4 ms·

> Nestlé's request to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to pump 576,000 gallons of water each day For perspective, all of Michigan uses 9 billio

> Nestlé's request to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to pump 576,000 gallons of water each day For perspective, all of Michigan uses 9 billion gallons of water each day. Nestle will be using 0.006% of what the state uses. Looking just at groundwater, Michigan uses 690 million gallons of water per day. Nestle will be using 0.08% of what the state uses. This is irrelevant. And I'm glad the personal opinion of 80k comments was ignored. Source: http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7-135-3313_3684_45331-370128--,00.html http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7-135-3313_3684_45331-370...

Pfhreak 9y ago
This is not a useful comparison. It equates statewide use to a factory that will presumably source water from a focused area. What are the conditions like at the site of the factory? Can that site accommodate that intake? Is 0.5m the final scale of the factory? Maybe it's not a big deal, maybe it is, but you can't use wide geographic generalizations like this to dismiss the concern.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  That is all covered by the environmental report, as it should be: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-dwmad-eh-swpu-FinalMemo_619293_7.pdf http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-dwmad-eh-swpu-Fina... 4) The supply potential of the water source, considering quantity, quality, and reliability and safe yield of hydrologically interconnected water sources; Application materials, extensive evaluation and consideration by staff, along with experience with the aquifer in the area, lead staff to conclude that the aquifer can sustain the proposed withdrawal without deleterious effects to the dependent resources. The ruckus and commotion by the public is just pointless and useless activism.
  - fzeroracer 9y ago
    If you can't understand why there's so much ruckus and commotion by the public you shouldn't be calling it pointless or useless. People are angry because of the disaster that was Flint. When government officials refuse to answer for large-scale disasters, people resort to other outlets and places to direct their anger. People are angry because they see corporations swooping in to bottle and sell more water in the same state where those people are suffering due to greed and failure.
    - ucaetano 9y ago
      > If you can't understand why there's so much ruckus and commotion by the public you shouldn't be calling it pointless or useless. I can understand, but that doesn't make it any less pointless or useless. > People are angry because of the disaster that was Flint. When government officials refuse to answer for large-scale disasters, people resort to other outlets and places to direct their anger. People are angry because they see corporations swooping in to bottle and sell more water in the same state where those people are suffering due to greed and failure. Sure, and the two issues are disconnected. Not only that, but the protests and anger actually cause a loss of value to society and to the state. And saying that this protest is pointless and useless doesn't mean I don't sympathize with those suffering at Flint.
    - tkxxx7 9y ago
      Flint is not even close to the only issue. Locals are aware of the damage Nestle has already caused to the local ecosystem by dropping the water supply. There is also much worry that legal draw limits were not set with that area's situation in mind, but Nestle is pointing to the legal rate and saying everything will be okay.
castis 9y ago
Maybe their opinions were based on principle. I know you do not care, but your dismissal of 80k people you don't and will never know says volumes about you as a person.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  > I know you do not care, but your dismissal of 80k people you don't and will never know says volumes about you as a person. Thanks for the ad hominem. It isn't that I care or not, approving this well is a technical environmental decision, and shouldn't depend on how much people scream. It doesn't matter if there were 10 million people against it, the agency isn't there to evaluate public support for a project, it is there to evaluate the technical and environmental aspects of the project. Don't let an angry crowd make technical decisions.
  - zzzeek 9y ago
    > approving this well is a technical environmental decision, and shouldn't depend on how much people scream. That's completely incorrect because the state is run by politically elected leadership who ultimately answer to the people. If the people hated Nestle because its factories were painted green, they have the right to complain and ultimately vote for leadership that would disallow Nestle to paint their factories green.
    - ucaetano 9y ago
      > That's completely incorrect because the state is run by politically elected leadership who ultimately answer to the people. This isn't being voted by elected officials, this is being approved by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality following the standard procedure set in law by elected officials. > If the people hated Nestle because its factories were painted green, they have the right to complain and ultimately vote for leadership that would disallow Nestle to paint their factories green. Yes, and they should do so at the ballot or at their elected officials. Or are you suggesting that any laws and regulations are legally void when 80k people comment against it?
    - 9y ago
larkeith 9y ago
For perspective, one teacup holds 150ml of liquid. Nestle will be using 14 535 981 teacups of water. Is this a relevant comparison? Just as much so as comparing a local watershed-impacting factory to a state's usage.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  > Just as much so as comparing a local watershed-impacting factory to a state's usage. Well, since you ask, here's the watershed comparison: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-dwmad-eh-swpu-FinalMemo_619293_7.pdf http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-dwmad-eh-swpu-Fina... 4) The supply potential of the water source, considering quantity, quality, and reliability and safe yield of hydrologically interconnected water sources; Application materials, extensive evaluation and consideration by staff, along with experience with the aquifer in the area, lead staff to conclude that the aquifer can sustain the proposed withdrawal without deleterious effects to the dependent resources.
  - larkeith 9y ago
    That's excellent information to have, thank you for the link!
    - ucaetano 9y ago
      No problem, I happen to be very close with a professional environmental engineer. It is amazing the amount of work put into modeling environmental impact, especially on hydro models. A lot of the original models and methods still used today were developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers.

