public life,‖ and hence protect the ‗commons‘ and ‗community‘ as they have envisioned. Democracy is simply the rule of the people by the people, or at least by the elected representatives of the people. Democracy therefore does not necessarily exclude marketization if the voters, regardless of their privilege, understand economic growth and market ideologies to be aligned with their individual welfare.

As I have mentioned, most respondents interviewed in Cascade Locks would vote in favor of the

Nestlé proposal. Democracy is playing out in Cascade Locks as elected officials carry out the will of their constituents even in their pursuit of corporate interests. Perhaps the question should be why communities such as Cascade Locks, through ―collective, deliberative decisions,‖

108 willingly narrow ―…the ‗public‘ sphere over which the ethic of democracy applies‖ (Laxer and

Soron 2006:23) and pursue these interests that appear to be against the common good?

The Treadmill

Here the Treadmill of Production theory has much to offer. This case study reflects concepts developed by theorists like Gould, Schnaiberg, and Weinberg (1996), who introduce their premise by explaining that:

The modern industrial revolutions have helped create a new political-economic system that we earlier labeled the ―treadmill of production.‖ The economic component of this political-economic system has the publicly stated goal of expanding industrial production and economic development, as well as increasing consumption. The political component involves public confluence of private capital, labor, and governments in promoting this goal. This confluence of interests is based upon the increasingly widespread social belief that advances in public welfare are achieved primarily through economic growth (5).

The Treadmill of Production conceptualization of these dynamics adds depth to the conversation about how groups in an industrial society can meet their needs without overexploiting natural resources. For instance, the Treadmill of Production theory recognizes the diverging interests of

‗citizen-workers‘ who are fighting to preserve their basic standard of living, compared to those more highly educated, wealthier residents whose interests in the aesthetic and recreational values of nature are represented by groups like the Sierra Club and Columbia Riverkeeper. This socioeconomic dynamic similarly applies to the theory of the New West that I described earlier, which essentially proposes that cultural tension erupts between extraction-based ―Old West‖ and amenity- based ―New West‖ communities due to competing economic needs and values. For example, the ability of Stevenson, WA to attract tourists to its Skamania Lodge could be threatened by a Nestlé facility across the river that would ―ruin the view.‖ While making relevant arguments about the dangers to society of exploiting the fictitious commodities, Laxer

109 and Soron‘s (2006) discussion is oversimplified when they seem to consider only the progressive politics of the latter group to fall within the realm of democracy.

Consideration of how ideology operates and why different social groups have conflicting environmental interests in practical economic terms can help explain why respondents in

Cascade Locks conveyed a shared ―…investment [in] accelerating the treadmill of production‖

(Gould, Pellow, and Schnaiberg 2004: 297). One strength of the Treadmill of Production argument applied to cases like this is that they consider socioeconomic status and challenge the image of people—such as the majority of those I interviewed in Cascade Locks—as being merely ―…simple-minded defenders of the status quo, as opposed to the supposedly progressive advocates of economic opportunity‖ (Gould et al. 1996:3). Treadmill theorists have referred to such attacks as blaming the victim and instead ask how can communities like Cascade Locks be empowered to protect both themselves and their natural environments from exploitation?

Bottled Water and Other „Green‟ Industries

In Cascade Locks the private industry, state and ‗citizen workers‘ are all involved in the acceleration of environmental damage. Typical of Gould et al.‘s ‗citizen-workers,‘ here the local beneficiaries of economic development do not oppose the source of the socio-environmental problem (water bottling) but instead support the proposal, emphasizing Nestlé as a potentially

―good partner‖ that is working towards more responsible practices (e.g. leaner plastic bottles).

One argument could be that people will not or cannot oppose industry and the detrimental practices upon which they are materially dependent. Another way to explain respondents‘ willingness to accept Nestlé is that people have been socialized to buy into capitalist ideologies

(namely, that economic development and growth is the only way forward).

110

During the course of my interviews, many citizens of Cascade Locks, either happily or in a tone of frustration, came to the conclusion that we simply live in a ―capitalist society,‖ and therefore resigned themselves to the belief that the limited economic options all lead to environmental deprivation in some form anyway. In these terms, bottling spring water seemed, to many respondents, like the lesser of several inevitable evils. However unfortunate, it is true that our society is structured around a market economy and therefore this common assertion cannot be discounted as a mere collective false consciousness in Cascade Locks. If it is false consciousness, then it is not isolated to places like Cascade Locks but shared by our irrational society as a whole.

When Cascade Locks community members perceive hypocrisy on the part of their Gorge neighbors and others opposed to developing extractive industries like logging and now water bottling, it is worth exploring this surprisingly insightful point of frustration. Do the recreation and tourism, beer bottling, and vineyards favored in the Gorge since the National Scenic Area

Act represent true economic alternatives or are these also part of the growing treadmill? Is it possible that in the reality of our ―capitalist society‖ the residents of Cascade Locks are correct that a water bottling plant located in their ecological context would be the least harmful and sustainable option—even less so than recreation and tourism? The claim that the bottled water industry is somehow a ‗green‘ alternative to other extractive industries is undoubtedly false, but is tourism really better in terms of minimizing environmental impacts in the Gorge than other extractive industries like responsible logging? Our market society depends on natural resources and if not from here, where are they coming from and under what conditions? Are we simply exporting environmental problems such as overexploitation of timber? These questions are

111 important to ask, yet are beyond the scope of this study to answer. A typical complaint against critical theories is that they identify problems but offer no practical solutions short of overthrowing capitalism. Bottled water is an inappropriate and indeed contestable commodity, but what are communities like Cascade Locks expected to do given their current reality? Short of an unlikely staging of some version of a 21st Century Marxist revolution, what practical, legitimate alternatives are available?

