Tag: Nestle

Great Lakes groups band together to challenge Nestlé and water crises in Flint and beyond

“My grandson that’s not here tonight, that’s twelve years old, he was to be an academic ambassador to go to Washington in the year 2014 and 2015. Well he was an A-B student but by the time the lead began to corrode his brain, he was no longer an A-B student. He was a D-E-F student,” said Bishop Bernadel Jefferson of her grandson, one of the thousands of children affected by the lead poisoning of Flint’s drinking water. Bishop Jefferson, who is with the Flint group CAUTION, was one of the speakers on the Friday night panel of the Water is Life: Strengthening our Great Lakes Commons this past weekend.

Bishop Jefferson has been a pastor for 27 years and an activist for 25 years. She is married with ten children and ten grandchildren. She was one of the first signers of the emergency manager lawsuitagainst Michigan Governor Rick Snyder in 2013. Her passionate talk brought tears to many eyes of the 200 people gathered at Woodside Church for the summit. At the same time her talk energized the audience. Her message of doing this work for all children and the importance of coming together reverberated among the crowd. Bishop Jefferson said of the gathering, “Tonight we make history. We did something they didn’t want us to do and that was to come together.”

Water justice for Great Lakes communities

Maude Barlow gave an important keynote speech on Friday night on water justice struggles around the world and her work with other water warriors to have the UN recognize the human rights to water and sanitation. Jim Olson from FLOW gave an impassioned talk about Nestle in Michigan and the importance of the public trust. Indigenous lawyer Holly Bird talked about her work with the legal team for Standing Rock, water law from an Indigenous perspective, that governments need to honor the relationships that Indigenous people have with the water and how that can be done without someone controlling or owning water.


(Photo above by Story of Stuff: Maude Barlow from the Council of Canadians)

Lila Cabbil from the Detroit People’s Water Board, who many affectionately call Mama Lila, talked about how the water fights are racialized in Michigan. “The fight we have in Michigan is very much racialized. We need to understand that truth and we need to speak that truth. Because what is happening even as we speak in terms of how Flint and Detroit is being treated would not happen if it was a white community.” She pointed out how the crises are being condoned by the silence of white people. She took a moment to remember late activist Charity Hicks who was a leader in the fight against the shutoffs and who encouraged people to “wage love”.

(Photo right: Lila Cabbil from the Detroit People’s Water Board)

In Canada, the lack of clean water is also often racialized. There are routinely more than 100 drinking water advisories in First Nations, some of which have been in place for nearly two decades. At the start of her talk on Saturday, Sylvia Plain from Aamjiwnaang First Nation taught the audience how to say “aanii” which is “hello” in Anishinaabe. The Great Lakes region is predominantly Anishinaabe (Ojibwe, Odawa and Potawatami). She talked about how Aamjiwnaang First Nation has had methylmercury in the sediments in their river for a couple of decades. Plain also talked about how the Anishinaabe have cared for the waters and land for thousands of years.

Wearing a Flint Lives Matter t-shirt, Saturday’s keynote speaker (starts at 23:00) Claire McClinton from Flint Democracy Defense League, further described the water crisis in Flint. She pointed out, “In Flint Michigan, you can buy a gallon of lead free gas, or a gallon of lead free paint, but you can’t get a gallon of lead free water from your own tap.”


(Photo above by Story of Stuff: Claire McClinton of Flint Democracy Defense League)

Marian Kramer of Highland Park Human Rights Coalition and Michigan Welfare Rights Organizationtold Saturday’s audience about her work to fight the shutoffs in Highland Park, a city within Metro Detroit where at one point half of the homes had their water shut off.

Nestle’s bottled water takings

Rob Case from Wellington Water Watchers of Ontario and Peggy Case of Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation both talked about their grassroots organizations and the local resistance to Nestle’s bottling operations. Peggy Case pointed to the larger issue of the privatization and the commodification of water. “The dots have to be connected. We can’t just look at bottled water. The right to water is being challenged everywhere. The privatization of water is a key piece of what’s going on in Flint,” she explained. The state of Michigan is suing the city of FLint for refusing to sign a 30-year agreement that requires the city to pay for a private pipeline to Detroit that will not be used by residents. 

In Evart, Michigan, two hours northwest from Flint, Nestlé pumps more than 130 million gallons (492 million litres) of water a year from the town to bottle and sell to consumers across the state and country. Last year, the corporation applied to increase its pumping by 60 percent. Nestlé’s current pumping and proposed expansion threatens surrounding wetlands and wildlife in the region, which at the same time violates an 181-year-old treaty that requires Michigan state to protect the habitat for the Grand Traverse Band and Saginaw Chippewa tribal use.

Nestlé continues pumping up to 4.7 million litres (1.2 million gallons) a day in southern Ontario despite the fact that both of its permits have expired – one permit expired in August and the other expired more than a year ago. The Ontario government is required to consult with communities on Nestlé’s bottled water applications but still has not done so. The Ontario government recently made some changes to the bottled water permitting system including a two-year moratorium on bottled water takings and increased bottled water taking fees (from $3.71 to 503.71 per million litres) but local groups and residents want more. They are calling for a phase out of bottled water takings to protect drinking water. The Council of Canadians is calling Nestle’s and other bottled water takings to be an election issue in next year’s Ontario election.

