In 1998 in Tucuman, Argentina's smallest province, a very peculiar thing happened: The Compagnie Generales des Eaux, French operator of the water and sewer services (called Aguas del Aconquija in the province), announced that they would begin a national and international campaign to withdraw from Tucuman. What could have happened to cause a strong European business that had won the privatization bid for the province's water and sewer services concession in 1993, to want to withdraw five years later? What was the luck of this company in a country such as Argentina that had adopted a neoliberal model and where privatization of state services represented excellent business deals for French, Spanish, Italian and other capital?

From the moment it took over the water concession, the business faced a sustained and continuous protest by consumers throughout the province. When the company took over operations in 1995, it raised the price of services by 104% and substantially altered the conditions of service delivery. Many citizens of Tucuman considered this to be a violation of their rights, a burden to their income and quality of life. They organized and resisted until, three years later, the one who asked to withdraw was the company itself.

How did the consumers' protest achieve such success? Through years of struggle and organizing and, above all, a very effective action that, at the last moment, was carried out in almost the entire province. This action was "civil disobedience": the refusal to pay for water and sewer services. The first to organize themselves were the towns in the interior of the province, located in the region of sugar cane production where there was a long experience of struggle. At first, seven small cities formed a coordinating committee, and later established the national Association in Defense of the Consumers of Tucuman (the Asociacion en Defensa de Usuarios y Consumidores de Tucuman- ADEUCOT). The culminating moment in the struggle was the decision to not pay for service.

Meanwhile, seeing their income reduced, the French business tried to collect: they made legal threats against the utility customers directed at cutting off service. They also attempted to renegotiate with the provincial state while the French government pressured the national government to end the "insubordination" of the Tucuman population. At the same time, the consumers' organizations took steps to attain a legal framework for the payment boycott. Forms were generated, completed by consumers and presented to the company with copies to the regulating body.

In 1998, the business could no longer endure the situation generated by the payment boycott, which was perpetuated by their own failure to pressure the provincial state to "discipline" the population. Thus, the contract was rescinded but remained in effect for several more months so that the national authorities could find new utility operators. The dispute between the company and the consumers of Tucuman went before the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), an agency of the World Bank that serves as the arbitrating body for the bilateral investment treaty between France and Argentina. Finally, ICSID ruled in favor of the province and the dispute was to be settled in the judicial tribunals of the national territory.

In 1999, the new provincial government withdrew the demand for provincial justice citing the need to "improve the presentation" of the case. The demand was never presented again, and consumers were left without legal protection to justify the payment boycott. This is of special concern because currently a new water utility privatization effort is underway. In response, an international campaign has been launched to request the provincial government of Tucuman to reinstate the case to protect the rights of the water consumers.

Women have played a very important role in the protest. They have led in organizing both public and private meetings. They persisted in maintaining the payment boycott, despite officials characterizing the action as "craziness". When provincial leaders and family heads were frightened by possible legal action against them by the French company, it was the women who proved to be the firmest in their decision to continue to challenge the company.