About the Opposition

Founded by Ralph Nader in 1971, Public Citizen is a Washington, D.C., based advocacy group that aims to increase corporate regulation and to influence federal government decision-makers. In 2005, Public Citizen spun off Food & Water Watch to focus on more specific issues, including a campaign to oppose solutions offered by water companies. ¹

In the Public Interest tries to serve as an online resource to provide the public with “high-quality” and “accurate” information on issues pertaining to privatization and contracting. However, In the Public Interest takes an openly biased stance against water company solutions, often sharing Food & Water Watch research that is both misleading and unsupported. In the Public Interest provides visitors to their website with a skewed picture of water companies, something that is not at all “in the public interest.” ²

WaterJustice.org was created at the World Social Forum in 2004 – an international meeting of social groups opposed to globalization – to fight private water. Groups including Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), the Council of Canadians and the Transnational Institute all played a major role in its creation. Water Justice has essentially created a forum for water activists to collaborate and share biased information and research on private water’s real track record. Content from Food & Water Watch is regularly featured on the site. ³

Described as a populist movement, Massachusetts-based Alliance for Democracy believes the American economy, government, culture, media, and environment are monopolized by corporate America. The Alliance for Democracy’s agenda is fueled by an Occupy Wall Street-style anti-corporate ideology that believes that all private markets are bad and that businesses cannot be trusted. ⁴

Food & Water Watch and other likeminded anti-privatization groups are funded by a network of foundation money and anonymous donations, making it nearly impossible to decipher whose interests are actually behind the group’s campaigns. In fact, since 2011, nearly 75 percent of FWW’s revenue – more than $142 million in total – came from anonymous sources.
⁵

In an effort to discredit water companies, Corporate Accountability often releases reports and collaborates with groups like Food & Water Watch and the research arms of global trade unions to make unsupported claims about water companies. Corporate Accountability researchers rarely cite sources or experts aside from themselves or likeminded groups, and their reports are full of inaccuracies and misleading claims.. Like Food & Water Watch, Corporate Accountability has also accepted millions in anonymous funding through foundations. ⁶

Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU), funded by a global confederation of trade unions, was established in 1998 to focus on research to support anti-globalization and anti-privatization initiatives. PSIRU has collaborated with Food & Water Watch, Corporate Accountability International (CAI) and the Transnational Institute on recent research and publications opposing water companies. In one recent report released in collaboration with Corporate Accountability, the lead PSIRU researcher argued against water company solutions by citing his own work 115 times, seemingly finding very few independent studies or empirical evidence to support his ideological views. ⁷

Friends of Locally Owned Water (FLOW) tries to function as the face of local opposition against water privatization. Local FLOW groups take on responsibility for attacking potential and existing water arrangements in their areas through petitions and public opposition at city council meetings and in the news. While FLOW groups often position themselves as a grassroots movement, many of these “local” groups are closely linked to Food & Water Watch, often teaming up to create research reports and coordinate on efforts opposing water company proposals.⁸

Food & Water Watch and other likeminded anti-privatization groups are funded by a network of foundation money and anonymous donations, making it nearly impossible to decipher whose interests are actually behind the groups’ campaigns. In fact, since 2011, nearly 75 percent of FWW’s revenue – more than $142 million in total – came from anonymous sources. ⁹