Nestlé bottled-water company seeks to take more Michigan water

by Keith Matheny and Paul Egan, Detroit Free Press

Nestlé Waters North America’s plans to increase its Michigan groundwater withdrawal by more than 2 1/2 times would unravel an accord reached with environmentalists seven years ago that was aimed at protecting the water table and wildlife.

Nestlé announced a $36-million expansion at its Ice Mountain bottling operations in Stanwood, in Mecosta County, on Oct. 31. The addition of two water-bottling lines — the first to begin operation next spring; the next opening by 2018 — is expected to add 20 jobs to the plant, which employs more than 250 people.

But the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has not yet approved the company’s request to increase its groundwater withdrawals by 167% — from 150 gallons per minute to 400 gallons per minute — at White Pine Springs well No. 101 in nearby Osceola County. The DEQ has, however, recommended approval under the Michigan Safe Drinking Water Act.

Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation sued Nestlé in 2001 over the potential damage to lakes, rivers and streams that its bottled water plant’s groundwater withdrawals would cause. After years of court battles, the two sides reached a settlement agreement in 2009, reducing Nestlé’s siphoning to 218 gallons per minute from 400, with additional restrictions on spring and summer withdrawals. The litigation cost the nonprofit more than $1 million, which was covered by supporters.

Now, the proposed permit from the DEQ would take the bottled-water plant’s groundwater withdrawals back up to the level that prompted the lawsuit.

“I’m not sure if there is a reasonable amount of water that should be allowed to be taken from an aquifer,” said Jeff Ostahowski, vice president of the nonprofit Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation. “But 400 gallons per minute seems more than a bit too much.”

The controversy highlights the sometimes-contentious balance between protecting Michigan’s most important, abundant natural resource — its fresh water — and using it as an economic commodity. It’s particularly heightened after the months of fierce debate this year over a Wisconsin community, Waukesha, which lies just outside the Great Lakes Basin, being approved to use the basin for its water supply by Great Lakes Compact member states — over howls of protest from local governments throughout the Midwest.

The DEQ requires use of its Water Withdrawal Assessment Tool, an interactive, online evaluation of proposed water withdrawals in the state that looks at impacts to fish and stream flows through comparative data and modeling, prior to any proposed large-quantity water withdrawal.

“When Nestlé ran the Water Withdrawal Assessment Tool” last December, “they didn’t pass,” said Jim Milne, the shorelines unit chief in the DEQ’s Water Resources Division.

But as state regulations allow, the company then requested a site-specific review by DEQ staff. That review, which included looks at the geology in the area and Nestlé’s own compiled stream-flow information, led the DEQ to determine the increased pumping “is not likely to cause an adverse resource impact,” in January, he said, meaning it won’t impact populations of fish in the Chippewa Creek watershed, a tributary to the Muskegon River, or decrease stream flows to the point of natural resource impacts.

It’s not unprecedented for DEQ staff to override the findings of the agency’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Tool. From July 2015 to July of this year, the DEQ authorized 123 withdrawal requests rejected by the computerized modeling after site-specific reviews, Milne said.

The Stanwood plant receives its water supply “from diverse sources that we manage in a sustainable manner,” said Christopher Rieck, a spokesman for Nestlé Waters North America.

“The increase would also allow us the ability to balance the use of our water sources to ensure long-term sustainability and support future growth.”

The DEQ notified the public of its impending decision on the Nestlé permit via its biweekly environmental calendar, a little-read regulatory notices clearinghouse, and announced that public comment on Nestlé’s request would close Nov. 3, sparking outrage from many because of the short notice.

“The MDEQ’s handling of the Nestlé application is as lax as the handling of the Flint water crisis. Nothing has changed,” said Jim Olson, an environmental attorney and founder and president of the environmental nonprofit For Love of Water, or FLOW.

“Rights to public notice, public information, hearings and public participation in government decisions over water and quality of life, health — even our economy — have been diminished to the point of absurdity. MDEQ didn’t even post the underlying documents to the application summary online for interested people to review before public comment, and the notice was so hidden and late in the game that no meaningful comments can be made by Nov. 3.”

Added Ostahowski : “I think they were trying to slip it through. It’s disappointing but not uncommon.”