The State

The Treadmill of Production theory offers insights on the role of the state that are compatible with Polanyi, who agreed that the state (as well as capital) benefits from economic growth. This also supports Cable and Benson‘s (1993) conclusion that the state is entrusted with the conflicting roles of protecting the environment and citizens while also promoting economic growth and development. In a sense, the Oregon Governor‘s Office‘s encouragement to the

ODFW to cooperate with the city of Cascade Locks, thereby enabling the commodification of the Columbia River Gorge region‘s water resources, is consistent with the literature highlighting these conflicting imperatives. On one hand, the state through its Department of Fish and

Wildlife is entrusted to protect and conserve the environment while on the other it is also in the various levels of government‘s interests to encourage economic growth. This dynamic is especially highlighted in the Cascade Locks city government‘s perceived imperative to generate capital in order to facilitate other economic development in the domains of sustainable energy and recreation. Here the government is promoting economic growth for its own sake. In neoliberalism, however, the state is also losing power.

112

Many scholars have used examples of water commodification to illustrate the failed policies of the neoliberal project (Hall 2002; Robbins 2003; Prasad 2006; Olivera and Lewis

2004). At least in theory, the neoliberal state is losing power as formerly public goods and services are moved into the private realm through deregulation and privatization while the

Cascade Locks city government (and the state of Oregon more indirectly) viewed through this case study is gaining power and resources by facilitating the growth of the water bottling industry. The state is gaining power and promoting economic growth to sustain future gains in power and capital accumulation.

As Polanyi said, ―a market economy can exist only in a market society,‖ and it is precisely society itself that allows the market economy to persist (71). Contrary to the assumptions made by those scholars who conceive of water as a commons and/or a human right

(Shiva 2002; Laxer and Soron 2006; Barlow 2009; Barlow and Clarke 2003), even democratic political institutions do not merely restrain and limit the path of markets but can also enable their spread and influence. The dominance of market logic is perpetuated through ideologies expressed frequently in Cascade Locks that emphasize individual liberty over notions of community. This prevalence of market and individualist ideologies over the ideals of democracy and community is evidence of the power of transnational corporations and other private interests to expand while minimizing the public sphere and narrowing the conception of economic possibility. However, what quality of life would be possible for communities like Cascade

Locks if our market society could imagine economies beyond the growth imperative? The

‗double movement‘ also implies that the state must not only encourage but regulate and limit market expansion in order to maintain legitimacy (Cable and Benson 1993).

113

Conclusion: Transnational Connections

As I mentioned at the beginning of the discussion, the findings of this research highlight potential strengths and weaknesses of the three idealized commons resource management models. Scholars like Shiva (2005; 2002) and Barlow (2009) are here supported in that water commodification, especially in the extreme case of bottled water, only has deleterious outcomes for nature and society and therefore should, in the least, be heavily restricted. The implications of this case in the context of the nation-state versus local community level governance require more careful consideration, however. Cascade Locks is an example of a local community that may not have the right (legally or morally) or ability to manage their local water resources in their best interests. In illustration, history suggests that the city of Cascade Locks does not even have the political clout to assert power within the context of their own small county and among other towns with similar resources within the region; therefore, contrary to the assertion of many

Cascade Locks residents, it is unreasonable to expect that the city would have the ability to take on Nestlé, one of the most powerful corporations in the world, if typical problems like those in other communities should arise in the future. Also, as lies in the very definition of common pool resources, Cascade Locks does not have the moral right to sell the water resource at the exclusion and expense of other water users and essential ecosystem services the spring may also provide (e.g. as a cold water refuge to migrating salmon).

While the conflicting imperatives of the state are problematic as illuminated through the lens of this case study, state management and policy-making still has the greatest potential at this point to protect the commons resource in the interest of at least Oregonians. Perhaps the most important conclusion to be drawn is that the state of Oregon and the federal government have an

114 important role to play in this dynamic as the only entities really capable of limiting and regulating the behavior of the transnational corporation. The greatest countermotion against

Nestlé‘s acquisition of this spring water will not be targeting the local community or city government. That is, political influence through democratic means and activism should be directed especially at the state of Oregon (to be effective in this case) to encourage its role as protector of the people and environment to prevail over its interests in the economic growth

―imperative.‖

At the same time, state level politics (i.e. in Oregon) are not enough when transnational economic policies—for example, free trade agreements and WTO policies—can challenge nation-states‘ authority to enforce social and environmental protection measures. Therefore, an effort to connect local issues such as water bottling in Cascade Locks, Oregon to the global context is critical to the empowerment of these communities and progressive movements alike.

Where many respondents in this study mentioned the potential environmental impacts as being an important consideration in their support or opposition of the Nestlé proposal, no one in

Cascade Locks brought up the potentially harmful sociopolitical implications of the plan— leading me to conclude that people are generally not as aware of these equally important facets of the problem. Perhaps locally focused activism should make stronger, explicit connections that instead (or equally) emphasize how water commodification through bottling not only damages the environment but also facilitates political and democratic impotence and deepens social inequality at the international scale. Neutralizing local environmental concerns related to water bottling is easy for a community within the Columbia River Gorge that has phenomenal yearly precipitation rates. As a town like so many others that has experienced a sense of helplessness in

115 the face of a transitioning regional economy, perhaps the most convincing argument against

Nestlé for Cascade Locks residents would be the potential of current economic development plans to lead to even greater disempowerment of the community in the future in the face of transnational economic forces. The ability of community members in Cascade Locks to exercise future democratic decisions on behalf of their ecological and social health could ultimately be eroded by their locally-focused conception of what‘s at stake.

116

CHAPTER EIGHT

Conclusion

The phenomenon of bottled water is an ideal case through which to observe the dynamic and evolving processes involved in the neoliberalization of nature. It is not, however, a sufficient or appropriate solution to the global water crisis. While bottled water may currently provide the only means of safe drinking water for some of the world‘s poor, many experts argue that it is only due to a lack of organization and political will on the part of the rest of the world that many communities in the global South do not have access to public water delivery services

(UNDP 2006). Contrasted with the public tap water provided throughout most of the global

North, bottled water is irrational both economically and ecologically as it is much more expensive and incurs great environmental costs. In the global South, the water crisis cannot be averted without addressing underlying problems that include social inequality, water resource depletion and pollution. These problems, perhaps ironically, are oftentimes the very outcomes of the transnational water bottling industry as illustrated by ongoing protests against Coca-Cola operations in India that have, for instance, ―…exploited the existing water supplies to such an extent that the surrounding farmland dried up‖ (Rahman 2010).

