By the way, the 36 million gallons mentioned in the article is about 110 acre feet, or the same amount of water used to irrigate a 25-50 acre almond orchard (depending on location). It's nothing, and it's being used as drinking water, not to wash cars, water lawns, fill swimming pools or any of the other more wasteful ways people use water.
(I've helped manage large aquaculture projects dealing with much larger quantities of water, so I'm not reacting to what seems like a big number. It's striking how differently the EPA treats the diversion of ground water vs. surface water)
The federal government is charging Nestlé $524 for 36,000,000 gal of water. I just checked, and that same amount of water would cost me $303,689 from my local utility.
I entirely fail to see why Nestle should get a huge discount for water that is then sold to American citizens at $1.79 a gallon, for a 122,976% markup.
It very well may be that Nestle (and many other companies) are under-paying for their water rights, but I don't think you're comparing apples to apples.
Well, when you phrase it that way it sounds terrible, but it's a completely bogus comparison. A retail water user is paying not just for the water but more importantly for it's storage and delivery to their doorstep. That increasers the price. You also are not buying in bulk. If you were, you would only be paying $50-200 an acre foot as most California farmers do to have water stored and delivered to their farms. Nestle is only paying for access to a water source. Is $524 too low a fee for a permit? Yeah, probably, but the company isn't "stealing" water, and compared to what farmers pay for similar amounts of water isn't not that that different.
Yet the firm's permit to operate this seven-mile pipeline in the mountains expired in 1988, though since it pays its yearly $524, the licence is still considered valid by the US Forest Service and by Nestle.... However, activists consider the permit expired and the US government is now reviewing Nestle's licence. A public comment period has just closed and this month a federal hearing will consider the legality of the permit.
Later that year a federal judge sided with the Forest Service and declared the permit legal:
A federal judge on Wednesday ruled in favor of the U.S. Forest Service, declaring valid Nestlé’s permit for water-bottling operations in the San Bernardino Mountains, on a motion filed by three environmental groups that sought to shut down the company’s efforts until its effects on the environment could be evaluated.
http://www.sbsun.com/2016/09/21/why-nestl-can-continue-to-bo...
Because you know, the government would never engage in quid pro quo for the benefit of capitalism over humanity
Why can't local groups be given the tax benefits and other handouts to manage this?
Are the people at Nestle THAT good at this? No one else can figure out the logistics?
The whole notion that my community, a metro area of 3 million residents, multiple universities and tech companies, needs this redundancy
But if Uncle Sam says so! Well who am I to question them!?
I was pointing that that they apparently had the legal right to the water.
Why can't local groups be given the tax benefits and other handouts to manage this? Are the people at Nestle THAT good at this? No one else can figure out the logistics?
What is the "this" you're referring to? Getting permits? Bottling water? Do you think "local groups" are less likely to be influenced by businesses and other special interests than federal agencies? Who would oversee all of these local groups to be sure they are operating fairly?
The whole notion that my community, a metro area of 3 million residents, multiple universities and tech companies, needs this redundancy
Again, you've lost me, what redundancy are you talking about?
But if Uncle Sam says so! Well who am I to question them!?
By all means, question the government, but why blame a company for operating under the conditions of the permit issued to them by the government agency that regulates the resource?