Summit speakers and participants were outraged that governments allow Nestlé and other water companies to take, control and sell water for a profit while failing to secure clean water for residents in Flint, Detroit, and many Indigenous nations.

Days before the summit, the Guardian reported that Nestle only pays an administrative fee of $200 in Michigan while Detroit resident Nicole Hill, a mother of three, has her water shut off every few months and has to pay “more than $200 a month” for water.

During the summit, participants took a pledge to boycott Nestle and single-use bottles of water. Immediately after the summit, Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation announced the organization was joining the boycott. To join the boycott, click here.

NAFTA and the commodification of water

Trade agreements like NAFTA perpetuate and entrench the commodification and privatization of water. Water is defined as a “tradeable good,” “service” and “investment” in NAFTA. Water must be removed as a tradeable good, service or investment in any renegotiated NAFTA deal.

As a tradeable good, NAFTA dramatically limits a government’s ability to stop provinces and states from selling water and renders government powerless to turn off the tap. Removing water as a “service” would help protect water as an essential public service. When services are provided by private corporations, NAFTA provisions limit the involvement of the public sector. Removing water as an “investment” and excluding NAFTA’s Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions would make it much harder for foreign corporations to use trade treaties to sue governments for laws or policies that protect water. Canada has already been sued for millions of dollars for laws protecting water.

A vow to end to Nestlé water takings

Over the weekend, participants of the summit listened to these moving and inspiring presentations and participated in workshops on Blue Communities, challenging the corporate control of water, the colonial enclosure of water and more. The gathering included local and Great Lakes residents as well as water justice, Great Lakes and grassroots organizations including our Guelph and Centre-Wellington Chapters of the Council of Canadians.

One thing was clear at the end of the summit: participants were ready to take action to end to Nestlé’s bottled water takings in Great Lakes, work to have the human right to water implemented and bring water justice to all who live around the lakes.
 
To watch the videos from the summit, visit FLOW’s Facebook page.

Emma Lui's picture
Emma Lui is a FLOW board member and Water Campaigner for the Council of Canadians. To learn more about her and her work, please visit the Council of Canadians website.
 
 

The Province: B.C. should enshrine ‘public trust’ principle to protect its groundwater, says Michigan water lawyer

Read the full article in The Province here

Nestle - Laurence Gillieron, APAmid growing controversy around B.C.’s lax groundwater regulation, an American lawyer who waged a 10-year winning court battle against Nestlé is watching to see how the province modernizes its century-old Water Act.

The Province’s reports last week on Nestlé and other companies extracting B.C. groundwater without regulation caught the attention of Michigan environmental lawyer Jim Olson, who offered his views on the matter.

Olson is no stranger to these issues. In 2010, he was awarded the State Bar of Michigan’s Champion of Justice award for the decade-long court battle he waged on behalf of Michigan citizens against Nestlé.

The case of Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation vs. Nestlé began in 2000, when activists grew concerned the government was not adequately monitoring or controlling Nestlé’s water-taking practices in the region.

Representing the citizens, Olson won the case, resulting in Nestlé being ordered to reduce its water withdrawals during low-flow seasons.

Now, Olson says he’s watching B.C. But beyond the specific details of B.C.’s proposed water regulation — the price charged per million litres, the number of litres allowed, how much to allocate to different users, and so on — Olson says one vital piece of any new legislation is a broader legal concept: the public trust.

“This is true in both the United States and Canada, both states and provinces, no matter what water regime you choose … it’s going to be very important for each province to declare water a public trust,” Olson said from his law office in Michigan.

The public trust concept essentially means water is a public resource owned by the people of Canada, with the government acting as a trustee responsible for taking care of the resource.

“It’s a very important principle, even if it’s a one-paragraph declaration,” Olson said. “It would operate as a shield against unforeseen claims and unforeseen circumstances.”

Olson gives a hypothetical example: if, at some point in the future, B.C.’s water resources were depleted significantly, the government might ask a bottled water company to reduce their water takings accordingly. But without the public trust doctrine enshrined in legislation, it would be much more difficult to make that company reduce its consumption, not unlike Olson’s court case against Nestlé in Michigan.

The public trust doctrine is becoming increasingly common and established in modern water legislation, said Oliver Brandes, a water expert from the University of Victoria’s faculty of law. The legal concept is more evolved in several American states, and has been incorporated into environmental legislation in some parts of Canada, including Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Quebec.

The public trust concept acknowledges that water is different from other resources, said Brandes.

“There are certain resources that are just so special, because life depends on it,” Brandes said. “Something like oil and gas, it isn’t crucial to life. But water, you have to protect it for everybody, because if you take it away, there is no substitute.”

A Remembrance: Terry Swier, A Michigan Water Warrior

Photo: Terry Swier smiling with Jim Olson

Editor’s note: Terrill “Terry” K. Swier, age 77, passed away December 5th, 2021, in Mecosta, Michigan.

