The ‘Wild West’ of groundwater: Billion-dollar Nestlé extracting B.C.’s drinking water for free

[Fire Walk With Me]

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Wild+West+groundwater+Billion+dollar+company+extracting+drinking/8785227/story.html

Because of B.C.’s lack of groundwater regulation, Nestlé Waters Canada — a division of the multi-billion-dollar Switzerland-based Nestlé Group, the world’s largest food company — is not required to measure, report, or pay a penny for the millions of litres of water it draws from Hope and then sells across Western Canada.

snip

“No permit, no reporting, no tracking, no nothing,” said David Slade, co-owner of Drillwell Enterprises, a Vancouver Island well-drilling company. “So you could drill a well on your property, and drill it right next to your neighbour’s well, and you could pump that well at 100 gallons a minute, 24 hours a day, seven days a week and waste all the water, pour it on the ground if you wanted to … As far as depleting the resource, or abusing the resource, there is no regulation. So it is the Wild, Wild West.”

snip

If you walk into Cooper’s Foods in downtown Hope — less than 5 km away from Nestlé’s bottling plant — and buy a 1.5 litre bottle of Nestlé Pure Life water, it will set you back $1.19.

That’s $1.19 more than Nestle paid to the government last year for withdrawing more than 265 million litres of fresh water from the well.

(Via Idle No More Official on Facebook.)


For a great deal more reading, including video of Nestle's 2005 CEO clearly stating that water is not a human right, it should be taken and sold for profit:

Water privatization by the richest rich is happening now ("hydraulic empire&quot incl. the Bush family
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023406830

[badtoworse]

1. So what? Is water scarce in B.C.?

[Fire Walk With Me]

2. SO WHAT?

Oh bloody hell. Off you go to Ignore. No corporate apologists!

[badtoworse]

3. What an erudite response.

[fascisthunter]

8. can I take something from you without paying for it

and have you exclaim to the world, "Thank you sir, may I have another?"

[badtoworse]

12. If I'm giving it to you for free, you're not taking it from me.

B.C. doesn't regulate water and they don't charge for it - is that Nestles fault? B.C. should have a program for monitoring groundwater usage and Nestle should pay its share of the costs. The fact is though that Nestle isn't using all that much water in relation to the precipitation they get.

There's likely a reason why water isn't regulated in B.C. See Post No. 11

[Ed Suspicious]

19. Nice logic there, bub. Help yourself, Nestle. Harvest the resources because nobody said you

couldn't. You'd be fools not to. It's the community's fault for not setting up rules to prevent your parasitic ways.

[badtoworse]

20. They employ 75 people in the town and most likely pay taxes

They're not parasites

[fascisthunter]

23. how many tax payers in that population agreed with this?

Did the majority say it was ok to this in particular? NOPE!

[badtoworse]

27. There are procedures and approvals to develop a plant like Nestle's

Those approvals are granted by representatvies that the people elected. The taxpayers did get a say in this through their elected representatives.

[fascisthunter]

22. so all DC tax payers said so... lol

ideological pap.

[tomg]

9. It is not so much whether

it is or is not scarce in British Columbia. It is that it is one more step in the corporatization and the privatization of natural resources that are held by all. The CEO of Nestlé's is on record as claiming that water - as a limited resource - should not be free and should be subject to the same market forces as any scarce material. The video is pretty frightening. The corporates see this as part of their long-term game plan. Consider the Bush family's massive land holdings in Paraguay which sit over one of the ( if not the) world's largest aquifers. Consider what happened to the Great Man Made River project during the Nato bombing of Libya.

[badtoworse]

13. Water isn't free anywhere

I get a water bill from the town every quarter, just like every other homeowner does. If you rent, your landlord gets the bill. Even if you own your own well, you still have to pay for electricity to run the pump and you have to maintain the system - that costs money.

I don't see a problem with corporate development or ownership of water resources. Where water is supplied by a corporately owned operation, the rates are regulated, just like your electric rates

[fascisthunter]

24. yes... but it is free for NESTLE and that's ok with you

all hail corporatocracy... Uber Alles corporatocracy! Lol... wow.

[badtoworse]

26. It's not free for Nestle either

They're operating a well at about 133 gallons per minute. That requires a substantial amount of electricity plus maintenance. You just don't want accept that there is virtually zero commodity cost here, just operating costs and Nestle is paying their own.

[laundry_queen]

28. The point is, they are stealing from the social good

now I'm not sure how much you know about accounting but there's this concept that certain (all?) goods have externalities. You say it's fair game for Nestle to drill a hole in the ground, and drain an aquifer, so long as they pay the electricity to do so, and employ a few people. I say, the long term cost and consequences of Nestle doing just that should be factored in to the commodity, or Nestle is just plain stealing from the future taxpayers of BC by not accounting for the 'real' cost of the water. When that aquifer runs out, and BC can no longer irrigate crops and farmers have to haul water during dry spells, and water pipelines have to be built to transport water from elsewhere because the aquifer is dry, that cost shouldn't be borne solely by the taxpayers of BC, but a portion should be borne by the corporation that is turning a profit by taking the water in the first place.

