4 ms·

Or how they steal public water and sell it while also claiming to not be subject to the laws governing that water.[0] [0]http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36161

Or how they steal public water and sell it while also claiming to not be subject to the laws governing that water.[0] [0]http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36161580 http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36161580

Johnny555 9y ago
Are they really stealing it? The US Forest service seems to think they have a valid permit: Yet the firm's permit to operate this seven-mile pipeline in the mountains expired in 1988, though since it pays its yearly $524, the licence is still considered valid by the US Forest Service and by Nestle.... However, activists consider the permit expired and the US government is now reviewing Nestle's licence. A public comment period has just closed and this month a federal hearing will consider the legality of the permit. Later that year a federal judge sided with the Forest Service and declared the permit legal: A federal judge on Wednesday ruled in favor of the U.S. Forest Service, declaring valid Nestlé’s permit for water-bottling operations in the San Bernardino Mountains, on a motion filed by three environmental groups that sought to shut down the company’s efforts until its effects on the environment could be evaluated. http://www.sbsun.com/2016/09/21/why-nestl-can-continue-to-bottle-water-in-the-san-bernardino-mountains/ http://www.sbsun.com/2016/09/21/why-nestl-can-continue-to-bo...
- jieiieifnfj88 9y ago
  Oh well ok then! Because you know, the government would never engage in quid pro quo for the benefit of capitalism over humanity Why can't local groups be given the tax benefits and other handouts to manage this? Are the people at Nestle THAT good at this? No one else can figure out the logistics? The whole notion that my community, a metro area of 3 million residents, multiple universities and tech companies, needs this redundancy But if Uncle Sam says so! Well who am I to question them!?
  - Johnny555 9y ago
    The original post said that they were "stealing" the water, which implies a violation of the law. I was pointing that that they apparently had the legal right to the water. Why can't local groups be given the tax benefits and other handouts to manage this? Are the people at Nestle THAT good at this? No one else can figure out the logistics? What is the "this" you're referring to? Getting permits? Bottling water? Do you think "local groups" are less likely to be influenced by businesses and other special interests than federal agencies? Who would oversee all of these local groups to be sure they are operating fairly? The whole notion that my community, a metro area of 3 million residents, multiple universities and tech companies, needs this redundancy Again, you've lost me, what redundancy are you talking about? But if Uncle Sam says so! Well who am I to question them!? By all means, question the government, but why blame a company for operating under the conditions of the permit issued to them by the government agency that regulates the resource?
whyenot 9y ago
Your linked article does not support your assertions that they are "stealing" water. By the way, the 36 million gallons mentioned in the article is about 110 acre feet, or the same amount of water used to irrigate a 25-50 acre almond orchard (depending on location). It's nothing, and it's being used as drinking water, not to wash cars, water lawns, fill swimming pools or any of the other more wasteful ways people use water.
- mikeyouse 9y ago
  The local impact is much greater though if the water is pumped out of the ground and then shipped out of state. All of your other examples end up back in the local water table. It's silly to argue that 30 million gallons of water being shipped out of range of the local reservoir is inconsequential -- especially in a state with constant droughts and rapidly depleting reservoirs. (I've helped manage large aquaculture projects dealing with much larger quantities of water, so I'm not reacting to what seems like a big number. It's striking how differently the EPA treats the diversion of ground water vs. surface water)
  - Retric 9y ago
    Irrigated water tends to largely evaporate which is why water tables are dropping so quickly.
- sbierwagen 9y ago
  Saying 36 million gallons of water "is nothing" is certainly a bold stance. The federal government is charging Nestlé $524 for 36,000,000 gal of water. I just checked, and that same amount of water would cost me $303,689 from my local utility. I entirely fail to see why Nestle should get a huge discount for water that is then sold to American citizens at $1.79 a gallon, for a 122,976% markup.
  - slavik81 9y ago
    The price you're quoting from your utility likely includes water treatment, transport of the water to your home, transport of wastewater from your home, and wastewater treatment. I would be surprised if you're paying anything significant for the water itself. It very well may be that Nestle (and many other companies) are under-paying for their water rights, but I don't think you're comparing apples to apples.

