We know we can, but should we?
How is water like the Internet?
Well, here in Michigan, we're discussing net neutrality, the crux of which isn't really about neutrality but of retaining ownership in the public trust. That is, once you pay your entry fee into the city of the internets, you can walk down any street you want and enter into any shop, home, or underground cockfighting circle you want, without hindrance from the guy who took your gate fee. In short, no one can corrall you to one place or another based on the things he likes, and no one can charge you an extra toll from walking down a sidestreet because it happens to be popular or heavily travelled. That's because, in practice, the internets are all owned by the people and are there for the free conduct of trade and exchange of ideas.
Water, here in Michigan, is by law to be treated that way. The state's rivers, streams, and lakes all functioned as the state's highway system, permitting the floating of logs to sawmills (those from Isabella County wound up in Saginaw), or fur trappers to get their hides to settlements. The lakes were plied by ships, carrying goods and people from place to place.
That's all at risk of changing these days. The state DEQ, which as Dave points out is both underfunded and understaffed, says that Nestle can remove water from trout streams in Osceola County without hurting the environment.
Well, supposing we can ... and we've heard this before ... the question becomes whether we should.
Why not? Mostly because the water isn't just sitting there for someone to come along and scoop up for sale in the marketplace. It already belongs to someone ... namely, me. To put it on the most selfish terms possible, all the rage these days, the water belongs to me and I don't want someone else selling it off.
This kind of quaint thinking has been done in apparently by the revelation that when stocked on shelves, both are lumped into the same category as "consumer product."
Ay Carumba.
We return to our Internet analogy. We all understand that the Internet belongs to all of us, and that it would be bad to simply turn it over to private enterprise to carve up for pure profit. We understand this, even though the Internet is basically infinite in size, and even though the Internet is not necessary for survival. We understand that it's a good thing that it not be privatized for purposes of the common good.
This is largely the same argument as why it's bad to allow water to be privatized. We understand that it belongs to everyone, and that it is in the common good for it to belong in the hands of the common good. We understand that it is reasonable for someone to use it to make money (the Internet, ingredient for countless porn and online auction sites throughout the world), but that a private company should not be able to simply up and appropriate part of it as their own.
Nestle bottled+water Michigan environment
Well, here in Michigan, we're discussing net neutrality, the crux of which isn't really about neutrality but of retaining ownership in the public trust. That is, once you pay your entry fee into the city of the internets, you can walk down any street you want and enter into any shop, home, or underground cockfighting circle you want, without hindrance from the guy who took your gate fee. In short, no one can corrall you to one place or another based on the things he likes, and no one can charge you an extra toll from walking down a sidestreet because it happens to be popular or heavily travelled. That's because, in practice, the internets are all owned by the people and are there for the free conduct of trade and exchange of ideas.
Water, here in Michigan, is by law to be treated that way. The state's rivers, streams, and lakes all functioned as the state's highway system, permitting the floating of logs to sawmills (those from Isabella County wound up in Saginaw), or fur trappers to get their hides to settlements. The lakes were plied by ships, carrying goods and people from place to place.
That's all at risk of changing these days. The state DEQ, which as Dave points out is both underfunded and understaffed, says that Nestle can remove water from trout streams in Osceola County without hurting the environment.
Well, supposing we can ... and we've heard this before ... the question becomes whether we should.
Why not? Mostly because the water isn't just sitting there for someone to come along and scoop up for sale in the marketplace. It already belongs to someone ... namely, me. To put it on the most selfish terms possible, all the rage these days, the water belongs to me and I don't want someone else selling it off.
This kind of quaint thinking has been done in apparently by the revelation that when stocked on shelves, both are lumped into the same category as "consumer product."
Ay Carumba.
We return to our Internet analogy. We all understand that the Internet belongs to all of us, and that it would be bad to simply turn it over to private enterprise to carve up for pure profit. We understand this, even though the Internet is basically infinite in size, and even though the Internet is not necessary for survival. We understand that it's a good thing that it not be privatized for purposes of the common good.
This is largely the same argument as why it's bad to allow water to be privatized. We understand that it belongs to everyone, and that it is in the common good for it to belong in the hands of the common good. We understand that it is reasonable for someone to use it to make money (the Internet, ingredient for countless porn and online auction sites throughout the world), but that a private company should not be able to simply up and appropriate part of it as their own.
Nestle bottled+water Michigan environment
18 Comments:
As always, nice job of simplifying two complex issues.
