[wacor]

Originally Posted by iltos

most of what i've read points to the free market system OR local agencies as being the more efficient manager of water as a resource....but seeing as how free enterprise brings buckets of money to the table, the influence it exerts over nation state policies is probably the hinge......

so my idealism points to those big political units as the handlers of the responsibility...which is kinda depressing.

Local agencies in the states are not the driving engine when it comes to curtailing water use in specifics. The local agencies will implement rules, laws, codes, etc that controls development. But the specific water usage is controlled by the states. There is no money for the locals to do it.

In MI, Wisconsin, Minnesota they are very pro active. To a fault IMO. Anybody wants to observe how to destroy the desire to do business in a state can google Ice Mountain and how they got jacked around by the state despite doing everything by the book. I had no dog in the fight but it was sickening how the NIMBY's played this out.

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by wacor

Local agencies in the states are not the driving engine when it comes to curtailing water use in specifics. The local agencies will implement rules, laws, codes, etc that controls development. But the specific water usage is controlled by the states. There is no money for the locals to do it.

In MI, Wisconsin, Minnesota they are very pro active. To a fault IMO. Anybody wants to observe how to destroy the desire to do business in a state can google Ice Mountain and how they got jacked around by the state despite doing everything by the book. I had no dog in the fight but it was sickening how the NIMBY's played this out.

Was Nestlé involved there or am I confusing that with someplace else?

[wacor]

Originally Posted by buffoon

Was Nestlé involved there or am I confusing that with someplace else?

Yes, Nestle owns Ice Mountain.

You will not find much that is in support of Ice Mountain. However the facts are they took out permits and were approved by the DEQ to start with the project.

Part of how they label their product required them to show an impact with surface water. That was required to call it spring water as I recall. They did a hydrogeolic study to prove the impact was negligent and thus they got approval.

Only after they got the wells drilled and I believe equipped did the NIMBY's fight them on it. They found a judge who was clueless that made an over reach.

In the end there were saner minds and IM was able to go into production with a limited amount and some of the original judges ruling were overturned.

I should add that this body of water is not even natural. It is called the Dead River and is only there due to a man made dam back in the 20's

When the state was forced to reconsider due to the NIMBY's the state did another study where they determined there was going to be impact on the water. What you will not find in the news is that this was based on flawed data and one of the geologists cooked the data which basically was hidden as it only showed up in one paragraph of a lengthy report.

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by wacor

Yes, Nestle owns Ice Mountain.

You will not find much that is in support of Ice Mountain. However the facts are they took out permits and were approved by the DEQ to start with the project.

Part of how they label their product required them to show an impact with surface water. That was required to call it spring water as I recall. They did a hydrogeolic study to prove the impact was negligent and thus they got approval.

Only after they got the wells drilled and I believe equipped did the NIMBY's fight them on it. They found a judge who was clueless that made an over reach.

In the end there were saner minds and IM was able to go into production with a limited amount and some of the original judges ruling were overturned.

I should add that this body of water is not even natural. It is called the Dead River and is only there due to a man made dam back in the 20's

When the state was forced to reconsider due to the NIMBY's the state did another study where they determined there was going to be impact on the water. What you will not find in the news is that this was based on flawed data and one of the geologists cooked the data which basically was hidden as it only showed up in one paragraph of a lengthy report.

I can't find anything on whether the protest was the run of the mill Nimby stance or whether Nestlé's bad public image of the time had anything to do with it as well. Which would be taking this thread too far OT, but I'd just like to know that last bit (if you have anything) before returning to topic.

[wacor]

Originally Posted by buffoon

I can't find anything on whether the protest was the run of the mill Nimby stance or whether Nestlé's bad public image of the time had anything to do with it as well. Which would be taking this thread too far OT, but I'd just like to know that last bit (if you have anything) before returning to topic.

My recollection is the negatives had nothing to do with Nestle in particular. Just the idea of a big business in general coming in and effecting the water levels. Which was simply not the case. I know one of the hydrogeologists who studied this.

The potato farmers in Saginaw, Michigan also got caught up in a bunch of nonsense where they were accused of lowering water tables and it was proven otherwise but the local health department idiot had an agenda and tried to prove otherwise. The state usually supports the locals so it makes it difficult to fight

[pyritechips]

I have heard arguments here concerning water "rights" according to what a group of people "need". Need is arguable here. Do you need a thing or do you want it? As Derek stated "But on the topic of water being a human right...they don't have any rights to live in the desert AND have more water than they need per day to keep from dehydrating.". I had mentioned an example earlier in this thread in stating that areas of California that were originally desert have consumed huge quantities of water to create a large fruit and vegetable exporting industry. Does that industry have a right to demand as much water as needed to support the industry?

One of my all time favourite books is Dune by Frank Herbert. I was struck by the rich world he created and its utter dependence on water to survive. It affected me to the point that I feel guilty when I turn on the tap and use water to rinse off a plate. I cringe to see watter rolling off peoples saturated lawns and pouring down the storm sewers. They are even left on while it's raining!. No, I don't think any humans have any "right" to water, and to take it if they are wasting it. Too many people it this utopian pseudo-democractic world give themselves too many right while denying others the same.

[buffoon]

Which brings me back to the examples quoted from down here and that with rights come responsibilities. We are not afforded the rights to water here, we have to buy them (it's different in the city but there you are only "supplied" and the continuity is not guaranteed as it cannot be).
Having bought the rights doesn't mean we can now handle them any way we wish. Abuse (like for instance over-abundant use) is penalized up to the point that chronic repeat offenders can be stripped of their rights without compensation.
It's happened only once in my time and that shows that the educational effect struck.
pour encourager les autres