Key Takeaways
- The St. Paul Board of Water Commissioners voted to keep its contract with Israeli cybersecurity firm Waterfall Security Solutions despite significant public opposition.
- Protesters, organized by groups such as Women Against Military Madness, argue that public funds should not support companies linked to Israel’s actions in Gaza and frame the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions (BDS) movement as a moral stance against genocide.
- A counter‑protest coalition, “Keep Politics out of Water,” maintained that Waterfall offers the best technical protection for the city’s water infrastructure and warned against discriminatory decision‑making.
- Utility officials emphasized that Waterfall’s hardware and ongoing support have already proven effective, citing their role in thwarting a 2025 cyberattack on the water system.
- After a year of public scrutiny, the board commissioned a request for proposals (RFPs); Waterfall received the highest rating among three vendors, leading to a revised five‑year contract term.
- Commissioner Stephanie Levine defended the contract as essential for safeguarding clean water delivery, while Vice‑President Nelsie Yang proposed a two‑year term to allow future reconsideration.
- The contract, which includes roughly $100,000 in initial hardware and $5,000–$10,000 annual maintenance, was set to auto‑renew in October unless the board acted.
- The meeting drew the largest crowd in the water board’s history, underscoring the issue’s prominence at the intersection of public safety, fiscal responsibility, and international activism.
Meeting Overview and Vote Outcome
On Tuesday, July 14, 2026, the St. Paul Board of Water Commissioners convened a specially called meeting that attracted nearly 100 participants—both supporters and opponents of the city’s existing cybersecurity contract. The chamber was filled to capacity, a turnout that Board President Chris Tolbert described as “the largest crowd to ever show up to a water board meeting, and it’s not even close.” After hearing testimony from activists, utility officials, and expert consultants, the board voted to maintain the agreement with Waterfall Security Solutions, an Israeli‑based cybersecurity company that provides hardware and ongoing support to St. Paul Regional Water Services. The decision preserved the current terms while also authorizing an amendment that changed the contract period from indefinite to a fixed five‑year term.
Protesters’ Perspective and the BDS Argument
A sizable contingent of demonstrators, led by organizers from Women Against Military Madness and allied Palestine solidarity groups, gathered on one side of the council chamber holding signs that read “Divest from Genocide” and “Keep Tax Money Free of Israeli Ties.” Their core argument was that Waterfall Security is part of Israel’s broader technology sector and, therefore, indirectly sustains the Israeli government’s military operations in Gaza. Activist Montana Hirsch, identifying as an anti‑Zionist Jew, declared before the vote, “I will not stand for supporting a contract with ties to an Israeli cybersecurity company as Israel commits genocide on Palestinians. BDS is not discrimination or hate, and it’s not mean. It’s divestment from genocide. Keep our tax money free of genocide.” The protesters framed the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions (BDS) movement as a legitimate, non‑violent tactic aimed at pressuring corporations complicit in human rights abuses, insisting that public agencies should align their spending with ethical standards rather than purely technical considerations.
Counter‑Protesters’ Perspective and Technical Defense
Opposing the activist bloc, the group “Keep Politics out of Water” occupied the opposite side of the chamber, arguing that the decision should rest on meritocratic evaluations of cybersecurity efficacy rather than political affiliations. Holly Brod Farber, a spokesperson for the coalition, asserted, “You are being asked to discriminate against Waterfall because they’re an Israeli company. Your experts, you’ve just heard from, concluded that Waterfall provides the best protection against cyber attacks.” The counter‑protesters highlighted testimony from the utility’s own IT and security staff, who maintained that Waterfall’s intrusion‑detection and data‑encryption solutions outperformed competing offerings in independent assessments. They warned that rejecting the vendor on political grounds could jeopardize the resilience of St. Paul’s water infrastructure against increasingly sophisticated cyber threats.
Utility Officials’ Defense and Cybersecurity Track Record
St. Paul Regional Water Services officials reiterated their longstanding position that the Waterfall contract is essential for safeguarding the city’s drinking‑water supply. They noted that the utility purchased approximately $100,000 worth of Waterfall hardware more than two years ago and continues to pay between $5,000 and $10,000 annually for maintenance and updates. According to the agency, this cybersecurity system played a decisive role in deflecting a 2025 cyberattack that targeted municipal networks across the Twin Cities metro area. Officials stressed that the technology secures critical data transfers between treatment plants, pumping stations, and control centers, thereby helping to ensure uninterrupted delivery of safe water to St. Paul and surrounding communities. Commissioner Stephanie Levine echoed this sentiment, stating, “We tend to take water for granted, until we don’t,” and emphasized that maintaining robust cyber defenses is a prerequisite for reliable water service, especially in light of crises like the Flint, Michigan water contamination incident.
Exploration of Alternative Vendors and RFP Process
In response to months of public scrutiny and activist pressure, the Board of Water Commissioners directed staff in January 2026 to investigate potential alternatives to Waterfall. This directive culminated in a formal request for proposals (RFP) issued St. Paul Regional Water Services in the spring of 2026, inviting bids from three cybersecurity firms specializing in operational technology for water utilities. The RFP evaluation criteria included technical capability, compatibility with existing SCADA systems, support responsiveness, and total cost of ownership. Upon completion of the review, Waterfall Security emerged with the highest overall score, primarily due to its superior technical components—such as real‑time anomaly detection and hardened firmware—that the other vendors could not match. The board’s staff concluded that, while alternative options existed, none provided the same level of proven protection for the utility’s specific environment.
Board Motions, Contract Amendment, and Future Review
Armed with the RFP findings, the board moved to amend the existing agreement rather than terminate it. The amendment converted the contract from an open‑ended arrangement to a defined five‑year term, providing both parties with clearer expectations and a scheduled point for reevaluation. Vice‑President Nelsie Yang introduced a motion to further shorten the term to two years, arguing that a shorter horizon would allow the contract to be revisited while the current commissioners—each serving four‑year terms—were still in office, thereby preserving democratic accountability. Although Yang’s motion did not prevail, the board’s decision to set a finite term reflects a compromise between maintaining continuity of protection and responding to public demand for periodic reassessment. The contract would have automatically renewed in October 2026 had the board taken no action; the July vote preempted that renewal and locked in the revised terms.
Implications and Broader Context
The outcome of the St. Paul water board meeting underscores the growing tension between localized public‑service decisions and global activist movements. While the BDS campaign frames its efforts as a moral imperative to cut financial ties with entities perceived to support state‑level human rights violations, municipal agencies must weigh those considerations against concrete operational needs—especially when the service in question is as fundamental as safe drinking water. The board’s reliance on expert assessments and a competitive RFP process demonstrates an attempt to ground the decision in objective criteria, yet the passionate public response highlights that technical analyses alone rarely settle disputes imbued with geopolitical symbolism. Moving forward, the utility will continue to depend on Waterfall’s cybersecurity shield for the next five years, subject to possible review at the halfway point if political or technical circumstances shift. The episode serves as a case study in how cities navigate the intersection of infrastructure security, fiscal stewardship, and increasingly vocal social justice advocacy.