Over 200 organizations are urging Congress against any kind of water privatization in any infrastructure deal.
According to Common Dreams, the letter, sent to top Democrats and Republicans, was organized by Food & Water Watch, which has repeatedly criticized privatization provisions that the White House and members of Congress are considering for a bipartisan infrastructure deal that Democrats plan to pass alongside a broader reconciliation package.
The letter states: “We, the undersigned 218 organizations, oppose the Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework that promotes privatization, and we urge you to reject it and water privatization in all its forms and fight for a bold, uncompromising infrastructure package that provides real federal funding at the level our communities urgently need.”
“The U.S. is long overdue for bold federal investment in our public water systems—but the proposal on the table will not get us there,” says Neil Gupta, associate research director at letter signatory Corporate Accountability. “Water privatization has failed communities across the country and must be rejected in all its forms. We need an infrastructure plan that directly invests federal dollars in communities, keeps water systems in public hands, and equitably addresses our nation’s infrastructure crisis for the long haul—not more corporate handouts.”
The letter outlines why they are against water privatization saying:
- Water privatization is an incredibly expensive financing option.
- Water privatization will lead to rate hikes on households already struggling to afford their water bills.
- Water privatization is not a viable or just solution for rural, small or disadvantaged communities.
- Water privatization can trap communities in expensive deals.
- Water privatization is not a solution for our nation’s water needs
- Communities need real federal dollars spent on drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.
The letter came in the midst of several days of action on Capitol Hill pushing for bold climate provisions and other progressive priorities for infrastructure legislation, reports Common Dreams.
COMMENTS