[badtoworse]

32. Do some research and learn how aquifers work before you post things that make you look foolish

Aquifers are continuously recharged by precipitation (i.e. rain and snow). When it rains, some of the water percolates down through the soil into the aquifer replenishing water that has been drawn out of the aquifer. (Some of the precipitation runs off into surface streams and some is lost to evaporation or is used by plants.) The rate at which an aquifer is recharged depends on how much rain and snow falls and the porosity of the aquifer. A porous aquifer, such well fractured rock or sand will allow water to seep down quiickly, whereas less fractured (i.e solid) rock will recharge more slowly. The impact of rain and snowfall is obvious - if it doesn't fall from the sky, it can't recharge the aquifer.

If an aquifer is being recharged at a greater rate than water is being drawn from it, it will never run out of water. If the reverse is true, i.e. water is being withdrawn at a greater rate than the the aquifer is being recharged, the water table (i.e. the level of water in the aquifer) will drop. In time, it will become difficult to pump water out of it and in an extreme situation, wells could run dry. Virtually all states and provinces (B.C. is the exception) require permits, limit water withdrawal and monitor the aquifers to insure this does not happen.

British Columbia gets a lot of rain and snow which likely explains why wells are not regulated - historically, there was never a need to. The District of Hope, where Nestle is located, gets about 79 inches of precipitation per year (that's an inch and a half a week), so there is a lot of water available to recharge the aquifer. 1.3% of the annual rainfall would be sufficient and data I've seen for parts of the US show recharge rates many times higher.

Bottom line: Hope is not going to run out of water. Even in the unlikely event there were problems, they would be localized and would impact wells in the immediate vicinity of Nestle's well. Nestle would be impacted the most and would alomost certainly take action on their own. The fix for this is relatively easy and inexpensive - drill a number of wells over a larger area and spread the withdrawal over a larger area so no single area is adversely affected.

The big problem I see here is uncertainty. Because B.C. has no regulations and no oversight, there is no data available to monitor what is actually going on. That should be fixed: B.C. should have regulatory oversight similar to what is done elsewhere and Nestle should pay a fair share of the costs for that. If I were in Nestle's position, I would welcome that.

If you are still reading, I have a question: If it were conclusively determined that Nestle could withdraw the water it uses without any externalities, would you still have a problem with it?

[Are_grits_groceries]

34. And if you think Nestle won't exploit BC and that water, you are a fool.

They have no scruples.
In addition, that pattern of rainfall could change drastically. A lot of places are seeing historic change. So that area may be left with an aquifer that will no longer will work efficiently.

I do know what I am talking about. I majored in geohydrology. I also watched textile plants deplete aquifers where I live to the point people had to drill new wells. The fish pond my grandfather and uncle dug was refreshed by rain and artesian wells. It has been bone dry for years.

[laundry_queen]

37. Thank you!

I can't believe people believe if there's rain and snow the aquifer will be fine forever.

[badtoworse]

39. I agree that weather patterns could change...

and as I said, I believe B.C. should be regulating and monitoring groundwater withdrawals. Since your a geohydrologist, what do you think would be a conservative assumption for the recharge rate in Hope? Assuming the aquifer area is equal to the town area, they would need about 1" per year of recharge or 1.3% of the precipitation to break even. I know it's not that simple, but to me, those numbers seem very low. I'm interested in your opinion.

As a business person, I would be surprised if Nestle exploited the aquifer beyond its safe yield. They have made a substantial investment in the bottling plant that would be worthless without a reliable supply of clean water. Moreover, if they drew down the aquifer to the point that their neigbors were impacted, it's hard to see how they would not be sued or face some other action by the town or the province. Aside from the financial impacts, that would be damaging to the brand.

I don't disagree with your points about historical mismanagement of aquifers by industry. It's one of the reasons we now have regulations in most states and provinces.

[Are_grits_groceries]

41. Nestle doesn't care!

They are only in it for the money. They will take every inch and turn it into a mile. Why do you trust them about anything?

And as far as recharging the aquifer, you are assuming nothing changes. Once Nestle starts, what really happens to the draw down levels?

Hoping that lawsuits will stay Nestle's greedy hand is laughable. They have eleventy billion attorneys who are experts in water rights litigation. They will know every loophole there is. Those lawsuits will be litigated for an eternity. They also have big bucks to throw around and influence those in charge. The damage will be done by the time anything is settled.

Your apparent assumption that Nestlé will have a responsible business plan and be a good neighbor is quaint. They are counting on people like you to help them get their initial access. They want your reasonable voice to support them. Meanwhile back at the ranch, they are refining their plans to make off with the most they can when they are allowed in.

I wouldn't trust them as far as I can throw them.

[laundry_queen]

36. I'm well aware how an aquifer works, jesus you are condescending.

I didn't need a fucking lesson.

And there are always externalities when it comes to extraction of natural resources. Always. Let's say, for shits and giggles, that there wasn't any....would I still have an issue? Well, I do hate Nasty Nestle as a company, but I'd probably be against any American company coming in and bottling Canadian resources for a profit, just like I'm against oil companies shipping oil everywhere for huge profits, while Canadians bear the brunt of the environmental damage.