It's not that easy. For example, potatoes are 75% water. The total Michigan potato harvest contains 4x the water that Nestle is proposing.
Are you suggesting that farms stop pumping for irrigating?
Gerber foods (50 miles away) also uses 4x the water of Nestle in those baby food jars.
I've been writing about these and other issues here:
http://waterwars.wordpress.com
I don't propose to have answers, just more questions.
Don't get wrapped up in the number of gallons. The key is ownership of the water. I own the water, so do you (if you're from Michigan). Nestle bottling it and selling it is in effect selling my and your property.
Gerber is allowed to use water as an ingredient under "reasonable use" standards that have never applied to outright appropriation (Nestle).
Eric, this is a brilliant argument. As one of Time's Persons of the Year, I find it resonates strongly with ME. I linked it in from our article on this at Absolute Michigan.
Ubi, are you saying that the actualy water content of the potatoes is 73,000,000 gallons?? (216,000 gallons per day x 365) I find that really hard to believe. Irrigation water doesn't leave the watershed - at least long-term. I do like your site Ubi.
Eureka! "Public ownership" is exactly the key, not volume. Thanks for pointing that out, Eric.
Reasonable use of water as an ingredient in making something is protected by hundreds of years by common law. Water mining -- removing water itself in large quantities and taking it far away for sale -- is something far newer. Once established, it may be difficult or impossible to stop.
eric,
Why do you make an exception for Gerber? Gerber puts in jars 1 BILLION gallons of water annually and ships all over the U.S. Nestle uses water as an ingredient also -- they just don't add anything else to the bottle.
farlane,
Thanks for the compliment. A potato is mostly water (75-80% water). Michigan grows and ships 1.5 BILLION potatoes annually. That's over 1 BILLION gallons of water that goes out inside those potatoes.
Miller Brewing puts 650 million gallons of Lake MIchigan water inside a bottle and calls it beer.
Water is water -- it all counts. Not just the water inside of clear water bottles.
I've looked at NAFTA, Nestle and the precedent it sets here:
http://tinyurl.com/yajrjo
Putting water in a bottle is not using it as an ingredient. It's capturing it and putting it in bottles for sale. The one is using water as part of a different product. The other is no different from dragging coal up out of the ground and selling it on the open market.
eric,
I'm sorry but I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make.
Gerber is certainly shipping more water out of the basin than Nestle is. What difference does it make that they include some bits of carrots in the strained baby food?
What is the difference between bottling water and using it to make something?
I've pointed out the distinction here and in previous posts.
good analogy. I never thought of it that way. Good piece.
Public ownership resonates with me too, particularly since Nestle received a $10 million dollar tax break to sink their well. Sure, they created many jobs, but they earn that much or more each year in profits. Why should the citizens of Michigan lose out on that tax revenue? The water doesn't cost Nestle one red cent - they only pay production costs. Isn't that enough of a break?
I'm not totally against bottling the water, but I think we need environmental safeguards and restrictions, and I don't think we should be giving tax breaks to companies that get their product free and only have to pay for production and packaging costs.
The comparison of water as an ingredient in baby food and water as a product in and of itself is flawed. Eric's link to public trust values is the core issue here.
If "Ubi" thinks water leaving the Great Lakes as an ingredient in baby food et al is no different than water leaving the Great Lakes as a product, then he/she is basically saying that we can't and shouldn't stop water pipelines to Arizona, South Dakota or Texas from the Great Lakes -- as long as they don't suck up more water than Gerber style operations.
Ultimately, and with all due respect to Ubi, who appears genuine and thoughtful, the "water is water" approach ultimately is a surrender flag for the future of the Great Lakes. Those who live and use water in the Basin have a reasonable right to that use; giving the same right to a multinational corporation to mine the water (which is not a use, but extraction) is turning the Lakes over to forces that have no interest in the long-term health of the Lakes.
I don't think I've ever read such specious, and vacuous reasoning regarding this issue. It's hard to know where to even begin.
Your Internet analogy breaks down completely. Yes the Internet is free - but not only do you pay for your computer/PDA/cell phone to use it in a convenient form, you pay an ongoing fee to an Internet Service Provider to access it. Nestle is doing the same thing with the water. We're paying for the conveyance of the resource, just like the Internet.
So many other errant arguments, it's wearisome to even think about addressing them.
