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

101–110 of 140 posts

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

#101

Post by Turing_Machine »

domevent wrote: post #70
Turing_Machine wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how it could be more complicated. Any groundwater that isn't pumped out and used is going to eventually go down the river, right? Otherwise the area would be underwater. Yeah, there are places where groundwater enters the aquifer from long distances away. Michigan is not one of those places. It gets plenty of precipitation.

“Eventually” is quite the weasel word in this context. Yes, eventually it will, for values of eventually which may exceed the average human lifespan.

> Yes, eventually it will, for values of eventually which may exceed the average human lifespan.

Pure nonsense.

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

#102

Post by mratzloff »

chrischen wrote: post #91
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…

Government didn't overrule the public. The agency is not legally allowed to arbitrarily deny the permit.

It's almost as if the government makes the laws and can arbitrarily write them to take the public screaming at them into account.

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

#103

Post by dajohnson89 »

perceptor wrote: post #95

I feel like Nestle in particular draws heat for two reasons: 1) They are a global multinational and don't demonstrate much sympathy for local environmental issues 2) They are specifically bottling water , which seems wasteful as a practice in general, adds minimal value, etc. I can't speak knowledgeably about #1 -- Nestle's track record probably speaks for itself -- but I do wonder about #2. If a Anheuser Busch or Co…

spring water isn't used to make Budweiser so your last point doesn't hold any....water.

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

#104

Post by Turing_Machine »

The whole idea of Michigan being somehow desperately short of water is ridiculous on its face, by the way.

Not only does it get plenty of rainfall, it's surrounded on every side but the south by the friggin' Great Lakes. You guys have heard of those, right? You know, the ones that contain 21% of the freshwater in the entire world?

People keep mentioning Flint. Flint doesn't have a water shortage. It has crappy water due to an outdated water supply system.

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

#105

Post by Turing_Machine »

Retric wrote: post #90
maxerickson wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Water rights aren't terribly contentious in that part of Michigan. The Muskegon is tiny and the sort of river hydro is being removed from. http://glpf.org/funded-projects/muskegon-river-dam-removal/

The Muskegon feeds into the Lake Michigan which is thus upstream of Niagara Falls and a lot of hydro power generation. Granted we are not talking about a huge amount of energy, but it is one of many costs that are not being compensated.

Compare the amount of water they're taking out per day (576,000 gallons) to amount of water that goes over Niagara Falls in a day (about 54,345,600,000 gallons).

"Not a huge amount of energy", indeed.

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

#106

Post by Zeta_Function »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #97
Scaevolus wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Homes usually pay ~$6,000 to fill a pool. Nonsense. Maybe in Phoenix or Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Not in Michigan.

I don’t know anything about the price of water in any of those places, can you cite some numbers?

By the way, why are you so passionate about this topic? You’ve made 17 comments on this thread, or 17% of all of the comments here as of this writing. Thst seems extreme to me. The one I’m responding to isn’t substantive, another is just a single word. Dominating a conversation with sheer volume seems extreme, and impolite.

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

#107

Post by Turing_Machine »

nrdgrl wrote: post #77
rmason wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nestle is paying $5200 for all the water it is drawing. I'd be willing to wager they're paying 10-20x that on lobbying efforts. https://www.bridgemi.com/guest-commentary/opinion-nestle-wat... The county they're in has high unemployment and they make the case that it's all about the jobs they're creating.

That is the permit application fee (one time, $5,000) and reporting costs ($200 / year). They aren't paying for the water.

Detroit is currently selling water for $23/thousand cubic feet, or about .000321/gallon. That's filtered, treated, and distributed to a tap in every home.

What do you imagine a fair price would be for untreated, pump-it-yourself groundwater?

http://www.detroitmi.gov/Portals/0/docs/DWSD/Water%20Rate%20...

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

#108

Post by username223 »

perceptor wrote: post #95

I feel like Nestle in particular draws heat for two reasons: 1) They are a global multinational and don't demonstrate much sympathy for local environmental issues 2) They are specifically bottling water , which seems wasteful as a practice in general, adds minimal value, etc. I can't speak knowledgeably about #1 -- Nestle's track record probably speaks for itself -- but I do wonder about #2. If a Anheuser Busch or Co…

Bottled water is just terrible. First, the fact that potable municipal water is so cheap that you can use a gallon of it to make your poop disappear is a miracle of modern civilization. Second, putting that same water in plastic bottles, driving it around the country, and selling it for $1-2/liter creates all sorts of environmental damage for absolutely no benefit.

Please, people, celebrate the benefits of living in the modern world: buy a canteen and fill it at your sink.

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

#109

Post by koolba »

banach wrote: post #20
koolba wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: >> But despite deep public opposition, the agency concluded that the company's plan met with legal standards. I’ll take equal interpretation of the law over mob rule any day of the week.

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

Segregation was mob rule. It took federal enforcement of anti discrimination laws to break it up.

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

#110

Post by Turing_Machine »

zzzeek wrote: post #80
ucaetano wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know you do not care, but your dismissal of 80k people you don't and will never know says volumes about you as a person. Thanks for the ad hominem. It isn't that I care or not, approving this well is a technical environmental decision, and shouldn't depend on how much people scream. It doesn't matter if there were 10 million people against it, the agency isn't there to evaluate public support for a project, it is…

> approving this well is a technical environmental decision, and shouldn't depend on how much people scream. That's completely incorrect because the state is run by politically elected leadership who ultimately answer to the people. If the people hated Nestle because its factories were painted green, they have the right to complain and ultimately vote for leadership that would disallow Nestle to paint their factories…

> If the people hated Nestle because its factories were painted green, they have the right to complain and ultimately vote for leadership that would disallow Nestle to paint their factories green.

What if they didn't like Nestle hiring black people?

You have the right to complain, yes. That doesn't mean you automatically get your way. Not even if everyone votes for it.

Post reply on HN