Jim Olson, FLOW’s Founder & Senior Legal Advisor

By Jim Olson

Terry Swier, this remembrance is for you, in appreciation of just a few of the things you exemplified, suffered, and found joy in as leader of Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation (MCWC) and pioneer to protect Michigan’s waters for all of us.

In late 2000, I received a call at home long after a December’s early nightfall. A well-spoken woman introduced herself as Terry Swier, and asked if I had time to talk about concerns she and citizens had about a Nestlé subsidiary’s (Perrier Group) proposed groundwater diversion from the upper reaches of the Little Muskegon River to a bottling plant in mid-Michigan. I remember the clarity and urgency in her voice. Three days later, I met with Terry, her husband Gary, MCWC’s Vice President Rhonda Huff, the Doyles, Johnsons, Sapps, and others in a lodge east of Big Rapids. Someone pointed out the window through the snow falling over a lake to a distant wooded ridge where Nestlé wanted to locate three large-volume water wells. 

Terry Swier had just retired as librarian at the University of Michigan Flint, her husband Gary from Ford Motor. They had moved to Horseshoe Lake also near the proposed area of the wells. Perrier Group had deposited a glossy report with local librarians and news outlets assuring the public that its groundwater withdrawal of more than 210 million gallons a year wouldn’t impact wetlands, streams, and lakes. Terry expressed her concern that the report left out the details—the background appendices and information needed to evaluate it. Others agreed.

Within a few weeks, the residents formed a nonprofit corporation, MCWC. Terry was elected president, and many of the others joined the board. Still others chipped in money, volunteered to hold bake sales and yard sales, and hold Texas Hold ’em, and licensed raffle fundraisers. A month after that, Terry, Gary, Rhonda, and other officers persuaded a Nestlé regional hydrologist to meet them in my law office in Traverse City. Terry and the group explained to the hydrologist that they needed copies of the scientific data behind the report, and before the hydrologist left, he promised the full report would be deposited in a library in Big Rapids and a copy sent to MCWC and its lawyers. A month later, after Bob Otwell, an engineer and expert hydrologist from Traverse City, and current FLOW Board member, perused a box full of appendices, he advised that the data showed the pumping would have significant effects on the flows and levels of the stream and lakes. Terry the librarian was right.

Perrier Group had deposited a glossy report with local librarians and news outlets assuring the public that its groundwater withdrawal of more than 210 million gallons a year wouldn’t impact wetlands, streams, and lakes.

Terry and MCWC demanded a public hearing, and the then-Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) held a hearing at the Holiday Inn near Ferris State University. Terry and Gary organized and led presentations by dozens of residents and citizens who opposed the permit to sell water. “Who owns the water?” Terry asked, something she would keep asking for the next 20 years. Not Perrier or Nestlé. It belonged to the public. But the DEQ issued the permit, Perrier started pumping, and Terry and MCWC had no choice but to file a lawsuit. A court would decide whether Nestlé’s pumping was legal. Terry and MCWC insisted on doing what was right.

Two years later, in 2003, after preparation, more bake sales and yard sales, fundraising with donations from residents, citizens, and a family foundation, and a three-month trial, Terry and the Board and I anxiously waited for Mecosta County Circuit Court Judge Lawrence Root to announce his opinion and order from the bench at the courthouse in Big Rapids. Also waiting were citizens, news media, Perrier and Nestlé’s entourage of lawyers, its regional CEO, and public relations machine. Judge Root had signed the opinion and order, then placed a stack of copies for the parties and media on the bench. He invited the parties’ lawyers and others present to pick up their copies, and without saying more retreated to his office.

“Who owns the water?” Terry asked, something she would keep asking for the next 20 years. Not Perrier or Nestlé. It belonged to the public. But the DEQ issued the permit, Perrier started pumping, and Terry and MCWC had no choice but to file a lawsuit.

I led Terry out a side door to the sidewalk, glanced at the last page, leaned speechless against a wall, and handed Terry the opinion. I’ll never forget the elated look on Terry’s face. Judge Root had concluded that the pumping would cause substantial harm at almost any rate, that it violated principles of Michigan groundwater and riparian law. He found that the flows of the stream would be reduced on average by 28 percent, that water levels would drop as much as 6 inches, and that the water resources and fishery would be impaired. Terry, her sharp eyes full of excitement, took the opinion back into the courthouse to share with her officers, members, and supporters. Judge Root had ordered Nestlé to shut down all three of its large-volume wells.

After five years of appeals, Nestlé finally settled for a final amended order that reduced its pumping from 400 gallons per minute (gpm) to an average of 125 gpm in the summer and 218 gpm the rest of the year. The final amended order has protected the water resources of the stream and lakes to this day.

I’ll never forget the elated look on Terry’s face. Judge Root had concluded that the pumping would cause substantial harm at almost any rate, that it violated principles of Michigan groundwater and riparian law.

By the time the case ended in 2009, Terry had not only led MCWC to a victory, but the organization had grown to more than 2,000 members, including Food & Water Watch from Washington, D.C., the Council of Canadians from Ottawa, and supporters and donors from all over the country. But Terry knew the fight was not over. Already, Nestlé and other influential lobbying interests ran full-court press in Lansing and other Great Lakes state capitols in the middle of negotiating a Great Lakes agreement that promised to halt water diversions and exports from the Great Lakes Basin.

