Nestle Water Responds to Our Questions. The Underground Gags.
By Tom Chandler on Mar 18, 2007 in Environment, Opinion
It’s never easy dealing with a multinational corporation.
If you took all the legal and media resources in my thinly populated county and piled them atop each other, they’d still look like an anthill among Nestle’s Himalayan resources.
After all, every time I research Nestle’s latest half-truths and misleading statements issued by their hordes of PR, legal and operative staff—whose paid job it is to generate this rubbish–I lose money and waste time.
Yet here I am, writing another Nestle post. Why?
Because their operative tried to gas me. People can disagree about outcomes and philosophies, but this guy yanked my chain, assuming I was too stupid or lazy to check.
Guess what? I’m neither.
Nestle Misleading Statement #1:
From Nestle’s Operative:
“Ice Mountain in Michigan has been in operation since 2002 and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), which regulates our facility, has not found any negative impact on the surrounding environment.”
The Mecosta Springs plant in Michigan (Ice Mountain is Nestles’ water brand in Michigan) was the subject of a lawsuit by the Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation (MCWC).
In November of 2003, Judge Lawrence Root ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered Nestlé to cease all pumping from the aquifers in question within 21 days.
Chicago’s Conscious Choice Web site quoted the decision:
Activists lauded Root’s 68-page decision, which detailed the harm the pumping is causing to streams and ponds in the area and lambasted Nestlé for trying to mislead the public and for obtaining permits based on reports that “even the defense now admits were inaccurate, incomplete or otherwise flawed.”
Nestle ultimately sought an emergency injunction which stayed the pumping halt while the appeal worked its way to the Michigan Supreme Court.
Later, MCWC and Nestle reached an agreement that allowed Nestle to continue pumping less than half the 500,000 gallons per day they had been taking.
So while it’s true that Michigan’s MDEQ agency hadn’t found fault with the project, a judge did, and Nestle’s right to pump water out of those springs has been cut by more than half.
One activist cut right to the chase about the decision:
“Nestlé must be shocked,” she said. “I’m sure they’re used to getting their way. They have tons of lawyers, we have one; they have millions of dollars, we’re in debt. But the judge decided to do the right thing.”
The case has worked its way to the Michigan Supreme Court, where the issue doesn’t revolve around the damage done by Nestle’s aggressive pumping, but whether the citizens group was entitled to bring suit in the first place.
It’s an end-run around the real issues, but it’s the kind of legal cha-cha that corporate lawyers excel at.
Should Nestle prevail in Michigan, corporations could do pretty much as they please, and even neighboring landowners would get to sit and watch their ponds, streams and wetlands dry up—without legal recourse.
Still, there is little debate about the core of the issue; Nestle pumped too much water from Mecosta Springs and significantly degraded the downstream environment.
It’s a far cry from the statement that Michigan had “not found any negative impact on the surrounding environment.”
Don’t Just Deplete the Aquifer. Damage it Too.
Nestle’s real concern for water resources becomes clear once you examine the contract.
Not content with the water they can steal from readily available resources (Nestle has rights to 1,600 acre feet of McCloud city water and unlimited groundwater), Nestle plans to drill into the aquifer itself, which geologists know is a dangerous game to play.
From the SF Chronicle’s online site:
And although most of the bottled water will come from excess flows into the town’s water system, some opponents worry about the plan to bore into the aquifer to collect even more.
“The problem is that this is a fractured aquifer, with cracks running every which way,” said Debra Anderson, chairwoman of the McCloud Watershed Council, a group opposed to the project.
“You really don’t know what large-scale drilling will do. People around here have sunk their wells too deep and they lost all their water — it disappeared like it was going down a bathtub drain.”
Our Nestle operative contends that Nestle would never damage the aquifer since it makes money from it, but heck, they’re going to drill anyway.
In addition, he expresses no such concern for the zero-profit-producing downstream habitat, saying only that the EIR and CEQA (California’s environmental review law) would study and mitigate any impacts, and the damage would be less than when the timber mill (where the bottling plant will be located) was operating.
You’ll notice the difference. I sure did.
Nestle doesn’t stand to profit from trout, so they don’t give a crap. “We’re not as bad as the business that went under years ago” isn’t exactly a ringing statement of concern.
Of course, the gambit might just pay off for them; the draft EIR is a mess, and Nestle’s intention in that process seems clear.
In fact, that’s the subject of tomorrow’s post, where we’ll dig our way through the Nestle-generated bullshit to uncover Misleading Statement #2 and also Nestle’s attempt to undermine the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process by providing a vague, non-specific and even contradictory project description to the agency generating the document.
I also promise some actual fishing news real soon.
After days of warm, spring-like weather, we’re looking at a pair of storms, which could be my signal—despite a fairly high river—to run downstream and wait in vain for a BWO hatch which will never happen.
Don’t miss it. See you at the keyboard, Tom Chandler.
