The Water Wars Erupt Again. And Yet Another Nestle Smackdown.
By Tom Chandler on May 24, 2007 in Environment, News
I’m plowing through work. If I get enough done, I fish this evening.
It’s really that simple. Which means I shouldn’t even be writing this, but damnit — some of it’s too interesting (and the Nestle smackdown is too sweet) to miss.
Water Wars in the West
I know you’re shocked. Fighting over water in the West? How quaint. At least we’re past the days when people took up arms against each other, right?
Well, almost. This from New West:
The water dispute between Wyoming and Montana regarding flows in the Powder and Tongue Rivers is so contentious, one Montana official said it is almost enough to start a war, to which the Billings Gazette responded with a story lead that provides a visual of a gunned stand-off at the border. But does this scenario over-dramatize the situation?
Turns out the two states negotiated a compact 50 years ago over water in two basins, but left out one little detail — like how much water each state gets. Today, Montana is suing.
And now with highly efficient irrigation systems that return less than 10 percent of the water used to the rivers and 23,000 coalbed methane wells that discharge millions of gallons of groundwater that isn’t always fit for irrigation, but still has to go somewhere, the compact is out of date.
The Billings Gazette took an even more alarmist tone in their opening paragraph:
If Montana and Wyoming were independent nations, troops would be lined up at the border waiting for an order to fire.
There’s nothing like good neighbors, eh?
Nestle (gasp) Lies on TV
A recent MSNBC broadcast (”Showdown in McCloud”) found us all in familiar territory — at least if you watch network news more than once a year.
In short, the network went for the drama and wholly ignored nuance (and reality). The Mt. Shasta Herald ran a story suggesting both sides weren’t happy with the outcome, but we’re going out on a limb here and awarding the Underground’s “Smackdown of the Day” to CalTrout’s Curtis Knight.
Curtis is smart, he works hard, and he’s one of the good guys in a landscape which often seems a little bereft of them. Nestle’s operative Dave Palais tried to suggest Nestle wouldn’t pump groundwater because they didn’t have a permit.
To which, Curtis Knight replied:
Knight objected to Palais saying Nestle doesn’t have a permit to pump groundwater.
“California doesn’t require a permit to pump groundwater,” Knight said. “The contract with Nestle allows them to drill groundwater wells anywhere in the district boundary.”
I know. You’re gasping in shock and horror at the thought that the cloven hooved deceivers Nestle may have tried to mislead people just a teensy bit over the whole “drilling wells in your backyard” issue. Clumsy them.
It’s one example in a very, very long list of them. It’s also another reason to support CalTrout, who are fighting the good fight here on many fronts.
See you on the river, Tom Chandler.
Technorati Tags: nestle, mccloud, montana, wyoming, water wars
ijsouth | May 24, 2007 | Reply
I’m not surprised about Wyoming and Montana about to come to blows; if states aren’t fighting over water in a region where it’s scarce, they’re warring over whether a particular river is the boundary, etc. In the late 1800s, Louisiana and Mississippi almost came to blows over the proper boundary in the southeast corner of Louisiana - the West Pearl River or the East? It was settled by floating a barrel, starting at the split in the main Pearl River. Even though the West Pearl normally carries twice the volume of water than the East, it went down that waterway, which settled the border once and for all.
Teh Wind Knot | May 25, 2007 | Reply
Gotta love Nestle. Draining aquifers worldwide, marketing tainted baby formula for less developed countries and supporting genocide in coffee and cocoa producing countries. Sing it with me, brother: “N-E-S-T-L-E-S, Nestles lies the very best.”
At least the folks in Michigan gave Nestle a minor beatdown.
kbarton10 | May 25, 2007 | Reply
Wimps!
Any feckless toff can complain. What is required is a cadre of fearless outdoorsmen willing to ACT on their convictions.
Islamic fundamentalists don’t mess around, unscrew the cap off a 105mm howitzer shell, pack the contents around their midsection, and find a party…
Meanwhile us flyfishermen gnash teeth and take turns whipping ourselves with knotted ropes - hoping someone will take note.
Even the Buddhist monks in Vietnam used gasoline and self immolation to get their point across - which is much more newsworth than our self imposed exile from frappachinos.
All that is needed to fix the Nestle issue is the Internet and one photograph…one well endowed angler, just above the Nestle pump - pissing into the crick.
I have a camera AND great ideas.
Tom Chandler | May 25, 2007 | Reply
ijsouth: Excellent illustration of the absurdity of most state politics.
Wind Knot: When we first carried the “Nestle withdraws from this part of Michigan” story, the official word from
one leg of the axis of evilNestle was that the water’s mineral content didn’t match their need.pfffft!
Notice this passage from the story you referenced about a local environmental newspaper reporter:
“His periodic reporting and detailed coverage turned a bright light on a project which, until then, had been under way for more than three years by Nestle in secret and without notice of any kind — even to the supervisor of Monroe Township, where it was taking place.”
Three years in secret. Clearly, Nestle cares so much about the communities that they prefer to sneak in under the cover of darkness…
Tom Chandler | May 25, 2007 | Reply
kbarton: Your PR instincts are truly Rovian in their deviousness. Even better, your anti-PR stunt has shades of civil disobedience around it.
