4 ms·

> The permit allows Nestlé to take one million gallons per day at no cost, with just a one-time $115 application fee. This has virtually no impact on the aquif

by Aunche 7y ago

> The permit allows Nestlé to take one million gallons per day at no cost, with just a one-time $115 application fee. This has virtually no impact on the aquifer: > According to the United States Geological Survey, total withdrawals from the Floridan aquifer system in 2000 were ranked 5th highest of all principal aquifers in the Nation at 3,640 million gallons per day (Mgal/d) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floridan_aquifer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floridan_aquifer

rwmurrayVT 7y ago
That is the total amount removed from the aquifer. The article states that the amount taken from Northern Florida needs to be reduced by at least 50% in order to return to previous water levels. 1Mg/day represents .027% of the 3640Mg/day from the entire aquifer. I'm sure it represents a substantially larger percentage from the North Florida section. Edit: It's 1Mg/day not 100Mg/day. Changed above.
- 0xffff2 7y ago
  100/3640 is ~2.7%, not 5%. GP says Nestle gets 1Mg/day, which would be ~0.027%. Where did you get 100Mg/day?
  - rwmurrayVT 7y ago
    It was an error. I read his post incorrectly. It is still a larger portion from just that section of the aquifer near the Sante Fe river. Exactly how much I do not know. Bottling water is a contentious issue and I'm not entirely certain how to feel about it. Sure it can be beneficial for providing water to areas without any safe supply. It just rubs me the wrong way that Nestle doesn't pay any money for it so it isn't exactly a "utility" cost for those people.
mc32 7y ago
Regardless, they are making money on this extraction and the state isn’t getting direct compensation. It doesn’t need to be exorbitant but it should be more than a nominal amount. There should be some volume dependence. It should be whatever the commercial water rate is. It’s also not only a FL problem. Nestle has similar contracts with other states too.
- wil421 7y ago
  Why does the state need compensation? It’s an aquifer the state isn’t treating waste water and selling it to Nestle. Commercial water rates include treatment and all the infrastructure to move it around. That’s similar to saying farms should pay the state for using soil.
  - wysifnwyg 7y ago
    More like mineral rights.
  - mc32 7y ago
    It’s a shared natural resource. If it gets exhausted or gets polluted we all are affected. If they bought the land and proportionately drew water, then, okay. They’d pay taxes on the land asf.
notquiteacop 7y ago
This should be multiple life sentences. One for the official that allows this to happen and one for the company CEO themselves. Once you make the top responsible, people will finally stop pulling this shit. For the money Nestle makes, they can afford to pull water from the ocean and do full desalinization.
- notquiteacop 7y ago
  Sorry. I get it. Money is more popular than taking responsibility. I'll try to be more of a shill next time.
wysifnwyg 7y ago
While it may only be a small fraction of the total withdrawn, the issue should focus on the overall volume of aquifer. If the amount is decreasing then there ought to be considerations for halting non-essential usage.
yelloweyes 7y ago
writing a script in 10 minutes has virtually no impact in my life but you bet yo ass I'm charging for it
bparsons 7y ago
It is actually hard to imagine a manufactured product that would require less water per dollar made than bottling water. Nobody seems to ever worry about the production of beer, wine or soda which requires an order of magnitude more fresh water per unit sold. In fact, using this website even requires the use of water. According to the department of energy, data centres in the US will use a 174 billion gallons of water next year. That is about 500 gallons of water per year, for every man woman and child in the US. https://www.watercalculator.org/water-use/data-centers-water-use/ https://www.watercalculator.org/water-use/data-centers-water...

by Aunche 7y ago

rwmurrayVT 7y ago

That is the total amount removed from the aquifer. The article states that the amount taken from Northern Florida needs to be reduced by at least 50% in order to return to previous water levels. 1Mg/day represents .027% of the 3640Mg/day from the entire aquifer. I'm sure it represents a substantially larger percentage from the North Florida section. Edit: It's 1Mg/day not 100Mg/day. Changed above.

0xffff2 7y ago
100/3640 is ~2.7%, not 5%. GP says Nestle gets 1Mg/day, which would be ~0.027%. Where did you get 100Mg/day?
- rwmurrayVT 7y ago
  It was an error. I read his post incorrectly. It is still a larger portion from just that section of the aquifer near the Sante Fe river. Exactly how much I do not know. Bottling water is a contentious issue and I'm not entirely certain how to feel about it. Sure it can be beneficial for providing water to areas without any safe supply. It just rubs me the wrong way that Nestle doesn't pay any money for it so it isn't exactly a "utility" cost for those people.

mc32 7y ago

Regardless, they are making money on this extraction and the state isn’t getting direct compensation. It doesn’t need to be exorbitant but it should be more than a nominal amount. There should be some volume dependence. It should be whatever the commercial water rate is. It’s also not only a FL problem. Nestle has similar contracts with other states too.

wil421 7y ago
Why does the state need compensation? It’s an aquifer the state isn’t treating waste water and selling it to Nestle. Commercial water rates include treatment and all the infrastructure to move it around. That’s similar to saying farms should pay the state for using soil.
- wysifnwyg 7y ago
  More like mineral rights.
- mc32 7y ago
  It’s a shared natural resource. If it gets exhausted or gets polluted we all are affected. If they bought the land and proportionately drew water, then, okay. They’d pay taxes on the land asf.

notquiteacop 7y ago

This should be multiple life sentences. One for the official that allows this to happen and one for the company CEO themselves. Once you make the top responsible, people will finally stop pulling this shit. For the money Nestle makes, they can afford to pull water from the ocean and do full desalinization.

notquiteacop 7y ago
Sorry. I get it. Money is more popular than taking responsibility. I'll try to be more of a shill next time.

wysifnwyg 7y ago

While it may only be a small fraction of the total withdrawn, the issue should focus on the overall volume of aquifer. If the amount is decreasing then there ought to be considerations for halting non-essential usage.

yelloweyes 7y ago

writing a script in 10 minutes has virtually no impact in my life but you bet yo ass I'm charging for it

bparsons 7y ago

It is actually hard to imagine a manufactured product that would require less water per dollar made than bottling water. Nobody seems to ever worry about the production of beer, wine or soda which requires an order of magnitude more fresh water per unit sold. In fact, using this website even requires the use of water. According to the department of energy, data centres in the US will use a 174 billion gallons of water next year. That is about 500 gallons of water per year, for every man woman and child in the US. https://www.watercalculator.org/water-use/data-centers-water-use/ https://www.watercalculator.org/water-use/data-centers-water...