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

81–90 of 140 posts

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

#81

Post by ucaetano »

larkeith wrote: post #75
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.

> Just as much so as comparing a local watershed-impacting factory to a state's usage.

Well, since you ask, here's the watershed comparison:

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 to conclude that the aquifer can sustain the proposed withdrawal without deleterious effects to the dependent resources.

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

#82

Post by pasbesoin »

a2tech wrote: post #35

You’ll read a lot of comments on this, both good and bad. A lot of passionate arguments have been made on both sides. I have two things to add to it—and feel free to take them as you will. 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. The plant also got special tax rebates and other incentives…

I don't know specifically about this Nestle plant -- although they are shits for going after limited water resources in the Shasta watershed in California.

But as to various forms of high-capacity wells in general, in neighboring Wisconsin, not only are other pre-existing wells at risk from this -- which the Republican state government continues to seek to reduce regulation of and control over, meaning planning and effective and fair management of a limited resource. New high-capacity wells are also threatening and impacting lakes. A lot of those wells are for agri-business, such as very large capacity commercial animal husbandry/farming.

In those cases, the other risk is resulting animal waste; disposal often leaves it contaminating the aquifer.

Quite arguably, this isn't "conservative" at all. They aren't conserving resources -- nor existing property rights and businesses. It is "Conservative", an ideology that places money and individual short-term gain before all else.

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

#83

Post by ucaetano »

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…

> That's completely incorrect because the state is run by politically elected leadership who ultimately answer to the people.

This isn't being voted by elected officials, this is being approved by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality following the standard procedure set in law by elected officials.

> 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.

Yes, and they should do so at the ballot or at their elected officials.

Or are you suggesting that any laws and regulations are legally void when 80k people comment against it?

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

#84

Post by bobwaycott »

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…

> Thanks for the ad hominem.

That wasn’t an ad hominem. The parent was making an observation—unnecessary as it may be and regardless of its accuracy—on your character based on your comments. The parent was not dismissing your argument based on or by switching to refuting it with a personal attack of your character.

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

#85

Post by coolso »

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.

> Homes usually pay ~$6,000 to fill a pool.

Where? I'm seeing anecdotes of an average of $100-300 to fill up a pool with a hose, and $1250 to bring a truck in.

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

#86

Post by mratzloff »

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 the public resources it's selling, gets incredible tax breaks to create jobs, and then only creates on average 24 low-wage jobs that mostly go to non-local residents...

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

#88

Post by maxerickson »

daodedickinson wrote: post #87

Citizens of Michigan should get a check every year like they do in Alaska. This keeps happening because only Nestle and a few politicians get a cut and everyone with power is happy.

My city (in Michigan) charges large users of water 0.2 cents per gallon (~$2 per thousand, they charge small users more). That's for treated, metered tap water that they pump into a tower. So the cost includes distribution and such. Another town in Michigan charges something like 0.8 cents per gallon.

Under the new permit, Nestle will be pumping about 210 million gallons a year. At the going rate for clean water in Michigan, it's in the ballpark of $1 million dollars (or maybe $2 million), with 9 million residents.

Whether the water is being put to good/appropriate use is the much more important question than the saleable value of the water.

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

#89

Post by ucaetano »

bobwaycott wrote: post #84
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…

> Thanks for the ad hominem. That wasn’t an ad hominem . The parent was making an observation—unnecessary as it may be and regardless of its accuracy—on your character based on your comments. The parent was not dismissing your argument based on or by switching to refuting it with a personal attack of your character.

Oh, sorry:

> Thanks for the personal attack

Yep, that's better, thanks!

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

#90

Post by Retric »

maxerickson wrote: post #79
Retric wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

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.
Post reply on HN