water should be privatized says Nestlé

I already told you: I guess lowering the rates was acceptable.
I might change my opinion if you substantiated what you have purported to be true.

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.

You seem to be trying to argue a case that is already with out a pulse.

 

A court case that found environmental concerns serious enough to find against Nestle is without a pulse?

And yeah, a judge ordered them to cut back from 400 gallons per minute to 200 gallons per minute. Did you miss that?

 

What do you think of this:

There have been several tests done that actually show the effects a bottling plant has on groundwater. In 2004, USA Springs proposed a plant to be built in Barrington, New Hampshire to pump 300,000 gallons of water a day from the local aquifer. After a 10 day trial, sectionals of a local wetland were completely dry. In Maricopa County, Arizona, the Sedona Springs Bottled Water Company began pumping groundwater in the Tonto National Forest (which is a little less prominent than the Lone Ranger National Forest). The pumping dramatically altered the flows of Seven Springs Wash and the Spur Cross Ranch Conservation Area, leading lowered surface waters to cause the death of native fish, leopard frogs, Mexican black hawks, sycamore and ash trees, and die-back deer grass. How can bottlers say pumping has no affect?

 

storch

Your avoiding the fact you said: While Nestle trumpets its environmentally friendly ethic – and says it would never harm an aquifer – that’s exactly what they did in Mecosta.

Prove it!

You are avoiding:

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.

Prove it.

The outcome of the case is they were able to do X and you should be able to prove Y - if that is the case.

I really do not care about the details of the case after over a decade. The end ramifications do interest me.

 

A court case isn't good enough for you?

 

Nope.

It was almost a decade ago.

lol. (I think you were moaning about 90 day GM trials)

 

You're not making sense, Odon. A ten day trial of pumping water out of the ground at a rate of 300 thousand gallons per day is not even remotely relatable to a 90-day study of mice to determine the safety of GMO corn. What are you thinkiing? And ad-hom attacks are almost never fruitful; they only serve to make one appear desperate.

And please tell me how a decade has anything to do with the effects of pumping 300 thousand gallons per day out of the ground! Do you think the effects would be magically different today?

And I accept that you don't think a court-case has any bearing on the truth.

But just for the record, why do you imagine Circuit Court Judge Lawrence Root ruled the shut down of the Ice Mountain plant in Stanwood? Was he simply in a bad mood that day?

 

Why not?

Nestle have been pumping X amount out for over a decade. You should be able to highlight what this has done to the environment etc.

Answer the earlier questions, also. And don't ask me which ones. Thanks.


Take a little time to think about it rather than trying to twist me into answering questions.
It's not cool.

 

No, I get that you're not going to answer questions like:

Why you imagine Circuit Court Judge Lawrence Root ruled the shut down of the Ice Mountain plant in Stanwood? That goes to the question of whether or not harm results from pumping all that water from the ground. Why did he make that ruling Odon? I'm sorry I'm not privy to the details of the court-case, but the judge fuckin' shut them down! Think about the ramifications of that.

And also the question of why you imagine that a ten year old study that showed harm to the environment can be disregarded because it wasn't done yesterday. And why you imagine that it bears some similarity to a 90-day study done on mice to determine the safety of GMO foods. Think about that, too. Or, explain the connection, cuz I just don't see it.

 

I sense you are not even trying to answer any questions. Make yourself privy to the court case, the ramification and the what has become, also answer the questions - or shut up.
Like I said, think about it.

'Why you imagine Circuit Court Judge Lawrence Root ruled the shut down of the Ice Mountain plant in Stanwood?'

You tell me. Given it isn't closed down - I think (prove me wrong)

Like I said: I really do not care about the details of the case after over a decade. The end ramifications do interest me.

 

Maybe this will help:

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 the 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.

Also, you speak of a decade-old case when I'm talking about this:

There have been several tests done that actually show the effects a bottling plant has on groundwater. In 2004, USA Springs proposed a plant to be built in Barrington, New Hampshire to pump 300,000 gallons of water a day from the local aquifer. After a 10 day trial, sectionals of a local wetland were completely dry. In Maricopa County, Arizona, the Sedona Springs Bottled Water Company began pumping groundwater in the Tonto National Forest (which is a little less prominent than the Lone Ranger National Forest). The pumping dramatically altered the flows of Seven Springs Wash and the Spur Cross Ranch Conservation Area, leading lowered surface waters to cause the death of native fish, leopard frogs, Mexican black hawks, sycamore and ash trees, and die-back deer grass. How can bottlers say pumping has no affect?

My question to you is why you think the results of similar tests done today would offer different results. That's what I'm asking you. So, go ahead and tell me why you think that.

 

storch

If you stop repeating yourself, I might also.

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.

I already asked: What actually happened? I won't claim to be an expert on the region if you do not either.

Prove it.

We do not need similar tests/trials - we have a decade of evidence. I'm asking you to provide that evidence.