Responding to such criticism, the DEQ has announced it would extend the public comment period 30 days, and will make available the documents it used to recommend approval of the Nestlé application. A public hearing will also be scheduled in the area during the 30-day period, with a date and venue yet to be determined, said Carrie Monosmith, the DEQ’s Environmental Health Section Chief in its Office of Drinking Water.

One reason the Nestlé operation in Michigan has been controversial is that Deb Muchmore, a lobbyist and public relations consultant who has served as a Michigan spokeswoman for the company, is the spouse of Dennis Muchmore, who until January was chief of staff to Gov. Rick Snyder.

The Free Press reported in February that in March 2015, Dennis Muchmore proposed spending $250,000 to buy bottled water for Flint from either Nestlé or Absopure, a competitor.

“How about cutting a deal with Ice Mountain,” which is bottled by Nestlé, “or (Absopure Water board member) Bill Young and buying some water for the people for a time?” Muchmore asked in a March 3, 2015, e-mail. He added that “$250,000 buys a lot of water, and we could distribute it through the churches while we continue to make the water even safer.”

Neither deal happened, officials said.

Nestlé’s large-scale withdrawal of low-cost Great Lakes water while Flint residents have not had clean tap water to drink has not sat well with many in Michigan.

State Rep. Jeff Irwin, D-Ann Arbor, said Nestlé has increased the amount of water it’s pumping over time and that he feels the company’s permit application shows the latest proposed increase would negatively impact the environment. Nestlé said its plans would only “minimally” affect the levels of nearby creeks, when it should be having no impact on surface waters, he said.

“Nestlé is essentially appropriating what is a common good for their personal corporate utility,” he said.

Given the track record of the DEQ under Snyder’s administration, it’s reasonable for people to question whether a decision will be made based on the environment and the public good, or on corporate interests, Irwin said.

“Michigan citizens need to understand that part of the legacy we have is the unusual amount of fresh water we have. It’s not a given that it’s going to be around forever. With a company like Nestlé, it appears there is no end to what they think they can sell,” Ostahowski said.

Written comments on Nestlé’s proposed increased water withdrawals can be submitted until Dec. 3 to the DEQ via e-mail at deq-eh@michigan.gov or mailed to Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance, P.O. Box 30241, Lansing, Mich., 48909-7741.

Source: http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2016/11/20/nestl-bottled-water-company-seeks-take-more-michigan-water/93175144/

Nestle Peddling tap Water As Spring Water, Suit Claims

By Gavin Broady

Law360, New York (October 11, 2012, 1:36 PM ET) — Nestle Waters North America Inc. has been selling bottles of municipal tap water and falsely marketing it to consumers as 100 percent natural, spring-sourced water, according to a putative class action removed to Illinois federal court Wednesday.

Plaintiff Chicago Faucet Shoppe Inc. claims that Nestle — which removed the suit to federal court — has falsely represented to consumers that 5-gallon bottles of Ice Mountain water are sourced from springs and contain only naturally occurring minerals, when in fact the bottles are filled with water not from natural springs but from municipal water systems, according to the complaint.

“The Ice Mountain 5-gallon bottles would have cost less and would have been less marketable if there had been a disclosure that the 5-gallon bottles do not contain 100 percent natural spring water but instead contain resold municipal tap water,” the complaint said. “Nestle Waters’ failure to disclose this critical fact caused consumers to purchase 5-gallon jugs that they wouldn’t have otherwise purchased if that fact was known.”

Chicago Faucet is suing on behalf of all persons in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and Missouri who purchased the 5-gallon Ice Mountain bottles, claiming unjust enrichment and deceptive trade practices under the Illinois Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and seeking actual and punitive damages, an injunction mandating disclosure and restitution.

Chicago Faucet claims that it began purchasing the 5-gallon jugs — which are sold only over the Internet or by phone, typically to offices or homes — for its Chicago office in 2008.

At an unspecified date thereafter, a Chicago Faucet employee called Nestle to order home delivery of the water and, after talking to several Nestle employees, was informed that the water was not 100 percent spring-sourced, according to the complaint.