New battles and hurdles had to be overcome. Nestlé and its allies were pushing hard for an exemption for “products,” including water in containers like bottled water. Terry and MCWC contacted others, and soon, author and conservation leader Dave Dempsey, Cyndi Roper, steering Clean Water Action, Maude Barlow, and Wenonah Hauter, and Munk Centre in Toronto were engaged.  Terry wrote letters and submitted comments on behalf of MCWC and Michigan’s waters. On the governor’s announcement of a deal on the Great Lakes Compact in late 2005, Terry called it like it was, and still is:

“‘These… agreements may save… [what] so many have worked hard for, but they will not save the Great Lakes,” Terry said. 

Terry knew the fight was not over. Already, Nestlé and other influential lobbying interests ran full-court press in Lansing and other Great Lakes state capitols in the middle of negotiating a Great Lakes agreement that promised to halt water diversions and exports from the Great Lakes Basin.

“There is a hole in these pacts, and over time the agreements could sink under the national and global demands for our Great Lakes water,” she said. “The negotiators and Council of Great Lakes Governors should be commended for how far they’ve come, but these agreements should not be signed in their present form… Despite what other industries and even a few environmental groups may say in favor of adopting the agreements [the Compact], we don’t think they speak for most citizens and businesses…  These groups have not addressed the product export loophole.’”

Throughout the years I worked with Terry, her husband Gary, Rhonda Huff, the board, and the Doyle and Sapp families, we all became friends, forged from the ups and downs of the long struggle. Terry, MCWC, all of those who lead the organization now, I have the highest respect for you. You have lived on principle and faith, not out of stubbornness, but out of the reality that some things by their nature cannot be compromised—like the perpetual integrity of the waters of the Little Muskegon River or the Great Lakes. If water were subjected to private control, everyone and the lakes themselves would lose. As Terry said, “It’s about who owns the water.”

If water were subjected to private control, everyone and the lakes themselves would lose. As Terry said, “It’s about who owns the water.”

Terry was asked to testify in December 2007 before a Congressional Committee in Washington, D.C., on bottled water and the future of water, sharing her experiences taking on Nestlé. She felt strongly that Congress should clarify that water itself is not a “product” under the terms of the Great Lakes Compact, and therefore is not for sale. MCWC’s lawyer prepared an analysis Terry submitted as part of her testimony in support of a U.S. House Resolution to close the bottled water export loophole and avoid a precedent in international trade law that Michigan’s water could be sold anywhere.

She led MCWC through so many challenging moments and crises during her 10-year tenure, but she was quick to credit her board and others, not herself. But as anyone who knows Terry could attest, it was her clear-sighted commitment to principle and her conviction, grounded like the roots of an oak tree deep in the soil with branches wide in the sky, that stood behind this victory. Her gentle strength was flexible in any wind or storm. (MCWC carries on these same qualities today, in its current battle against Blue Triton, the hedge-fund financed company that bought out Nestlé, over Twin and Chippewa Creeks, near Evart).  

But as anyone who knows Terry could attest, it was her clear-sighted commitment to principle and her conviction, grounded like the roots of an oak tree deep in the soil with branches wide in the sky, that stood behind this victory.

But the victory Terry and MCWC won was not enough. The question, “Who Owns the Water?” remained unanswered. When we talked on the phone after the case ended and things heated up over the “product” loophole in the Great Lakes Compact, it was clear that the work was not done. Terry talked with Rhonda Huff and the Board, and they joined and sponsored a larger grassroots effort that sponsored a premiere showing of the award-winning documentary For Love of Water at the Traverse City State Theater on Nov. 16, 2008, which featured as one of its topics the challenge by MCWC of Nestlé’s attempt to turn water into a private commodity. After the showing, the film’s director Irena Salina joined Terry and other panelists to discuss before a standing-room only audience one of the fundamental battles of the 21st century. The response was overwhelming. Terry and I talked afterward, and she, MCWC vice president Rhonda Huft, and the board agreed to help a core group I gathered to found a new organization directed at protecting water as a public trust and the paramount right to water of all citizens and life. Today, that organization is For Love of Water (FLOW).

Terry and I talked afterward, and she and MCWC agreed to help a core group I gathered to found a new organization directed at protecting water as a public trust and the paramount right to water of all citizens and life. Today, that organization is For Love of Water (FLOW).

As we and our children and grandchildren face the challenges of the world that lie ahead, Terry would say what she said in a speech on receiving one of Michigan’s highest environmental action awards. Citing Margaret Mead, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

______________________________________________________________________________________________

About the author: Jim Olson, FLOW’s founder and senior legal advisor, was a principal at the Olson, Bzdok, and Howard law firm in Traverse City when he represented Michigan Citizens for Conservation in its 2001 lawsuit, Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation vs. Nestlé Waters North America. Inc. The case resulted in a landmark November 2003 ruling by Mecosta County Circuit Court Judge Lawrence C. Root that Nestlé’s Sanctuary Springs wells caused substantial harm, were unreasonable under groundwater law, and violated the Michigan Environmental Protection Act.

