water should be privatized says Nestlé

You also said that we can now see what the relevant data shows us today. Why don't you post that relevant data. That would be a good thing to do.

And if something is unacceptable, do you imagine that unacceptable means "safe"?

 

I edited my post.

Eh?

 

Obviously those apposed are going to suggest the data was flawed, and also powerful lobbying allowed Nestle to get away with what ever they wanted. Isn't it standard practice to dismiss the data of your opposition?


Here is some more recent news: What’s causing the record-low levels in Lake Michigan?

http://www.wbez.org/news/what’s-causing-record-low-levels-lake-michigan-105262

 

Yeah.... and the corporate deals, generally pushed through illigitimately installed western crony governments, or (maybe worse) those world bank guys, basically pimp out a country with no money and give their water to a company like nestle, and tell people it's illegal to use their villages thousand year old well. And then there's massive problems with the reservoirs they build, that turn previously plenteful clean water into huge lakes of alge, and screw up rivers both above and below.

There's a lot of people who sell privitized water as some sort of modernization, if you privitize the water your country will magically prosper. But for obvious reasons, the reverse happens, and they're too poor to do a fuckin' thing about it, other than be raped by corporations.

There's a good video on this, but I forget the title.... it might just be water.

 

Is your post intentionally vague? Are you suggesting the government in Peru is a: illegitimately installed western crony government?

 

Odon,

Why are you talking about the levels of Lake Michigan? You expressed an interest in how the environment is affected (you wrote effected, but I get your meaning) by pumping too much ground water from an area.

Something on that:

The Trial Court Judge Found that Nestlé’s Pumping Impaired Surrounding Natural
Resources:

Judge Root of the Mecosta County Circuit Court presided over the Nestlé trial. Based on the evidence that both sides presented, he found that Nestlé’s pumping would adversely affect the water resources that the Doles, Sapps and MCWC fought to protect and that it would harm the ecosystems that those resources were a part of. As a result, Judge Root ordered Nestlé to stop pumping water from the Sanctuary Springs aquifer.
To understand Judge Root’s decision, it is important to note that the aquifer, Thompson Lake, Osprey Lake, the Dead Stream and the wetlands were all interconnected. When Nestlé pumped water from the aquifer, the water levels in each of water bodies decreased as a result. Experts demonstrated that when the water levels dropped all sorts of things would happen: the water’s temperature would change, the stream’s flow would be reduced and plants would begin to take it over. The use of the water for fishing and recreation would be limited and the areas overall appearances would change as well.

The experts also demonstrated that decreasing water levels in the wetlands would limit their important functions. Wetlands purify water, prevent erosion and control floods. They also serve as a habitat for various species of plant and wildlife. Reduced water levels would impair these functions.
　
Under natural conditions, water flows to the lakes and streams. When a high capacity pumping well is installed and operated, water that would otherwise go into the lake instead is pumped from the well. Since less water goes into the lake, the level of the lake becomes lower. If water levels drop in Osprey Lake and the wetlands, areas that they do not have standing to protect, the effect is that water levels in the Dead Stream and in Thompson Lake will also drop and all of the adverse consequences that come along with the drop will follow. The Court’s decision ignores the complex hydrological interconnection between all of the resources and as a result leaves the Doyles, the Sapps, and the resources they want to protect, without any real relief from the effects of Nestlé’s pumping.
________________________________________________
　
SOURCE: David P. Lusch, Ph.D.,
Groundwater in Michigan. Available at
http://www.rsgis.msu.edu/datadocs.htm.
http://justice4michigan.org/files/hfp_nestle_case.pdf

 

Honest to god, Odon, if RooRshack sounded vague to you, then you're really not paying attention at all.

 

Peru seems to be doing better than it's neighbors, but that's because it's neighbors are some of the world's worst example of collusionist fasist dirty-war-fighting dictatorshipts.

That doesn't mean that they don't get embroiled in the same scams.

I don't think my post was vague.

The documentary I mentioned is called flow. You should watch it.

 

storch

'Why are you talking about the levels of Lake Michigan?'

