There is an interesting controversy brewing over the continued removal of water by Nestle from California’s water supply during the record drought in that state. Nestle continued to remove millions of gallons of water from the San Bernardino National Forest to sell as part of its Arrowhead bottled water brand. While the rest of the state is facing stringent water reductions, Nestles has been criticized for removing 27 million gallons of water from 12 springs in Strawberry Canyon under a permit that expired in 1988. The expired permit’s fee for the water, according to critics? $524.
The expired permit only adds to the controversy over not just the removal of water by the waste associated with bottled water. The company head Tim Brown however said that this is like complaining about the weather: “If I stop bottling water tomorrow, people would buy another brand of bottled water. It’s driven by consumer demand, it’s driven by an on-the-go society that needs to hydrate.”
Starbucks recently stopped bottling water in the state. However, there are a 110 bottlers in the state. Critics charge that it amounts to theft will companies point out that it remains a small percentage of water use in the state.
Nestle has launched a counteroffensive to answer questions and critics. The company says that it has tried to renew its permit with the federal government and has been told it can continue to draw water. It notes that its product is still a lot better than those “sugary drinks.” It adds:
How much water do you withdraw in California?
Less than 0.008% of the total. Nearly 50 billion cubic metres (13 trillion gallons) of water is used in California each year. Nestlé uses less than 4 million cubic metres (1 billion gallons) in all its operations. We operate five bottled water plants (out of 108 in the state) and four food plants. Our bottled water plants use around 2.66 million cubic metres (705 million gallons) of water a year.
Two questions remain (1) why a company should make billions on public water without greater revenue sharing for the public and (2) whether such draws should continue during drought periods. It is also clear that the permitting system run by the US Forest Service (USFS) is in shambles. Either the USFS should cut off these draws or permit them under a workable and mutually beneficial system. It is bizarre to leave companies for decades operating off of expired permits.
What do you think?
We’ve often dreamed of California ‘breaking away’ because of earthquakes, but…
… It’s sinking faster than anyone can shake a dousing rod at.
Sinking Central California Farmland Reflects Massive Well Pumping of Groundwater for Irrigation
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Sinking-Farmland-Reflects-Massive-Well-Pumpings-of-Groundwater-for–Irrigation-322909731.html
Bill H:
I understand the need to do a cost benefit analysis on building reservoirs.
The more holes you have in the ground, the more water they collect. If 10 holes are half filled, they will hold more water than 1 that is half filled.
It actually wasn’t a cost analysis that prevented the building of any aqueducts; such projects were blocked by environmentalists. I am an environmentalist, and yet obviously I do not agree with the opinions of all environmentalists. Heck, to get the ideal return to a pristine environment, we could simply empty the state of all people.
Here’s another article on the complexity of our water usage:
http://www.wired.com/2015/04/drought-isnt-californias-water-problem/
We have friends who are farmers up north. The Water Wars are quite intense up there. They live close to water, but the South drains much of it, while the North doesn’t have the votes for self determination over their own local resources.
That’s why so many people clamor to break up this huge state in half, so that each half gets representation on what they want. But that’s also why the break will never happen; the South cannot afford to lose the North’s resources.
And allow me to add my opinion on bottled water. Filtered water is best, because we don’t create all that plastic that either goes into a landfill or releases chemicals while getting recycled.
But many people who live on wells, like myself, have to use bottled water. Our water hardness is around 38 grains (I can’t recall the exact number anymore.) But, basically, my well must be enclosed by a limestone cave to have that many dissolved minerals. To prevent calcium buildup, which would necessitate repiping my house annually, we use a water softener. Since I’m an environmentalist, I pay a fortune for potassium salt ($28/bag) instead of sodium salt ($4/bag) for our water softener. But potassium is bitter tasting in minuscule amounts. Even though I have a reverse osmosis, the water is too bitter to be drinkable.
So we have to buy bottled water.
People who believe that bottled water is not necessary may not be aware of this.
I live here in So Cal, and have been following the drought closely.
If the government really did give Nestle permission to keep using their own springs, then it’s not Nestle’s fault. We have to prove their declaration that they had permission. From what I’ve followed previously, Nestle owns several wells that they use for bottled water.
Allow me to list what I’ve discovered, living in a drought state:
1. Do Nestle’s springs feed an underground river, or an underground lake that is completely contained on their property? If they are not drawing from a water resource that feeds other resources, then I consider this their property to dispose of as they see fit. If it is a shared resource, then it needs to be managed in fairness, the same as a group of houses that share the same source for their wells.
2. The government is completely discombobulated in their water policy. I know of farmers who have had their wells capped, destroying their livelihood. Meanwhile, I see cheerfully bubbling fountains at office parks, malls, and state fairs. You would think that they would save fountain water before drying up the food producers of a heavily populated state. I have not seen any golf courses go brown, either, or a push to drain swimming pools. If we truly were going to manage our water resources, we would prioritize food production over aesthetic water usage.