Johnny555 9y ago

Are they really stealing it? The US Forest service seems to think they have a valid permit: Yet the firm's permit to operate this seven-mile pipeline in the mountains expired in 1988, though since it pays its yearly $524, the licence is still considered valid by the US Forest Service and by Nestle.... However, activists consider the permit expired and the US government is now reviewing Nestle's licence. A public comment period has just closed and this month a federal hearing will consider the legality of the permit. Later that year a federal judge sided with the Forest Service and declared the permit legal: A federal judge on Wednesday ruled in favor of the U.S. Forest Service, declaring valid Nestlé’s permit for water-bottling operations in the San Bernardino Mountains, on a motion filed by three environmental groups that sought to shut down the company’s efforts until its effects on the environment could be evaluated. http://www.sbsun.com/2016/09/21/why-nestl-can-continue-to-bottle-water-in-the-san-bernardino-mountains/ http://www.sbsun.com/2016/09/21/why-nestl-can-continue-to-bo...

jieiieifnfj88 9y ago
Oh well ok then! Because you know, the government would never engage in quid pro quo for the benefit of capitalism over humanity Why can't local groups be given the tax benefits and other handouts to manage this? Are the people at Nestle THAT good at this? No one else can figure out the logistics? The whole notion that my community, a metro area of 3 million residents, multiple universities and tech companies, needs this redundancy But if Uncle Sam says so! Well who am I to question them!?
- Johnny555 9y ago
  The original post said that they were "stealing" the water, which implies a violation of the law. I was pointing that that they apparently had the legal right to the water. Why can't local groups be given the tax benefits and other handouts to manage this? Are the people at Nestle THAT good at this? No one else can figure out the logistics? What is the "this" you're referring to? Getting permits? Bottling water? Do you think "local groups" are less likely to be influenced by businesses and other special interests than federal agencies? Who would oversee all of these local groups to be sure they are operating fairly? The whole notion that my community, a metro area of 3 million residents, multiple universities and tech companies, needs this redundancy Again, you've lost me, what redundancy are you talking about? But if Uncle Sam says so! Well who am I to question them!? By all means, question the government, but why blame a company for operating under the conditions of the permit issued to them by the government agency that regulates the resource?

whyenot 9y ago

Your linked article does not support your assertions that they are "stealing" water. By the way, the 36 million gallons mentioned in the article is about 110 acre feet, or the same amount of water used to irrigate a 25-50 acre almond orchard (depending on location). It's nothing, and it's being used as drinking water, not to wash cars, water lawns, fill swimming pools or any of the other more wasteful ways people use water.

mikeyouse 9y ago
The local impact is much greater though if the water is pumped out of the ground and then shipped out of state. All of your other examples end up back in the local water table. It's silly to argue that 30 million gallons of water being shipped out of range of the local reservoir is inconsequential -- especially in a state with constant droughts and rapidly depleting reservoirs. (I've helped manage large aquaculture projects dealing with much larger quantities of water, so I'm not reacting to what seems like a big number. It's striking how differently the EPA treats the diversion of ground water vs. surface water)
- Retric 9y ago
  Irrigated water tends to largely evaporate which is why water tables are dropping so quickly.
sbierwagen 9y ago
Saying 36 million gallons of water "is nothing" is certainly a bold stance. The federal government is charging Nestlé $524 for 36,000,000 gal of water. I just checked, and that same amount of water would cost me $303,689 from my local utility. I entirely fail to see why Nestle should get a huge discount for water that is then sold to American citizens at $1.79 a gallon, for a 122,976% markup.
- slavik81 9y ago
  The price you're quoting from your utility likely includes water treatment, transport of the water to your home, transport of wastewater from your home, and wastewater treatment. I would be surprised if you're paying anything significant for the water itself. It very well may be that Nestle (and many other companies) are under-paying for their water rights, but I don't think you're comparing apples to apples.