Pfhreak 9y ago

This is not a useful comparison. It equates statewide use to a factory that will presumably source water from a focused area. What are the conditions like at the site of the factory? Can that site accommodate that intake? Is 0.5m the final scale of the factory? Maybe it's not a big deal, maybe it is, but you can't use wide geographic generalizations like this to dismiss the concern.

ucaetano 9y ago
That is all covered by the environmental report, as it should be: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-dwmad-eh-swpu-FinalMemo_619293_7.pdf http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-dwmad-eh-swpu-Fina... 4) The supply potential of the water source, considering quantity, quality, and reliability and safe yield of hydrologically interconnected water sources; Application materials, extensive evaluation and consideration by staff, along with experience with the aquifer in the area, lead staff to conclude that the aquifer can sustain the proposed withdrawal without deleterious effects to the dependent resources. The ruckus and commotion by the public is just pointless and useless activism.
- fzeroracer 9y ago
  If you can't understand why there's so much ruckus and commotion by the public you shouldn't be calling it pointless or useless. People are angry because of the disaster that was Flint. When government officials refuse to answer for large-scale disasters, people resort to other outlets and places to direct their anger. People are angry because they see corporations swooping in to bottle and sell more water in the same state where those people are suffering due to greed and failure.
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    > If you can't understand why there's so much ruckus and commotion by the public you shouldn't be calling it pointless or useless. I can understand, but that doesn't make it any less pointless or useless. > People are angry because of the disaster that was Flint. When government officials refuse to answer for large-scale disasters, people resort to other outlets and places to direct their anger. People are angry because they see corporations swooping in to bottle and sell more water in the same state where those people are suffering due to greed and failure. Sure, and the two issues are disconnected. Not only that, but the protests and anger actually cause a loss of value to society and to the state. And saying that this protest is pointless and useless doesn't mean I don't sympathize with those suffering at Flint.
  - tkxxx7 9y ago
    Flint is not even close to the only issue. Locals are aware of the damage Nestle has already caused to the local ecosystem by dropping the water supply. There is also much worry that legal draw limits were not set with that area's situation in mind, but Nestle is pointing to the legal rate and saying everything will be okay.

castis 9y ago

Maybe their opinions were based on principle. I know you do not care, but your dismissal of 80k people you don't and will never know says volumes about you as a person.

ucaetano 9y ago
> I know you do not care, but your dismissal of 80k people you don't and will never know says volumes about you as a person. Thanks for the ad hominem. It isn't that I care or not, approving this well is a technical environmental decision, and shouldn't depend on how much people scream. It doesn't matter if there were 10 million people against it, the agency isn't there to evaluate public support for a project, it is there to evaluate the technical and environmental aspects of the project. Don't let an angry crowd make technical decisions.
- zzzeek 9y ago
  > approving this well is a technical environmental decision, and shouldn't depend on how much people scream. That's completely incorrect because the state is run by politically elected leadership who ultimately answer to the people. If the people hated Nestle because its factories were painted green, they have the right to complain and ultimately vote for leadership that would disallow Nestle to paint their factories green.
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    > That's completely incorrect because the state is run by politically elected leadership who ultimately answer to the people. This isn't being voted by elected officials, this is being approved by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality following the standard procedure set in law by elected officials. > If the people hated Nestle because its factories were painted green, they have the right to complain and ultimately vote for leadership that would disallow Nestle to paint their factories green. Yes, and they should do so at the ballot or at their elected officials. Or are you suggesting that any laws and regulations are legally void when 80k people comment against it?
  - 9y ago

larkeith 9y ago

For perspective, one teacup holds 150ml of liquid. Nestle will be using 14 535 981 teacups of water. Is this a relevant comparison? Just as much so as comparing a local watershed-impacting factory to a state's usage.

ucaetano 9y ago
> Just as much so as comparing a local watershed-impacting factory to a state's usage. Well, since you ask, here's the watershed comparison: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-dwmad-eh-swpu-FinalMemo_619293_7.pdf http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-dwmad-eh-swpu-Fina... 4) The supply potential of the water source, considering quantity, quality, and reliability and safe yield of hydrologically interconnected water sources; Application materials, extensive evaluation and consideration by staff, along with experience with the aquifer in the area, lead staff to conclude that the aquifer can sustain the proposed withdrawal without deleterious effects to the dependent resources.
- larkeith 9y ago
  That's excellent information to have, thank you for the link!
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    No problem, I happen to be very close with a professional environmental engineer. It is amazing the amount of work put into modeling environmental impact, especially on hydro models. A lot of the original models and methods still used today were developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers.