How Nestle makes billions bottling free water | AJ+

Summary

Nestle's extraction of Michigan's water has sparked controversy as the company bottles millions of gallons for just $200 annually, despite opposition from local residents and Native American tribes. Critics argue that Nestle exploits lax regulations and harms the environment, while the company defends its practices with scientific studies. The dispute is complicated by Michigan's approval of Nestle's request to increase water extraction, despite overwhelming public opposition. The debate raises broader questions about water rights, corporate control, and environmental impact, with local communities divided over the economic benefits and environmental costs of Nestle's operations.

Takeaways

• 😀 Nestle has been bottling Michigan's water for years, selling it at great profit, yet paying only a minimal fee of $200 annually for millions of gallons of water.
• 😀 Despite widespread local opposition, the state of Michigan approved Nestle’s request to increase its water extraction to 400 gallons per minute.
• 😀 Local communities, including Native American tribes, are concerned about the environmental impact and the violation of treaty rights regarding water access.
• 😀 Critics argue that Nestle exploits lax water laws in economically struggling areas, offering promises of jobs in exchange for access to water resources.
• 😀 Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality overruled computer model findings that predicted adverse environmental impacts from Nestle’s increased water extraction.
• 😀 Local activists and residents believe that Nestle's extraction is depleting water resources, particularly in the headwaters of local creeks and rivers.
• 😀 Nestle’s practices in Michigan highlight the broader issue of water privatization, where water is extracted and sold for profit rather than being kept as a public resource.
• 😀 The Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians are actively fighting against Nestle’s water extraction due to concerns over the impact on their treaty rights and way of life.
• 😀 In Evart, Michigan, where Nestle extracts water, the company has provided some infrastructure support, but locals remain divided about whether the benefits outweigh the environmental costs.
• 😀 The debate over Nestle’s operations in Michigan is part of a larger global conversation about the ethics of water privatization, particularly in economically disadvantaged areas.
• 😀 Despite the controversy, Nestle remains confident in its water extraction practices, claiming that their science shows no negative impact on the environment or local ecosystems.

Q & A

Why is Nestlé's water extraction in Michigan controversial?

Nestlé's water extraction is controversial because it involves taking large amounts of water from Michigan's natural resources for minimal fees, while local communities and Native American tribes feel that this exploitation is harmful to the environment and violates treaty rights.

How much is Nestlé paying to extract millions of gallons of water from Michigan annually?

Nestlé pays just $200 per year to extract millions of gallons of water from Michigan, which many locals find unfair given the massive profits the company generates from bottling and selling that water.

What role does the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) play in Nestlé's water extraction?

The DEQ played a key role in approving Nestlé's request to pump more water despite environmental concerns. The DEQ overruled an adverse environmental impact finding based on a computer model and instead relied on data provided by Nestlé to push the permit through.

How does Nestlé's presence in Michigan affect the local water ecosystem?

Locals claim that Nestlé's water extraction has led to lower water levels in nearby creeks, which harms the ecosystem, including coldwater streams vital for fish like trout. There are concerns that further extraction will deplete the local environment.

What are the concerns of Native American tribes regarding Nestlé’s water extraction?

Native American tribes, particularly the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, are concerned that Nestlé's water extraction violates their treaty rights, which guarantee them access to natural resources such as water for sustenance and cultural practices.

What is Nestlé's response to the accusations about the environmental impact of their water extraction?

Nestlé maintains that their extraction practices do not harm the environment, citing their scientific studies which show that 400 gallons per minute extraction would not negatively impact the local ecosystem. They also claim that the water extraction is necessary due to the location of thick aquifers in rural areas.

How does Nestlé justify its water extraction practices in economically depressed areas like Evart, Michigan?

Nestlé justifies its presence in Evart by emphasizing the jobs and revenue it generates for the community, including helping fund local infrastructure projects like new softball fields and wells, despite the fact that the company never built a factory in the town as promised.

What do critics of Nestlé argue about the company’s impact on the local economy in Evart?

Critics argue that while Nestlé has brought some economic benefits, such as revenue from water sales, the company has not delivered on promises like building a factory, and the local community is not seeing substantial long-term benefits. The water extraction is also perceived as harming the environment.

What is the significance of the public opposition to Nestlé’s water extraction in Michigan?

Public opposition is significant because more than 80,000 people opposed Nestlé’s water extraction plans, reflecting widespread local concern about environmental damage and corporate exploitation of natural resources. However, the Michigan government approved the request despite this opposition.

What do some Michigan residents believe about Nestlé’s water extraction and the state’s water laws?

Many Michigan residents believe that Nestlé is exploiting lax water regulations in the state, allowing them to extract water at minimal cost while making huge profits. They argue that this represents an unfair practice that prioritizes corporate interests over environmental protection and community well-being.