Excellent Article Details Nestle’s Heavy Handed Attempts to Subvert Maine’s Ballot Initiative Process

Maine is one of my favorite states (blackflies and mosquitoes excepted), and it’s also a favorite target of Nestle (which most of you know is not an Underground favorite).

Nestle leaves no stone unturned in its quest to pump millions of gallons of cheap groundwater from poor rural areas, and their bag of tricks includes spreading around a lot of money in an attempt to influence politicians (gasp).

When that doesn’t work, they’re not above intimidating the local opposition with legal tactics (as they did here when they subpoenaed the private financial records of opponents).

In the case of Maine’s proposed groundwater ballot initiative, spreading a little money around worked to perfection, with Nestle getting to write the wording for a ballot initiative that it opposes.

You’re Going to Love This

Jim Wilfong helped author an initiative that would confer protection on groundwater at roughly the same level offered to surface waters.

Here are a few selected excerpts from his absolute ripper of an article. I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry.

A group of us had drafted a ballot initiative to ensure that groundwater in Maine is subject to the same degree of protection that surface waters are. As the law requires, we submitted the proposal to the SOS who then wrote the wording that would appear on the ballot. When I opened the letter from the SOS’s office with the final wording, I was stunned.

The ballot question this official had drafted started this way, “Do you want to transfer private ownership of groundwater to the State?” It was like a punch in the gut. Why didn’t he just call us a bunch of commies and be done with it?

I made these points to the Secretary of State, but to no avail. I had a vague feeling of background voices in these exchanges, and so I asked to see the official file. There, among the other documents, I found a letter from Nestle’s attorneys, who had urged specific wording for our ballot measure. “Do you want to transfer private ownership of groundwater in Maine to the State?” is the way it began.

In the new Maine, it seems, Nestle gets to draft the wording of ballot questions it opposes. This, I thought, was going to be interesting.

Interesting indeed. 

Wilfong’s excellent article details a list of shady maneuvers in Maine familiar to those who’ve been watching Nestle’s machinations in McCloud.

Somehow, these little municipalities end up holding private meetings over public matters, conflicts of interest abound, a sweetheart deal emerges for Nestle, and the public — when they try to redress the flaws in the process — come face-to-face with Nestle’s substantial legal department, who are not above using subpoenas to intimidate local opposition (just ask around up here).

All this, of course, comes from the company who suggests they have nothing but concern for the environment and the small towns where it builds its plants.

None of that concern apparently extends downstream to fisheries, as the local Nestle operative evidenced no concern for fisheries (and the McCloud River) outside of saying that California’s environmental laws would protect it.

Those laws have failed in most cases (Klamath, the Trinity prior to the last couple years, Russian River, etc), and it’s clear Nestle doesn’t care.

Not at all. Expect more on Nestle as it happens.

[tags]nestle waters, nestle, maine, wilfong, groundwater[/tags]