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

71–80 of 140 posts

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

#71

Post by Retric »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #54
Retric wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

1/2000 is a meaningless number because you don't know if hypothetically 2000/2000 of the flow is already assigned to other uses then there is zero left over and someone is losing out.

Hydro power for example uses 100% of the flow so removing that water directly reduces power output of downstream power plants.

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

#72

Post by nrdgrl »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #58
nrdgrl wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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".

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

#73

Post by malvosenior »

eckza wrote: post #60
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”.

But what are people outraged about? I see my comment has been on a rollercoaster of up and down votes so people obviously feel strongly but I still don't understand what the actual issue is.

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

#74

Post by larkeith »

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

This is a false equivalence - discharge rate of the Muskegon is not the same as refill rate of the aquifer being drained.

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

#75

Post by larkeith »

ucaetano wrote: post #12

> Nestlé's request to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to pump 576,000 gallons of water each day For perspective, all of Michigan uses 9 billion gallons of water each day. Nestle will be using 0.006% of what the state uses. Looking just at groundwater, Michigan uses 690 million gallons of water per day. Nestle will be using 0.08% of what the state uses. This is irrelevant. And I'm glad the personal op…

For perspective, one teacup holds 150ml of liquid. Nestle will be using 14 535 981 teacups of water.

Is this a relevant comparison? Just as much so as comparing a local watershed-impacting factory to a state's usage.

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

#76

Post by rmason »

sykh wrote: post #15
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

I don't know the particulars in this case but is Nestlé going to pay proper amount for this water? If the public doesn't want the plant then shouldn't their desires carry some weight? Especially since it doesn't appear that Nestlé would be providing a service in the interests of society at large. Overall there is a growing sense in the U.S. that public assets are being sold off at below market rates. That corporate i…

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.

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

#77

Post by nrdgrl »

rmason wrote: post #76
sykh wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know the particulars in this case but is Nestlé going to pay proper amount for this water? If the public doesn't want the plant then shouldn't their desires carry some weight? Especially since it doesn't appear that Nestlé would be providing a service in the interests of society at large. Overall there is a growing sense in the U.S. that public assets are being sold off at below market rates. That corporate i…

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.

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

#78

Post by maxerickson »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #42
anigbrowl wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's nice for Nestle, but ignores the fact that Flint is still having water quality problems and replacement of the lead-tainted pipes won't be complete until 2020. It's entirely reasonable that citizens would like their government to prioritize their wellbeing at the expense of regular procedure, considering that the Flint water crisis was a product of government error to start with.

This facility is over a hundred miles from Flint, and on a completely different watershed. In fact, the watershed drains into a completely different Great Lake (Lake Michigan rather than Lake Huron).

Hydrologically they are the same lake.

The rivers drain into it quite far apart though.

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

#79

Post by maxerickson »

Retric wrote: post #71
Turing_Machine wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're not talking about "100% of the river's flow". We're talking about 1/2000 of the river's flow.

1/2000 is a meaningless number because you don't know if hypothetically 2000/2000 of the flow is already assigned to other uses then there is zero left over and someone is losing out. Hydro power for example uses 100% of the flow so removing that water directly reduces power output of downstream power plants.

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/

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

#80

Post by zzzeek »

ucaetano wrote: post #40
castis wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe their opinions were based on principle. 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.

> 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 green.

Post reply on HN