food & water watch annual report 2013

8/21/2019 Food & Water Watch Annual Report 2013

1/25


2/25

NATIONAL OFFICE

1616 P St. NW, Suite 300

Washington, DC 20036

tel: (202) 683-2500 • fax: (202) 683-2501

foodandwaterwatch.org

consume is safe, accessible and sustainably

produced. So that we can all enjoy and trust

in what we eat and drink, we help people take

charge of where their food comes from; keep

freely to our homes; protect the environmental

quality of oceans; work to ensure that the

government does its job protecting citizens

and educate about the importance of keeping

the global commons — our shared resources —

under public control. We envision a world where

healthy and wholesome food and clean water

to meet their basic needs — a world in which

governments are accountable to their citizens

and manage essential resources sustainably.

FOOD & WATER WATCH


3/25

A Message From Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director ........................ 2

Board of Directors and Directors ..............................................................3

Organizing: The Key to Protecting Our Food and Water ....................... 3

Programmatic Activities and Campaigns

Food Program .......................................................................................... 5

Water Program ...................................................................................... 11

Common Resources Program ................................................................ 14

Food & Water Justice .............................................................................. 16

Global Advocacy and Movement Building ............................................ 17

Food & Water Europe ............................................................................19

Financials .....................................................................................................22

table of contents


4/25

2

In 2013, we reached a milestone with over half amillion people having signed up to take action with

Food & Water Watch. There is a rising consciousness

that things won’t change unless we have the people

power to make it happen. Food & Water Watch is

only as strong as our membership, and we’re on

target to reach a million members by 2015.

It’s citizens like our members, engaged in changing

policy in their communities and beyond, who are

helping us win victories for our food and waterevery day. And I had the pleasure to meet many of

these members while I was touring for my book,

Foodopoly: The Battle for the Future of Food and

Farming in America. I was on the road over three-

quarters of this year talking about Foodopoly , and

I was always met with so much hospitality in the

bookstores and cafés and other places I spoke.

It was especially palpable in the small towns I

visited. In Athens, Ohio, I went to a local bakery to

she’d been instructed that if I came in, I was to be

went, I felt as if I could move right in and be part

of a wonderful community of activists and caring

people.

In towns big or small, I also met many people who

had never heard of Food & Water Watch, but who’d

heard about Foodopoly and wanted to learn moreabout changing the food system. I was thrilled to

meet so many people who were interested in our

work and wanted to be involved.

And we need all the help we can get. We need

in fossil fuel use from fracked gas to stoppingsecret trade deals. We need massive numbers of

people who want clean, safe and wholesome food

the labeling of genetically engineered food the

big agribusinesses and the oil and gas industry.

We need massive numbers of people to stand

for local control of their water supplies as big

multinational corporations like Nestlé and Veolia

seek to control our diminishing supplies of clean

water. And we need massive numbers of people

to lobby the Environmental Protection Agency and

our food safety agencies to make sure that they are

It is these massive numbers of people that are the

foundation for all of our work here in Washington,

lobbyists, researchers, communications and

the trains running, but our members are the fuel for

the movement. We’re on track to essentially double

our supporters over the next two years, and the

victories you are about to read about are just the tip

of the iceberg.

We are making true change — and we welcome you

to be a part of that change.

Over Half a Million Strong in 2013 A Message From Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director

Wenonah Hauter

Executive Director

Food & Water Watch


5/25

3

Organizing:The Key to ProtectingOur Food and WaterOne of the things that sets Food & Water Watch

apart is our commitment to organizing — toworking in communities and with community-based

organizations to build the real power necessary

to make meaningful changes in people’s lives. The

planet — from global warming, water pollution, and

corporate control of our democracy, to monopoly

control of our food system — stem from a power

imbalance between people and large corporate

interests. As organizers, we work to rectify that

imbalance.

Building on the Midwest Academy organizing model

lives. We give our supporters, members, activists

and allies a sense of their own power, and ultimately

change the relations of power for the better.

By any measure — victories on policy issues,

growth in the number of supporters andactivists, development and expansion of coalition

relationships, and the training and experience of our

Even in challenging political and economic times,

with our policy and communications specialists

in Washington, D.C. and with allied organizations

across the country — was able to achieve some

In addition to working on state and local initiatives,

pressure on key federal decision makers, organize

national sign-on letters and build a national

program in a way that would not otherwise be

possible.

FOOD & WATER WATCH

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Maude BarlowCHAIR

Rudolf Amenga-EtegoFINANCE COMMITTEE

Elizabeth Peredo BeltránFINANCE COMMITTEE

Wenonah HauterEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Dennis KeeneyGOVERNANCE COMMITTEE

Kelsie Sue KerrSECRETARY

Mary RicciTREASURER

Lisa SchubertGOVERNANCE COMMITTEE

Wenonah HauterEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Sarah AlexanderDEPUTY ORGANIZING DIRECTOR

Lane BrooksCHIEF OPERATING OFFICER

Scott EdwardsFOOD & WATER JUSTICE PROJECT CO-DIRECTOR

Mitch JonesCOMMON RESOURCES PROGRAM DIRECTOR

Doug LakeyDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR

Patty LoveraASSISTANT DIRECTOR

AND FOOD PROGRAM DIRECTOR

Michele MerkelFOOD & WATER JUSTICE PROJECT CO-DIRECTOR

Darcey O’CallaghanINTERNATIONAL DIRECTOR

Darcey RakestrawCOMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR

Mark SchlosbergORGANIZING DIRECTOR

Emily WurthWATER PROGRAM DIRECTOR

DIRECTORS


6/25

4

Among the policy successes:• We passed legislation to require the labeling of genetically engineered foods in Connecticut and

Maine — bills that were ultimately signed into law. These bills were the first in the country to require suchlabeling, and although they both contain trigger clauses that delay their implementation until similar legislationis passed in other states, we also launched labeling campaigns in a wide range of states including New York,

New Jersey, Illinois, Florida and Pennsylvania aimed at making labeling a reality in the years to come.• We took a lead role at the state level working with state-based allies in beating back legislation

that would have protected factory farms. In New Mexico, we stopped a bill that would have made it nearlyimpossible for rural residents and communities to protect themselves from factory farm pollution and threatsto their heath and quality of life. In Missouri, we stopped legislation that would have taken away local controlregarding factory farms. And we helped defeat ag gag bills in Illinois, Indiana and Nebraska — legislation thatwould have criminalized whistleblowing activities that take place on factory farms.