Judge Root ordered Nestlé to completely stop pumping water from the Sanctuary Springs site, protecting Michigan streams, lakes, wetlands, fish, and riparian and public uses from removal of tributary groundwater for bottled water operations. After five years of appeals, Nestlé finally settled for an amended order that reduced its pumping from 400 gallons per minute (gpm) to an average of 125 gpm in the summer and 218 gpm the rest of the year. The final amended order has protected the water resources of the stream and lakes to this day.

Water Privatization: The Struggle To Stop Nestlé’s Groundwater Grab Continues

This blog is part of FLOW’s 2020 Annual Report, which you can read here.

For years, a fight has been brewing over public water worldwide. From Michigan to drought-stricken California, to Canada, to Germany, and beyond, the Nestlé corporation is a key player in a worldwide effort to privatize our finite water resources, and then sell it back to us in plastic bottles—in Michigan’s case, in and outside the Great Lakes Basin.

FLOW and our allies, including Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation (MCWC) and the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, continue to call on the state of Michigan to withdraw the permit for Nestlé’s groundwater extraction in Mecosta County. On June 17, 2020, FLOW and MCWC co-hosted a webinar that provided frontline, scientific, and legal insights into citizen-led efforts to challenge the Swiss-based corporate giant in its quest to expand its extraction of groundwater in mid-Michigan. Every year, Nestlé in its operations near Evart pumps hundreds of millions of gallons of public groundwater virtually for free, bottles it, and sells it under the Ice Mountain brand back to the public at a huge markup—while threatening streams that provide aquatic habitat and flow to Lake Michigan.

FLOW submitted formal comments to the state on January 30, 2020, citing deep and fundamental deficiencies in a state-approved groundwater monitoring plan fashioned by Nestlé. FLOW demonstrated that the plan’s failure to adequately address hydrological effects leads to the perverse outcome that the monitoring plan will mask, rather than reveal, the actual adverse impacts of the pumping allowed by the permit at issue. “Michigan waters are held by the state as sovereign,” FLOW founder and president Jim Olson said, “meaning, held for all of Michigan’s citizens, so by its very nature, a monitoring plan must be fully transparent, independent, reliable, and accurate to collect data and understand existing hydrologic, geologic, and ecological conditions.”

On November 20, 2020, Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) dismissed a case challenging the state permit issued to Nestlé in 2018 for increased water withdrawals from springs in Osceola County. The announcement also dismissed more than 80,000 comments EGLE received opposing the permit. FLOW and MCWC believe it is the duty of the state to make sure that multinational corporations like Nestlé don’t privatize public water and don’t harm water resources in their water bottling operations.

“If anything is important to the people of Michigan, I don’t care what party you’re in, it’s water,” said Olson, who has led the legal fight against Nestlé since the early 2000s.

State of Michigan Dodges Decision, Nestlé Dodges the Rule of Law

In a baffling decision announced November 20, the director of Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) dismissed a contested case brought by citizens challenging the state permit issued to Nestlé Waters North America in 2018 for increased water withdrawals from springs north of Evart, in Osceola County’s Osceola Township.

The announcement also, in effect, dismissed the more than 80,000 comments EGLE received opposing the permit (only 75 comments were in favor), the testimony of hundreds of citizens opposing the permit at a public hearing in 2017, and the thousands of hours of effort put into the permit challenge by Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation (MCWC), the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, and their allies.

The EGLE decision, which outraged MCWC and the Grand Traverse Band, was perplexing because it came at the end of a permit process conducted by the agency and its predecessor, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). EGLE itself legitimized the two-year public hearing and comment and administrative decision process on the permit, only to say at the end of the process that it was inconsistent with, and not required by, the state’s Safe Drinking Water Act. Instead, said EGLE Director Liesl Clark, MCWC and the Grand Traverse Band should have gone directly to court and pursued legal action. 

FLOW supported the citizen parties in the administrative contested case proceeding on the permit, stressing that EGLE had erred in granting Nestlé the permit. The appeal hinged largely on EGLE’s overly expansive interpretation of the law that would lead to significant impacts to Michigan’s cold headwater creeks and wetlands. That statute says an applicant can receive a permit only if it provides real-world impacts analysis of effects, not just a model, for large-volume withdrawals from headwater creeks and wetlands for export as bottled water. Nestlé relied on a model, and EGLE acquiesced. FLOW also submitted formal comments to the State of Michigan finding deep and fundamental deficiencies in a state-approved groundwater monitoring plan fashioned by Nestlé.

Beginning the permit challenge in the courts, rather than through an administratively contested case, would turn the process into even more of a David vs. Goliath conflict. MCWC did just that in a 2003 court case at great cost and sacrifice and ultimately won, reducing Nestlé’s permitted pumping by more than half. Costs to a grassroots environment group for legal action, however, are prohibitive, a reality to which EGLE was unfortunately indifferent. Nonetheless, the opposition continues to discuss the way forward.

