Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Michigan OKs Nestlé Water Extraction, Despite Public Comments Against It

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 140 posts

Re: Michigan OKs Nestlé Water Extraction, Despite Public Comments Against It

#51

Post by ucaetano »

fzeroracer wrote: post #46
ucaetano wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is all covered by the environmental report, as it should be: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-dwmad-eh-swpu-Fina... 4) The supply potential of the water source, considering quantity, quality, and reliability and safe yield of hydrologically interconnected water sources; Application materials, extensive evaluation and consideration by staff, along with experience with the aquifer in the area, lead staff…

If you can't understand why there's so much ruckus and commotion by the public you shouldn't be calling it pointless or useless. People are angry because of the disaster that was Flint. When government officials refuse to answer for large-scale disasters, people resort to other outlets and places to direct their anger. People are angry because they see corporations swooping in to bottle and sell more water in the sam…

> If you can't understand why there's so much ruckus and commotion by the public you shouldn't be calling it pointless or useless.

I can understand, but that doesn't make it any less pointless or useless.

> People are angry because of the disaster that was Flint. When government officials refuse to answer for large-scale disasters, people resort to other outlets and places to direct their anger. People are angry because they see corporations swooping in to bottle and sell more water in the same state where those people are suffering due to greed and failure.

Sure, and the two issues are disconnected. Not only that, but the protests and anger actually cause a loss of value to society and to the state.

And saying that this protest is pointless and useless doesn't mean I don't sympathize with those suffering at Flint.

Re: Michigan OKs Nestlé Water Extraction, Despite Public Comments Against It

#52

Post by eckza »

oconnor663 wrote: post #41
eckza wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flint resident here. The whole state of Michigan is a little sore about water right now.

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that it's weird that there are people opposed to bottling water. More that it's not very meaningful to compare the number of comments opposed to the number of comments in favor.

Oh, I fully agree. Just providing some context.

Re: Michigan OKs Nestlé Water Extraction, Despite Public Comments Against It

#53

Post by nrdgrl »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #45
nrdgrl wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, they are pumping from the "White Pine Springs well". The aquifer likely refills at a much slower rate than the flow of the Muskegon River

> The aquifer likely refills at a much slower rate than the flow of the Muskegon River No, most likely it does not . The watershed and the associated aquifer are where the river water comes from . As to "what that assertion is based on", that would be "knowledge of how the hydrologic cycle works ".

> The watershed and the associated aquifer are where the river water comes from

Yes, that's where it comes from, but it doesn't fill up instantly. Depending on the depth and type of aquifer the well is tapping, it could actually take a very long time for the aquifer to refill (or it could refill very quickly).

Re: Michigan OKs Nestlé Water Extraction, Despite Public Comments Against It

#54

Post by Turing_Machine »

Retric wrote: post #38
Turing_Machine wrote: post #7

The Muskegon River (the main drainage for the area) has a discharge of 1,450 cubic feet per second at Evart, Michigan (where this facility is located). That is about 11,000 gallons per second, or about 937 million gallons per day. The facility proposes to pump about half a millon gallons per day. Tempest, meet teapot. https://waterdata.usgs.gov/mi/nwis/current/?type=flow

The facility is only one of many uses for water in the area. Suggesting the rivers flow is 100% free to use is extremely misguided.

We're not talking about "100% of the river's flow".

We're talking about 1/2000 of the river's flow.

Re: Michigan OKs Nestlé Water Extraction, Despite Public Comments Against It

#55

Post by eckza »

jotm wrote: post #48
eckza wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flint resident here. The whole state of Michigan is a little sore about water right now.

What's the state of the water supply now? There's no more news about it, everyone forgot, as usual...

“Something must be done” turned into “something was done”, but what’s been done is nowhere near enough.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-still-havent-made...

Re: Michigan OKs Nestlé Water Extraction, Despite Public Comments Against It

#56

Post by oarsinsync »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #30
banach wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The holocaust was legal, slavery was legal, segregation was legal. If you use the state as a metric for ethics you'll end up disappointed. -- @lex_looper

Are you seriously comparing pumping 1/2000 of the water that normally goes down the local river with the holocaust or slavery?

It reads more like that you shouldn’t expect the state to behave ethically if there is no legal obligation to do so, and that what is considered ethical and/or legal can change over time.

Defending potentially bad behaviour solely on the basis that it’s legal behaviour may not be the best defence (outside of a court of law.)

Re: Michigan OKs Nestlé Water Extraction, Despite Public Comments Against It

#57

Post by cowpig »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #30
banach wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The holocaust was legal, slavery was legal, segregation was legal. If you use the state as a metric for ethics you'll end up disappointed. -- @lex_looper

Are you seriously comparing pumping 1/2000 of the water that normally goes down the local river with the holocaust or slavery?

I don't think @banach did that.

The point of the quote was to point out that laws aren't necessarily right.

And this point you keep making about it only being a small % of the total water isn't very convincing. I'm sure you would mind if I embezzled 1/2000th of Michigan's GDP.

Re: Michigan OKs Nestlé Water Extraction, Despite Public Comments Against It

#58

Post by Turing_Machine »

nrdgrl wrote: post #53
Turing_Machine wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The aquifer likely refills at a much slower rate than the flow of the Muskegon River No, most likely it does not . The watershed and the associated aquifer are where the river water comes from . As to "what that assertion is based on", that would be "knowledge of how the hydrologic cycle works ".

> The watershed and the associated aquifer are where the river water comes from Yes, that's where it comes from, but it doesn't fill up instantly. Depending on the depth and type of aquifer the well is tapping, it could actually take a very long time for the aquifer to refill (or it could refill very quickly).

Do such "fossil aquifers" exist? Yes.

Are they widely used in places like Michigan, where there is plenty of precipitation? No.

Re: Michigan OKs Nestlé Water Extraction, Despite Public Comments Against It

#59

Post by Normal_gaussian »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #30
banach wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The holocaust was legal, slavery was legal, segregation was legal. If you use the state as a metric for ethics you'll end up disappointed. -- @lex_looper

Are you seriously comparing pumping 1/2000 of the water that normally goes down the local river with the holocaust or slavery?

They were accurately pointing out that conflating legal with ethical is not just incorrect but dangerous.

They were not comparing the activities.

Re: Michigan OKs Nestlé Water Extraction, Despite Public Comments Against It

#60

Post by eckza »

malvosenior wrote: post #36

Can someone who knows more about this issue explain how Nestle bottling water has anything to do with lead in Flint's water or Detroit shutting off water to people who were delinquent on their bill? They seem totally unrelated. If Nestle didn't do this would it fix Flint's lead problem? Would it help people pay their water bills? I don't see how these issues are connected other than "water in Michigan". Am I missing…

You aren’t missing anything. It’s just “outrage logic”.
Post reply on HN