• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michigan Rejects Nestle's Request For More Water

Though I don't know that area, Michigan has plenty of water resources.

What's not clear from the article is who was going to bear the expense of the new pumping station Nestle wanted. There's no mention of any benefit to that local government. It's not even clear there's a Nestle facility near that township that would see more jobs.

The only mention of cost to them is the cost of the application and renewals.

Surely it wouldn't be unreasonable for the township government to have their construction expenses covered, and possibly some ongoing investment into their water infrastructure from Nestle?

It seems that State and any local taxes (if there are any), by product produced and sold and employee wages, would be flowing into the coffers.
 
I respect the decision, but I would've hoped someone would've asked, "How about letting Nestle pump 400 gpm as long as they devote half of their profit from that increased operation to providing clean drinking water for those in need of it?" Seems like that would've been a better deal all the way around.
 
It seems that State and any local taxes (if there are any), by product produced and sold and employee wages, would be flowing into the coffers.

Sure, but I don't see Nestle making claims that there are any potential job\wage\tax gains in play at all, let alone for this township.

I'd expect they'd lead with that, if it existed.
 
When the rights are leased/sold to them what they draw certainly does, as well as the profit made.

Well, it's high time we stop the practice of leasing and selling things which belong to the commons.
 
This whole thing bothers me to no end.
I just hate it when the Lower Peninsula calls any part of it "Northern Michigan". iLOL



Sure, but I don't see Nestle making claims that there are any potential job\wage\tax gains in play at all, let alone for this township.

I'd expect they'd lead with that, if it existed.
What leads depends on the reporter here.
Unless you are in Flint, then it is just hyperbole about lead. :tongue4:


Here is a more in-depth article. (not by much though)
I found the following portion interesting.


[...]

Critics honed in on the cost to the company for pulling more water from the ground: According to the DEQ, it would cost the company $5,000 for a permit application to withdraw about 210 million gallons a year, and an annual $200 fee for filing related annual paperwork.

“If Flint could pay that rate, their annual household cost would be less than 75 cents per year,” said Peggy Case, president of the Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation, which opposes Nestle’s bid.

She said she was outraged that Nestle can withdraw water for a price that is proportionally far less than the amount paid by Flint residents for water they couldn’t drink in it’s lead-contaminated water crisis, a fact often brought up by those opposed to Nestle’s bid.

The fees are set by state law.

[...]

Nestle’s bid for more water withdrawal riles residents

Maybe the State should change the fees?
 
Well, it's high time we stop the practice of leasing and selling things which belong to the commons.

No. That is how money is made.
As long as the rain keeps the aquifers filled there should be no problem.
When it starts to be a detriment that is when it should stop, which means the taxes created stop. Which is a loss all around.



Maybe you missed my earlier comments though?

That said.
**** you Nestle.
Go to the ocean and create your own desalination plants for water.
 
No. That is how money is made.
As long as the rain keeps the aquifers filled there should be no problem.
When it starts to be a detriment that is when it should stop, which means the taxes created stop. Which is a loss all around.



Maybe you missed my earlier comments though?

That said.
**** you Nestle.
Go to the ocean and create your own desalination plants for water.

Time we change that. What's underground belongs to everyone. It's time we wake up and realize that fact.

Well, if you like my anti-Nestle, position you should not have attacked my post. :)
 
This whole thing bothers me to no end.
I just hate it when the Lower Peninsula calls any part of it "Northern Michigan". iLOL

As an Ohioan, I was raised to resent Michigan being considered part of the U.S., at least during college football season. :)

I found another article that addresses the job prospects
, though it's from last November when their limit was 150 gallons/hour.

I don't see how $5000 + 20 jobs/year + $200/year is a good trade for 1.7 million gallons additional of water/year.

The state and township should be in business for itself, no?

In this case, it appears Nestle is attempting to use political clout to ram through a one sided deal for itself.
 
Time we change that. What's underground belongs to everyone. It's time we wake up and realize that fact.
Fact: You are wrong.
It doesn't belong to everyone.
Fact: It belongs to whom the States gives/sells/leases the Rights to.

That is how it works, not the collective bs you are spewing.

You can work to change that, and that is fine, but you do not get to misstate reality.

Well, if you like my anti-Nestle, position you should not have attacked my post. :)
You seemed to be confused as to liking your position. I pointed out the falseness of it and then further disagreed with your response. :shrug:


My personal preference is that they take the water from the Ocean.
 
Is that just a contribution or are you trying to argue something in reply to what I said?

I don't think there's an aquifer in the US that's not in a state of depletion. My response was in direct reply to the part of your post I quoted.

Do you really think any aquifers in the US are refilled by the rain?

As you apparently don't know anything about aquifer depletion, you (especially) should read the link I provided.
 
As an Ohioan, I was raised to resent Michigan being considered part of the U.S., at least during college football season. :)
Oh How I hate Ohio State. :mrgreen:


I don't see how $5000 + 20 jobs/year + $200/year is a good trade for 1.7 million gallons additional of water/year.

The state and township should be in business for itself, no?

In this case, it appears Nestle is attempting to use political clout to ram through a one sided deal for itself.
As previously noted, the Fees are set by the State.
If there is no reasonable objection they are likely to get what they want.

I do not have a problem with that.
If the State wishes to increase the fees I have no problem with that.
If the taking of the ground water become a detriment is when I too will have a problem.
 
I don't think there's an aquifer in the US that's not in a state of depletion. My response was in direct reply to the part of your post I quoted.

Do you really think any aquifers in the US are refilled by the rain?

