
Michigan OKs Nestlé Water Extraction, Despite Public Comments Against It - rafaelc
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/03/599207550/michigan-oks-nestl-water-extraction-despite-over-80k-public-comments-against-it
======
a2tech
You’ll read a lot of comments on this, both good and bad. A lot of passionate
arguments have been made on both sides. I have two things to add to it—and
feel free to take them as you will. People I know in the area with wells had
them go dry after the nestle plant opened. These were wells that had
previously been high (for wells) throughout, just drying up. The plant also
got special tax rebates and other incentives to open with the idea they’d make
it back with taxes and jobs but it’s never materialized.

~~~
Turing_Machine
> People I know in the area with wells had them go dry after the nestle plant
> opened. These were wells that had previously been high (for wells)
> throughout, just drying up.

That (if true) is a legitimate complaint and Nestle should make them whole.

Edit: as someone else noted, this is less than one swimming pool's worth of
water per day. If wells are going dry because of that, they were marginal at
best.

~~~
Scaevolus
Swimming pools are huge and not often emptied. Homes usually pay ~$6,000 to
fill a pool. 576,000 gallons / day is ~6000 people's daily usage.

Wells have specific recovery rates. I don't know whether the amount they're
pumping will exceed that rate-- environmental studies should include that
information.

~~~
Turing_Machine
> Homes usually pay ~$6,000 to fill a pool.

Nonsense. Maybe in Phoenix or Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Not in Michigan.

~~~
Zeta_Function
I don’t know anything about the price of water in any of those places, can you
cite some numbers?

By the way, why are you so passionate about this topic? You’ve made 17
comments on this thread, or 17% of all of the comments here as of this
writing. Thst seems extreme to me. The one I’m responding to isn’t
substantive, another is just a single word. Dominating a conversation with
sheer volume seems extreme, and impolite.

~~~
Turing_Machine
> You’ve made 17 comments on this thread, or 17% of all of the comments here
> as of this writing.

Because I hate innumeracy.

~~~
portofcall
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16759428](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16759428)

Following that through, you clearly hate being backed into a corner, and don’t
mind engaging in “innacuracy” when it suits you.

------
MereInterest
So long as nothing is shipped outside the Great Lakes watershed, I am not
opposed to this. The problem is that while directly piping water outside of
the watershed is forbidden, bottling it then shipping doesn't fall under this
definition. This is the loophole that needs to be closed.

------
Turing_Machine
The Muskegon River (the main drainage for the area) has a discharge of 1,450
cubic feet per second at Evart, Michigan (where this facility is located).
That is about 11,000 gallons per second, or about 937 _million_ gallons per
day.

The facility proposes to pump about half a millon gallons per day.

Tempest, meet teapot.

[https://waterdata.usgs.gov/mi/nwis/current/?type=flow](https://waterdata.usgs.gov/mi/nwis/current/?type=flow)

~~~
sykh
I don't know the particulars in this case but is Nestlé going to pay proper
amount for this water? If the public doesn't want the plant then shouldn't
their desires carry some weight? Especially since it doesn't appear that
Nestlé would be providing a service in the interests of society at large.

Overall there is a growing sense in the U.S. that public assets are being sold
off at below market rates. That corporate interests trump public interests.
There's a lack of trust in the system. The overreaction, as you put it, here
seems to me to be a symptom of what I think is a growing lack of trust in the
system.

~~~
rmason
Nestle is paying $5200 for all the water it is drawing. I'd be willing to
wager they're paying 10-20x that on lobbying efforts.

[https://www.bridgemi.com/guest-commentary/opinion-nestle-
wat...](https://www.bridgemi.com/guest-commentary/opinion-nestle-water-deal-
bad-economics-and-bad-policy-michigan)

The county they're in has high unemployment and they make the case that it's
all about the jobs they're creating.

~~~
nrdgrl
That is the permit application fee (one time, $5,000) and reporting costs
($200 / year). They aren't paying for the water.

~~~
Turing_Machine
Detroit is currently selling water for $23/thousand cubic feet, or about
.000321/gallon. That's filtered, treated, and distributed to a tap in every
home.

What do you imagine a fair price would be for untreated, pump-it-yourself
groundwater?

[http://www.detroitmi.gov/Portals/0/docs/DWSD/Water%20Rate%20...](http://www.detroitmi.gov/Portals/0/docs/DWSD/Water%20Rate%20Card%202017_Detroit_Retail_Rates_COD.%208-1-17_WEBFINAL.pdf?ver=2017-08-04-111558-603)

------
perceptor
I feel like Nestle in particular draws heat for two reasons:

1) They are a global multinational and don't demonstrate much sympathy for
local environmental issues

2) They are specifically bottling _water_ , which seems wasteful as a practice
in general, adds minimal value, etc.