Chicago Faucet says Nestle charges a premium for such spring-sourced water and that while bottles of water not advertised as spring-sourced — which are typically presumed to be tap water — have remained stagnant, sales of bottled water from spring sources have grown substantially.

Nestle has marketed the alleged benefits of spring water — including enhanced taste, quality and mineral composition — and has claimed that the springs themselves each have unique “taste fingerprints” in an unscrupulous and unethical manner intended to create demand for the product, according to the complaint.

Nestle Waters is the leading bottled water company in the U.S., with estimated 2010 sales exceeding $4 billion, according to the complaint.

This is not the first time Nestle has been hit with allegations over the sourcing of its bottled water. In 2003, a pair of consumers sued the company in a Connecticut class action over claims that its Poland Spring brand bottled water was falsely marketed as sourced from spring water deep in the woods of Maine when it consisted of tap water. That suit was reportedly settled later that year for a $10 million payout in the form of discounts to consumers and charitable contributions.

Representatives for the parties were not immediately for comment Thursday.

Chicago Faucet is represented by the Law Offices of Michael J. Newman and Cohen & Malad LLP.

Nestle is represented by Jeffrey M. Garrod of Orloff Lowenbach Stifelman & Siegel PA and Sarah Wolff and David Smith of Reed Smith LLP.

The case is The Chicago Faucet Shoppe Inc. v. Nestle Waters North America Inc, case number 1:12-cv-08119, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

–Editing by Lindsay Naylor.

source:  http://www.law360.com/articles/385751/nestle-peddling-tap-water-as-spring-sourced-suit-says

Corrosive Waters Emerge as New Climate Threat

Sept. 30, 2012,
The Washington Post News Service with Bloomberg News

(c) 2012, The Washington Post.

HOMER, Alaska — Kris Holderied, who directs the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Kasitsna Bay Laboratory, says the ocean’s increasing acidity is “the reason fishermen stop me in the grocery store.”

“They say, ‘You’re with the NOAA lab, what are you doing on ocean acidification?’ ” Holderied said. “This is a coastal town that depends on this ocean, and this bay.”

This town in southwestern Alaska dubs itself the Halibut Fishing Capital of the World. But worries about the changing chemical balance of the ocean and its impact on the fish has made an arcane scientific buzzword common parlance here, along with the phrase “corrosive waters.”

In the past five years, the fact that human-generated carbon emissions are making the ocean more acidic has become an urgent cause of concern to the fishing industry and scientists.

The ocean absorbs about 30 percent of the carbon dioxide we put in the air through fossil fuel burning, and this triggers a chemical reaction that produces hydrogen, thereby lowering the water’s pH.

The sea today is 30 percent more acidic than pre-industrial levels, which is creating corrosive water that is washing over America’s coasts. At the current rate of global worldwide carbon emissions, the ocean’s acidity could double by 2100.

What impact it is having on marine life, how this might vary by geography and species, and what can be done about it if humans do not cut their carbon output significantly are some of the difficult questions scientists and policymakers are seeking to answer.

The decline in pH will likely disrupt the food web in many ways. It is making it harder for some animals, such as tiny pteropods and corals, to form their shells out of calcium carbonate, while other creatures whose blood chemistry is altered become disoriented and lose their ability to evade predators.

To study what is happening off the West Coast, Gretchen Hofmann, a professor of marine biology at the University of California at Santa Barbara, has recruited everyone from sea-urchin divers to Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement officials.

She calls it “an all-hands-on-deck moment in our country, and it’s happening before our eyes.”

The NOAA has started tracking changes in the ocean’s pH over time in eight coastal and coral reef ecosystems, ranging from the Gulf of Maine to coastal Hawaii, and is evaluating its impact on more than two dozen commercially important species, such as red king crab, summer flounder and black sea bass.

“One of the primary questions is how is the chemistry of the water changing and how variable is that change across the water we’re responsible for, which is a lot of coastline,” said Libby Jewett, director of the program.

Federal and state authorities are searching for ways to cope with a problem whose obvious solution — slashing global carbon emissions — remains elusive. A blue-ribbon panel established by outgoing Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire, D, which will issue its recommendations in November, is examining local contributors such as agricultural runoff. Federal officials and scientists, meanwhile, are trying to determine which species may be able to adapt to more acidic seas and explore what other protections could bolster fish populations under pressure.

