STATEMENT ON THE 3RD PUBLIC HEARING ON THE BWSP

In this 3rd public hearing on the Bulk Water Supply Project, the Metro-Baguio PRO-CONSUMERS and Tongtongan Ti Umili would like to present a summary of the highlights of the previous public hearings initiated by the honorable councilors of Baguio City to shed light on the different concerns hounding this controversial project.

We fully recognize the role of these public hearings, as it aims to unravel the truth behind this project and to hear the real sentiment of the wider public. As far as we are concerned, we never missed to attend these public hearings. Like our honorable legislators in the city, we believe in the processes of the council, as part and parcel of the different legal and legislative arenas of resolving people’s issues.

However, in all public hearings, members of the original Procurement Bids and Awards Committee were not given the opportunity to defend their position in failing Benguet Corporation (BC). We hoped to hear from them the scientific and thorough study of technical and legal aspects of the bid of BC. They should have been invited by the committee and even by the BWD Board if only for them to publicly justify the bases of their action against BC.

On the aspect of quality, in the first public hearing Atty. Antonio Espiritu and Atty. Rodolfo Tabangin successfully evaded the question by stating that they are not experts. However, they cannot even explain this concern in a manner such that ordinary consumers can understand. What they presented was a technical study which was actually lifted from the feasibility study of BC.

During the 2nd public hearing, representatives of BC had their presentation, but the simple question of the guarantee that the water to be delivered will be free from harmful contaminants was not answered. May we now ask the public, if there is no guarantee that we will get potable and clean water at any given time, are we giving our consent to this very risky project?

Even the actual projection of water rate increases was not presented. In the 1st public hearing, Atty. Espiritu said that the water rate (with the bulk water) will be P80-P85 while Atty. Tabangin said in the 2nd public hearing that water rate (with the bulk water) may be P70-P75. One consumer stated that she cannot afford the water rate but Atty. Espiritu answered during the 1st public hearing that if consumers cannot afford the bulk water, then we will have to do with BWD’s poor water service. Could this be their concept of public service?

The BWD’s preparedness to accept the bulk water project was also out into question, when, during the 2nd public hearing, Atty. Tabangin gave a non-committal response on the funding required to complete the rehabilitation and pipe laying.

Representatives of BWD denied the issue of privatization while they cannot present thoroughly how they will pay BC with P59, 985,000 monthly while their present collection capacity falls at only P20 million per month. If BWD will not be able to pay BC, then it is headed towards bankruptcy. Under the Terms of Reference, the Local Water Utilities Administration is supposed to guarantee BWD’s payment to BC, the capacity of this agency is also under question because it is currently undergoing a process of dissolution.

Further, in all these public hearings, residents of Itogon have registered their opposition on the project. This is indicative of lack of community consultation. Considering the enormous impact of this project to the Itogon people’s access to water, BC should have done these consultations before they participated in the bidding.

By and large, MB PRO-CONSUMERS and Tongtongan Ti Umili assess the answers of BWD and BC’s representatives as insufficient to resolve our concerns. After the public hearings, questions on quality, affordability, preparedness of BWD’s system to accept the bulk water, BWD’s privatization and Itogon’s consent on the project still linger. These issues are putting the bulk water project’s social acceptability in deep question.

It is in this light that we once again call for a resolute action of the honorable city council thru the Committee on Public Utilities, Transportation and Traffic Legislation. We urge this committee to take a stand against the bulk water project. Through our extensive participation in all public hearings and council’s inquiries and other activities, we have done our part in exposing and opposing this project and it is high time for the city council to do its contribution to the growing clamor against this issue.

Whether or not the honorable city council heeds our call, we remain in our just opposition.

The clamor against bulk water is the same consumers’ voice forwarding the people’s right to water - the access to safe, potable, affordable and sufficient water. If in case the pro-bulk BWD Directors failed to realize, we now reiterate, that the recognition of this right serves as your mandate as decision-makers of BWD. And that the fulfillment of this mandate is more importantly crucial than your proposed bulk water project, which in all aspects undermines our right to this precious resource.

Metro-Baguio PRO-CONSUMERS
Tongtongan Ti Umili

September 13, 2005