3. CA is subsidizing homeowners replacing their water-thirsty lawns with fake turf, which I feel is in error. There have been some preliminary indications that fake turf has been linked to pediatric cancer, especially in soccer goalies, who have the most exposure. At least there is enough concern for further study. And they want to carpet the state in plastic which will leach chemicals into our groundwater? There are water wise lawns (such as UC Verde) which is a type of prairie buffalo grass that uses a tiny bit of water. There are also CA native plants which would, if grown without chemicals, benefit our local pollinators as well as honeybees suffering from Colony Collapse Disorder. Fire resistant vegetation is crucial in our Fire State. In addition, vegetation cools the area, combating the heat island effect of hardscape cities, cleans our air, and produces oxygen. Plasticizing the state in a misguided effort to save water is in error.
4. We have not built a single new reservoir, aqueduct, or any other means to save water in decades. We have an El Nino predicted for this fall, and in fact have already had a few miraculous summer rain storms. All that rain, that we’ve known was coming for years, is just going to wash out to sea, without saving any. It’s the worst case of neglect, poor planning, and misjudgment I’ve seen in a while. Our population grows by leaps and bounds, yet our leaders do little or nothing to save precious water. On the bright side, private rain barrels were just recently made legal without a permit. (Yes, it’s true. We were forbidden to save any rain without first getting an expensive permit until a couple of years ago.) We are in a drought because of poor planning, but we are getting punished for it.
5. We dumped millions of gallons of freshwater into the delta to try to save the smelt, a small bait fish. It failed, and the water was wasted. The last count found 6 fish, for a projected total population that is likely not self sustaining. I do not know if the smelt is integral to the food chain, such as krill. If krill ever go extinct, we’d lose baleen whales, and any number of members of the food chain based upon it. So I cannot say the ecological importance of smelt. I’ve often wondered if smelt ever existed in large numbers before human expansion of hardscape caused the freshwater runoff to deluge into the ocean.
6. Native chaparral has almost zero runoff. (See laspilitas.org for an interesting analysis of the water retention and fire retardation of native plants.) I’ve stood at the base of a hill on our property covered in native plants, during a deluge, and not seen a trickle of water at my feet. Meanwhile, the dirt road turned and shunted sheet flooding across our property from water that had no plants to soak it up or break up its flow. We need to be following Brad Lancaster’s (see Rainwater Harvesting book) advice (as well as Mr Phiri from Zimbabwe http://ag.arizona.edu/OALS/ALN/aln46/lancaster.html) on how to prevent water runoff and recharge underground water resources. We have developed and graded our cities and suburbs to counterintuitively maximize runoff. All that water is wasted, so that we draw more than we deposit into our underground aquifers. That water was never intended to run off into the ocean. During the time when only Native Americans lived here, and before, native plants kept and banked almost all of our rainfall, besides what flowed into our rivers, and held it in underground aquifers. Now we ensure maximum runoff but keep withdrawing water from the ground until the surface crumbles into the empty aquifer below.
7. And, YES, absolutely, the permitting process is in a shambles, and there is little agreement among agencies.
8. We have horses here on our property. The DWP has stated their intention to come on to private property and install meters on everyone’s wells. If they use more than their allotment, then their well will be capped. As stated earlier, this has already affected farmers. As in the Nestle case above, if the water is entirely contained on our acreage, then it’s none of the DWP’s beeswax what we do with it. It is not a shared resource. If they curtail water use, then it will be impossible to keep horses, livestock, and in extreme cases, pets. CA has already passed a bill that will mandate a 50% reduction in gas usage, so I fully expect the state to be similarly irresponsible in legislating our access to water. The DWP did not pay $40,000 to develop a well on private property, keep it running, or pay for testing every spring. Homeowners paid for that. By unilaterally, without a vote, coming in and seizing our water rights without compensation, I consider this worse than eminent domain, in which the homeowners is at least compensated something for the loss of his property.
olly: There’s a drought on in California, genius, and there’s not even enough precipitation to fill the reservoirs that already exist. Why would anybody build new ones? If the government did start constructing more reservoirs, no doubt you’d jump all over it for violating sound economic principles.
BTW, if there was any rainfall in California, then your “salty fog” wouldn’t be an issue. Apparently, one side of your mouth doesn’t know what the other one’s saying. Sail on, Salty.
The cost of the water is almost nothing. The cost of a bottle of water is almost all wrapped up in the manufacture of the bottle, bottling, transportation, and distribution. Charging higher prices for the water would up the price and Nestle would probably look elsewhere to remain competitive. The economy generated by the industry is where the taxes, wages, and profits are made and spent.
