Michelle Aucoin
201101357
A Look at Worldwide Water Availability Through “FLOW: For Love of Water”
The documentary “FLOW: For Love of Water” is a film that was released in 2008,
directed by Irena Salina, which emphasizes the importance of water in the world and the
decreasing amount of people who have access to clean drinking water. The documentary focuses
on water privatization of large companies that are more interested in profit than helping others in
need receive clean water. The purpose of water privatization was originally to allow developing
countries potable water, but now it is obvious that these companies are working for revenue,
since many are without clean water. There are threats to clean drinking water and they have
health impacts on both humans and the environment, some of which are crops, bottling water
companies, and man-made dams. Although there are benefits to water privatization, such as
developing countries receiving the infrastructure for safe water, there are more detriments,
including the promises never kept by corporations to provide for the developing countries.
However, there are many solutions being practiced to provide the world with safe drinking water,
for instance, instead of spending one billion dollars to one place, spend one thousand dollars to a
million areas, or a self-sustaining UV filtration model.
According to the film “FLOW: For Love of Water”, 1.1 billion people on our planet do
not have access to safe drinking water. Water is a resource, yet the government has taken away
this necessity of life to many, forcing them to drink contaminated water. In developing countries,
people do not have money to buy water from large companies delivering it to them. Although
many around the world do have access to drinking water, there are 51 known water contaminants
and 116,000 human-made chemicals that contaminate tap water. In one year, this leads to
between 500,000 and 7,000,000 people getting physically sick from tap water alone. As
Canadians, many don’t think twice whether or not there will be water because it’s always there,
but that is not the case worldwide.
There are major threats to clean drinking water which all possess subsequent health
impacts. Three major threats to clean drinking water are agriculture, bottling water companies,
and dams. Each of these is affecting our health and the health of the environment since water is
so important in each person’s life. First, agriculture is using an immense amount, 70%, of the
Earth’s water. Not only does this food need water to grow, but these crops are being sprayed
with chemicals and pesticides, which means even more water needs to be used to dissolve the
chemicals. Crops have to be covered with pesticides and chemicals because people are growing
them in areas non-ideal for agriculture.
There are studies showing that in areas of Seine, there are fish changing sex because of
contaminants in the water from chemicals sprayed on crops. In the United States, there is a
contaminant in water called Atrazine, which is a very common pesticide used to regulate crops
and grassy weeds (Weber et al. 2013). Atrazine is the number one contaminant found in drinking
water. There have been results showing that this chemical affects hormones, demasculinizing
amphibians and fish, reducing spermatogenesis and growing female gonads. There have also
been studies to show links of prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, and breast cancer, whose water was
contaminated with atrazine. Females exposed to a low level of atrazine in their drinking water do
not show significant links of breast cancer, but it is suggested that high levels of exposure to
atrazine may increase risk of breast cancer (Mcelroy et al. 2007). Cancer rates are on the rise,
and agricultural chemicals are an attributing factor.
Second, bottling water companies are a huge threat to clean drinking water because large
companies, like Nestle, are going into areas and sucking out water, damaging rivers, streams, and
lakes. Bottling water companies are removing clean drinking water from the ecosystems, putting
it in a bottle, and taking it away. There are three multinational companies, Suez, Vivendi, and
Thames Water that are forcing the people of developing countries to give up their control of their
water so that they can take the resource and use it to make money. Meanwhile, the companies are
leaving behind an ecosystem without water, affecting all the life of the environment.
Moreover, another threat to clean drinking water is human made dams. In Lesotho, Katse
Dam was created by investors and it forced 17,000 people to move (Salina 2008). There are tens
of millions of people being displaced so that dams can be created, left without access to food or
water. These large companies are also diverting ecology by making huge dams. There are many
organisms that live in these waters that will be seriously affected by the flushing of the dam
(Tazaki et al. 2002). Nutrients will be left behind the structure, without being able to go farther
downstream. People do not have money to pay for the water, so they are being forced to use the
pathogen-filled stream water to use for drinking.
Although the topic is controversial, there are proposed benefits of water privatization.
One benefit is that cash-strapped countries (which most third world countries are) don’t have the
money to extract, treat, deliver, and finance a massive infrastructure for clean drinking water.
The infrastructure made by the U.S., in theory, would provide clean water to the masses.
However, the sad reality is that there are large detriments of water privatization. One
detriment is that promises are made to the people by companies, but they are not kept. In the
process of making dams, the companies persuade the community members by promising a nice
home, electricity, and water so that they will move. The companies make many promises, but
they are rarely kept, leaving the community with less than they had before the dam (Salina
2008). For example, in Bolivia, Suez said they were building an 80 million dollar treatment
facility. The company did not build the facility and they also diverted the sewage into the river
leading to Lake Titicaca around the whole city. Since there is nobody to hold accountable for
these promises or no legal papers that says they have to fulfill the promises, they are forgotten.
The film “FLOW: For Love of Water” discusses some creative solutions that could
provide clean drinking water for the world. One solution is to keep it localized, so instead of
spending one billion dollars to one area, spend one thousand dollars to a million areas. Another
great solution is a self-sustaining model of UV filtration where one man is employed to bring
adequate water to the community.
The World Bank often spends one billion dollars in one place but if they could spend a
thousand dollars in one million places then they could give answers to a million villages. This is
often what is needed, not a billion dollar project for one village. In India, Water Health UV
Filtration came and it seemed to be a perfect answer since they were no longer getting diseases
like cholera. This system is favoured because it is taken care of by the local community. It costs
a small amount of money, but it is revenue to employ the person who maintains the system. This
is a financially stable technique for a community to pay for safe drinking water.
In conclusion, the documentary “FLOW: For Love of Water” demonstrates that the
detriments of water privatization are greater than the benefits. There are major threats to safe
drinking water such as crops, bottling water companies, and man-made dams. These threats lead
to consequences of our health and the health of the environment. Developing countries
welcomed the corporations that would bring them water, but promises are not always fulfilled.
However, the film has provided localized solutions to provide clean drinking water, such as
spending money in multiple places rather than on one project, and UV light filtration.
References
Flow: For Love of Water. Dir. Irena Salina. Perf. Maude Barlow, Penn Jillette, Dr. Kent Butler,
Anthony Burgmans, Shelly Brime. Oscilloscope Laboratories, 2008. Documentary Film.
Mcelroy, J.A., Gangnon, R.E., Newcomb, P.A., Kanarek, M.S., Anderson, H.A., Brook, J.V.,
Trentham-Dietz, A.M.Y., and Remington, P.L. Risk of breast cancer for women living in
rural areas from adult exposure to atrazine from well water in Wisconsin. Journal of
Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology. 17 (2007): 207-214.
Tazaki, K., Sato, M., VanDergaast, S., and Morikawa, T. Effects of clay-rich river-dam
sediments on downstream fish and plant life. Clay Minerals. 38 (2003): 243-253.
Weber, G.J., Sepulveda, M.S., Peterson, S.M., Lewis, S.S., and Freeman, J.L. Transcriptome
alterations following developmental atrazine exposure in zebrafish are associated with
disruption of neuroendocrine and reproductive system function, cell cycle, and
carcinogenesis. Toxicol Sci. 132.2 (2013): 458-466.