Despite the high quality and inexpensive tap water provided by the public sector, bottled water is actually in greatest demand from consumers in the global North, where it is typically a mere convenience item. While a seemingly innocuous purchase, bottled water also undermines the potential solutions to social and environmental problems it professes to address for people in the global North. For example, drinking bottled water undercuts the public sector‘s ability to affordably provide safe tap water to all citizens, not to mention that, according to bottling

117 industry consultants, more than 40 million plastic bottles ―…go into the trash or become litter‖ every day (Llanos 2005). Similar to the well-documented cases of egregious water bottling practices in places such as India, the overexploitation of water resources in many communities around the United States has been followed by public resistance to bottling operations. Even as the bottled water industry continues to grow, activist campaigns, including Food & Water

Watch‘s ―Take Back the Tap,‖ are mobilizing public support for the decommodification of drinking water.

In order to unpack processes of neoliberalization and, specifically, to elucidate social responses to water commodification, I conducted a case study in Cascade Locks, Oregon where a coalition led by Food & Water Watch is attempting to stop Nestlé from siting its most recently proposed water bottling facility. Primarily through a series of semi-structured interviews conducted with a variety of respondents, I was surprised to find that Cascade Locks is a community where the majority of citizens are supportive of Nestlé‘s proposal. While the ―Keep

Nestlé Out of the Gorge‖ coalition continues different strategies at the state and community levels, contrary to some coalition members‘ original plan, they are unlikely to mobilize an effective group of citizen-allies from within Cascade Locks. First, the city of Cascade Locks has prioritized economic development and most influential community leaders see a Nestlé plant as having the potential to multiply their current revenues, also facilitating the city‘s economic diversification and growth into other sectors (for example, a Downtown Restoration Project to bolster tourism). Second, the ―old guard‖ Cascade Locks community has a history of antagonistic relationships with many non-profit organizations (including some involved in the anti-Nestlé coalition), newly arrived citizens (the community members most likely to oppose the

118 proposal) and the surrounding Gorge cities such as Portland, Stevenson and Hood River (whose citizens have successfully opposed past economic development plans). The prevailing pro-

Nestlé sentiment within the community is further fueled by ideologies that focus on individual liberty and echo the logic of neoliberal policies as well as the likelihood that environmental costs will be largely externalized.

Regardless of the industry‘s potential ability to revitalize the economy and raise the standard of living in Cascade Locks to levels comparable to those enjoyed by the surrounding cities, the broader impact of the bottled water commodity is still unfortunately negative for society as a whole and the environmental commons. The current struggle between the forces of water commodification versus decommodification connects directly to the claims made by (neo)

Marxists and other scholars who have long been concerned about the impacts of capitalism on society and natural resources. Karl Polanyi (1944), for example, writes about the nineteenth century transformation to a market economy and explains why a self-regulating market—the same ideology revived and embedded in neoliberal globalization—can only be a myth.

According to Polanyi, a self-regulating market cannot function because it requires the subordination of the ―substance of society itself‖ (i.e. the fictitious commodities of land, labor, and money) to insensitive economic mechanisms. Therefore, Polanyi concludes, a self- regulating market would destroy society and thus has never truly existed due to resistance and self-protectionism by the affected segments of the public.

Scholars such as Laxer and Soron (2006) have revived Polanyi‘s arguments, highlighting the unavoidable detriment suffered by society when elements of nature such as water are commodified and subjected to market forces. Their greatest concern, however, is related to what

119 they see as the inherent contradiction between the ethos of capitalism and democracy. This tension is also a cornerstone of arguments presented by influential scholars like Vandana Shiva

(2002, 2005) and Maude Barlow (2009, 2008) who emphasize notions of the commons and local-level democratic water management as alternatives to state and/or market management models. While these points are insightful on a philosophical level, the results of this case study demonstrate that such alternatives may not be practical solutions to the overarching

‗commodification of public life‘ problem.

First of all, the above arguments assume a homogeneity of opinion and material interests that simply does not exist in real life—even within small, demographically homogenous rural communities. Community-level democracy is being employed in Cascade Locks to legitimately usher in a Nestlé water bottling facility. That the overwhelming majority of Cascade Locks citizens are supportive of the proposal is evidence that local-level politics and organizing cannot be relied upon to challenge the various processes involved in neoliberalism, which, according to many, is not only an economic project but an ideological one as well (e.g., Harvey 2003b). Also, the geography of water as a flow resource inherently extends the public management interest beyond any conception of the ―local community‖ to involve at least state-level democracy

(Oregon in this case) and arguably should include decision-making by the entire impacted

Pacific Northwest region (implicitly involving the federal government as well).

The Treadmill of Production theory was strongly supported by this research. For example, the implications of this case study parallel arguments made by Gould, Schnaiberg, and

Weinberg (1996) in that even if local communities had the right to control the resources available in their immediate environments, these communities (and ‗citizen worker‘ groups) are

120 powerless against corporations like Nestlé, or against international trade policies that have the potential to override even national environmental and economic regulations. Therefore the nation-state needs to somehow be prevented from being recast as a neoliberal player if some counterforce with political accountability and power is to be maintained. In sum, the idealistic yet otherwise appealing solutions mentioned above are undercut by the hegemonic dominance of the transnational capitalist system within which all ―local‖ communities are embedded.

Critical geographer David Harvey (2005, 2003a) presents arguments with the potential to conceptually connect the local experiences of communities like Cascade Locks to the transnational context. In cases like this one, where powerful transnational corporations are selecting rural communities throughout the world as bottling sites, the notion of ‗accumulation by dispossession,‘ at least theoretically, unites these communities in a common struggle against the commodification of what was formerly their common-pool resource. Certainly one outcome of allowing Nestlé to bottle water, regardless of whether they actually own the water rights or not, is that the control over the commodity along with the ensuing profits, are reallocated from the public good and natural realms to the Swiss-based corporation. In terms of clarifying the actually existing implementation of neoliberal processes, the observation that commodification in this case does not necessarily require privatization is consistent with Bakker‘s (2005) argument that these facets are not necessarily concomitant. The net result of this relatively new transnational process—that is, the production of the bottled water commodity—is the disempowerment of the public and the destruction of nature. Hence, I argue that bottled water can best be conceptualized as a ‗contestable commodity.‘

121

In order to act in the best interests of both human communities and the environment, progressive social movements must take to heart the plea of the Cascade Locks resident who said, ―…give us something to survive, give us something else.‖ It isn‘t really a matter of convincing people in Cascade Locks that water bottling has negative environmental impacts, but that collective problems require collective solutions. This case is a further indication that we must do more than appeal to individuals but must establish legal limitations to the expansion of the market everywhere, particularly in relation to essential commons resources like water.