In the 1970s, NOAA senior scientist Richard Feely and his colleagues began talking about measuring carbon concentrations in the ocean, the way Charles David Keeling had charted atmospheric carbon from a station in Hawaii’s Mauna Loa starting in 1958. Keeling pushed the oceanographer to refine his methods before taking any measurements, and Feely conducted his first transect of the Pacific Ocean in 1982.

By the late 1990s, scientists such as the National Center for Atmospheric Research’s Joan Kleypas were demonstrating that the sea’s declining pH posed a threat to marine life. At first, scientists assumed that the growing acidity of the ocean would dismantle ecosystems around the world in a uniform way, by dissolving the coral reefs that provide essential habitats and impeding the development of the smallest organisms that form the basis of the food web.

But now, scientists are beginning to tease out a more complex picture, in which some parts of the world could be more vulnerable and others may demonstrate resilience. Water from the deep ocean normally comes up and spills over the continental shelf in a process called upwelling; in the Pacific Northwest this water is increasingly acidic, killing oyster larvae that farmers are growing. Much of Alaska’s waters already have lower pH levels, because the water is colder and cold water can hold more carbon dioxide, and the water that reaches the Arctic has been circulating around the planet, absorbing CO2 along the way.

According to NOAA supervisory oceanographer Jeremy Mathis, “It doesn’t take much to push it past the thresholds we’re concerned about.”

And last year, a team of researchers led by Oregon State University professor George Waldbusser found that the pH in the lower part of the Chesapeake Bay is declining at a rate that’s three times faster than the open Pacific Ocean, partly because of increased nutrient runoff from farming and other activities. This stream of nutrients causes phytoplankton to take more carbon dioxide out of the upper Bay; as the plankton release CO2 as they move to the lower Bay, it increases carbon concentrations and lowers the overall pH.

A.J. Erskine, aquaculture manager for the Kinsale, Va.-based Bevans Oyster Co., and Cowart Seafood Corp. in Lottsburg, Va., said they started focusing on the issue when “two years ago we were seeing production losses, and we didn’t know where it was from.”

Six shellfish hatcheries in Virginia have used state funds to conduct their first year of water chemistry monitoring and hope to do more; Erskine said they suspect nutrient runoff from the land contributes to the problem.

Oyster farmers off the coasts of Washington and Oregon were the first to see how ocean acidification threatened their business. Alan Barton, an employee at Oregon’s Whiskey Creek Shellfish Hatchery, suspected that lower pH waters were killing off oyster larvae, or spat. Working with Oregon State University and NOAA researchers, they were able to prove it was the case, and now time their intakes to ensure that their oysters are exposed to less-acidic water.

“The scientists helped provide an adaptation strategy to help that industry, and it worked,” Feely said, adding that a $500,000 investment in pH-monitoring equipment “saved that industry $34 million in one year,” in 2011.

But Feely and Jewett acknowledged that tackling the problem in the open ocean will be harder. Jewett said that if they can identify which species are most vulnerable, “we can try to be even more protective of them for the future” by limiting their catch.

The die-off of oyster larvae in the Pacific Northwest has implications for oyster growers in places as far away as Homer, Alaska, since they traditionally buy their spat from Washington and Oregon farms. Out on the Homer spit, a slim strip of land jutting out into Kachemak Bay, the Kachemak Shellfish Growers cooperative office now boasts a small hatchery where it hopes to produce 3 million spat this year.

“We just can’t rely on the Lower 48 anymore,” said co-op manager Sean Crosby, whose group received $150,000 in federal funds over the past two years to start up and run the hatchery. “Even though we’re not seeing ocean acidification in Kachemak Bay, we’re feeling its effects.”

Alaska and the NOAA are jointly funding four buoys throughout the state to monitor pH levels, while other NOAA scientists are testing how species such as surf smelt would likely gain from a lower pH because they thrive under those conditions, while others, including dungeness crab, would lose.

These species interact with each other, which is why ocean acidification could have such large ripple effects. The highly vulnerable pteropods, for example, can make up as much as 40 percent of the diet of Alaska’s juvenile pink salmon.