I can't speak knowledgeably about #1 -- Nestle's track record probably speaks
for itself -- but I do wonder about #2.

If a Anheuser Busch or Coca Cola wanted to open a manufacturing plant in
Michigan consuming 576,000 gallons a day going to _beer_ or _soda_ , would it
garner the same criticism? I feel like while there would still be discussions
about rates charged for a public resource, the community at large would view
beer or soda as a legitimate product for water, as opposed to bottled water.

~~~
username223
Bottled water is just terrible. First, the fact that potable municipal water
is so cheap that you can use a gallon of it to make your poop disappear is a
miracle of modern civilization. Second, putting that same water in plastic
bottles, driving it around the country, and selling it for $1-2/liter creates
all sorts of environmental damage for absolutely no benefit.

Please, people, celebrate the benefits of living in the modern world: buy a
canteen and fill it at your sink.

~~~
toomanybeersies
It seems to be a very American thing to drink bottled water when there's
perfectly fine water in the tap (unless you live in Flint, MI).

I buy bottled water maybe once a fortnight, if that. The only time I buy it is
if I'm out and about and don't have a ready supply of water. I buy the
cheapest water I can get, which I'm fairly sure is bottled in the city
straight from municipal supply.

I find the concept of buying water like San Pellegrino to be so absurd.
There's all this perfectly fine water to drink here, and you ship it from the
other side of the world? It's the highest form of wastefulness.

------
cameldrv
I know that we live in an outrage culture that doesn't respect orders of
magnitude, but "he who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk
nonsense"[1].

They propose to withdraw 0.5E6 gal/day. We have data for the state of Michigan
(in 2004, but probably not too much different today)[2] If we're only talking
about ground water, industrial is 89.1E6, irrigation is 197E6, and electric
generation is 4.1E6 usage. Why is it OK for these uses of ground water, but
not the much much higher value use of water that actual human beings drink? I
suppose that not many people are dipping their flow meter into the power
plant's water main and noticing the massive quantities of water that they use
(and then return to the environment, just like Nestle). They do see the case
of bottled water on the shelf though and get pissed off that some company is
making money selling the fruits of a public resource.

To put it in perspective, in all of Michigan, total water usage is 11E9
gal/day. Nestle wants to use 0.5E6 gal/day. The population of Michigan is
about 10E6, so they propose to make a giant factory that uses the same amount
of water as 500 people. Somehow a giant plant using the same amount of water
as 500 people attracts 80,000 negative comments. Go figure.

[1] [http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/](http://www-
formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/)

[2]
[http://msue.anr.msu.edu/resources/water_withdrawals_and_wate...](http://msue.anr.msu.edu/resources/water_withdrawals_and_water_use_in_michigan_wq62)

~~~
throw2016
The issue is much more nuanced than that but nice job positioning protest,
dissent and citizen concern ie basic democracy as 'outrage culture'. [1]

The bigger debate is about exploitation of natural resources , negatively
impacting the local community and environment [2] corporate capture, people in
neighboring towns not able to access clean water, all things that the average
citizen is negatively impacted by.

Nestle, corporate shills and those paid to defend it defending it is logical.
Individuals with no stake seeking to defend Nestle on the basis on volume
extracted based entirely on Nestle's figures with no regulatory framework to
independently verify actual extraction on the other hand is not.

Your first link is a generic article on progress and sustainability. The
second does not show how much water is extracted by Nestle and its impact on
the local environment and is based on 'self reported' figures. Here are far
more updated perspectives on the issue.

[1] [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-09-21/nestl-
mak...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-09-21/nestl-makes-
billions-bottling-water-it-pays-nearly-nothing-for)

[2] [https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-02-04/tiny-michigan-town-
wa...](https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-02-04/tiny-michigan-town-water-fight-
nestle)

------
mratzloff
Government overrules the public on privatizing public resources despite near-
unanimous opposition from the public that stands to "benefit": HN can barely
muster a shrug.

Government overrules the public on something HN actually gives a shit about,
like net neutrality, using the _exact same process_ : HN calls for blood in
the streets!

This is despite the fact Nestlé typically pays nothing (or an absurdly low
amount) for the public resources it's selling, gets incredible tax breaks to
create jobs, and then only creates on average 24 low-wage jobs that mostly go
to non-local residents...

~~~
chrischen
Government didn't overrule the public. The agency is not legally allowed to
arbitrarily deny the permit.

~~~
mratzloff
It's almost as if the government makes the laws and can arbitrarily write them
to take the public screaming at them into account.

------
malvosenior
Can someone who knows more about this issue explain how Nestle bottling water
has anything to do with lead in Flint's water or Detroit shutting off water to
people who were delinquent on their bill? They seem totally unrelated. If
Nestle didn't do this would it fix Flint's lead problem? Would it help people
pay their water bills?

I don't see how these issues are connected other than "water in Michigan". Am
I missing something?