As you apparently don't know anything about aquifer depletion, you (especially) should read the link I provided.
Figures.
You are speaking your usual nonsense and making absurd assumptions.
 
Figures.
You are speaking your usual nonsense and making absurd assumptions.

Perhaps if you read more slowly:

As long as the rain keeps the aquifers filled there should be no problem.
When it starts to be a detriment that is when it should stop, which means the taxes created stop. Which is a loss all around.

That is an amazingly ignorant statement. I would only expect it from a child that has never been to middle school science class.

If you think rain maintains aquifer levels, you are completely detached from reality.

The link I provided can serve as a basic education on the topic.
 
Fact: You are wrong.
It doesn't belong to everyone.
Fact: It belongs to whom the States gives/sells/leases the Rights to.

That is how it works, not the collective bs you are spewing.

You can work to change that, and that is fine, but you do not get to misstate reality.


You seemed to be confused as to liking your position. I pointed out the falseness of it and then further disagreed with your response. :shrug:


My personal preference is that they take the water from the Ocean.

It's time to change that. Besides how can it be "collectivist"? It's not Nestle's water. No one is collecting anything. We're denying them access. :roll:
 
I don't see how $5000 + 20 jobs/year + $200/year is a good trade for 1.7 million gallons additional of water/year.

Sry, my math was faulty, it's 6.3 billion gallons extra year.
 
Perhaps if you read more slowly:
As long as the rain keeps the aquifers filled there should be no problem.
When it starts to be a detriment that is when it should stop, which means the taxes created stop. Which is a loss all around.

That is an amazingly ignorant statement. I would only expect it from a child that has never been to middle school science class.

If you think rain maintains aquifer levels, you are completely detached from reality.

The link I provided can serve as a basic education on the topic.
iLOL
Wow, you really can't help yourself can you?
As wrong as your comments always are, this one must be a projection. (see how that works? You insult, you get insulted back.)




Nothing I said was wrong or based in ignorance.

You making an assumption about it clearly is wrong though, and clearly is a reply based in ignorance.


My comment is a generality that only addresses the point where I will have a problem with them drawing from it.
Not a damn thing required I be more specific in regards to it's sustainability. The generality of "filled" is just fine.

It is odd that you would not understand a simple thing like that since you apparently profess (but have yet to show) to have an education greater than a middle school science class child. :shrug:
But no, apparently you are to wrapped up in your own supposed self important comments to recognize that.
Take your feeble attempts at correction commentary elsewhere.


So, do you want to correct your behavior before continuing, or do you wish to continue down this path?
If not, perhaps you should make a valid argument if you wish to engage me.
 
Besides how can it be "collectivist"? It's not Nestle's water. No one is collecting anything. We're denying them access.
You said it belongs to everyone. That would be collectivist nonsense.

And again, when the rights are leased/sold to them what they draw certainly does belong to Nestle.
 
iLOL
Wow, you really can't help yourself can you?
As wrong as your comments always are, this one must be a projection. (see how that works? You insult, you get insulted back.)




Nothing I said was wrong or based in ignorance.

You making an assumption about it clearly is wrong though, and clearly is a reply based in ignorance.


My comment is a generality that only addresses the point where I will have a problem with them drawing from it.
Not a damn thing required I be more specific in regards to it's sustainability. The generality of "filled" is just fine.

It is odd that you would not understand a simple thing like that since you apparently profess (but have yet to show) to have an education greater than a middle school science class child. :shrug:
But no, apparently you are to wrapped up in your own supposed self important comments to recognize that.
Take your feeble attempts at correction commentary elsewhere.


So, do you want to correct your behavior before continuing, or do you wish to continue down this path?
If not, perhaps you should make a valid argument if you wish to engage me.

In other words, you thought aquifers are fine because of rain. Brilliant. Go read the link I provided, so you don't make such an absurd statement in the future.
 
You said it belongs to everyone. That would be collectivist nonsense.

And again, when the rights are leased/sold to them what they draw certainly does belong to Nestle.

Drinking water underneath us certainly does belong to everyone. What kind of twisted brainwashing would convince someone to believe otherwise?

We can pay someone to get it up for us, pump it, pipe it, store it, whatever. But, the resource is ours. It certainly is treated that way here where I live.
 
Drinking water underneath us certainly does belong to everyone. What kind of twisted brainwashing would convince someone to believe otherwise?

We can pay someone to get it up for us, pump it, pipe it, store it, whatever. But, the resource is ours. It certainly is treated that way here where I live.
iLOL
No it does not.
You have to obtain Rights to it just as Nestle does.
 
In other words, you thought aquifers are fine because of rain. Brilliant. Go read the link I provided, so you don't make such an absurd statement in the future.
:2rofll:

In other words, you again show you know not of what you speak.
There was nothing absurd about the statement.

A generality of "filled" was used. Filled in this case refers to sustainability.
But obviously you are incapable of acknowledging that even after being told.

It makes your argument a failure from the get.
 
:2rofll:

In other words, you again show you know not of what you speak.
There was nothing absurd about the statement.

A generality of "filled" was used. Filled in this case refers to sustainability.
But obviously you are incapable of acknowledging that even after being told.

It makes your argument a failure from the get.

No aquifer in the US is sustainable. Your fantasy is pathetic. Read the link I provided.
 
No aquifer in the US is sustainable. Your fantasy is pathetic. Read the link I provided.
Doh!
No, ecofarm.
You make the argument and then quote your reference material to support that argument as you should.
 
Back
Top Bottom