Michigan OKs Nestlé Water Extraction, Despite Public Comments Against It

Post by expertBrogram » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 12:54 AM UTC

mratzloff wrote: post #86

Government overrules the public on privatizing public resources despite near-unanimous opposition from the public that stands to "benefit": HN can barely muster a shrug. Government overrules the public on something HN actually gives a shit about, like net neutrality, using the exact same process : HN calls for blood in the streets! This is despite the fact Nestlé typically pays nothing (or an absurdly low amount) for…

Post by brandonmenc » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 1:11 AM UTC

cowpig wrote: post #57

Turing_Machine wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by Rebelgecko » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 1:22 AM UTC

Scaevolus wrote: post #69

Turing_Machine wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People I know in the area with wells had them go dry after the nestle plant opened. These were wells that had previously been high (for wells) throughout, just drying up. That (if true) is a legitimate complaint and Nestle should make them whole. Edit: as someone else noted, this is less than one swimming pool's worth of water per day. If wells are going dry because of that, they were marginal at best.

Swimming pools are huge and not often emptied. Homes usually pay ~$6,000 to fill a pool. 576,000 gallons / day is ~6000 people's daily usage. Wells have specific recovery rates. I don't know whether the amount they're pumping will exceed that rate-- environmental studies should include that information.

Post by Turing_Machine » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 1:28 AM UTC

domevent wrote: post #65

Turing_Machine wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think @banach did that. I think he clearly did do that. > And this point you keep making about it only being a small % of the total water isn't very convincing. I'm sorry you don't find arithmetic convincing, but there's not much I can do about that. > I'm sure you would mind if I embezzled 1/2000th of Michigan's GDP. Now you're wandering off into non sequitur.

This is arguing dishonestly, as you presumably understand the difference between using examples to illustrate a principle, and a direct comparison. Why not just address the point, instead of being “outraged” by his presentation?

Post by Turing_Machine » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 1:31 AM UTC

nrdgrl wrote: post #72

Turing_Machine wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do such "fossil aquifers" exist? Yes. Are they widely used in places like Michigan, where there is plenty of precipitation? No.

Rather than making blanket statements, here is the actual aquifer characteristics. https://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/wrd-nestle-attach-5-a... which is of course much more nuanced, and interesting than "it rains a lot".