~~~
eckza
You aren’t missing anything. It’s just “outrage logic”.

~~~
malvosenior
But what are people outraged about? I see my comment has been on a
rollercoaster of up and down votes so people obviously feel strongly but I
still don't understand what the actual issue is.

------
ucaetano
> 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_45331-370...](http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7-135-3313_3684_45331-370128--,00.html)

~~~
castis
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
> 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
> 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.

~~~
Turing_Machine
> 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.

What if they didn't like Nestle hiring black people?

You have the right to complain, yes. That doesn't mean you automatically get
your way. Not even if everyone votes for it.

~~~
zzzeek
again, the Civil Rights Act was passed by a politically elected congress.

Not sure why everyone is so upset by my post that essentially is reiterating,
"the people have a right to be heard and they ultimately elect how their
town/state/country is run".

~~~
Turing_Machine
> again, the Civil Rights Act was passed by a politically elected congress.

Imagine a hypothetical world where the South won the Civil War and
successfully seceded.

The elected government of the Confederate States of America says that black
people have no civil rights whatsoever.

Okay by you?

~~~
dang
You've been breaking the site guidelines by getting into flamewars. Please
don't do that—it's just what we don't want here.

A comment like this one also breaks the guideline that says: "Please respond
to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker
one that's easier to criticize."

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
Turing_Machine
The whole idea of Michigan being somehow desperately short of water is
ridiculous on its face, by the way.

Not only does it get plenty of rainfall, it's surrounded on every side but the
south by the friggin' Great Lakes. You guys have heard of those, right? You
know, the ones that contain 21% of the freshwater in the _entire world_?

People keep mentioning Flint. Flint doesn't have a water shortage. It has
crappy water due to an outdated water supply system.

------
oconnor663
Who on earth would take time out of their day to write a comment about
bottling water, unless they were deeply opposed to it?

~~~
eckza
Flint resident here.

The whole state of Michigan is a little sore about water right now.

~~~
oconnor663
Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that it's weird that there are people opposed
to bottling water. More that it's not very meaningful to compare the number of
comments opposed to the number of comments in favor.

~~~
eckza
Oh, I fully agree. Just providing some context.

------
dna_polymerase
For anyone new to this topic I recommend watching Tapped:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzntuXdE8dY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzntuXdE8dY)

------
skookumchuck
Where do people expect all the bottled water they buy comes from?

------
jumelles
> 80,945 against and 75 in favor

Life in a democracy?

~~~
koolba
From the article:

>> But despite deep public opposition, the agency concluded that the company's
plan met with legal standards.

I’ll take equal interpretation of the law over mob rule any day of the week.

~~~
banach
The holocaust was legal, slavery was legal, segregation was legal. If you use
the state as a metric for ethics you'll end up disappointed.

\-- @lex_looper

~~~
Turing_Machine
Are you seriously comparing pumping 1/2000 of the water that normally goes
down the local river with the holocaust or slavery?

~~~
cowpig
I don't think @banach did that.

The point of the quote was to point out that laws aren't necessarily right.

And this point you keep making about it only being a small % of the total
water isn't very convincing. I'm sure you would mind if I embezzled 1/2000th
of Michigan's GDP.

~~~
brandonmenc
> laws aren't necessarily right

And neither is the public.

We once needed a law and show of force against public demonstrators to let
black children into schools.

------
snvzz
Money talks.

~~~
RosanaAnaDana
Source?

~~~
snvzz
Story's headline.

There Nestlé represents money (look Nestlé up if in doubt).

Public opinion is worthless next to Nestlé's wishes.

------
daodedickinson
Citizens of Michigan should get a check every year like they do in Alaska.
This keeps happening because only Nestle and a few politicians get a cut and
everyone with power is happy.

~~~
maxerickson
My city (in Michigan) charges large users of water 0.2 cents per gallon (~$2
per thousand, they charge small users more). That's for treated, metered tap
water that they pump into a tower. So the cost includes distribution and such.
Another town in Michigan charges something like 0.8 cents per gallon.

Under the new permit, Nestle will be pumping about 210 million gallons a year.
At the going rate for clean water in Michigan, it's in the ballpark of $1
million dollars (or maybe $2 million), with 9 million residents.

Whether the water is being put to good/appropriate use is the much more
important question than the saleable value of the water.

~~~
Turing_Machine
The difference is that Nestle is drilling and maintaining its own well,
purifying the water itself, and distributing the water itself. All of those
costs are factored in to what your city charges for water (and it's
breathtaking just how expensive a network of pipes to _every single house_
is).

I don't know what a fair price in Michigan for raw, untreated, drill-pump-and-
distribute it yourself groundwater might be.

I'd be surprised it it were more than a cent per thousand gallons, though.

~~~
maxerickson
My goal was to sketch a ceiling.