• We continued to beat back efforts to privatize water systems, scoring victories in Allentown,Pennsylvania; St. Louis, Missouri; and Fort Worth, Texas.

• We continued to hold the line against fracking in New York, ramping up pressure on Governor Cuomoand, with our New Yorkers Against Fracking coalition partners, making this one of the most significant issues inNew York State.

• We made major gains at the local level in the fight against fracking by coordinating with localgroups and citizens to pass ballot measures stopping fracking in the Colorado cities of Broomfield, FortCollins, Boulder and Lafayette (where oil and gas companies spent a combined $900,000 to try to defeat thebills). We supported successful local efforts to pass a citywide ordinance in Dallas, Texas; we passed a ban onfracking waste in Baltimore, Maryland; and we passed a ban on fracking in Erie County, New York. We alsohelped pass other measures against fracking in Ohio, California, New Mexico, Illinois, Michigan, New York,New Jersey, North Carolina and Florida. And, through the Global Frackdown, we built a strong and growing

movement to ban fracking across the country and around the world.• We continued to train a future generation of organizers and activists through our Take Back the Tap

program. We were active on over 40 campuses, training campus coordinators who lead campaigns across thecountry to stop bottled water sales on campus and make tap water more accessible. Among the highlights weresuccessfully working to stop the sale of bottled water on campus at Plymouth University in New Hampshire;Lane Benton Community College in Eugene, Oregon; and Western Washington University and Evergreen StateUniversity in Washington. [check with Katy] Campus coordinators also made tap water more accessible onseveral campuses through the installation of water filling stations.

These victories would not have happened without

the work of our engaged membership and strong

coalition partners. One important measure of our

power as an organization has been the growth of

our activist list to over half a million members.

growing reach. Our members take action by

sending messages to decision makers online,

and last year our supporters sent over 1.7 million

communities: making phone calls, organizing others

to make phone calls to decision makers, organizing

makers, organizing rallies and giving community

presentations. Some of our members become

involved at even higher levels, coordinating local


7/25

5

groups of Food & Water Watch supporters as we

seek to build power in key communities.

We do this through coordination between messages

sent to our online supporters, personal interaction

with our community-based organizers, and national

to expand this program in 2013.

In addition to working to develop Food & Water

Watch volunteers and activists, our organizing

team devotes considerable time to building up and

supporting community- based organizations and

coalitions. To make real change in these challenging

times, we need to marshal the collective resources of

various organizations and interests that are working

toward the same goals that we are. We will never be

able to take on the big oil and gas companies or the

big food monopolies or the fundamental problems in

our democratic system alone — we will need strong

Most of the victories listed above were not achieved

solely by Food & Water Watch, but by working with

other organizations and building strong coalitions

— groups of groups — that play a critical role in our

trainings for community-based organizations,

and local allies, and providing the infrastructure and

initiative for coalition development.

Food & Water Watch has played a critical role in

launching and supporting the leading anti-fracking

coalitions New Yorkers Against Fracking, Californians

Against Fracking, Marylanders Against Fracking,

and Protect Our Colorado. We work with strong

networks of organizations in other states across the

country, including Oregon, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,

Ohio, North Carolina and Illinois, among others. It’s

through these networks that we are able to achieve

together more than any one organization can

achieve individually.

Programmatic Activitiesand Campaigns

FOOD PROGRAMFood & Water Watch’s Food Program combines

policy research, strategic communications,

lobbying and grassroots organizing to advocate

for policies that will result in sustainable and

secure food systems that provide healthy food for

consumers and an economically viable living for

family farmers and rural communities.

Factory Farms

In 2013, after years of pressure from Food &

Water Watch and other public health advocates,

withdrew approvals for the use of most types

of arsenic in chicken feed. This issue is a great

example of how our strategy of combining strong


8/25

6

research, policy and regulatory expertise and

litigation with grassroots organizing works over

time to achieve the changes we need. The FDA’s

move on arsenic in chicken feed followed our

the Maryland legislature in 2012, and key research

by our coalition partners in the public health

community documenting the threat that it posedto public health.

In addition to working to demand regulation of the

meat industry and factory farms at the federal level,

we worked at the state level across the country.

In Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, New Mexico, Indiana,

Missouri and elsewhere, we worked to block bad

bills in state legislatures that would make it harder

for neighbors of factory farms to take legal action

when they were harmed by these facilities, or thatwould make it illegal to even take a picture of a

factory farm.

Saving Antibiotics

In September, the Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention (CDC) provided data on antibiotic-

resistant infections and reported that over 2 million

Americans experience an antibiotic-resistant

infection each year, and at least 23,000 peopledie from them. This provided a great platform

for discussing our national campaign to ban the

abuse of antibiotics on factory farms, which use an

estimated 80 percent of the antibiotics sold in the

United States.

In 2013, we launched campaigns in Iowa, Colorado

on key Congressional committees to ask them to

become leaders on the issue of ending the overuseof antibiotics by factory farms.