 

What actually happened? I boldened this so that you couldn't miss it: When Nestlé pumped water from the aquifer, the water levels in each of the water bodies decreased as a result. Omitting that part was rather transparent, don't you think?

So . . .

You're asking me to prove what I've posted. Google it. See for yourself.

 

storch

No. This part, silly: Experts demonstrated that when the water levels dropped all sorts of things would happen.

 

If it was true you might be able to post that rather than articles talking about what might happen.

 

Yeah, Odon, I believe that in the court-case, those experts were pounded on by Nestle lawyers, don't you think? And while you're thinking, don't you think that the outcome proves that the experts prevailed?

Also, are you saying that this:

After a 10 day trial, sectionals of a local wetland were completely dry. In Maricopa County, Arizona, the Sedona Springs Bottled Water Company began pumping groundwater in the Tonto National Forest (which is a little less prominent than the Lone Ranger National Forest). The pumping dramatically altered the flows of Seven Springs Wash and the Spur Cross Ranch Conservation Area, leading lowered surface waters to cause the death of native fish, leopard frogs, Mexican black hawks, sycamore and ash trees, and die-back deer grass. How can bottlers say pumping has no affect?

. . . did not happen, or was just a put on?

 

You should check this out:

http://www.indiana.edu/~spea/pubs/undergrad-honors/volume-5/huber_marguerite.pdf

 

Notes from a presentation by Tony Clarke, Director, Polaris Institute, Canada:

In North America, bottled water companies like Nestlé Waters have been able to secure control over underground aquifers and streams by taking advantage of an archaic patch work of regulatory regimes. One of these is called the "rule of capture." According this law, "ground water is the private property of the owner of the overlying land" and they "have the right to capture the ground water beneath their land." It is also known as the ‘law of the biggest pump’ because the landowner with the largest pumping capacity "can dry up the adjoining landowner’s well."

In Michigan, the initial battle lines were drawn around the zoning changes that were required in Mecosta County, and neighboring Osceola County, to allow Nestlé’s to build its water bottling operation. In June and August 2001, referendums were held in both Mecosta and Osceola counties, and rezoning was rejected by a 2-to-1 margin.

In October 2002, a judge ruled that while Nestlé had the right to pump water on a ‘reasonable use’ basis, the company’s water withdrawal has harmed, or is likely to harm, the community residents and the environment.

Nestle appealed this decision and, in November 2003, the Michigan Circuit Court upheld the lower court and "…ordered the company that produces Ice Mountain bottled water to halt all water withdrawals in Mecosta County." But, in December 2003, Nestlé won an emergency reprieve to continue pumping spring water until its appeal of the circuit court ruling has been heard and decided.
In 2005 on appeal by Nestle, the Appellate Court reversed the lower court decision that landowners along streams have legal standing superior to those bottling water and exporting it out of state. At this time, the Supreme Court is evaluating a segment of the case addressing the legal right to file suit.

 

MEPA (Michigan Environmental Protection Act) says that "any person" has the authority to bring a legal action to protect the state’s natural resources from pollution, impairment or destruction. This was a revolutionary law that served as a model for similar laws in other states and for federal environmental laws.

___________________________________________________

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 these 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.

After Judge Root found in favor of the Doyles, Sapps and MCWC, Nestlé appealed the trial court’s decision. The case made its way to the Michigan Supreme Court. The only issue that the Supreme Court considered was whether Nestlé’s actions were appropriately challenged in the first place. In legal terms, the court examined whether the plaintiffs had "standing" to bring a claim under MEPA. "Standing" is an initial threshold that a plaintiff, the person or group raising a legal challenge, must satisfy before a court will consider that challenge. Before the Supreme Court, this case was not about whether Nestlé should or should not pump water from the aquifer. It was about whether, if someone believes this action to be harmful, they are able do something about it. If the plaintiffs have "standing," then they have access to the courts to challenge the action that they believe is harmful. If the plaintiffs do not have standing, then they cannot legally challenge that action.

With its decision, the Supreme Court’s majority changed the Michigan Environmental Protection Act at its core. It changed the way that thirty years of case law interpreted the Act and took away the right of a citizen to protect the state’s natural resources.

While the Court decided that the Doyles and Sapps had standing with respect to the Dead Stream and Thompson Lake, it held that they did not have standing with respect to Osprey Lake or the wetlands. In effect, the Court said that because the Doyles and Sapps owned land that touches the Dead Stream and Thompson Lake, they have the right to protect them. Because they did not own land touching Osprey Lake or the wetlands, they have no right to protect them. Now remember what Judge Root found based on the trial evidence: when Nestlé pumps water from the ground, the water levels in all of the resources drop. This means that giving the Sapps and the Doyles the right to protect only some of these resources does not make any practical sense.

The Supreme Court limited the right that the Citizens of Michigan once had to challenge actions that impair their natural resources.

 

Well this is what these men do. They're not interested in the law or doing the right thing. They only search money at any cost.

Their greed knows no bouds