Reykjavík Grapevine - 07.04.2006, Blaðsíða 16

You may have heard of the new water laws that clogged
parliament with filibustering and heated debate for days
on end. According to the outraged opposition parties,
this controversial new bill is fundamentally altering the
relationship between the nation and one of its most
important birthrights and natural resources. It’s tanta-
mount to treason, they say, to make our water a com-
modity to be bought and sold by God only knows who
in the future. Which side is telling the truth depends
entirely on how you vote, it seems.
The issue of who should control Iceland’s famously
pure and abundant water resources has smouldered
away in the background of Icelandic politics for decades,
ready to flare up and burn anyone foolhardy enough to
touch it. The last time things truly came to a head, back
in 1917, it took delicate manoeuvring through a six-
year political crisis to resolve the matter, a process that
culminated with the passing of the 1923 Water Laws.
Now the water controversy is back and bigger than ever.
Hydroelectric power has become one of the most highly
charged political issues in the country, and is irreversibly
tied to such diverse but important topics as job creation,
the environment, property rights and the rising fear
Icelanders have of a handful of individuals being able to
buy their country out from under them.

Industry’s Enemies
In a time when vociferous political arguments rage over
aluminium smelters and the exploitation of natural
resources, some opposition figures have found fault with
the fact that this new bill would transfer a good deal of
authority over the country’s water resources from the
Ministry of Agriculture to the Ministry of Industry.
How much of this was intentional and how much was a
result of shoddy workmanship on the part of those writ-
ing the proposal, however, is still being debated.
Still, any involvement by the Ministry of Industry is
enough to set off alarm bells for some of the most out-
spoken critics of the government’s policy of increasing
heavy industry in Iceland. This process has been spear-
headed by the Ministry of Industry and closely tied to
the development of hydroelectric plants and aluminium
smelters.
Ögmundur Jónasson of the Leftist-Greens told the
Grapevine that while there had been some initial confu-
sion as to the extent of the restructuring of authority
inherent in the bill, the very notion of putting the focus
on economic exploitation of water was out of sync with
the rest of the world.
“The tendency in recent years has been to come
to view water as a human right, and the keyword in
the international debate on water is ‘conservation’, not
‘exploitation’,” said Jónasson.
To understand why the Minister of Industry is
such a deeply unpopular figure amongst the opposition,
one has to take into account her frontline position in
both economic and environmental issues. The Leftist-
Greens, for example, oppose her plans for the privatisa-
tion of the country’s energy providers on both counts;
being socialists they are against privatisation and being
environmentalists they fear such a move could lead to
further dam construction and subsequent environmental
damage.
The Social Democrats have also frequently clashed
with Valgerður Sverrisdóttir, though their focus may
be more on ideological than environmental grounds.
Recently, though, they have adopted the eco-friendly
language of their fellow leftists.
Sverrisdóttir has also not shied away from heated
exchanges with her critics in parliament. Accusations
of serious misconduct have flown in both directions
in the past – the Minister has repeatedly accused the
opposition of quoting statements she never made and
the Leftist-Greens in turn called her a liar. Ögmundur
Jónasson, for example, wrote a statement in which he
said: “I have presented evidence to parliament that
makes it clear that the Minister’s accusations are based
on lies. No minister or member of this parliament, or
anyone else for that matter, should be allowed to get
away with making up lies about their political oppo-
nents.”
Stage is Set
It was thus in a tense atmosphere that the opposition
confronted the government over proposed water laws,
particularly the Minister of Industry. In response to the
initial government proposals, the opposition requested
more time, and ultimately tried to delay the adoption
of the laws by filibustering the debate for days on end.
Speaker after speaker stood and repeated themselves ad
nauseam, with the government’s representatives sneak-
ing in the odd proclamation of affected astonishment
over the methodology being employed. Shocked. They
were truly appalled and astonished.
Guðlaugur Þór Þórðarson of the Independence
Party called the delay tactics “violence,” while Progres-
sive MP Birkir Jón Jónsson used the opportunity to
compare the opposition to Soviet dictators. Apparently,
one of the worst things about life under Stalin was the
tedium of listening to his long speeches.
Not wanting to lose out in the battle of the sound
bites, Magnús Þór Hafsteinsson of the Liberals shot
back with the astonishing revelation that he would
sooner give his life than allow the bill to pass, though
he specified no date or mode of action for this to take
place.
All the debate really needed to turn into pure
theatre at this point were stage directions, the props
already being present in the form of glasses of water
and a couple of volumes of poetry. Yes, they actually
read poetry, and one MP spoke so long he had to take
the first bathroom break in the history of the Icelandic
parliament.
The solution our parliamentarians finally found to
this deadlock was an interesting one, and in many ways
it’s surprising that it didn’t get more media coverage at
the time. The laws were in fact passed at the end, but
the catch is that they won’t take effect until right after
the next election. The opposition has made it abundant-
ly clear that they would under no circumstances allow
this bill to be ratified and passed into law, were it up to
them. In fact they tried everything they could to stop it
getting this far in the first place. If the opposition were
to get into government next year, the nation has more
or less been promised that the bill will be thrown out
and completely re-written. This adds a new dimension
to the upcoming election brawl.
In effect, people will get the chance to take part in a
referendum on the adoption of the new water laws, and
now have some time to reflect on the cold-hard facts
relating to them. Unfortunately, the level of obfuscation
employed by both sides in this matter has rendered the
facts all but invisible under the thick tapestry of political
point scoring that now covers anything remotely con-
nected to it.
The Water Debate—Water Doesn’t Even Enter the Picture
In a vain attempt at making objective sense of the whole
mess, the Grapevine tried to canvas the opinion of sev-
eral MPs regarding the water laws. As always, and for
obvious reasons, the response from the opposition was
far easier to come by. The government generally views
this as a non-issue that was hijacked by the left for po-
litical gain. They simply direct people to the text of the
old and new laws – effectively challenging opponents to
prove the differences are anything other than formali-
ties. The opposition, though, seems more interested
in making its case through the media. Leftist-Green
MP Kolbrún Halldórsdóttir told us the government’s
handling of the laws was typical of its general approach
Save the Water!
How the water debate allowed Iceland’s parliament to act, instead of taking action
1