At the end of the year, the FDA released voluntary

guidelines for drug companies and livestock

producers. The FDA’s new guidance requests that

pharmaceutical companies change the labels on

medications used in feed to state legal use of the

medicine. But the FDA’s new strategy is inadequate

because it does not cover all of the ways that

antibiotics are misused and create resistance.

Because we still need a ban on the nontherapeutic

use of medically important antibiotics by factory

farms, our work to build pressure on Congress to

pass legislation is as important as ever.

Agriculture and Food

Policy in the Farm Bill

Throughout 2013, we worked to block damaging

industry-driven proposals in the Farm Bill, including

attempts to cut food stamps, weaken contract

fairness provisions for farmers and ranchers, gut

country of origin labeling requirements, and derail

a new food safety inspection program for imported

research for organic agriculture and beginning


9/25

7

Country of Origin Labeling

In May, we successfully pressured the Department

of Agriculture (USDA) to strengthen the rules

for country of origin labels for meat. This was

in response to a challenge at the World Trade

Organization (WTO), where Canada and Mexico

challenged the U.S. Country of Origin Labeling rule

(COOL) as a “barrier to trade.” We worked hard with

our farm group allies to make sure that the meat

and grocery industries didn’t convince the USDA to

use this as an opening to get rid of COOL entirely. In

May, we were rewarded when the USDA released an

updated COOL regulation that addressed the WTO

concerns by making the labels more accurate for

consumers.

But the meat industry didn’t stop there. After

the new rules were issued, it sued the federal

government, claiming that the new regulations

violated their First Amendment rights. We

contributed as an intervenor in the case, explaining

the critical information that accurate COOL labels

provide to consumers. By the end of 2013, the

meat industry’s legal challenge continued to

swim upstream, as they appealed decisions made

by lower courts that maintained this important

labeling program.

Food Safety

For two years, we’ve led the charge to stop the

“Filthy Chicken Rule.” This proposal from the USDA

would allow poultry companies to inspect their

own product, while running lines at up to 175 birds

per minute. We have mobilized media attention,

Congressional scrutiny and public comments

to oppose this change that would take USDA

police themselves, all while putting worker safety

and animal welfare at risk. This year, we worked

closely with several worker justice and occupational

safety groups to expose the risk that this changewould pose to workers in chicken plants.

In addition to meat and poultry inspection, we

focused on the food safety rules for other foods.

In 2013, after years of debate and an intense

controversial industry-sponsored Leafy Greens

Breaking Upthe FoodopolyIn December, we released a report andonline tool that vividly illustrate the impactthat increasing consolidation of our foodsupply into fewer hands has on consumers.The report, Grocery Goliaths, includes ouranalysis of which companies control themarket for 100 food products, and reveals

that consumers don’t really have as manychoices at the grocery store as they think.Along with the report, we launched anupdated Foodopoly website that includedinfographics illustrating the level of controlin different sections of the store and anonline quiz to test consumers’ knowledgeabout who makes the brands they buy.


10/25

8

Marketing Agreement, which would have created

a food safety regime controlled by big produce

growers that would have been unworkable for

small farmers.

In July, the FDA took some long-overdue action

on an issue that we have pressured them on for

several years: inadequate standards for arsenic in

apple juice. We’d lobbied the FDA for years to set

stricter standards for arsenic levels in apple juice,

Increasingly, food safety challenges are coming

from foods that are imported. In 2013, we

worked to make sure that the USDA and the FDA

acknowledge the special risks that can be presented

from imported food. For example, we discovered

repeated fecal contamination problems in products

imported from Australia and New Zealand and

exposed these problems to the press. Australia

recently privatized its meat inspection program, and

we continue to monitor problems in countries using

such programs to illustrate that turning over meat

inspection to the companies to police themselves

does not work, and that we should not follow in

their footsteps here in the United States.

In the fall, the USDA announced that it was giving

the green light to China to export processed poultry

to the United States. This report cleared the way

for China to process poultry that is sent to Chinese

facilities from “approved” sources such as the

United States, Canada or Chile. We have managed

to block this proposal for several years, and the

announcement that we could soon be importing

processed poultry products from China — products

that wouldn’t have to be labeled with a country of

origin — sparked widespread media coverage that

was overwhelmingly negative. We will continue to

generate public opposition to this idea, to try to

discourage these imports.

After months of pressure from Food & Water Watch

in October 2013 the FDA released a long-overdue

update about the pet deaths and illnesses that

have been linked to chicken jerky treats produced

which has been linked to over 3,000 reported

illnesses and over 500 deaths in dogs.

Genetically Engineered Food

In 2013, we released several new reports

genetically engineered foods (GMOs) and why they

are not worth the risk to public health and the

environment. Superweeds: How Biotech Companies

Bolster the Pesticide Industry explains the connection

between the rapid proliferation of GMO crops

resistant “superweeds” that have led to the steadily

increasing use of more dangerous herbicides.

Monsanto. The report shows that the chemical

also political campaigns, regulatory processes and

the structure of agriculture systems all over the


11/25

9

world. A third report outlines the extent to which

the U.S. government promotes biotech crops in its

foreign policy. We also released a popular factsheet

that lists all of the seed companies, including

some producers of vegetable seed, that are now

controlled by Monsanto.

In 2013, we also opposed the USDA’s push for

approval of new GMO crops. We worked to

provide critical comments and public opposition to

2,4-D-tolerant corn and soy and dicamba-tolerant

soy and cotton, as well as the reduced-bruising

potato and a non-browning apple.