Sometimes figures taken out of context stand out for more than they are worth.
This is yet another glaring example of inept government bureaucrats doing exactly what inept government bureaucrats do.
Nestle bottles water at this plant. They have permission to do it. It is the government’s responsibility to monitor, approve, and regulate.
Either way, it’s either incompetence or corruption… take your pick.
“Brewing”?? The lack of functioning process to hold Nestle accountable is a testament to the success of the CorpState in gutting regulations and regulatory agencies. We’re left with an expensive charade. Time for direct action IMHO.
Minority, steal $5.- worth of food, go to jail & die. Large company, no permit, steals millions – not a big deal. Just the way it works folks
Nestle water bottle plants use “705 million gallons” of water a year.
How much corporate tax does this generate?
How much individual income tax from factory workers does this generate? State and Fed?
If we remember from the LA water ball solution, LA spent 34.5 million for up to 300million gallons worth of savings, where LA uses 150 million gallons a day. So they spent that huge chunk for two days of water reserve.
If CA kicked out Nestle and diverted that water to somewhere else, say LA, the city could then enjoy an even larger buffer of nearly five extra days of water reserve. Would that be worth the revenue hit the government would take from halting production?
Who, specifically, in the federal and state governments, is allowing companies with thirty year old expired permits to continue to draw water, unabated? The key to solving the problem is to not only bash NESTLE, but to also shine the light on those in positions of power who have been complicit in these transgressions. The questions posed by JT–where the issues of revenue sharing and drought are mentioned–don’t touch upon exposing those who are failing to monitor compliance. Let’s start with who assessed the $524 fee and go from there.
Eject Nestle and either preserve the water and prevent the sucking sound of a sinkhole or bottle it for the general public at a fraction of what Arrowhead charges.
There are some things that are so important to the public, like electricity, water, and air, that the government needs to step in and protect them from raiding profiteers.
As for our chief executive, apart from the fact he has no authority on federal lands, Moonbeam’s government operates at a surplus with a liberal supermajority. Can’t touch this.
Olly, you are mistaken. Olivenhain was opened and filled just two years ago. San Vincente dam raising project was finished last year, doubling the capacity of that resevoir.
The resevoirs we have are, for the most part, less than half filled, some are less than a quarter. Building new ones when the existing ones are dry is not going to do much.
Boycott Nestle’s. Spread the word that the water in the bottles has pee in it.
I think it is more interesting that the supervisor for the forest that oversaw the permitting process now works for Nestle.
A shocking tale
The Science Geek
http://www.thesciencegeek.org
Water isn’t the only resource the USFS, BLM, and other entities sell off for pennies on the dollar. Take a look at timber, gas, oil, and mineral leases sometime. This sort of thing is di rigueur, and whether it is Nestle or Cliven Bundy the paradigm is constantly abused–no one wants to pay their share, looking at public land as a treasure chest from which they can take what they want. Particularly galling is when supposedly taxpayer-friendly entities like the Tea Party rally behind the poor, beleaguered parasites–like Bundy and many others–when those charged with managing the public lands actually try to do their jobs. It’s only a matter of time, I suppose, until some pseudo-populist blowhard takes up the cause of Nestle, the innocent little company that has dared to stand up against the cruel government tyrants.
If a human was flaunting the law as NESTLE has been doing for 25 years or more that human would be in prison. They wouldn’t be permitted to argue ..everyone is robbing the store why are you arresting me or my robbery was conducted in a very civil manner why are you arresting me.
Corporations are stealing our country blind. NESTLÉ is just another one. Oil companies don’t pay their leases for oil extraction and nothing happens. Other corporations don’t follow the labor laws or the environmental laws. Law breaking and fraud are two components of corporate business plans in the US
While droughts becoming common place oiled companies are being allowed to draw dins the affair and poison it at the same time leaving humans ..not just high and dry but force to engage in a lose lose decision. But who cares…it’s profits that guide our every step. Humans are expendable.
Drought is caused by Mother Nature; Water shortages are caused by government.
This state would not have a water shortage if they built the storage reservoirs to capture what precipitation we do get. We haven’t had a new one built in 40 years.Thank the environmental lobby.
I think “N E S T L E S, Nestles makes the very best, chocoooalate.” Back in the 90’s, I had a surveillance in Burlington, WI. the home of Tony Romo and a Nestles chocolate factory. The smell was outstanding and appetite inducing. At the same time, I also had a case in a small town in central Wisconsin near a sauerkraut factory. I love sauerkraut, but the smell when it’s being made is horrible.
On this topic. You have a large international corporation, a bloated Federal govt., and the state run by Gov. Moonbeam. WTF would you expect?