And I fucking lived in BC (my ex still lives there) I'm pretty well aware that there are areas with water shortages, not all areas 'get a lot of rain or snow' (lol, talk about looking foolish) and historically wells weren't monitored because they were PERSONAL water wells, not COMMERCIAL. Nestle is taking advantage of lack of regulations. That doesn't mean it's OK. There should be regulations, that we agree on (duh). If it can be proven that Nestle would have zero affect on the levels of the aquifer, long term, and that there were regulations about how much they could take in the event of a drought, and Nestle agreed to a yearly 'fee' for the water, I'd be 'more' okay with it. I still dislike the wholesale of water to the US, but bottled water concerns me less than a pipeline.

[badtoworse]

40. You were the one that talked about an aquifer running dry in an area that gets 79" of rain per year.

To me, it indicated a lack of understanding, but I didn't mean to insult you.

My opinion is based on the premise that there is sufficient rainfall in Hope to sustain the aquifer indefinitely. That should be confirmed by monitoring. If those conditions are met, I have no problem with what Nestle is doing.

[NightWatcher]

4. Soon the name Nestle will carry the same feelings as Blackwater, Halliburton, Monsanto...

They are (and have been for a while) slant drilling into water resivores controlled by Native tribes.

"Access to water should not be a public right" Nestle CEO contends. He thinks whomever gets it out of the ground should own it, regardless of under who's land it comes from.

[Stuart G]

5. thanks for posting..k and r.

[DeSwiss]

6. You ain't gonna beat these motherfuckers with their own crooked laws!

- Or the absence of them. K?

K&R

[sakabatou]

7. How long until the fuck up the supply?

[Octafish]

10. BFEE loves charging big what they get on the cheap.

Extraction industries, like water, oil, gold...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3150321&mesg_id=3151538

Nestle fits the BFEE mold, seeming like it's run by eugenicist minded Aryan stock:

"Access to water is not a public right." -- Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, Nestle Chairman and CEO

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-privatisation-of-water-nestle-denies-that-water-is-a-fundamental-human-right/5332238

[Fire Walk With Me]

16. Yep...all the way around, "yep". :(

[Mc Mike]

42. Glad you posted the quote. Says it all about corporatist nazi thought and agenda.

Bottled water plants actually pollute the aquifers, also.

[badtoworse]

11. Just for laughs, I ran the numbers

Hope gets about 79 inches of precipitation per year and has an area of 15.88 square miles (from Wikipedia). That works out to about 66,900 acre-feet or about 21,800 million gallons of water per year.

Per the article, Nestle uses 265 million liters or about 70 million gallons per year. People typically use about 100 gallons of water per day, so a town of 6,000 would use about 219 million gallons per year.

Withdrawals from the aquifer would total about 289 million gallons per year versus precipitation of 21,800 million gallons per year. Because of evaporation and surface runoff, not all of the precipitation percolates down to the aquifer, but in Hope, the aquifer would not be drawn down if only 1.3% of the precipitation went to recharge it.

I really don't see the problem - Nestle just isn't using that much water.

[leftstreet]

15. Do you have extra soda in your refrigerator?

Would you mind if I come to your house and take it...

sell it...

make a nice profit...

and when you complain tell you 'you've still got plenty!'

[badtoworse]

17. What would be the basis for charging Nestle for the water?

The town isn't paying for the rain and is apparently not being impacted by Nestle's well - IOW, no cost to the town. The fact that Nestle makes a profit is, at worst, irrelevant. Nestle presumably pays taxes and employs 75 people.

[leftstreet]

18. Residents are charged for water usage

You know...like a utility bill

If you read the article you'll see the biggest issue is lack of regulation, as Nestle currently isn't required to report how much they're drawing out

Water should be a public trust, not a for-profit scheme

[badtoworse]

21. If the town is supplying them with water, the town has costs to recover, hence a water bill.

Nestle is operating its own well and costing the town nothing.

[leftstreet]

25. Meh. Resource theft, same as it always was

British Columbia has had coughed up furs, timber, minerals etc to the ruling elites for ages, be it theft from indigenous or colonials

I'm sure the arguments you make to violate the public trust have been the same

[laundry_queen]

29. So sad you can't see...

or will not.

[Fire Walk With Me]

14. It is up to us to protect sacred water

Gathering Tribes ?@GatheringTribes

It is up to us to protect sacred water #RiseUp #FrackNo
http://fb.me/SIOh2DJ3

[Matariki]

30. This is going to stop.

They can't continue to do this. Peter Brabeck-Letmathe and his ilk will be known for the parasites they are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Brabeck-Letmathe

Interesting to note that he was in Chile during the 70's during the coup that ousted Allende. Was he pals with Pinochet, I wonder?

[Fire Walk With Me]

31. Kick

[Initech]

33. And this is why I don't buy bottled water.

[Mr Dixon]

35. agreed

That seems to be the beast Action

[snagglepuss]

38. K and R