We also helped successfully pressure Congress to

remove the “Monsanto Protection Act” rider from

the House version of the appropriations bill. This

rider ended up in the previous year’s budget for the

USDA and removes judicial oversight of the agency’s

environmental review process for genetically

And 2013 was yet another year in which we held

food animal, the transgenic salmon, which has been

under consideration by the FDA since 2010. We

submitted nearly 200,000 public comments to the

FDA in April, urging them to reject this controversial,

unnecessary new GMO animal.

Protecting the Integrity

of the Organic Standards

In April, after we worked with allies to generate

public pressure on the National Organic Standards

Board, it voted not to continue to allow the use of

the antibiotic tetracycline on organic apple and pear

trees.

Triclosan

In December, as a result of pressure from Food

& Water Watch and our allies, the FDA released

a proposed rule requiring companies that

manufacture the antibacterial additive triclosan

Labeling GMO FoodThe grassroots movement to demand labeling ofGMO foods grew in 2013, and Food & Water Watchwas involved all over the country to help push thisissue forward. We worked hard in Connecticut,

New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Florida, Illinoisand California to build strong coalitions to pushfor labeling. In 2013, both Connecticut and Mainepassed the first-ever statewide legislation that wouldrequire foods with GM products to be labeled. Butthese bills included “trigger” clauses that delay themfrom going into effect until surrounding states alsorequire labeling. This increases the pressure on otherNortheastern states to pass labeling as well, and wewill be involved in the fight to achieve this.

In Washington State, we worked on the ground tohelp the effort to pass a ballot initiative requiringlabeling of GMOs. Unfortunately, the largestcorporate agribusiness interests were able to buythe election, and won by the slimmest of margins: just three percentage points. The opposition spent arecord amount of money, and there was a very lowvoter turnout. Despite this loss, we have significantlyincreased activism on this issue and made GMOsa topic of conversation among constituencies not

usually exposed to the issue — assets that can bebuilt upon as we move forward.


12/25

10

soap and water. While this was a long-overdue

development, the proposed rule will not take

corporations that manufacture this unnecessary

additive to soaps and other antibacterial products,

the FDA should make companies prove that

triclosan and similar products are safe before they

go on the market.

Legal Advocacy to Regulate

Factory Farm Pollution

Our legal arm, Food & Water Justice, has focused

much of its attention in this past year on industrial

agriculture and, in particular, factory farms. In 2013,

industry attempts to further insulate itself from any

reasonable form of regulation or transparency.

After the EPA withdrew a rule that would amass

baseline data on factory farm pollution in 2012,

we were forced to develop legal action to require

the agency to reinstate the rule. Food & Water

organizations that similarly wanted to challenge

the materials that the agency relied on to pull therule, through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

request. These documents were shared with many

of the environmental organizations that were then

considering whether to join a legal action against

the EPA.

After industry’s predictable response to the

operation (CAFO) data, the EPA asked all

environmental groups to return the data so thatit could redact information like the names and

addresses of CAFO operators. All groups agreed to

do so except Food & Water Watch, which refused on

the grounds that business names and addresses of

industrial facilities like CAFOs are not subject to any

privacy protection exemptions from FOIA.

of a complaint against the EPA for abandoning its

2011 308 CAFO information-gathering rule. During

the remainder of 2013, we fought to ensure that

the administrative record that the EPA relied on

to promulgate the rule includes all the documents

that should be before the court, and we intervened

in the Farm Bureau’s case to make sure that thisinformation on industrial polluters was kept public.

CAFO litigation in 2013 also saw a major, but

hopefully temporary, setback in the scope of Clean

Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction over these factory farm

facilities. Food & Water Watch was one of several

organizations to intervene in a West Virginia case

to try to protect the EPA’s ability to require CWA

permits for CAFO production areas. Despite intense

the district court judge ruled in favor of industry

and made CAFOs virtually immune from CWA

protections. We spent the remainder of 2013

preparing for the appeal of this lower court ruling

and to be in court in 2014 to have it overturned.


13/25

11

WATER PROGRAM

Food & Water Watch’s Water Program works to

protect our essential water resources so that

water. The program works to reduce the sale

and consumption of bottled water through our

campaign called “Take Back the Tap,” as bottledwater is far more expensive than tap water and

creates mountains of plastic waste. We work with

community organizations across the country to

prevent the privatization of public water and sewer

utilities. We also work to safeguard our precious

water resources from contamination and misuse by

oil and gas industry fracking.

Take Back the Tap

One of the most important ways that we tackle

bottled water is through the Take Back the Tap

campus campaign, which trains students in

organizing, outreach and education on bottled

water. We have worked with an average of 50

campuses each semester, training student leaders

in how to organize campaigns to reduce the use

of bottled water and to promote tap water on

campus. In some locations, student groups have

been successful in banning the sale of bottled wateron campus, while in other locations, students work

stations, to increase access to reusable water on

campus and to pass resolutions to prevent student

fees from being used for the provision of bottled

water.

a-palooza” campus contest using the Tap Buddy

mobile app that we developed in 2012. The contestencouraged college students to compete to get the

most students to pledge to choose tap water over

bottled water on campus. The competition collected

over 4,000 student pledges, representing nearly

900,000 water bottles that will not enter the waste

stream. Dartmouth College won the competition

Poultry Fair Share ActOur big push during the second half of 2013 wasto draft and build support for legislative efforts tomake poultry integrators in Maryland at least partlyaccountable for the pollution from their chickens. To

do this, we launched the Poultry Fair Share Campaignto educate the public and decision makers on thisissue and to generate support for efforts to forcethe industry integrators to take on, for the first time,the financial burdens of waste disposal from theirchicken-growing enterprises.

