4 ms·

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 a

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.
  - scandox 9y ago
    Have to agree. The greatest terminology blunder made in the modern world has been to talk about "water rates", "water charges" or even mentioning "water" in this regard. We should always be talking about Pipes. Disclaimer: Nestle are utterly evil
- chrissnell 9y ago
  That water would cost you $300K because your utility has to source it, store it for year-round availability, pipe it from remote mountain streams to your house, maintain all of that pipe, keep it clean, bill you, occasionally collect past-due balances from your neighbors, maitain a customer service center, employ unionized pipeline maintenance crews, buy the heavy equipment used by those crews, maintain that equipment, pay the unionized mechanics who maintain that heavy equipment, employ a security team to protect the safety of the system, etc., etc., etc. Running a public utility and running a bottling plant aren't the same sport.
- whyenot 9y ago
  > 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. Well, when you phrase it that way it sounds terrible, but it's a completely bogus comparison. A retail water user is paying not just for the water but more importantly for it's storage and delivery to their doorstep. That increasers the price. You also are not buying in bulk. If you were, you would only be paying $50-200 an acre foot as most California farmers do to have water stored and delivered to their farms. Nestle is only paying for access to a water source. Is $524 too low a fee for a permit? Yeah, probably, but the company isn't "stealing" water, and compared to what farmers pay for similar amounts of water isn't not that that different.

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.
- scandox 9y ago
  Have to agree. The greatest terminology blunder made in the modern world has been to talk about "water rates", "water charges" or even mentioning "water" in this regard. We should always be talking about Pipes. Disclaimer: Nestle are utterly evil
chrissnell 9y ago
That water would cost you $300K because your utility has to source it, store it for year-round availability, pipe it from remote mountain streams to your house, maintain all of that pipe, keep it clean, bill you, occasionally collect past-due balances from your neighbors, maitain a customer service center, employ unionized pipeline maintenance crews, buy the heavy equipment used by those crews, maintain that equipment, pay the unionized mechanics who maintain that heavy equipment, employ a security team to protect the safety of the system, etc., etc., etc. Running a public utility and running a bottling plant aren't the same sport.
whyenot 9y ago
> 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. Well, when you phrase it that way it sounds terrible, but it's a completely bogus comparison. A retail water user is paying not just for the water but more importantly for it's storage and delivery to their doorstep. That increasers the price. You also are not buying in bulk. If you were, you would only be paying $50-200 an acre foot as most California farmers do to have water stored and delivered to their farms. Nestle is only paying for access to a water source. Is $524 too low a fee for a permit? Yeah, probably, but the company isn't "stealing" water, and compared to what farmers pay for similar amounts of water isn't not that that different.