“When you ask why does ocean acidification matter, often we’re interested because of the fish we eat and the things we make money off of,” said Shallin Busch, a research ecologist at the NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center.

Other species, such as purple sea urchins off California’s coast, have shown some genetic capacity to adapt to more acidic conditions, in part because they are periodically exposed to corrosive waters. Hofmann described her job as seeking an answer to the question, “Will there be sushi?”

“The question is, can they adapt quickly enough in this rapidly changing environment?” Hofmann asked. “And the answer, at least in the case of sea urchins, could be yes.”

Source: http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf/story/corrosive-waters-emerge-as-new-climate-threat/431e2ba61cdc403e4a7f9b4aa60a3132

Grand Canyon banning sales of bottled water

By Miguel Llanos, msnbc.com

Activists concerned that Coca-Cola might be influencing National Park Service policy were breathing a bit easier Tuesday after the Grand Canyon National Park announced it would eliminate the sale of bottled water inside the park within 30 days.

full story here:  http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/07/10340196-grand-canyon-banning-sales-of-bottled-water

Ohioans Demand Fracking Moratorium at Ohio Statehouse Rally

01-10-2012

On Jan. 10, more than 250 Ohioans assembled on the west lawn of the Ohio Statehouse to voice their opposition to hydraulic fracturing—better known as fracking—and deep injection wastewater disposal wells.

Leading the charge was State Rep. Robert Hagan (D-Youngstown), who last week called on Gov. John Kasich (R-OH) in a letter to implement an indefinite moratorium on D&L Energy’s deep injection wells in Youngstown, Ohio, which has been rocked 11 times in the past nine months by earthquakes. Seismic surveys have corroborated that the two most recent earthquakes—on Christmas Eve and a 4.0 magnitude quake on New Year’s Eve—had epicenters near D&L’s deep injection wells.

Rep. Hagan called on Gov. Kasich to institute a moratorium on all deep injection wells within a five mile radius of the Youngstown site until Ohioans can be guaranteed that no correlation exists between the disposal wells and danger to the natural environment or human health.

“The people of Ohio and the people of the Mahoning Valley need answers from our government officials,” said Rep. Hagan. “We need to know why over half of the toxic frack water we are blasting into Ohio lands is coming from Pennsylvania. We need to know why there is such a rush to dump this waste in Ohio. And we need to know why it took ten earthquakes in ten months for anyone in the Kasich administration to wake up and respond to calls for a moratorium on these wells. We never had an earthquake in Youngstown until John Kasich was elected governor.”

“What has occurred in the Mahoning Valley is deeply troubling,” said State Rep. Tracy Heard (D-26). “It’s evidently clear we must take a step back and examine fracking, not only the process but its potential impacts to our environment both long-term and short-term. I stand ready to work with my colleagues to find a solution that will protect the citizens of Ohio and our environment.”

“Creating jobs at the expense of human health and the environment is not sustainable,” said Stefanie Penn Spear, executive director of EcoWatch. “Ohio needs to bring back the incentives for renewable energy projects that support Ohio’s energy bill SB 221. Investment in renewable energy will create green jobs, revitalize our strong manufacturing base and provide long-term solutions to our energy needs without contaminating our drinking water, polluting our air, displacing communities and making people sick.”

Other speakers at today’s event included:

  • State Rep. Nickie J. Antonio (D-Lakewood)
  • State Rep. Denise Driehaus (D-Cincinnati)
  • State Rep. Mike Foley (D-Cleveland)
  • State Rep. Teresa Fedor (D-47)
  • Ohio State Senator Mike Skindell (D-Lakewood)
  • Ohio State Senator Charleta Tavares (D-Columbus)

Today’s speakers called on Gov. Kasich to protect the environment and public health by passing SB 213/HB 345, which would impose a moratorium on fracking permits and wastewater disposal injection wells. Currently, Ohio is home to 177 deep injection well sites.

The protest was organized by NO FRACK OHIO, a collaboration of more than 50 grassroots and conservation groups calling for further safeguards on horizontal hydraulic fracturing.

To view more photos of today’s rally on Facebook, click here.