As part of this campaign, we drafted legislation, thePoultry Fair Share Act (PFSA), which requires poultrycompanies to pay a $.05 per bird fee for any chickenplaced on a contract farm in the state. This would

add a new revenue stream to the Bay RestorationFund, an existing fund that covers the costs ofChesapeake Bay clean-up measures. While everyonein the state, from households to municipalities, paysinto the fund though annual fees and taxes, thechicken companies do not contribute to the fund,even though they are one of the biggest sourcesof pollution. The new revenue stream, roughly $15million, generated by the PFSA would pay for covercrops, a practice that prevents the run-off of farm

pollutants into our waterways.


14/25

12

campaigns across the country, we pulled together

an online map of municipalities or campuses thathad successful bottled water campaigns. This map

is a useful tool for our student leaders to be able to

show the widespread support for similar initiatives

across the country, and to advocate for change on

their campus.

Campaign to Ban Fracking

Food & Water Watch is leading a national campaign

to stop hydraulic fracturing (also known as

“fracking”). This practice involves drilling through

hard rock formations like shale to obtain previously

inaccessible supplies of oil and natural gas, then

injecting millions of gallons of water mixed with

sand and chemicals to break apart the rock and

release the oil and gas.

Fracking comes with serious threats to the

environment, public health, agriculture and the

economy. These threats are not just localized to

the immediate vicinity of areas being fracked, since

reach far beyond the immediate drilling site as

toxic waters leach into groundwater systems and

methane gas and industrial processes pollute the

air. A growing body of evidence shows that fracking

cannot be done safely and must be banned.

In 2013, in addition to our national campaign, we

worked on expanding state campaigns in New York,

New Jersey, Colorado and California.

NATIONAL CAMPAIGN

In 2013, we worked in collaboration with our allies in

Americans Against Fracking on a highly successful

call to President Obama and the Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) to ban drilling and fracking

on federal lands. The industry pays very little

for these oil and gas leases in some of the most

sensitive ecosystems in the country. The campaign

received widespread support from hundreds

of organizations, and we were able to generate

more than 650,000 comments to the BLM calling

for a ban on fracking on public lands. Food &

Water Watch alone submitted just under 100,000

comments from our online supporters to the BLM.

Together with other organizations that called for

stronger regulations for fracking on federal lands,

we delivered more than 1 million comments, the

greatest show of opposition to fracking to date.

Our national work also focused on holding the EPA

accountable on fracking. In June 2013, the agency

dropped a critical investigation into drinking water

contamination and fracking in Pavillion, Wyoming,

under pressure from the industry. We then worked

with allies in Americans Against Fracking and the


15/25

13

Stop the Frack Attack Network to deliver more than

250,000 petitions at an event in front of the White

House with community members from Pavillion and

In September, we released a major data-driven

analysis in a report entitled The Social Costs of

Fracking: A Pennsylvania Case Study . The report

accidents, social disorder arrests and sexually

transmitted infections worsened in rural counties

with fracked natural gas wells, and the trends were

especially pronounced in the rural counties in

Pennsylvania with the highest density of fracked

wells.

Food & Water Watch has helped to pass

numerous local bans and moratoriums on

fracking across the country. These include

New York; Dallas, Texas (de facto ban); Santa

Cruz, California; and Middlesex County, New

Jersey. We developed a map to track all of the

measures against fracking.

STATE CAMPAIGNS

New York

date we have kept the dangerous and destructive

method of fracking from threatening New York’s

food and water supplies. As a result of the pressure

from the coalition we helped form, New Yorkers

Against Fracking, the Cuomo administration

announced that it would not be able to complete

the proposed fracking regulations by the deadline

at the end of February 2013. Further, in March

the New York State Assembly passed a two-year

moratorium on fracking in the state. Passage ofthis legislation shows the power of the grassroots

movement against fracking.

Colorado

In Colorado, we worked with four communities

that successfully passed ballot measures against

fracking in November 2013. We worked with local

groups in the city of Lafayette to ban fracking. Theoil and gas industry spent nearly $900,000 to defeat

the measures, outspending the community 30-to-1.

We helped to train the local leaders, mobilize our

members, draft talking points, raise money and

provide legal assistance.

These democratic bans were subjected to a furious

including massive public relations campaigns

bans. Our legal arm, Food & Water Justice, was

Colorado — litigation that continued throughout

drafting of a Constitutional Amendment to provide

unchallengeable local control of gas and oil

operations by the state’s towns and cities so that

The Social Costs of

A PENNSYLVANIA CASE STUDY


16/25

14

other communities do not have to face courtroom

battles to protect their citizens and homes from

the negative impacts of irresponsible fracking. In

have the wording changed. As a result, we withdrew

the bill and will seek to reintroduce it in the coming

California

As oil companies gear up to frack for oil in a huge

area of California, we helped form the new coalition

Californians Against Fracking to pressure Governor

Jerry Brown to ban fracking in the state. The

coalition has more than 150 member organizations

working to hold Governor Brown accountable.

Hundreds of activists delivered petitions signed by

more than 100,000 people calling for a ban.

Maintaining Public Control

of Water Resources

We work closely with communities across the

country to maintain public control of water and

sewer systems using a combination of research,

media outreach and organizing. Research shows

that private water systems charge higher rates and

deliver lower-quality service to residents. In 2013,

privatize water systems in Allentown, Pennsylvania;

Fort Worth, Texas; St. Louis, Missouri; and Bethel,

Connecticut.

We also helped to block a proposed long-term

contract between Fryeburg Water Company and

Nestlé Waters/Poland Springs that would have

threatened community groundwater resources in

Maine. Nestlé and the Fryeburg Water Co. wanted

to enter into a 25 to 45 year contract that would

compromise Maine’s water resources for future

public at large and that it will somehow generate

substantial revenue.