Ensuring equitable and sustainable water use practices and the protection of the commons will require careful consideration of the larger system in which any management model exists. In other words, this case study in Cascade Locks illustrates the point that neither market mechanisms nor continued ownership by public institutions foreclose overexploitation without the establishment of norms and institutions to protect the common good. Future research should focus on exploring alternative forms of democratic governance that internalize the exhaustibility of natural resources and the many layers of citizenship—from the local to international—that are invested in the outcomes of our environmental and economic policies and practices.

Bottled water exemplifies how commodification processes operate to further enclose the commons and, conceptualized as a contestable commodity, provides a clear target (i.e. the water bottling industry) at which to aim collective opposition. Aptly pursued, the phenomenon of bottled water could offer the global water justice movement powerful and timely traction, especially in mobilizing support from citizens in the global North who seem widely unaware of the sociopolitical impacts embodied in the commodity. Anti-privatization activists, market environmentalists, and scholars from all sides of the debate can at least agree on the proposition

122 that the natural environment is indeed an exhaustible commons that can be destroyed. Natural resources, such as water, are the basic elements upon which society and all life depends. While researchers and members of civil society may disagree on the urgency of environmental problems, everyone is invested in preventing potential social and ecological tragedies before they occur.

123

References

Angus, Ian. 2008. ―The Myth of the Tragedy of the Commons.‖ Socialist Voice. http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=513 (Accessed March 20, 2009).

Assies, Willem. 2003. ―David versus Goliath in Cochabamba: Water Rights, Neoliberalism, and the Revival of Social Protest in Bolivia.‖ Latin American Perspectives 30:14.

Bakker, Karen. 2005. ―Neoliberalizing Nature? Market Environmentalism in Water Supply in England and Wales.‖ Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95:542-565.

------. 2006. ―Water is Life! The Debate over Private Sector Participation in Water Supply.‖ Pp. 141-154 in Not for Sale: Decommodifying Public Life, edited by Gordon Laxer and Dennis Soron. New York: Broadview Press.

------. 2007. ―The "Commons" Versus the "Commodity": Alter-globalization, Anti-privatization and the Human Right to Water in the Global South.‖ Antipode 39:430-455.

------. ―(Chapter 6) Commons versus Commodities: The Ambiguous Merits of Community Water Supply Management.‖ P. 22 in Beyond Privatization: Water, Governance, Community. Cornell University Press. http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/GreenGovernance/papers/Bakker_CommonsVersusCom modities.pdf. (Accessed November 3, 2009).

Barlow, Maude. 2008. Our Water Commons: Toward a New Freshwater Narrative. The Council of Canadians http://www.canadians.org/water/publications/water%20commons/index.html (Accessed April 3, 2009).

------. 2009. Blue Covenant: The Global Water Crisis and the Coming Battle for the Right to Water. New York: The New Press.

Barlow, Maude, and Tony Clarke. 2003. Blue Gold: The Battle against Corporate Theft of the World's Water. New York: The New Press.

Beverage Marketing Corporation. 2010. ―Beverage Marketing: The Leading Provider of Consulting, Financial Services, and Data to the Global Beverage Industry.‖ http://www.beveragemarketing.com/?service=publications§ion=globalbottledwatergr (Accessed July 10, 2010).

Boschler, Douglas. Facilities & Engineering Program Manager for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Personal Communication, May 20, 2010. Portland, Oregon.

124

Briscoe, John, Pablo Anguita Salas, and Humberto Pena T. 1998. Managing Water as an Economic Resource: Reflections on the Chilean Experience. World Bank. http://127.0.0.1:4664/search?q=Briscoe+%E2%80%9CManaging+water+as+an+economi c+resource%3A+reflections+on+the+chilean+experience%22&flags=1048576&s=gzT8 W1oWuCk-lDGqpeYpHPx4vUI (Accessed November 22, 2009).

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010. ―Databases, Tables and Calculators.‖ http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment (Accessed September 7, 2010).

Cable, Sherry, and Michael Benson. 1993. ―Acting Locally: Environmental Injustice and the Emergence of Grass-Roots Environmental Organizations.‖ Social Problems 40:464-477.

Carlson, Les, Stephen Grove, and Norman Kangun. 1993. ―A Content Analysis of Environmental Advertising Claims: A Matrix Method Approach.‖ Journal of Advertising 22:27–39.

Castree, Noel. 2003. ―Commodifying What Nature?‖ Progress in Human Geography 27:273.

------. 2008a. ―Neoliberalising Nature: Processes, Effects, and Evaluations.‖ Environment and Planning A 40:153 – 173.

------. 2008b. ―Neoliberalising Nature: The Logics of Deregulation and Reregulation.‖ Environment and Planning A 40:131-152.

CIOSS. 2010. ―Cooperative Institute for Oceanographic Satellite Studies.‖ cioss.coas.oregonstate.edu. (Accessed September 7, 2010.

City of Cascade Locks. 2010. ―Frequently Asked Questions about the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs' Bridge of the Gods Resort and Casino Project.‖ www.clbb.net. (Accessed July 13, 2010).

Clarke, George R.G., Katrina Kosec, and Scott Wallsten. 2009. ―Has Private Participation in Water and Sewerage Improved Coverage? Empirical Evidence from Latin America.‖ Journal of International Development 21:327-361.

Clarke, Tony. 2007. Inside the Bottle: An Expose of the Bottled Water Industry. Revised. Ontario: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Corporate Europe Observatory. 2010. ―Water Remunicipalisation Tracker.‖ http://www.remunicipalisation.org/welcome. (Accessed June 30, 2010).

