Read the case \"Battling over bottled water\" Nestle holds a 99-year lease for t
ID: 413857 • Letter: R
Question
Read the case "Battling over bottled water" Nestle holds a 99-year lease for the land that the Sanctuary Springs sits on. While leaseholders are generally understood to be able to make full use of the land, when public resources are involved, they are limited to"reasonable uses" Review the case study and formulate an argument either supporting or challenging this distinction. Support your reasoning by addressing key ways in which benefits and burdens are being distributed between Nestle and the community in this case.
CASE 3.2 Battling over Bottled Water WATER IS THE LIFEBLOOD OF THE EARTH, but by 2025, according to the U.N, two-thirds of the world's population could face chronic shortages of water. In fact, some countries already importing huge supertankers of freshwater from odher countries. But one place that's defimitely not short of water is the state of Michigan, which has 11,000 lakes and is surrounded by·akes Michigan Huron Superior, and he So it came as a surpnse to some at eNet E company's oew ce lointain hol ed water pan n·c ta County chan to edged up so much controversy when it began pumping water from a local spring (up 35 percent since 1997). Many couaty residents, in fact, are thrilled about Nestlé's being there. The Ice Mountain plant employs about a hundred people at $12 to $23 per best project we've ever brought into Mecosta County." She adds that she wants "a diversified econony where our kids don't have to move away to find jobs. Nestlé's willingness to invest $100 million to build a new 410,000-square foot bottling plant in Mecosta reflects the fact that bottled water is big business, with anmual sales of $6 billion sigaificantly more than many local jobs pay. And the company shells out hundreds of thousands of dollars in local taxes. Township supervisor Maxine McClellan says, "This is probably the The problem, as some local residents see it, is that Nestlé bas also built a 12-mile stainless steel pipeline from the plant to Sanctuary Spring, which sits on an 850-acre pnvate deer hunting ranch and is part of the headwaters of the Little Muskegon River, whuich flows into the Muskegon and then into Lake Michigan. The company started pumping 130 gallons of water every minute from the spring, with plans to increase that to 400 gallons per minute, or about 262 million gallons a year. But whose water is Nestlé pumping? That's the question being asked Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation (MCWC), a local Mecosta group that has filed suit contesting Nestlé's right to the spring's waters. Although the company has a ninety nine year lease on the land, MCWC contends that the water itself is a public resource. As Jim Olson, MCWC's lawyer, explains it, under the doctrine of "reasonable use" the owners of a stream can use its water for drinking, boating, swimming, or anything else "as long as it's in connection with their land" But, he argues, "this does not include the right to transport water to some distant land for [some other] use. We're arguing that the same is true with groundwater you can' t sever it from the estate Michigan State Senator Ken Sikkema, who chaired a task force on Michigan water issues, rejects that argument. "A farmer pumps water dut of the ground, waters potatoes, and sends the potatoes to Illinois there's no real difference The water in those potatoes is gone. This reasooing hasn t assuaged the fears of three American Indian tribes who have joined the tray Citing an 1836 treaty that protects their fishing and hunting rights in the Great Lakes region, they have brought a fderal lawsuit against Nestlé and the state of Michigan to stop what they see as a massive water grab. "Our fear, says a spokesperson for the Litle Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, "s that the export could significantly and permanently damage the fishery However, David K. Ladd, head of the Office of Great Lakes, argues that bottled water is a special case. Legally, he contends, it's a food, regulated by the Food and Drug Administration There's no difference between Perrier bottling water, Gerber making baby food, or Miller brewing beer When you incorporate water from the basn into a product, it's no eer water per se." And Brendan O'Rourke, an Ice Mountain plant manager, adds that the 262 million gallons it wants to pump are less than 1 percent of the annual techarge rate of the local watershed, equivaent to just 14 minutes of evaporation from the surface of Lake Michigan For their part, scientists opposed to the project argue that Nestlé's pumping has already lowered the local water table and that northern pike are having trouble spawning in a stream fed by Sanctuary Spring. Jim Olson argues that the Ice Mountain plant should reduce its water consumption to 100 gallons per mnute or less, not increase it to 400 gallons Every gallon removed is needed for the stream to sustain itself he states The right to withdraw groundwater does not tnclude the right to diminish... existing or future uses.Explanation / Answer
If I were a member of this community or even in general, I’d oppose (and I do) their presence and business there as well. As others in this case in the text have clearly stated and argued in attempts to make sense of their concerns, taking that many gallons per day is ridiculous whether it’s 100 or 400. Naturally the body of water needs time to replenish itself and what happens to all the life within these waters and the people who thrive and survive off of it? And a 99 year lease? I’ve never heard of such a thing. And if it’s been proven by scientists that this plant has already lowered the local water table, why is this still being allowed, period?
Of course, Nestle is benefiting regardless because they’re making profit whether their limits are raised or lowered. The only effect limitations of the gallons per day they can take from the source is the amount of money made per day, but in the end, they’re still profiting. The community is only benefitting in the sense that it has created a couple hundred jobs. Yes, that is still important in an economic sense for the families benefitting, but I believe that more may be losing in a case such as this. For example, the Odawa Indians and the others who live off the water. I’d be worried about the fishery as well. And considering, even though, way back in the 1800s that there was a treaty put in place protecting those waters and their hunting rights, it violates that in my eyes. I believe that building up in any area or community should be a ‘community’ decision as a whole. Yes, we need jobs and money to live, but we as people should also have a voice when it comes to what happens where we’ve decided to plant our roots. A ‘heard’ voice.
How we drink our water shows us what kind of society we are. I want my body and my society to reflect sustainable values, so I only drink disposable, plastic bottled water if there is absolutely no alternative. If I were in a truly extreme situation—say, a cholera epidemic, an area without reliable water supply, or a desert, for example—then I would drink bottled water. Happily, most of us are not in those situations. And wonderful alternatives are easily available.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.