Evart’s White Pine Springs Takes Center Stage in North America’s Water Wars

Bottled water

Evart is taking center stage in North America’s “water wars” as local advocates demand that Nestlé Waters North America revert its claimed rights to the White Pine Springs back to the public trust. These springs, a source for Ice Mountain’s bottled water brand, have long been subject to community opposition due to the company’s legacy of broken promises, ecological harm, and removal of our most precious public resource: our water.

Nestlé Waters’ announcement last summer that it is considering the sale of its bulk bottled water business — including regional name brands Pure Life, Poland Spring, Arrowhead, Zephyrhills, and Ice Mountain — follows a string of controversies over the company’s environmental and community impacts in the United States and Canada that have spurred protests, lawsuits, and legislative proposals. Indeed, Nestlé CEO Mark Schneider admitted to The New York Times in June that ‘environmental concerns’ had hurt sales. Recent developments suggest the company is in the process of accelerating the sale to the tune of $5 billion.

Now, more than a dozen organizations in the United States, Canada and Switzerland, led by grassroots groups in communities that have been fighting Nestlé’s water extraction for years, have written to Nestlé CEO Ulf Mark Schneider to demand that the company return a series of particularly controversial water bottling operations to the public prior to any sale.

The case in White Pine Springs is notable since Nestlé is currently applying to increase its water withdrawals to 400 gallons per minute despite the company’s intent to sell its Ice Mountain brand. While a final permitting decision rests with the state’s environmental regulator, EGLE, the move is bitterly opposed by local residents. Indeed, local groups have filed a complaint asking the state’s Attorney General, Dana Nessel, to address the impairment of two streams by Nestlé’s current water withdrawals.

The State has always relied solely on Nestlé generated data to claim there has been no harm to local streams and lakes. Residents know better and have documented harms for many years, says Peggy Case, president of Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation (MCWC). With record high water levels throughout the state, the two affected creeks in Evart are way below the level to support a once healthy trout population and mudflats are increasing. The damage is similar to what was experienced in Mecosta County when Nestlé began pumping there. A lawsuit filed in 2000 resulted in a court precedent that forced Nestlé to reduce pumping. Yet the multinational corporation has been fighting tooth and nail to get a permit for the exact same amount in Evart. To date, the State still takes Nestle’s position and refuses to investigate the claims of the citizens affected.

The letter to the Nestlé CEO marks the launch of a global campaign — Nestlé’s Troubled Waters — to pressure the company, potential buyers, regulators and lawmakers to see the ownership of these water sources revert to public ownership.

  • In the letter, local advocates join groups from the U.S., Canada and Switzerland in calling on the world’s largest water bottler to divest itself of Evart’s White Pine Springs as well as other controversial water sources in Colorado; Florida, California and Ontario, Canada, prior to any sale.
  • Nestlé’s decision about a sale comes at a time when record wildfires, long-term drought conditions and the Coronavirus pandemic are elevating the importance of access to clean, affordable local water sources.
  • Nestlé’s practices have previously led to legislative proposals in Ontario, Michigan and Washington to restrict privatized water bottling.

The letter precedes several important permit-related developments for Nestlé, which despite its sale effort is moving ahead on permit renewals in multiple states:

  • A hearing this week before Chaffee County, Colorado Commissioners over Nestlé’s request for a 10-year extension of its permit to draw water from Ruby Mountain Springs, despite significant public concern over a series of unfulfilled promises from the company’s first, now expired, permit;
  • In Florida, the Suwannee Water Management District will soon review Nestlé’s effort to increase its water take from Ginnie Springs to almost 1 million gallons per day, though Nestlé’s name is not on the permit application — it buys water from the permittee — despite threatening the flow of the endangered Santa Fe River’s iconic freshwater springs.
  • In California, the state continues to await a final Report of Investigation from the State Water Resources Control Board regarding its review of Nestlé’s shaky claim to water rights in the San Bernardino National Forest. The preliminary report found Nestlé had far overstated its rights for years.

Watch the short documentary ‘A Tale of Two Cities’ A Tale of Two Cities tells the story of citizens from two very different Michigan communities—small-town Evart and industrial Flint—that have found their futures inextricably linked by a threat to the one thing that all life requires: water.

Resources:

Spokespersons available for interview:

    Will Michigan Allow Nestlé to Operate below the Ground and above the Law?

    Jim Olson is FLOW’s Founder, President, and Legal Advisor

    By Jim Olson

    In the coming weeks, Liesl Clark, the director of the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE)—and ultimately, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer—will make the final decision required by state law on a Nestlé water bottling permit to remove another 210 million gallons of groundwater a year virtually for free from the directly connected headwaters of Twin and Chippewa creeks just north of Evart, in Osceola County. The administration of former Gov. Rick Snyder supported the permit through the loose interpretation of Michigan’s 2008 groundwater law and acceptance of a model submitted by Nestlé that underestimated impacts. And the approval came despite more than 80,000 public comments against the permit, with just 75 people in favor.