Cowen, Penelope Brook, and Tyler Cowen. 1998. ―Deregulated Private Water Supply: A Policy

125

Option for Developing Countries.‖ Cato Journal 18:21–42.

Cross, P., and A. Morel. 2005. ―Pro-Poor Strategies for Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Services Delivery in Africa.‖ Water Science & Technology 51:51–57.

DeGraw, Julia. Food & Water Watch Organizer. Personal Communication, May 20, 2010. Portland, Oregon.

Feeny, David, Fikret Berkes, Bonnie McCay, and James Acheson. 1990. ―The Tragedy of the Commons: Twenty-two Years Later.‖ Human Ecology 18:1-19.

Ferguson, James. 2010. ―The Uses of Neoliberalism.‖ Antipode 41:166–184.

Fisher, Karen. 2008. ―Politics and Urban Water Supply.‖ Development 51:30–36.

Food & Water Watch. 2009a. All Bottled Up: Nestle's Pursuit of Community Water. http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/report/all-bottled-up/. (Accessed September 11, 2009).

------. 2009b. Help Keep a Nestle Water Bottling Plant out of the Columbia River Gorge. Food & Water Watch. http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/. (Accessed June 16, 2010).

Freese, Lee. 1997. Environmental Connections. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.

Friends of the Columbia Gorge. 2010. ―What is the National Scenic Area Act?‖ Friends of the Columbia Gorge. http://www.gorgefriends.org/article.php?id=160 (Accessed July 19, 2010).

Gleick, Peter, Gary Wolff, Elizabeth Chalecki, and Rachel Reyes. 2002. ―The New Economy of Water: The Risks and Benefits of Globalization and Privatization of Fresh Water.‖ Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, Oakland, CA.

Gleick, Peter. 2008. The World's Water 2008-2009: The Biennial Report on Freshwater Resources. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Gould, Ellen. 2006. ―The General Agreement on Trade in Services—Politics by another Means.‖ Pp. 95-110 in Not for Sale: Decommodifying Public Life, edited by Gordon Laxer and Dennis Soron. New York: Broadview Press.

Gould, Kenneth A., David N. Pellow, and Allan Schnaiberg. 2004. ―Interrogating the Treadmill of Production: Everything You Wanted to Know about the Treadmill but Were Afraid to Ask.‖ Organization & Environment 17:296-316.

Gould, Kenneth A., Allan Schnaiberg, and Adam S. Weinberg. 1996. Local Environmental

126

Struggles: Citizen Activism in the Treadmill of Production. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hall, David. 2002. The Water Multinationals 2002: Financial and Other Problems. London, UK: University of Greenwich Public Services International Research Unit.

Hardin, Garrett. 1968. ―The Tragedy of the Commons.‖ Science 162:1243–1248.

Harvey, David. 2003a. ―Chapter 4: Accumulation by Dispossession.‖ in The New . Oxford University Press, USA.

------. 2003b. The New Imperialism. Oxford University Press, USA.

------. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press, USA.

Hovee & Company. 2009. City of Cascade Locks Economic Opportunities Analysis. www.oregon.gov/LCD/ECODEV/docs/.../cascade_locks_004-09.pdf. (Accessed September 6, 2010).

Indiana University Media Relations. 2010. ―Ostrom Wins Nobel Prize in Economics.‖ IU News Room. http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/12824.html (Accessed June 24, 2010).

International Conference on Water and the Environment. 1992. ―The Dublin Statement on Water and Sustainable Development.” www.inpim.org/files/Documents/DublinStatmt.pdf. (Accessed June 21, 2010).

Joint Monitoring Programme. 2008. Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: Special Focus on Sanitation. UNICEF, New York and WHO, Geneva: World Health Organization and United Nations Children‘s Fund Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation http://www.wssinfo.org/en/40_MDG2008.html (Accessed April 4, 2009).

Kessides, Ioannis. 2005. ―Infrastructure Privatization and Regulation: Promises and Perils.‖ The World Bank Research Observer 20:81.

Kulshreshtha, Surendra. 1998. ―A Global Outlook for Water Resources to the Year 2025.‖ Water Resources Management 12:167–184.

Lang, Andrew. 2004. ―The GATS and Regulatory Autonomy: A Case Study of Social Regulation of the Water Industry.‖ Journal of International Economic Law 7:801.

Laxer, Gordon and Dennis Soron. 2006. Not for Sale: Decommodifying Public Life. New York: Garamond Press.

127

Little, Scott. 1996. ―Canada's Capacity to Control the Flow: Water Export and the North American Free Trade Agreement.‖ Pace International Law Review. 8:127.

Llanos, Miguel. 2005. ―Plastic Bottles Pile Up As Mountains of Waste: Americans' Thirst for Portable Water is Behind Drop in Recycling Rate.‖ MSNBC, March http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279230/.

Loftus, Alexander. 2009. ―Rethinking Political Ecologies of Water.‖ Third World Quarterly. 30:953-968.

Loftus, Alexander and David McDonald. 2001. ―Lessons from Argentina: The Buenos Aires Water Concession.‖ Municipal Services Project. Occasional Papers Series. 2:19.

Marx, Karl. 1867. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Edited by Frederick Engels. Chicago, Il: Charles H. Kerr and Co. http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Marx/mrxCpA27.html#Part%20VIII,%20Cha pter%2027. (Accessed April 5, 2009).

Matela, Nancy. National Chair of Election Reform Committee for the Alliance for Democracy, Personal Communication, March 27, 2010. Portland, Oregon.

McMichael, Philip. 2007. Development and Social Change: A Global Perspective. 4th ed. Los Angeles: Pine Forge Press.

Morris, Joesph and Mark McBeth. 2003. ―The New West in the Context of Extractive Commodity Theory: The Case of Bison-Brucellosis in Yellowstone National Park.‖ The Social Science Journal 40:233–247.

Nardone, Rona. 2003. ―Like Oil and Water: The WTO and the World's Water Resources.‖ Connecticut Journal of International Law. 19:183.

Natural Resources Defense Council. 1999. ―Bottled Water: Pure Drink or Pure Hype?‖ www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/bw/bwinx.asp. (Accessed July 6, 2010).