COMMON RESOURCES PROGRAM

Food & Water Watch’s Common Resources

Program works to promote environmental policies

that protect our most essential resources while

seeking real reductions to harmful pollution —

not accounting gimmicks designed to give the

appearance of reductions. It also works to prevent

bad trade deals that would undermine our federal,

state and local public and environmental health

laws. Given the threats posed by two trade deals

under negotiation, the Common Resources Program

focused its work in 2013 on stopping these deals.

Free Trade Fast Track

The year 2013 saw a growing push to pass “Fast

Track” trade-promotion authority in Congress. Fast

Track would allow the president to negotiate tradedeals without consulting Congress and to bring

completed deals to Congress for a yes or no vote,

prohibiting it from amending the deals. Two trade

deals are currently being negotiated that could

advocate on all the issues that we work on, from

food safety to fracking.


17/25

15

negotiated by 12 countries including the United

States, Canada, Mexico, Chile, Peru, Australia, New

Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, Japan and

Brunei. It will limit food GMO labeling and allow

the import of goods that do not meet U.S. safety

standards. We know that farmed seafood in South

Asia is raised with chemicals and antibiotics notallowed in the United States, and already these

products are shipped here. Around 90 percent of

the seafood sold in the United States is imported,

comes from countries in the TPP.

This situation will only be worse under this deal,

which would lower food safety standards. It will also

prohibiting public institutions — such as schools,hospitals and nursing homes — from establishing

“Buy Local” rules for purchasing foods. The TPP

will also include a provision that will allow foreign

corporations to sue state and local governments

in international trade tribunals if they believe that

state and local laws and regulations violate their

trade rights under the agreement. Once adopted,

the TPP would allow any country in the world to

join, making it a global trade agreement.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

(TTIP) is being negotiated between the United States

Partnership, the TTIP would weaken food safety

standards, not only in the United States but also

in the EU. The EU has targeted several important

U.S. food safety measures for weakening under

the negotiations. For instance, the EU is seeking tooverturn the U.S. ban on the import of cattle and

cattle products from the EU due to concerns about

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, commonly

known as mad cow disease. Additionally, the TTIP

could facilitate the privatization of water and

wastewater treatment systems. Trade liberalization

threatens the ability of local communities to control

their water utilities, demand local control of water

water companies and restore public control of

water services.

The key to stopping these deals is to defeat the

end, Food & Water Watch has been active both

in Congress and across the country educating

our supporters and members of Congress about

the dangers posed by these trade deals. On the

research side, we published four new fact sheets on

these trade deals to educate our supporters as well

as Congress.

Additionally, Food & Water Watch was active in

Washington, D.C. educating members of Congress

about the trade deals and the need to defeat Fast

on the impacts of the TPP and the potential risks

that it poses to our nation’s seafood industry and

seafood safety. Throughout the summer and fall,

we met with both Republican and Democratic

Alan Nunnelee (R-MS), Rep. Rick Crawford (R-AR),

Rep. John Delaney (D-MD) and Rep. Tim Walz (D-

MN). In addition, we generated over 60,000 emails

from constituents to their members of Congress

asking them to oppose Fast Track. And thanks to


18/25

16

Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM) signed a letter

to President Obama opposing fast tracking the TPP.

FOOD & WATER JUSTICE

Legal Advocacy to Stop Pollution Trading

Food & Water Watch’s legal team, Food & Water

trading, a fundamental shift away from the

successful Clean Water Act (CWA) source-by-source

approach to water quality protection that can only

bring negative impacts to our communities and

challenging trading provisions.

concept of pollution trading, no matter how it is

Chesapeake Bay’s latest cleanup plan that allowed

narrower “as applied” legal challenges against

evade their permit limits by purchasing credits from

Our West Virginia case involved a wastewater

discharge pollutants into the Bay watershed even

though the receiving stream was already impaired,

a practice that should be disallowed under the

CWA. The permit required the facility to purchase

nutrient credits from other polluters outside the

local waterway once it was ready to discharge. After

a hearing before the state administrative board, the

permit was remanded back to the issuing agency,

and, as 2013 came to a close, a new permit had not

yet been reissued.

letter against NRG Energy for violations of its CWA

plants. We brought this case because NRG was

proposing to purchase nutrient credits from

agricultural operations to allow for these permit

violations. Prompted by our notice letter, the

against NRG, and we have intervened in the case to

advocate against trading for pollutant credits. We

have been involved in all settlement discussions

and are committed to preventing trading from

being part of any remedy for NRG’s violations.

While 2013 did not see the legality of water pollution

to monitor proposed trading schemes and bring

cases until eventually judges will be forced to rule

on whether the CWA, as currently written, allows

for point sources of pollution to buy their way out of

permit compliance.

In 2013, we were also very engaged in educating

legislators about the dangers of water pollution

members of Congress, such as Senator Ben Cardin.


19/25

17

GLOBAL ADVOCACY ANDMOVEMENT BUILDING

As multinational oil and gas companies continued

to expand fracking and drilling operations across

the globe, they were met in nearly every location by

strong opposition. Food & Water Watch supported

frontline communities by sharing the research andstrategies gained through years of experience in the

United States.

From Poland to Tunisia, and Mexico to Argentina,

organizers have built local and regional coalitions

that are making progress in the global march

against fracking.

The year 2013 was also marked by great strides

in our United Nations advocacy to promote

participatory democracy in natural resource policy,

as well as by the publication of Biotech Ambassadors:

How the U.S. State Department Promotes the Seed

Industry’s Global Agenda.

Global Fracking

In the past several years, fracking has spread like

in nearly every location where shale oil and gas

reserves are assessed. Many of the companies

doing the fracking (and the data and arguments

used for its promotion around the world) were

originally developed for use in U.S. communities.

Food & Water Watch has played an important

role in sharing our campaigning expertise with

communities around the world that are facing the

introduction of fracking.