Brilliant, really. Except Nestle is extracting spring water, so the photograph you described would be harder.
As for actually acting on our complaints, I used to make jokes about certain violent actions, until I realized that someday, somebody was going to perform exactly the acts I had described, and someone else would remember my talking about them.
That’s when I stopped.
Tom Chandler | May 25, 2007 | Reply
BTW — I normally wouldn’t point to the 2007 “Corporate Hall of Shame” awards, but one of the finalists is our friends at…. Nestle!
Gotta love it when a company receives the recognition it so richly deserves…
Aaron | May 27, 2007 | Reply
Three years in secret…. many more in places I know about, try ten or more…
And check this out in the Sunday NY Times discussing the latest American icon.. the water bottle.. titled “The Unintended Consequences of Hyperhydration” the articel can be found online at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/magazine/27Bottle-t.html
Jessica | May 27, 2007 | Reply
“Wind Knot: When we first carried the “Nestle withdraws from this part of Michigan” story, the official word from one leg of the axis of evil Nestle was that the water’s mineral content didn’t match their need.
pfffft!”
Here here, Tom. We’ve heard that here in Maine as well. But remember, Nestle Life brand is all over the world WITH the same flavor profile. They manage the minerals to control the consistency, one state, one country at a time. Check out this expose from the BBC program, Fact the Facts,
Here’s a link to the transcript,
Mark | Jun 22, 2007 | Reply
I like the way you think kbarton 10! At SOME point, SOMEONE has to let their actions speak louder than their words. My Dad taught me that talk is cheap. Inaction is often interpreted as weakness and lack of commitment. Sneaky tactics by Nestle call for sneaky tactics by righteous citizens.
Jessica | Sep 11, 2007 | Reply
Just thought you might be interested in yet another Nestle smackdown…. The Boston Sunday Globe ran an editorial suggesting that Nestle not locate in western Massachusetts in a state wildlife management area. And not only is it to be located in a wildlife management area, but will will suck the water from a fish hatchery, and not just ANY fish hatchery… but a TROUT hatchery…..
Here’s the complete editorial…
Boston.com
The Boston Globe
GLOBE EDITORIAL
Nestle’s Montague plan all wet
September 9, 2007
THE NESTLE COMPANY has its eye on an aquifer under a state wildlife management area in Western Massachusetts as a source for bottled drinking water. The same aquifer is now supplying a state trout hatchery, several private wells, and potentially in the future, parts of the town of Montague. Especially with global warming casting doubt on future precipitation patterns, state officials should keep Nestle’s straw out of this natural resource.
By locating its well close to the spring already supplying the Bitzer Fish Hatchery, Nestle Waters North America could classify its product as “spring water” under Food and Drug Administration rules - unlike the 25 percent of bottled water that actually comes from municipal taps. The company has also suggested it might build a bottling plant nearby, with 60 to 200 jobs. Nestle already produces Poland Spring bottled water in Maine and Deer Park water in Pennsylvania.
As much as the upper Pioneer Valley could use the jobs, the state has to be concerned about the effect the Nestle operation would have on other users of the aquifer and on the 1,500-acre wildlife management area itself. The area is part of the Montague Plains, a rare pine barren on a sandy glacial delta. According to the state Division of Fisheries and Wildlife policy on state-protected land, “Requests for land, land interests, or resources shall not be considered until all reasonable efforts to obtain said amenity from other sources have been exhausted.” Article 97 of the state constitution also strictly limits private use of state land.
Nestle will be hard put to prove that it has exhausted “all reasonable efforts” to get spring water from other sources. If it were willing to dispense with the “spring water” cachet, it could easily locate in a Massachusetts Water Resources Authority community that uses the highly drinkable water from the Quabbin Reservoir.
Even if the company offers to pay Fisheries and Wildlife generously for the right to draw the Montague water, the Patrick administration, which is making much of its green credentials, should think twice about encouraging this industry. Not only are plastic bottles made from petrochemicals, but pumping the water, filling the bottles, and then shipping them to retailers consumes energy that emits greenhouse gases. Eighteen tons of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere for every million bottles of water that are produced and shipped to customers. A plastic bottle of water might not look like an SUV, but its carbon footprint does.
So far, the state has only granted Nestle permission to go on hatchery property for initial explorations. Before accommodating Nestle any further, environmental secretary Ian Bowles should send it copies of the relevant state policies, including Article 97. Nestle’s idea should sleep with the fishes.
© Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
Kentucky Jim | Sep 23, 2007 | Reply
Last I heard, there are about 1.250 million fishermen in California. So, how many fly fishermen/persons?
Here’s an idea even zanier than KBarton’s. What if fly fishers throughout the state began to start working together, instead of spending most of their time complaining about bait fishermen/persons, or pursuing regional interests. What if people (flyfishers, and other fishers) began to undertake the hard, undramatic, mundane work of forming coalitions, even state-wide coalitions, to lobby against the things that imperil a resource we all love? Six thousand fly fishers will not catch a state legislator’s attention. But 50-100,000 most certainly will. That will catch the attention of some of the offenders, as well.
Oh well, just an idea.
Tom Chandler | Sep 24, 2007 | Reply
We’re seeing something like that happen around the Delta issues (commercial and sport fishers working together), but damnit, it’s just so much easier to work each other over than it is to come together…