Nestle Waters North America. 2005. ―Nestle Waters: The Healthy Hydration Company.‖ http://www.nestle-watersna.com/Menu/OurBrands.htm (Accessed June 16, 2010).

------. 2009. ―Nestle Waters in the Pacific Northwest.‖ http://www.nestlewaterspnw.com/. (Accessed June 16, 2010).

Obeidi, Amer, Keith Hipel, and D. Marc Kilgour. 2002. ―Canadian Bulk Water Exports: Analyzing the Sun Belt Conflict Using the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution.‖ Knowledge, Technology & Policy 14:145–163.

128

O'Connor, Martin. 1994. Is Capitalism Sustainable?: Political Economy and the Politics of Ecology. New York: The Guilford Press.

Olivera, Oscar, and Tom Lewis. 2004. ¡Cochabamba!: Water War in Bolivia. Cambridge: South End Press.

Oregon Public Broadcasting. 2009. ―Bottling it Up in Cascade Locks.‖ Think Out Loud. http://www.opb.org/thinkoutloud/shows/bottling-it-cascade-locks/ (Accessed June 26, 2009).

Oregon Water Resource Department. 2010. Integrated Water Resources Strategy. http://www1.wrd.state.or.us/pdfs/Map_Booklet.pdf. (Accessed June 5, 2010).

Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Palais, David. 2009. ―Nestle Waters Proposed Cascade Locks Project: Town Hall Meeting Presentation.‖ http://projectupdates.nestlewaterspnw.com/. (Accessed June 16, 2010).

Pearce, Fred. 1991. Green Warriors: The People and the Politics behind the Environmental Revolution. London: Bodley Head.

Peattie, Ken and Andrew Crane. 2005. ―Green Marketing: Legend, Myth, Farce or Prophesy?‖ An International Journal 8:357–370.

Peck, Jamie, and Adam Tickell. 2002. ―Neoliberalizing Space.‖ Antipode 34:380-404.

Perreault, Thomas. 2006. ―From the Guerra Del Agua to the Guerra Del Gas: Resource Governance, Neoliberalism and Popular Protest in Bolivia.‖ Antipode 38:150–172.

Polanyi, Karl. 1985 [1944]. The Great Transformation. 2nd ed. Boston: Beacon Press.

Prasad, Naren. 2006. ―Privatisation Results: Private Sector Participation in Water Services after 15 Years.‖ Development Policy Review 24:669–692.

Rahman, Shaikh Azizur. ―Coca-Cola Plant 'Has Dried-up our Farms' Say Indian Villagers.‖ The National. March 31, 2010. http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100401/FOREIGN/703319884/1 103 (Accessed September 4, 2010).

Rice, James. 2007. ―Ecological Unequal Exchange: International Trade and Uneven Utilization of Environmental Space in the World System.‖ Social Forces 85:1369-1392.

129

Ritzer, George. 2007. Modern Sociological Theory. 7th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages.

Rivera, Daniel. 1996. ―Private Sector Participation in the Water Supply and Wastewater Sector: Lessons from Six Developing Countries.‖ World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Robbins, Paul, Katharine Meehan, Hannah Gosnell, and Susan Gilbertz. 2009. ―Writing the New West: A Critical Review.‖ Rural Sociology 74:356–382.

Robbins, Peter. 2003. ―Transnational Corporations and the Discourse of Water Privatization.‖ Journal of International Development 15:1073–1082.

Rodwan, John. 2009. ―Confronting Challenges: US and International Bottled Water Developments and Statistics for 2008.‖ Bottled Water Reporter 12–18.

Rogers, Paul. 2010. ―San Jose Considering Privatizing its Municipal Water System.‖ Mercury News, July http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_15445143?nclick_check=1. (Accessed September 10, 2010.

Schnaiberg, Allan. 1980. The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity. New York: Oxford University Press, USA.

Shiva, Vandana. 2002. Water Wars: Privatization, Pollution, and Profit. Cambridge: South End Press.

------. 2005. Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability, and Peace. Cambridge: South End Press.

Shumway, Matthew and Samuel Otterstrom. 2001. ―Spatial Patterns of Migration and Income Change in the Mountain West: The Dominance of Service-Based, Amenity-Rich Counties.‖ Professional Geographer 53:492.

Sklair, Leslie. 2002. Globalization: Capitalism and its Alternatives. Oxford University Press Oxford.

Snitow, Alan, Deborah Kaufman, and Michael Fox. 2007. Thirst: Fighting the Corporate Theft of Our Water. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Spronk, Susan and Jeffery Webber. 2007. ―Struggles against Accumulation by Dispossession in Bolivia: The Political Economy of Natural Resource Contention.‖ Latin American Perspectives 34:31.

State Environmental Resource Center. 2004. Water Privatization Policy Issues Package. www.seronline.org (Accessed February 23, 2009).

130

Szasz, Andrew. 2007. Shopping Our Way to Safety: How We Changed from Protecting the Environment to Protecting Ourselves. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Tacke, Kathryn. 2010. Clearwater County: Work Force Trends. Lewiston, Idaho: Idaho Department of Labor http://labor.idaho.gov/lmi/pubs/clearwaterProfile.pdf (Accessed July 23, 2010).

Taks, Javier. 2008. ―El Agua es de Todos/Water for All: Water Resources and Development in Uruguay.‖ Development 51:17–22.

Tsybine, Alex. 2001. Water Privatization: A Broken Promise (Case Histories from Throughout the United States). Public Citizen‘s Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program www.citizen.org/cmep (Accessed February 23, 2009).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. American Community Survey. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/. (Accessed July 9, 2010).

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2010. ―State of the Cities Data Systems (SOCDS).‖ http://socds.huduser.org/. (Accessed July 9, 2010).

U.S. Forest Service. 2010. ―Columbia River Gorge Area.‖ http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/columbia/maps/ (Accessed September 27, 2010).

United Nations Development Programme. 2006. Human Development Report 2006: Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis. http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR06-complete.pdf (Accessed July 4, 2010).