This year, the Mexican Alliance Against Fracking

(Alianza Mexicana Contra el Fracking) formed to

counter the government’s push for oil and gas

extraction. They began by conducting a series of

webinars and public events to raise awareness,

including co-hosting a forum in Congress about the

impacts of extracting shale gas. The Alliance has

quickly become the primary voice against fracking

Water Pollution Trading SchemesFood & Water Justice has been actively researchingongoing water pollution trading schemes in thecountry to identify opportunities to challenge thelegality of trading. Specifically, in 2013 we filed state-

level freedom of information (FOIA) requests in bothPennsylvania and Ohio, two states where trading istaking a firm hold. While our Pennsylvania requestwas partially denied and is currently under appeal,we are in the process of analyzing trading documentsfrom the state that were produced where the credit“aggregator” Red Barn is engaged in a nutrienttrading scheme. Under this scheme, Red Barn not onlycreates the waste management plans that generatethe credits, but also creates the certification of theplan for the state Department of Environment and isin charge of verifying that nutrient reductions haveindeed taken place, all the while profiting from thesale of these credits to polluters.

We are also analyzing documents from the Ohio RiverBasin, where the power plant industry, in collaborationwith the USDA and the EPA, is promoting anothermulti-state trading effort. So far, documents revealthat the Alpine Cheese Factory, which is held out byproponents of trading as the poster child of success,

has been in constant violation of its permit limits,even with the benefit of trading. Our goal, withboth the Red Barn and Alpine Cheese examples, isto create a report in the coming year to be used inMaryland and elsewhere that looks critically at waterpollution trading as it is implemented on the groundand to uncover all the inherent failures of this harmfulpractice.


20/25

18

in Mexican media, while slowly building a following

on social media.

opportunity to engage with global communities

where shale reserves are being explored or where

time events in Mexico, Bolivia, Indonesia, India,

Senegal and Egypt.

As in previous years, people marched against

fracking in Argentina, where communities have

already passed several local bans but where

actions were held in Tunisia, Egypt and Senegal,

and hundreds rallied in South Africa against plans

by Shell to frack in the Karoo. In India, where the

government is moving toward fracking, there was a

related strategy session held in New Delhi. Likewise,

in Indonesia, water justice activists reacted to recent

fracking proposals by hosting a discussion about

fracking, and in Australia, activists rallied in Perth

and Geelong.

United Nations Advocacy

Fracking is not a theme that has received much

attention at the United Nations, but the multi-year

process of developing Sustainable Development

Goals (SDG), as well as the Secretary General’s

Sustainable Energy for All platform, have created

timely opportunities for introducing the topic.

In November, Food & Water Watch collaborated

with partners to organize “Sustainable Energy for

All: Can a just solution include hydraulic fracturing?”

This event, held in conjunction with the Fifth

Session of the UN Open Working Group on the

event held within the UN focused exclusively on

fracking. Our goal was to introduce the topic offracking in the context of the Secretary General’s

Sustainable Energy for All plan and to show how

the practice would, in fact, slow the move toward

sustainable energy production in developing

countries.

Food & Water Watch also contributed to the SDG

process by acting as an expert speaker on the

topic of water and sanitation. We are increasingly

seeing the over-withdrawal of aquifers inaccuratelyframed as an “urban vs. rural” issue. Our goal is to

reframe this issue so that those who live within the

watershed are empowered to collectively determine

prioritization of use with a long-range view toward

protecting both recharge rates and the human right

to water, followed by water for the production of

local agriculture.

GMO Advocacy

After a year of extensive research and the creation

of a massive database, we published a report in

the United States and Europe that uncovers the

systematic promotion of biotech agriculture by the

U.S. State Department in developing countries.


21/25

19

Previous researchers have used WikiLeaks to

uncover anecdotal examples of U.S. embassies

pushing biotech seeds, but our database was the

database — over 900 cables. The report received

Reuters, The Guardian, Mother

Jones, , Le Monde, Russia Today ,

Jamaican radio and many blogs. It was also tweetedby WikiLeaks to hundreds of thousands of Twitter

followers. Colleagues in the global South, particularly

in sub-Saharan Africa and in Latin America, made

great use of the data that we provided in their

own national struggles to implement appropriate

regulation of genetic engineering.

FOOD & WATER EUROPE

program, Food & Water Europe, advocates for clean

water and safe food in the European Union.

Food

The Europe team worked on a variety of foodprojects throughout 2013:

•

to introduce them to the dangers of

press the U.S. FDA not to approve the animal for

food.

•

urging them to vote

against the GM maize crop Pioneer1507 in

order to prevent it from becoming the second

GM crop grown in the EU (that crop was not

voted through, and we await the Commission’s

response).

•

directly and via online activism, on their

abandonment of non-GM animal feed

requirements in meat, milk, dairy and egg

contracts and to label non-GM-fed products toensure true customer choice.

•

both to inform MSPs of current developments

and to continue to drive a wedge between the

anti-GM Scottish Government and the vocally

pro-GM Whitehall authorities (who consistently

cast pro-GM votes at the EU level that undermine

us in key areas).

•

mosquitoes by a U.K. company.

•

for the EU in the

ongoing TTIP/TAFTA talks, and we’ll hold EU

Global SolidarityIn addition to advancing our global work to fightfracking, promote the human right to water at theUnited Nations, and uncover State Department effortsto promote U.S. seed companies, 2013 saw thecontinuation of our ongoing solidarity support for localcampaigns against water privatization, extractivismand corporate influence over natural resource policy.For example, Food & Water Watch:

• Partnered with CISPES (Committee In Solidarity

with the People of El Salvador) to block a proposedlaw in El Salvador that would promote public-private partnerships in water and infrastructure.