Technorati Tags: nestle, mccloud, water, mccloud river,
Clay | Mar 19, 2007 | Reply
Excellent Tom!I don’t believe a word coming out of Nestle. They railroaded us in Michigan, If you could have seen all of the signs in people yards/farms when this was going through it would boggle the mind. I am still trying to figure out how they got away with it. I remember a newspaper article where Judge Root actually took a canoe around the wetlands and rivers surrounding the plants pumping facility. This first hand view was very telling! I believe that it was the deciding factor in his judgment. More people should do as Judge Root did and plug your ears to the “reports” given to us by corporations and actually go look at the damage being done. Thus understanding why we are up in arms. Oh by the way I wanted to send you one of my Parachute BWO’s, if you are interested in tying it on send me an address to send it to.
Fish Bum | Mar 19, 2007 | Reply
Wow…. I had no idea that Nestle was THAT kind of company. I guess if you don’t live near by, you just wouldn’t think of it, since their commercials are always so innocent looking. hahahha
I suppose every big company is run like this, and it will be up to activists to set things straight (yes… saying the word ‘activists’ sent chills up my spine).
Richard Byrne | Mar 20, 2007 | Reply
It’s nice to see that Nestle is trying to hose (pun intended) people in other parts of the country. York County, Maine has been dealing with them for years. Poland Spring, a bottling company owned by Nestle, advertises in other states with the slogan, “what it means to be from Maine.” Nestle tried to use that once in Maine before they realized that the people here actually know what it means to be from Maine and didn’t need a global conglomerate to tell them.
Tom Chandler | Mar 20, 2007 | Reply
You’ve touched on one of Nestle Water’s best points; they’re an equal opportunity pillager of rural communities.
And you’re right about Maine. That’s one of the reasons I’m fascinated with the place–there’s a strong sense of what it means to be a Mainer.
Clay | Mar 20, 2007 | Reply
Tom,
I don’t know if you read my post but I was wondering if you would be interested in one of my BWO dry flies for a tryout? It is my own recipe and I would be honored if you would give it a try. size 18 bwo parachute dry fly (cdc post).
Tom Chandler | Mar 20, 2007 | Reply
Clay: Love to, though you should know I may not get a chance to try it anytime soon. I’ve never hit much of a spring BWO hatch on the Upper Sacramento.
Contact me via the blog contact form
Jessica | Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
We here in Maine have been struggling against Nestle for several years. At present, there is a case being heard at the Supreme Court level in April where Nestle (under the Poland Spring brand) is suing the people over an industrial trucking facility locating in a rural residential zone.
An update of the struggle in Maine, titled “Who Owns Maine”s Water - Nestle or the People?” can be found at onthecommons.org.
Tom Chandler | Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
Jessica;
More coming soon on Nestle, including their heavy-handed attempts to scuttle Maine’s groundwater ballot issue.
Wilfong’s exceptional essay on Nestle will be front and center.
Nestle (Corporate Mission Statement: “We encourage public participation and maintain open communications with every community in which we operate, provided they ask no embarrassing questions and kiss our ass.”) has done some evil shit in Maine and Michigan, preying on small communities.
The local Nestle operative is very, very good at his job, but I sometimes wonder if he casts a shadow.
Jessica | Apr 1, 2007 | Reply
In a small town in Western Maine, home of Nestle/Poland Spring’s Evergreen Spring, yesterday, the people spoke. I don’t think the Nestle boys will like the result.
The people had in front of them at town meeting a 19 page land use ordinance amendment to change the current one regarding water extraction and wellhead protection. This ordinance had been written over several years with many people’s input, including those of Poland Spring’s lawyers. There are those in town who are suspect that Nestle/Poland Spring had more than just a passing input to the ordinance. Remember, this was written by the planning board who approved an industrial trucking facility in a part of town with rural zoning. (that case, the people appealed, and Nestle has appealed all the way to the Supreme Court and the case will be heard April 10th).
The vote was moved to early in the meeting. I could go on about the wrangling, the discussions, the posturing, but the final vote was 53 in favor of the 19 page ordinance which secured the position of the bulk water haulers. The NAYS WON… with 125 votes! The ordinance as written, was defeated.. and handily. Finally the people won one victory…
A second article was moved just before lunch as well. This petitioned article was to enlarge the selectmen’s board to 5 members from 3. Speculation is that this was to water down the votes of the existing board. Snide comments were made by the proponents as well as many condescending remarks that flew around the room from those who did not want the embarrassing questions. None of the current selectmen were in favor of this either. When the vote was finally called, there was NO question, no need for a standing vote. The NAYs won again, and defeated a 5 man board.
Maybe the people have spoken loud so Nestle will hear.
Tom Chandler | Apr 1, 2007 | Reply
Great news! Nestle backed several of the candidates in the election in McCloud (they were the only ones who could afford a significant ad buy in the paper), and the outcome was sadly predictable.
Still, nice to know Nestle doesn’t always get it their way, though they have a sizable legal department. Let’s hope the Supreme Court pulls the rug out from under them also.
It’s important to note that Nestles — despite asserting to me that their Michigan water plants had been operating with no problems — got nailed their too, and had to reduce pumping quantities by half.
More to come on those sleazy bastards.
Scot | Jul 27, 2007 | Reply
I have written a song called the Nestle Water Store and it is getting very good response when I play out. Sometimes music can bring in people to listen to whats going on.
I’m from Fryeburg and I hope we can beat down this water baron.
This is a battle that we here in Maine have to win.
http://openmic.folkalley.com/ScotMontgomery
You can hear this song at the above site