United Nations News Service. 2010. ―General Assembly Declares Access to Clean Water and Sanitation is a Human Right.‖ UN News Centre. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=35456&Cr=sanitation&Cr1 (Accessed September 1, 2010).

Vail, John. 2010. ―Decommodification and Egalitarian Political Economy.‖ Politics & Society 38:310.

Varghese, Shiney. 2007. ―Privatizing US Water.‖ Minneapolis, MN: Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy Trade and Global Governance Program. http://www.tradeobservatory.org/library.cfm?refid=99838. (Accessed February 23, 2009).

Wilkinson, Kenneth P. 1991. The Community in Rural America. New York: Greenwood Press.

Winkler, Richelle, Donald Field, A. E. Luloff, Richard Krannich, and Tracy Williams. 2007. ―Social Landscapes of the Inter-Mountain West: A Comparison of 'Old West' and 'New

131

West' Communities.‖ Rural Sociology 72:478–501.

World Trade Organization. 2006. ―Misunderstandings and Scare Stories: The WTO is Not After Your Water.‖ GATS: Fact and Fiction. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/gats_factfiction8_e.htm. (Accessed March 2, 2009).

132

Appendix A. Semi-Structured Interview Protocols

A) Interview with a Community Member

 General issues related to the community:

 How long have you lived in this community? Were you born here? If not, where did you move from, and when?

 What do you like about living here? What is special about this community? How does it compare to other places you have lived?

 Are there any negative aspects about living here? If so, what are they? In your view, what would make this a better community?

 Are you active in any community institutions or organizations? If so, which ones, and how?

 Are you generally involved in or aware of local political issues? Which local issues do you feel are the most important currently?

 Private water contract or bottled water plant:

 Are you aware of the proposed [or currently operating] water bottling plant [or private drinking water contract]? How much do you know about it?

 How do you feel about this issue? Overall, do you agree with the proposed [or currently operating] water bottling plant [or drinking water contract]? Why?

 How much do you know about [the company involved in the plant/contract]? About water issues? How much did you know before this current issue began? What is your opinion about this company and its practices? Have your perceptions changed at all since this issue began?

 How has the issue of the bottling plant [or drinking water contract] affected the local community? Do you think most residents are aware of this issue? How have community members responded to the plant [or contract]? Overall, are most residents supportive? Opposed?

133

 Is it a controversial issue? If so, what is the reason for the controversy? What are the main issues at stake? Are they mainly environmental? Economic? Social? Quality of life? Other? Please elaborate.

 What is the position of your local elected officials on this issue? How do you feel they have handled this issue? Do you agree with their position on this issue?

 How do you feel the plant [or contract] has affected [or will affect] the community? Please be specific. Do you see these effects as being mostly positive, negative, or mixed?

 How important do you think this issue is for the community? What is on the table? What is at stake?

 Contestation over water:

 Have any organizations or groups been involved in this issue, either in the past or currently? Are these groups local, or from the outside? Have you become involved with any of these groups? If so, which? What is your opinion of the role of this [these] group[s]?

 Have you been actively involved in this issue? If so, for how long? What has been your role? How did you become involved originally? [How] Has your involvement changed over time?

 Describe the political process involved to date [and in the future] in approving the plant/contract. What is [was] the timeline? What steps have been [were] taken, and which (if any) remain before approval?

 What opportunities for public input have there been [were there] during the approval process? (Public meetings, hearings, etc.) What has been [was] the predominant public sentiment on these occasions? To what extent do you feel that the [final] decisions taken by elected officials [have] reflected this prevailing sentiment?

 Do you feel you have had a meaningful role in the political process? Has your voice been heard? Why/why not? Have you made a difference?

 Did you participate in or speak at any of these events or hearings? Do you feel that the public input process [has] allowed you an adequate opportunity to express your opinion? Do you feel the

134

process was inclusive of a range of opinions? What would make [would have made] the decision- making process (or public input process) better?

 What are some of the arguments and/or tactics used by the group[s] involved in this issue, to influence public opinion or decision-makers? What is your opinion of these arguments/tactics? Have they influenced your opinion on the issue at all? If so, how?

 Ownership and control of water:

 What is your opinion of the drinking water quality, reliability and service in the community currently? [What about before the contract (or bottling plant) began operating?]

 In your opinion, who owns the drinking water consumed by local residents? Who owns the water that is being [will be] bottled by the plant [provided under the contract]?

 Some people feel that drinking water should only be provided by the public sector because it is vital for life, and not by private firms with a profit motive. Other people feel that private companies should be able to provide drinking water services [and/or bottle local water supplies], and that they can do so as well or better than the public sector. What are your opinions on public versus private management of drinking water?

 What advice would you give to residents of other similar communities where this (or another) company is proposing a similar water contract [or bottling plant]?

 Are there conditions under which you would change your position/opinion on this plant [contract]? If so, what would they be? What issues are important to consider while deciding whether to permit such a plant [contract]?

 What do you think would be good outcome in this situation? For you and/or your family, for the community as a whole?

 Are there other aspects of this issue that you feel are important to cover? If so, what are they?

B) Interview with staff/representative of NGO, citizens group, or advocacy organization

135

 What is your position, and your job responsibilities? How did you become involved in this issue?

 Describe what you see as the key issues regarding water privatization [either in this specific community controversy over water, or regarding the issue more generally]. What are the environmental, social, economic, and other aspects?

 [If local issue]: What is at stake in this particular controversy? Who are the key actors opposing and supporting the bottled water facility [contract]?

 How would you characterize the political context and/or climate in this specific community? Are the majority of local residents supportive of or opposed to the plant [contract]? Has that support/opposition changed, and if so, how and why?

 How does the set of issues and controversy in this community compare to other places you have worked or are aware of?

 Is your group opposed to or supportive of [proposed] bottling plant [contract]? Are you supportive of or opposed to private management/provision of drinking water generally? What are the main reasons for your opposition [support]?

 Why do you think [company] [has] identified this community specifically as a site for a bottling plant *contract+? What do you know about this company’s practices elsewhere in the country, and in other countries? What tactics has the company used to win approval of similar water contracts *plants+ elsewhere? How does this plant/contract fit into the company’s overall strategy, as you understand it?

