It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Michigan wants to sell 100 Million galls water to Nestle for $200 Nestle--Privatize Water-Water not

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

The free market will take care of this. Oh no it won't.

There seems to be a few ways to take care of this.

Treat it like oil, pay the residents of Michigan for the water-it is more expensive than oil and cheaper to get.

Crank up the cost per million.

Regulations are bad though, right. We should take off all regs and trust the corps that the supreme court says are people. Profit is it, the next quarter is the only numbers that matter, and they better be increasing.




posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

No, surely not. However, there is an ethical questionability here with pumping what is free water out of the ground and then selling it abroad.

I don't know all the specifics but something about it surely doesn't feel right.



I don't know about that. I could by biased here because I drink a lot of bottled water (I try to drink about 1 gallon/day) but couldn't the same argument be applied to anything? Diamonds are free, they're just laying in the ground. Gold is too. Where's the ethics with extracting and selling them?

As long as the water table supports it (in many areas where we're pumping water, it doesn't), I see nothing wrong with pumping water from the ground, distilling it, and selling it.



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

No, surely not. However, there is an ethical questionability here with pumping what is free water out of the ground and then selling it abroad.

I don't know all the specifics but something about it surely doesn't feel right.



I don't know about that. I could by biased here because I drink a lot of bottled water (I try to drink about 1 gallon/day) but couldn't the same argument be applied to anything? Diamonds are free, they're just laying in the ground. Gold is too. Where's the ethics with extracting and selling them?

As long as the water table supports it (in many areas where we're pumping water, it doesn't), I see nothing wrong with pumping water from the ground, distilling it, and selling it.


I suppose the difference would be that diamonds, oil etc aren't required for life. A more proper argument might be a farm?

Like I said, I'm not sure what exactly it is that doesn't feel right about this. Hell, it could be jealousy!



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Right, the corps shouldn't be buying a million gals for 200$. This is their raw material. The state of Mich should treat this like a business arrangement, and require a much higher fee.



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

I understand what you're saying and how you feel about it. I think I even understand why. I'm just saying I don't fully agree.

If you look into the issue, we're definitely over pumping in some areas, but in others we have a lot of water to spare and we can pump from the aquifers without depleting them due to them being replenished quickly.

Bottled water sounds like it's pumping a lot from these places, but it's actually a pretty small amount of our total water use. All drinking water is actually, it's only a couple percent of our fresh water use. Most water use goes to agriculture and industrial needs.

I say, if we can get that in a better form, why not do so? I live in a pretty old town by US standards, we predate the founding of the US even. Our water pipes among the oldest in the country, still lead. We pump from the Ohio River, in an area so toxic the shoreline is roped off and you can't even touch the water. It gets purified at the treatment plant, but I just don't trust it... I would rather have the bottled stuff and with options like carbonation and/or flavoring, or even just good old vapor distilled water which is as pure as you can get.

As far as I'm concerned it's not harming anything, and done responsibly (not something we're necessarily doing right now) is a sustainable practice. Some of the other ways we're harvesting our water resources I can't say the same for.



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Time for urine purifiers!



Urine Luck! There may just be some out there, what a marketing ploy that one would be, eh. We need more smart inventors with Capitol and no desire to rip people off. I would market it!



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 10:10 PM
link   
I don't live that far from the Nestles water wells in Stanwood and I seriously doubt, that with a 3 to 4 foot water table around my swamp, that I'll have a problem with my 100 foot deep privately owned water well running out of water anytime soon.

I also doubt that this will effect surface waters in the area like the Muskegon River nearby. It may have an effect on natural springs and wells near the Nestles well, that is something I believe could be a problem. But seriously, there are natural springs everywhere in my area, I've found about a half a dozen within 25 miles (most within a few miles) without even looking for them.