Visit our fracking page to keep up-to-date on fracking issues worldwide.

via http://ecowatch.org/2012/ohioans-demand-fracking-moratorium-at-ohio-statehouse-rally/

Nestlé files augmentation plan for Arkansas River depletion

Joe Stone, Mail Staff Writer | Posted: Friday, January 6, 2012 9:33 am

A substitute water supply plan filed Thursday by Nestlé Waters North America requests approval to augment out-of-priority depletions to the Arkansas River resulting from operations at Ruby Mountain Springs near Nathrop.

The request applies to the period from March 22, 2012, to March 21, 2013, and states that Nestlé will pump 196.08 acre-feet of water from the springs at a maximum rate of 200 gallons per minute and 16.6 acre-feet per month.

If the plan is approved by the state engineer, Nestlé will replace depletions with water originating from the Colorado River basin and leased from Aurora Water through a 10-year lease agreement for 200 acre-feet per year.

This augmentation water would be released from Twin Lakes Reservoir to the confluence of Lake Creek and the Arkansas River in Lake County.

Concerned parties have 30 days to file comments on the proposed substitute water supply plan.

Comments must include any claim of injury or any terms and conditions that should be imposed upon the plan to prevent injury to water rights. The state engineer will not consider comments received after Feb. 3.

Any appeal of the state engineer’s decision must be made to the applicable division water judge within 30 days of the decision.

Comments should be sent to the attention of Heidi Frey at the Division of Water Resources, 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818, Denver, Colorado 80203. Comments may also be sent to heidi.frey@state.co.us or faxed to 303-866-3589.

link to article: http://m.themountainmail.com/mobile/news/article_8dc5a97c-3884-11e1-84bc-001a4bcf6878.html

Tan Claro Como Agua Turbia (As Clear as Muddy Water)

This article is about Nestle’s targetting of Latino communities to market bottled water. The article is entirely in Spanish, but you can look up more information at: http://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/node/1571

Empresas promueven producto con más energía entre los consumidores hispanos

Róger Lindo | 2011-11-06 La Opinión

Universidades, grupos comunitarios y líderes latinos han iniciado una campaña para contrarrestar lo que denominan las técnicas manipulativas de las compañías embotelladoras de agua para comercializarla entre los hispanos a precios muy superiores a los que costaría obtenerla del grifo, que es la fuente de la mayor parte del producto envasado.

Aunque dirigida a las grandes corporaciones que dominan el negocio del agua en botella, los organizadores han enfilado sus baterías especialmente contra el conglomerado suizo Nestlé, que según ellos está promoviendo el producto con singular energía entre los consumidores hispanos.

La campaña arrancó en el Bronx, Nueva York, donde se montó una demostración con personas de ese barrio que fueron invitadas a una prueba para ver si podían diferenciar entre el agua de grifo y la de botella.

La mayoría de ellos no pudieron distinguir entre una y otra, según Erin Díaz, organizadora nacional de Corporate Accountability International, el grupo que movilizó el esfuerzo. El congresista de Arizona Raúl Grijalva y la organización National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities (NALAC) son participantes en este.

“El agua no debe ser una mercancía”, comentó Díaz, añadiendo que la campaña que se inició persigue educar a la población sobre el tema del agua, y apoyar la validez de los sistemas públicos de abastecimiento del líquido. Según ella las embotelladoras transnascionales han hecho muchos esfuerzos para cambiar la percepción que la gente tiene sobre el agua.

“Durante los últimos años estas embotelladoras han visto estancarse sus ventas, de ahí que Nestlé haga una campaña específica con la comunidad latina”. Un estudio reciente de la publicación Archivos de Medicina Pediátrica y de Adolescentes, que la campaña invoca, destacó que los padres hispanos y afroamericanos tenían triple propensión que el resto de la población a dar agua de botella en lugar de la del grifo a sus hijos. Detrás de esta costumbre se encuentra la creencia de que esta es más higiénica y saludable.

Jane Lazgin, portavoz de Nestle Water de Norteamérica, rebatió los alegatos de la campaña anticorporativa. “Nuestros productos son promovidos en todos los segmentos del mercado estadounidense y la inversión en mercadotecnia que hacemos en el caso del agua es mínima en comparación con lo que se gasta en promover las gaseosas o la cerveza”, respondió.