 How does the controversy in this community compare to conflicts over water privatization in other communities/regions [or in other countries]?

 What opportunities for public input have there been [were there] during the approval process? (Public meetings, hearings, etc.) What has been [was] the predominant public sentiment on these occasions? Have the decisions taken by elected officials to date reflected this prevailing sentiment?

 Did you participate in or speak at any of these events or hearings? Do you feel that the public input process *has+ allowed you an adequate opportunity to express your group’s position or opinion? Do you feel the process was inclusive of a range of opinions? What would make [would have made] the decision-making process (or public input process) better?

136

 What are the trends in the private water industry generally, either in this country or globally?

 Describe the campaign[s] your organization/group is involved in regarding water privatization [bottled water]. What are your goals in this [these] campaign[s]? What tactics have you chosen to employ to achieve your goals? Do you feel these tactics have been successful [so far]? Why or why not?

 What do you think would be an ideal outcome in this specific community and/or controversy?

 Are there other aspects of this issue that you feel are important to cover? If so, what are they?

C) Interview with staff/representative of private water firm (municipal water concessionaire or

water bottler)

 How long have you worked for [company]? What is your position, and job responsibilities? What is your educational background? Where are you from? Where do you currently live?

 What can you tell me about the proposed [current] bottling plant [water contract]?

 Why did your company choose to operate in [community name]? Are there specific characteristics of the community itself that make it a desirable place to operate a drinking water contract [bottling plant]? If so, what are they?

 What are *company’s+ interests and goals in working in [community]? What are the benefits to your company from operating this plant [contract]? Are there benefits to the community and local residents? What are they?

 Have you worked on similar projects in other communities or countries? What were the outcomes of those experiences? If the outcomes were different, why? How does the context in Cascade Locks compare to other communities?

 How would you describe the local response to your [proposed] plant [contract]? Are most local residents supportive or opposed to it? Would you characterize the plant [contract] as controversial?

137

If so, what is the reason for the opposition? Does opposition come from within the community, and/or from the outside?

 Are there concerns that are frequently voiced by local residents? What are they? Are these concerns about the facility merited? Why or why not?

 What do you see as the economic benefits to local residents of the plant [contract]? Jobs? Taxes? Infrastructure, etc? Will there be costs to local taxpayers? What will they be?

 [If bottling plant] Where will the water bottled here be shipped? Who will be the consumers of the bottled water?

 How long does your company plan to keep operating in [community]? Is there a particular level of profitability that is necessary to keep operating the plant [contract]?

 [If bottling plant] What is the source of the water for the plant? What volume of water will be bottled annually, and will this increase over time? What is an appropriate [fair] price for [company] to pay for the water? How was [should] the price [be] determined?

 How have citizens here been involved in the process? How does [company] take public opinion into account? How important is [was] public feedback and opinion in making decisions such as siting this plant [signing this contract]?

 How would you characterize your experience working with the community, with local elected officials, and/or with state government?

 What would you see as the most positive outcome in this situation?

 Are there other aspects of this issue that you feel are important to cover? If so, what are they?

D) Interview with local elected official, state elected/appointed official, or state agency staff

 Tell me a bit about yourself. Where are you from? What is your title and job responsibilities? Do you have family in this community?

138

 Where do you live currently? Do you live in the community in question? How long have you lived here?

 What do you like about living here? What is special about this community? What do you see as the positive and negative aspects of living here? In your view, what would make this a better community?

 How long have you held your position (e.g. city council, mayor, etc)?

 What can you tell me about the [proposed] bottling plant [contract]? How was this plant/contract originally proposed? Why was this community selected?

 Describe the political process involved to date [and in the future] in approving the plant/contract. What is [was] the timeline? What steps have been taken, and which (if any) remain before approval? Do [did] other governmental bodies need to rule on or approve this plant/contract? If so, which ones?

 What opportunities for public input have there been [were there] during the approval process? (Public meetings, hearings, etc.) What has been [was] the predominant public sentiment on these occasions? [To what extent do you feel that the final decision reflects this sentiment?]

 How important do you think this issue is for the community? What is on the table? What is at stake?

 How has the issue of the bottling plant [water contract] affected the local community? Would you say this is a controversial issue? If so, what are the main points of controversy?

 How would you generally characterize the political climate in this community? Are people generally supportive of or opposed to the [proposed] bottling plant [contract]? Has that sentiment changed? If so, how and why?

 Overall, do you personally support or oppose the [proposed] bottling plant [contract]? Why?

 What do you see as the economic costs or disadvantages of the [proposed] bottling plant [contract] in this community? What do you see as the economic benefits or advantages? (Jobs, economic activity, tax revenue, etc.?) What about environmental disadvantages or benefits?

139

 What is the current economic base in [community]? How has this economic base been [how would it be] impacted by the bottling plant [contract]?

 How much revenue will the proposed plant/contract generate [is the current plant/contract generating] for the community? How does this compare to the revenues or costs of not approving the plant or contract? What other effects does [will] the contract/plant have on the community? (public sector jobs, etc.)

 Are there alternatives to the [proposed] bottling plant [contract] that might generate equal or greater benefits for the community? If so, what are they? Have these also been proposed and/or debated?

 What price is the company paying for water used in the bottling plant? How was this price determined? Can it be renegotiated? Do you feel it is a fair price? What volume of water is the company using? Can or will this volume vary, and how will that be determined?

 How will [how has] the bottling plant/contract affect[ed] the quality, cost, and/or efficiency of drinking water service provision in the community?

 How important is public feedback and opinion in decisions such as this? How have citizens here been involved in the process?

 How have community members responded to the [proposed] bottling plant [or contract]? Overall, are they supportive/opposed/divided? Has this dynamic changed over time, and if so, how?

 How would you characterize your experience working with [company]? Are you satisfied with their role and/or their performance to date?

 Are there conditions under which you would change your position on this plant [contract]? If so, what would they be? What issues are important to consider while deciding whether to permit such a plant [contract]?

 What do you think would be an ideal outcome in this situation? For you personally, and for the community?

140

 Are there other aspects of this issue that you feel are important to cover? If so, what are they?

141