As far as clean potable drinking water being a human right, I'd have a problem with that idea in that although clean drinking water is a necessity for human survival, it doesn't mean that you have a right to cost free, clean potable drinking water. As a private well owner, I do have the right to pump water from the ground under my property and the right to use it how I see fit. If I wanted to pump more water for other uses than household ones, the expense would be very high, just a simple repair to my existing well would cost me a couple grand.

As a boat owner, I have the right to travel the waters, at my expense. As a fisherman, I have a right to fish in the waters, after I buy the equipment, get a license, etc. Why are other water uses any different?

If private ground water wasn't allowed, then the government would own all the water. Because of this, I believe in Nestles' right to own the water they pump from the ground because I believe in the people's right to do the same. I don't believe that the Nestles Corporation (or any corporation) is the same as a citizen concerning rights, but I have the right to become a business owner and do business like they do.

The same can't be said for the surface water rights in Michigan because the State and Federal governments own that. So you have little to no rights concerning the pond that you dig on your property, or the stream that flows across it.
edit on 1-12-2016 by MichiganSwampBuck because: edit for clarity

edit on 1-12-2016 by MichiganSwampBuck because: typo



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 10:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: JinMI

Right, the corps shouldn't be buying a million gals for 200$. This is their raw material. The state of Mich should treat this like a business arrangement, and require a much higher fee.


I think this is a more legitimate issue. Nestle especially is well known for buying a lot of water cheaply because they have some utterly ridiculous contracts. It's the job of the states to manage their resources, and when they sell those resources they should get what they're worth, which in turn lets them offset their tax rates for the citizens. 1 million gallons for $200 is not a fair rate.



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

When ever you buy a license you are asking for permission.

I think that this commodity that nestle wants to monetize should be treated like oil from Alaska. You want it, pay for it.



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: JesusXst

Otherwise known as "artificial scarcity".



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

The amount isn't my concern. There are studies being done to make sure it is all good.

My main concern is the monetizing of a natural resource. If nestle wants it pay for it. This is a raw material and Mich and Nestle should become partners or have a supply/business relationship.
edit on 1-12-2016 by seasonal because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 10:24 PM
link   
And remember in many places it's illegal to collect rain water for personal use...



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

If this were a tax funded government project that insured that those in areas such as your are supplied with fresh drinking water, I may not have any issue with this.

The part that gets me is that Nestle is a corporation. It makes money from selling a product. As was stated earlier by seasonal, they are getting their raw product for a very small pittance. In turn are able to capitalize off of this in an extreme manner.



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

I'm about 60 miles south of where this is happening. The law you describe is in effect here......



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Independence and self reliance of any sort will be a crime if some people have their way.

The more you can control the basic needs of peoples survival the more enslaved they are to your whims.

Put these two things together and you've got the future they're designing for us all.



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

When ever you buy a license you are asking for permission.

I think that this commodity that nestle wants to monetize should be treated like oil from Alaska. You want it, pay for it.


Buying a fishing license or getting a boat registered is different than getting a well licensed for drilling. You only license and drill the well once and then pump water forever. But the idea I'm trying to illustrate here is that you pay for licensed use of the public surface waters year after year, but only once for private ground water. That is the big difference between government owned public water sources and privately owned ground waters. So yes, buying a license is asking for permission, but there is a difference in surface water and well water rights in this regard due to who actually owns those rights, you or the government.



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 10:51 PM
link   
I think it's time to BOYCOTT Nestle along with Other Chocolate Companies.

It's the only logical thing to do at this point. No Customers, No Chocolate, No Water Shortages.



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

I agree and to anyone who lives in an urban area trying to go against those norms are met with extreme resistance.

I keep telling myself, few more years. Can't wait to invade MichiganSwampBucks neck of the woods!!!



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: JesusXst

Otherwise known as "artificial scarcity".


One can only Speculate.



posted on Dec, 1 2016 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck
They are negotiating the permit, I think they should have to pay a real price for the main ingredient of the their very expensive product. It costs more than gas.



In Evart, Michigan the water-guzzling behemoth is in the process of negotiating a permit with the state to increase pumping operations to 210 million gallons of water per year.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join