    The courts in a separate 2003-2005 case in neighboring Mecosta County over Nestlé’s removal of water from the headwaters of a stream and several lakes found that computer models were not reliable. The only way a model can be used to gauge environmental impacts, the courts ruled, is to verify the estimates of the model with actual measurements of flows and levels of the streams before and during pumping. From the measurements, the effects of flows and levels can be readily calculated, and the actual impacts determined. If this is not done, the impacts in the real world will not be determined, and any resulting decision would be inconsistent with required scientific methodology, and the law.

    In 2008, Michigan enacted its first groundwater withdrawal law and amended the Safe Drinking Water Act that imposed specific standards for EGLE to apply to well permit applications to take groundwater for bottled water operations. One critical standard requires that for a decision to be reasonable and lawful, the decision must be based on existing hydrogeological conditions before and during pumping, as well as on predicted conditions. In other words, there must be measurements and calculations of the effects of pumping and, if a model is used to estimate effects, of predicted conditions that are substantiated by the calculations. This is exactly what the courts decided and why this standard is in the statute. Models without calculated effects based on actual observation cannot be used in authorizing a permit. Yet this is exactly what happened when EGLE and the administrative law judge recommended approval of the permit. It was done without the required calculations and scientific methodology in accordance with the 2008 law. Without this verification, the model cannot be relied on to issue the permit.

    The question now before Governor Whitmer and Director Clark is: Will they allow Nestlé to slide under the legal threshold required for the groundwater extraction permit? Their answer will have a lasting impact on the future of Michigan groundwater, lakes, streams, and wetlands. In a recent news release, state officials conceded that the upcoming decision must be based on science and the legal standards that apply. The Governor and Director Clark are under the spotlight to see whether they will uphold the true intent of the 2008 law to demand calculated effects, not just a model, for large-volume withdrawals from our headwater creeks and wetlands for export as bottled water.

    Their decision will be nothing less than a litmus test on whether the Whitmer administration and EGLE will follow the rule of law that protects the waters of Michigan or follow the bias of the Snyder administration to shave the facts and law in favor of business over our state’s water, environment, and public health.

    Take Action: Tell the State of Michigan to Stop the Nestlé Groundwater Grab — Please click here to take action today to stop this unlawful capture of the public’s water. The Director of the Michigan Department of the Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) has the final say on the Nestlé permit. But EGLE has moved to dismiss citizen concerns. Please take action now to write EGLE Director Liesl Clark, as well as Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, to urge them to uphold the law and their roles as trustees of our public water by rejecting the Nestlé permit once and for all.

    Learn More: FLOW and the Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation co-hosted a one-hour webinar (You can watch it here) on June 17, 2020, providing frontline, scientific, and legal insights into citizen-led efforts to challenge Nestlé, the Swiss-based corporate giant, in its quest to expand its groundwater grab in Michigan. Every year, Nestlé in its operations near Evart pumps hundreds of millions of gallons of public groundwater virtually for free, bottles it, and sells it under the Ice Mountain brand back to the public at a huge markup—while threatening streams that provide aquatic habitat and flow to Lake Michigan. Presenters included: Jim Olson, FLOW’s President and  Legal Advisor, and MCWC President Peggy Case.

    When Water Was Trash

    Bottled water

    Helene Kouzoujian Rimer read her compelling and arresting poem, “When Water Was Trash,” at the Glen Arbor Arts Center’s “Words for Water” poetry throw-down on July 31. The outdoor event was a collaboration between the Arts Center and FLOW. Poets and performers were invited to read works that sought to answer the question: “Who owns the water? People? Communities? Corporations? Nobody?” Click here to watch a livestream recording of the poetry throw-down.

    FLOW’s “Art Meets Water” initiative seeks to develop a deep sense of stewardship for our Great Lakes by celebrating the creativity and passion sparked by these magnificent freshwater resources. “Art Meets Water” is an ongoing series of collaborations with committed artists, inspired by the ability of art to amplify our critical connection to water. The Great Lakes Belong to All of Us. “All of Us” speaks to the many kinds of beautiful diversity in our Great Lakes community.

     

    When Water was Trash

    Last month I learned that water was trash.

    It didn’t want to be.

    A bottle of unopened water.

    Its life-giving elixir

    Trapped

    In a plastic cocoon

    Never to emerge, never to unleash its magic:

    To revive a parched mouth.

    To make the plants in Mary Lee’s garden grow.

    To shake the poplar leaves in a rainstorm frenzy.

    Instead they caught it. Captured it. Capped it. Strangled it.

    Owned it for free and sold it for gold. Water became cash.

    And, then someone accidently dropped it in the Platte River.

    For me to pick up, on a river clean-up day

    in a plastic black bag with garbage.

    Why didn’t I open it and pour it in the river? Because it was trash.

    Now, doomed to live its million-year journey in the trash mountain, in Glen’s Landfill with millions of unopened bottles of water, from soccer games, yoga workouts, picnics, meetings; mountains of them, waiting to come, at Costco, Walmart, Meijer, gas stations, vending machines, every grocery store.

    Forever.

    When I am old, I will tell of the day when water was sold for gold, and when water was trash.