Enfatizó que la difusión que la compañía hace privilegia el consumo de agua por encima de otras bebidas, y fomenta su consumo. Esto es de particular importancia en el caso de los hispanos, dijo, cuyas tasas de obesidad son superiores a las de la población en general.

“Sustituir una bebida azucarada de 12 onzas y 140 calorías por agua al día te puede ahorrar 4,200 calorías al mes”, reza un anuncio desplegado en el sitio de internet de la compañía.

“Es cierto que las viñetas de nuestros producto dicen que esta origina en las fuentes públicas, pero también aclaran que se trata de agua purificada, pasada por estrictos controles de calidad que eliminan el claro y otros contaminantes”, dijo la representantes de la empresa suiza.

http://www.impre.com/laopinion/noticias/la-california/2011/11/6/tan-claro-como-agua-turbia-280989-1.html

Coca Cola Flexes Influence to Block Grand Canyon Bottle Ban

As a major donor to the National Park Foundation, Coca Cola and the top federal parks official, Jon Jarvis, made the decision to undermine years worth of work to kick the bottle out of the Grand Canyon.  Top Grand Canyon park official Stephen Martin and other officials have been working to stop the sale of bottles at the park for years.  They see that bottles contribute the most to pollution of the park.

Defending Water for Life feels that favoring corporate business over the protection of this National Park is gravely irresponsible.  It promotes the wrong message about the impact of bottled water on people and the planet.

Here is the article by Felicity Barringer from the New York Times, November 9, 2011:

Parks Chief Blocked Plan for Grand Canyon Bottle Ban

Weary of plastic litter, Grand Canyon National Park officials were in the final stages of imposing a ban on the sale of disposable water bottles in the Grand Canyon late last year when the nation’s parks chief abruptly blocked the plan after conversations with Coca-Cola, a major donor to the National Park Foundation.

Stephen P. Martin, the architect of the plan and the top parks official at the Grand Canyon, said his superiors told him two weeks before its Jan. 1 start date that Coca-Cola, which distributes water under the Dasani brand and has donated more than $13 million to the parks, had registered its concerns about the bottle ban through the foundation, and that the project was being tabled. His account was confirmed by park, foundation and company officials.

Continue reading

Nestles [sic] gets to keep taking Michigan water

Defending Water for Life is disappointed but not surprised to see this outcome from the Michigan Court of Appeals:

Why rights-based-ordinances are essential to actual protection: Courts follow laws that regulate environmental damage, they cannot prevent the damage from happening. And Nestle still complains because they’re not taking as much water per minute as they’d like… Here is the article:

Nestle Waters North America had a mixed reaction to an opinion recently issued by the Michigan Court of Appeals. The Court ruled on an appeal by Nestle Waters to a controversial 2003 Mecosta Circuit Court ruling that was in error and would have shuttered its Michigan operations, if upheld, according to the company. The Court stated definitively that the use of water by Nestle Waters is a beneficial use and ruled that the company’s water use at its Stanwood-based Ice Mountain bottling facility could continue. The ruling today keeps nearly 200 employees working at the facility.

The Court’s ruling also supported Nestle Waters’ legal arguments in upholding Michigan’s historic water use laws, which allow for the balanced and reasonable use of water by all parties. The ruling also affirmed the standards of the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA), as well.

Continue reading

Victory in FL! Friends of the Wacissa Protected Springs from Nestle!

Dear Friends and Protectors of the Wacissa River Springs,

Incredible news!  Nestle Waters just announced that they will not pursue commmercial water extraction at Allen Spring on Wacissa River.  Thank you, thank you for your steadfast efforts!

WFSU-FM 88.9 radio will likely have story in morning. Also check www.tdo.com

You can also read  www.floridaenvironments.com

We will share more news as it comes in.  Please stay tuned.  Protecting Florida’s springs long term is critical.  We are just getting warmed up!  Make your voices continued to be heard.

Unity on the river,
Georgia

http://www.facebook.com/pages/WACISSA-River/474943495190

Georgia Ackerman
Friends of the Wacissa

www.savethewacissa.com