• Joined an amicus brief for a lawsuit to stopthe Mirador open-pit mine in Ecuador that wouldcontaminate water and displace local communities.

• Helped draft and circulate an international

solidarity letter to stop a large, proposedhydropower dam in San Jose del Tambo, Ecuador.

• Supported a campaign against the privatizationof four hydropower plants in Albania. The sale,proposed to solve budgetary shortfalls, wasbacked by the International Finance Corporation.Our research showing that privatization is a falsesolution to municipal constraints was translatedinto Albanian for use in a national campaign toblock the privatization.


22/25

20

authorities to account for their many statements

in this area.

•

consultations in the U.K., EU and United

States. We submitted comments to the FDA on

2,4-D-tolerant corn and soy and on GM salmon;

to the European Commission on sustainability of

the food system; and to the U.K. Government on

•

of electronic activists and our social

media presence in many areas, and published

EU versions of Food & Water Watch reports

and papers. We continued to use blogs and

social media to press the U.K. Government and

other key players, like the National FarmingUnion, on their pro-GM positions and the lack

of public support for them. We look forward

to continuing to build our political punch,

nature and collaborating with networks dealing

with international trade, food sovereignty and a

variety of related issues.

Fracking

Food & Water Europe has played a prominent

role in coordinating the growing European anti-

fracking movement by cooperating closely with

other environmental groups in Brussels and at the

national and regional levels. Throughout 2013, we

in the EU’s Environmental Impact Assessment

Directive, which would require a mandatory

risk assessment, baseline data collection and

consultation of local communities prior to any

drilling or fracking for unconventional fossil fuels

such as shale gas, coalbed methane or tight gas;

we managed to convince a comfortable majority

in the European Parliament to support such an

amendment. In subsequent negotiations about

the text between the Parliament and the MemberStates, our amendment was unfortunately rejected,

as Member States like Poland and the U.K. were

able to block this proposal.

In 2013, we also stayed in frequent contact with

the departments of the European Commission

dealing with environmental policy and climate

change. Apart from frequently updating them about

and public health impacts of fracking, we alsopushed our demand for strong rules that would

increase the transparency, accountability and

data-gathering of fracking activities in Europe. In

January 2014, the European Commission introduced

a set of recommendations that included our policy

recommendations. Unfortunately, again under

pressure from Member States, the Commission

failed to introduce binding new EU-wide legislation

to force Member States to strictly monitor this

industry.

Food & Water Europe also organized an event in

the European Parliament — attended by 100-plus

people — to question not only the environmental,

but also the economic sustainability of the fracking

industry in the United States as well as the limited


23/25

21

contribution of shale gas to the EU’s energy mix. By

tackling the ongoing hype about shale gas in terms

of jobs, energy security and foreign investment,

Food & Water Europe consistently advocated for

a European climate and energy policy based on

and social media, we remain in frequent contact

with groups across Europe.

Water

The year 2013 has been one of great achievements

for the water justice movement in Europe, where

Food & Water Europe plays an important role.

Led by trade unions and joined by nongovernmental

and grassroots organizations, the movement was

Citizens’ Initiative (ECI). The ECI is a tool introduced

recently to help citizens play a more active role in

European political processes. It can serve to put an

issue on the European agenda by collecting 1 million

States. The ECI demanding that European legislation

recognize the Human Right to Water was able to

deliver nearly 2 million signatures.

Food & Water Europe worked hard for this ECI as a

demand for Europe to commit to the human right

to water and sanitation. It is a clear signal from

citizens asking the European Commission to change

its mindset from a market-based approach with a

focus on competition to a rights-based approach

with a focus on participatory public service. It asks

for the aim to achieve universal and global accessto water and sanitation and to safeguard our water

resources for future generations.

As a result of the massive mobilization around the

Right to Water Initiative, water was excluded from a

new piece of European legislation, the Concessions

Directive, whose primary goal is to favor the insertion

of private corporations into public services.

Food & Water Europe has closely followed the

situation in countries under the pressure of the

austerity agenda. As a result of the policies imposed

by the European Commission, the International

Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank

(which together form the Troika), countries like

Greece have been pushed to privatize their water

companies as a way to reduce their debts. Food &

Water Europe, together with allies, has mobilized to

denounce and try to block those privatizations.


24/25

22

We depend entirely on

generous individuals and visionary private foundations for the funds we need to do the research

litigation, lobbying and grassroots organizing to challenge corporate control of our food and

water and to demand that government do its job to protect people and our most essential

resources. We would like to recognize and thank the following for their support:

Food & Water Watch individual members

Food & Water Partners monthly givers

Food & Water Leaders Circle members

Anonymous funders and supporters

EXPENSES

PROGRAM

Food $4,420,891

Water $1,339,991

CommonResources

$4,425,692

TOTAL PROGRAM $10,186,574

MANAGEMENT $1,819,793

FUND RAISING $1,460,893

TOTAL EXPENSES

INCOMEGrants and Contributions $13,102,108

Interest Income ($37,954)

Program Fees $3,700

Other $842

TOTAL

INCOME

ENDING NET ASSETS

as of December 31, 2013

FINANCIALS

11th Hour Project

Bellwether Foundation

Cloud Mountain FoundationColumbia Foundation

Energy Foundation

Ettinger Foundation

Franklin Conklin Foundation

Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation, Inc.

Longmont Community Foundation

McKnight Foundation

New Hampshire Charitable Foundation

New World FoundationPark Foundation

Scheidel Foundation

Stephen and Tabitha King Foundation

The Boulder County Community Foundation

Tides Foundation

Town Creek Foundation


25/25

foodandwaterwatch.org

food & water watch annual report 2013

Documents