    FLOW, Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation to Host Webinar on Nestlé: Stopping the Groundwater Grab

    The public is invited to join FLOW and the Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation as we co-host a one-hour webinar on Wednesday, June 17, at 1 p.m., providing frontline, scientific, and legal insights into citizen-led efforts to challenge Nestlé, the Swiss-based corporate giant, in its quest to expand its groundwater grab in Michigan.

    Every year, Nestlé in its operations near Evart pumps hundreds of millions of gallons of public groundwater virtually for free, bottles it, and sells it under the Ice Mountain brand back to the public at a huge markup — while threatening streams that provide aquatic habitat and flow to Lake Michigan.

    Presenters will include:

    • Jim Olson, President & Legal Advisor, FLOW
    • Peggy Case, President, Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation

    Register for the June 17 event: Click here to reserve your spot for the Zoom webinar.

    Take action today! The public also is invited to take action today to help stop this unlawful capture of the public’s water. Click this link to learn more about the issue and personalize our template email to Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy Director Liesl Clark, as well as Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, to urge them to uphold the law and their roles as trustees of our public water by rejecting the Nestlé permit once and for all.

    Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation Calls on Governor, EGLE Director to Withdraw Permit for Nestlé’s Water Grab

    Peggy Case, MCWC

    By Peggy Case, President, Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation

    Rarely does a ruling by a state Administrative Law Judge overturn a permit issued by a state agency. In the contested case hearing on the Nestlé permit to withdraw more than 500,000 gallons of water per day from a White Pine Springs well near Evart, Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation (MCWC) and the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians (GTB) had hoped the administrative law judge would reverse the former Snyder administration’s unwarranted permission for Nestlé’s permit.

    But on April 24, the administrative law judge in the case before the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE) issued a proposal for decision that would uphold the permit, and recommended that Liesl Clark, Director of EGLE, render a final decision in Nestlé’s favor. Fortunately, the decision is only a proposal, and our attorneys have advised us that MCWC and the Grand Traverse Band have a right to file exceptions. So we are urging Director Clark and the Whitmer Administration to reject the footloose interpretation of Michigan’s water laws for Nestlé to sell another 210 million gallons of bottled water per year from the headwaters of our lakes and streams.

    FLOW ACTION ALERT: Please take action now to write EGLE Director Liesl Clark, as well as Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, to urge them to uphold the law and their roles as trustees of our public water by rejecting the Nestlé permit once and for all.

    The proposal from the judge is full of errors and interpretations and relies on a model based on assumptions, not actual calculations of the effects, that tipped the cup toward Nestlé. We intend to demonstrate these errors through the filing of exceptions as provided by law. We trust Director Clark and the administration will reject the permit, and follow the legal duty resting with EGLE to apply our water law standards strictly, the way they were intended.

    This proceeding and case started with the Snyder Administration’s Department of Environmental Quality when it granted the permit in April 2018, despite compelling legal arguments and massive public opposition. Today, we have new leadership and a new Director at the helm of EGLE.

    The Governor and Attorney General campaigned on a promise to change the way we do business in Michigan when it comes to protecting water resources and promoting water justice. Unfortunately, to date, the administration through EGLE and the Attorney General’s office has continued to defend the Nestlé permit and filed a brief asking to throw out our contested case and grant the permit. This is difficult to comprehend when we consider that in the spring of 2017, 600 people opposed to the permit drove or took buses from all over the state to attend the hearing. Citizens submitted more than 80,000 comments opposing that permit in the first place.

    We know this Administration can do better in support of the voters, the water, and the damaged ecosystem in Osceola Township. It can do better than ignore the injustice in Flint where many households are still not assured of clean, affordable tap water. It can do better than give away another 210 million gallons of water a year to Nestlé while thousands of homes in Detroit still do not have running water.

    In 2005, in relation to a lawsuit MCWC filed in Mecosta County in 2000, a Michigan appeals court upheld the science and law that 400 gallons per minute from a well in a Michigan glacial headwater spring, wetlands, or creek system causes substantial harm. The court did so because date before, during, and after pumping on the withdrawals and pumping rates showed a direct correlation of pumping at 200 to 400 gallons per minute and drops in flows and levels and serious impacts. But when the 2018 permit was issued, the data was lacking, and what data existed was not used to calculate effects but fed into a computer model targeted to find little harm.

    By filing the exceptions and legal brief with the Director, we are urging her to conduct an independent review of the facts and loose interpretations, and overturn a permit that was based on twisting those facts and the law to favor private gain at the expense of our public water.

    MCWC and the GTB ask the Whitmer administration, the Attorney General and Director Clark to return state government to respecting the paramount duty of our state leaders to protect our state’s water and live up to the public trust responsibilities granted by our State Constitution and water laws.

    We expect the Attorney General and the Director of EGLE to take this opportunity, presented to them by our persistent work, to actually look at the record and the laws in question and do what is right for the people and our precious waters. We expect them to withdraw this permit for Nestlé’s water grab and direct their energies to repairing the injustices of lack of affordable water access in communities such as Detroit and Flint.

    Note from FLOW: To support MCWC’s vital work to protect our public trust waters from privatization and commercialization, click here.