I see someone popped open a page for an online dictionary before reading.
Where you really need to start is by rereading the post. I mean, you missed a very simple point made in the very second paragraph, that once you get past the guy collecting your entry fee (your service provider), you can wander where you want without hindrance from him.
And, Nestle is bottling something that doesn't belong to them, but belongs through Michigan law and tradition to the people of Michigan, and selling it right back to them. Which, in essence, is what the telecomm giants want to do with the Internet.
The analogy is in two different industries, corporations want to control a resource that right now belongs to the public in general.
How that analogy breaks down by the fact that you must continue paying an access fee for the Internet...
I see someone has to rely on wry condescension to excuse the lack of an educated vocabulary.
Again, your rejoinder is as empty of logic as your original thesis. I didn't 'miss' your very simple point. I rejected it as being a flawed analogy.
Let me put it in very simple terms. You say Michigan's water belongs to you, and Nestle is stealing it? Then take them to court and claim theft. You'll find out very quickly how void of legal (or even reasonable) merit your argument is.
Speculation for the sake of discussion is fine. But when you start making uninformed and inconsistent legal distinctions (e.g., Gerber vs. Nestle) this blog becomes the rambling of a self-indulgent dilettante.
I don't have to take Nestle to court ... neighbors of the plant already did, and won. Nestle lost at both the trial court level and at the appeals court level.
On the other hand, I don't need a court interpretation to know that mining water from a stream (or, in Nestle's case, an aquifer feeding a stream) is different from using the water to make something.
That sould be enough to end this debate, but I somehow doubt that it will.
"That sould be enough to end this debate, but I somehow doubt that it will."
My, my. Want to take your ball and go home because someone won't play by your rules?
More disinformation and faulty arguments.
"I don't have to take Nestle to court ... neighbors of the plant already did, and won. Nestle lost at both the trial court level and at the appeals court level."
Neighbors did not take Nestle to court for 'theft' of their 'property.' They claimed that Nestle would have an adverse resource impact on the ecosystem. They 'won' a temporary injunction - that was stayed by the State courts because there was no 'science' that showed any adverse impact on the environment and because it would have been unreasonable to throw men and women out of work for no justifiable cause. As for the adverse resource impact, the Michigan DEQ just ruled to the contrary on Feb 2, 2007 (http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3308-161508--,00.html).
"On the other hand, I don't need a court interpretation to know that mining water from a stream (or, in Nestle's case, an aquifer feeding a stream) is different from using the water to make something."
Ah, yes, the 'unarguable response' when faced with facts: "It's different." The State of Michigan has ruled that Nestle is not diverting water out of the state. They have ruled that Nestle produces is a 'consumable product' - just as Gerber, Coca Cola, Miller Brewing, and others.
You pass over the fact that these other companies use anywhere from four to twenty times (or more) the water that Nestle does because of a purely emotional bias: Nestle doesn't 'add' anything to the water. Ergo, "It's different."
"I don't need a court interpretation..."
This is the crux of the entire issue, isn't it? Science doesn't matter; facts don't matter; the law doesn't matter, even the environment doesn't really matter to you. You've elevated your personal bias and philosophical predilection over the combined judgment of legal, scientific, and environmental experts. When you strip away the veneer of 'ecological concern,' what this blog is really all about is very simple: Ego.
"My, my. Want to take your ball and go home because someone won't play by your rules?"
What rules are you talking about? This doesn't even make any sense.
"Neighbors did not take Nestle to court for 'theft' of their 'property.'"
That's precisely why Nestle was taken to court.
"They have ruled that Nestle produces is a 'consumable product' - just as Gerber, Coca Cola, Miller Brewing, and others."
Yes, yes, there is nothing new here. I mean, do you think you're the first person who's raised this point? The debate moved from this a long time ago.
"This is the crux of the entire issue, isn't it? Science doesn't matter; facts don't matter; the law doesn't matter, even the environment doesn't really matter to you."
Yes, you're absolutely right, on all accounts. I didn't think all of that would come through on one blog post.
You know, I used to get this guy who'd e-mail me every time I wrote about water. He had the same condescending tone that you do.
It turns out that he's a big, 500-pound fat guy who's got nothing better to do than troll people's blogs and writings.
I'm not saying that you're this guy, but, well, this post is a few months old. And, I gotta tell you, as a troll ... you're not really all that confounding, and almost certainly not nearly as confounding as you picture yourself as being.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home