They are all interconnected.

Sanctuary Springs also supplies water to Osprey Lake, which flows into the Muskegon River and Little Muskegon river, which are tributaries of Lake Michigan.

Has any of this come to pass?

 

We were supposed to be talking about Peru. But you didn't mention anything in particular or anything factual about the issue of Peru and water privatisation. It just seemed like a general picture of here, there and anywhere - in your opinion.

Thanks. I well Sorry. I will.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmWdco0glEA"]FLOW - For Love Of Water - Full Length - YouTube

 

Well, that's because I don't KNOW anything about the issue in peru but I think I have a pretty good idea of here, there, and everywhere (typical of me, as I'm sure you know). I can't imagine peru being much different. On one hand there's bad local governments who pimp their country out, and on the other, theere's international pressure, even on the best local governments.

 

Thanks for your honesty. I suspected as much. I do know I was being polite! I don't know an awful lot, either. I guess the difference is - I wouldn't make generalisations about an issue I hadn't looked into. You could be close to the bone or wildly off the mark.

 

So, Odon, are you implying that pumping several hundred thousand gallons of water from underground per day has no environmental effect?

 

You tell me.

 

I'm not sure what you're implying; that's why I'm asking. So, is that your position?

 

I'm not implying anything. You seem to be suggesting Nestle have facilitated a major environmental disaster re: Michigan. I'm asking: have they?

 

No, Odon, what I did was post this:

The experts also demonstrated that decreasing water levels in the wetlands would limit their important functions. Wetlands purify water, prevent erosion and control floods. They also serve as a habitat for various species of plant and wildlife. Reduced water levels would impair these functions.

I'm asking you whether or not you believe that this will be the case?

 

No, I don't think you were asking me that. You seem to be posting certain snippets of information, not knowing if this has panned out, and then asking me to prove if this was/will be the case or not. Shifting the burden of proof onto myself, rather than yourself. It's a good ploy, I guess. Especially if you have no idea about the outcome yourself.

If you are saying: While Nestle trumpets its environmentally friendly ethic – and says it would never harm an aquifer – that’s exactly what they did in Mecosta.
You should be able to prove that was/is the case.
You should be able to prove they: weakened water protection rules
You should be able to show they: pump more than what was safe.

 

Yeah, Odon, I was actually asking you what I asked you. What is your position on the environmental impact of pumping several hundred thousand gallons of water per day from under the ground.

_______________________________________

Plaintiff Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation (MCWC) is a non-profit corporation of approximately 1,300 members that formed to protect and conserve water resources in Michigan, particularly in Mecosta County.   It views Nestlé and its pumping activities as inimical to MCWC's mission.   Two hundred sixty-five members are riparian owners in the Tri-Lakes area, including plaintiffs R.J. and Barbara Doyle, who own land on the Dead Stream, and plaintiffs Jeffrey and Shelly Sapp, who own land on Thompson Lake.

MCWC filed suit in June 2001, seeking temporary and permanent injunctive relief against Nestlé.   The trial court denied plaintiffs' request for temporary injunctive relief to prevent Nestlé's construction of the Stanwood bottling facility while the parties litigated Nestlé's right to pump spring water from Sanctuary Springs.   Later, in November 2001, plaintiffs filed a six-count second amended complaint.  Following  Nestlé's and plaintiffs' cross-motions for summary disposition, the trial court dismissed all the counts except the common-law groundwater claim and the MEPA claim, which proceeded to trial.

After a lengthy bench trial, the trial court granted plaintiffs' request for a permanent injunction of Nestlé's pumping activities. In its opinion, the court made elaborate findings of fact identifying what it called the “zone of influence,” the “hydrological effects,” and the “ecological impacts” of Nestlé's pumping activities. Relying on these factual findings, the court ruled that plaintiffs prevailed on both the common-law groundwater claim and the MEPA claim and that the only appropriate remedy was to grant a permanent injunction.

 

Now will you answer as to whether or not you believe that all that pumping has a negative effect on the environment?