# Nestle fixing to pump more water away from trout streams



## BDuff1234 (Jan 18, 2016)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Who pumps more water, golf course, people watering their lawns, farmers or Nestles? It's not like water isn't being used for human consumption.
> 
> Should we tax ground water? Should we have to buy water rights like the western states? Should water be treated like mineral rights?
> 
> I don't know but maybe the court system should decide who will be winners or losers.


Unfortunately that's not an apples to apples comparison. It's an apples and oranges comparison. Golf courses, people watering their lawn and farmers, when they use the water it then returns to the same water table after they use it. 
Nestle's water draw however is for bottled water which isn't just shipped to people in that area of the state. I would assume it's shipped across the nation and potentially out of the country as well? So the water doesn't return to the same water table thus the reason for concern as it's not returning any of the water it draws.


----------



## Boardman Brookies (Dec 20, 2007)

FK Nestle!


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

BDuff1234 said:


> Unfortunately that's not an apples to apples comparison. It's an apples and oranges comparison. Golf courses, people watering their lawn and farmers, when they use the water it then returns to the same water table after they use it.
> Nestle's water draw however is for bottled water which isn't just shipped to people in that area of the state. I would assume it's shipped across the nation and potentially out of the country as well? So the water doesn't return to the same water table thus the reason for concern as it's not returning any of the water it draws.


So you are saying that no evaporation takes place? I don't think so.


----------



## BDuff1234 (Jan 18, 2016)

Luv2hunteup said:


> So you are saying that no evaporation takes place? I don't think so.


I did not say that no evaporation takes place, simply that your comparison was not an accurate comparison.

Of course evaporation takes place there just like it does in California, and Texas, and any other country in the world. And that is a natural thing that we don't have any control over.


----------



## Steve (Jan 15, 2000)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Who pumps more water, golf course, people watering their lawns, farmers or Nestles? It's not like water isn't being used for human consumption.
> 
> Should we tax ground water? Should we have to buy water rights like the western states? Should water be treated like mineral rights?
> 
> I don't know but maybe the court system should decide who will be winners or losers.


At least with a golf course there is the chance that some of that water will end up back in the aquifer.


----------



## MIfishslayer91 (Dec 24, 2013)

Luv2hunteup said:


> So you are saying that no evaporation takes place? I don't think so.


Never heard anyone trying to argue that water doesn't evaporate . Take 1000 gallons of water and ship it to another state, take another 1000 gallons of water and pour it on a Michigan farm. Which will have more water returning to the ground in Michigan? Not that hard to figure out.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

if the DEQ decided it's safe, I have to agree, they always rule way beyond the side of caution.

I consider it a economic issue, not only the jobs they create, but also the economic impact on other businesses downstream.

The aquafier they are drawing from cover at least 1/3 of the LP....And we all help replenish it every time we flush!

There is as of a couple years ago, a small Evita bottling plant a little WNW of Roscommon, they were struggling so not sure if it's open. Anyway's....Luckily for them they avoided the publicity. Good thing they don't market that as AuSauble spring water.

Protecting our environment is a great thing. Unfortunately everything we use or do, has an impact on this space rock we are on. That's why we have the EPA and DEQ. Let them do their job.


----------



## PunyTrout (Mar 23, 2007)

Nestlé S.A. is a Swiss transnational food and drink company headquartered in Vevey, Vaud, Switzerland. It is the largest food company in the world measured by revenues, and ranked #72 on the Fortune Global 500 in 2014 according to Wikipedia.

After the water has evaporated, Where does the money end up?

Also, How much does Nestlé pay the State of Michigan for the water they extract?

Should water be considered a Commodity?

Also consider the price of water charged at your local gas station. If you pay $1.79 for a 1 litre bottle of water, That is the equivalent of paying $6.77 per gallon. _*For water... *_Much higher than the price they charge for gasoline.


----------



## Benzie Rover (Mar 17, 2008)

swampbuck said:


> Have the water levels dropped ?


The short answer is yes, the levels dropped in the source springs and the very small upper reaches of the stream channels near them, but the main stream channels (Big Twin Creek, etc) did not shown a significant decrease in flow to my knowledge. Some residents argued otherwise and felt their residential wells were compromised immediately, but that was never proven scientifically as best I know. Of course, if they start pumping from more spring sites and drained the aquifer at double their current rate as is proposed then there could easily be a big problem, IMO. Let's not forget that it was just last year that an oil fracking well in Kalkaska township (DEQ permitted) pumped that local aquifer so low that residential wells next door started sucking air. This was chalked up to an 'error in the DEQ water withdrawal calculator'. This incident was on the news and well covered. The bottled water issue is very important and more sportsman need to pay attention to what is going on here.

I was personally involved with the original permitting process for the Nestle plant back around 2000. I was under a confidentially contract with Nestle until 2007, but I can finally speak about the crazy BS that went on down there. I was finishing up grad school at that time and was working for a biological consulting firm that was hired by Nestle to conduct their original EIS (Environmental Impact Statement). The EIS is supposedly an objective analysis of the potential impact of a proposed project that is conducted BEFORE the project has started. It is important to remember that Nestle started this rape of our water resources under the guidance of the KL Cool leadership (Engler Admin). Cool directed Nestle on where in the Lower Peninsula to look for property and set up their drilling operation in order to reduce opposition. They were told to stay away from the AuSable, PM or Manistee watersheds for these reasons. So they focused on the very upper reaches of the Muskegon shed and then they let them get started on doing tests long before a single measurement could be taken for the EIS. That was where I was involved. My crew showed up at a proposed well site that was north of Standwood on a religious camp property. The area they were testing was a hardwood block that had multiple spring emergence sites at the base of a small hill. The springs all coalesced into a single stream within a few hundred feet of popping out of the ground. It was a very cool spot ecologically speaking. We were supposed to collect discharge, water quality samples, marcroinvertebrates and conduct electrofishing surveys. When we showed up my manager told our crew to 'just keep quiet about the fact that Nestle had already been out there for several weeks running pumping tests' and proceed as if it was a not an already impacted site. It was a total joke. As we were carrying the backpack shocker down to the stream I clearly remember walking past the spring emergence sight where a Nestle 'scientist' joker was totally floundering in his efforts to measure basic discharge of the stream. This is simple a function of volume and rate of flow, but he was stumped. Our manager showed him how to use his equipment and get some results. While this was just one of several employees they had out there, it was definitely an eye opener. We electro shocked the stream and found a solid number of YOY, age 1 and age 2 brookies along with mottled sculpin and a few other typical coldwater native species. We went on to sample several other proposed pumping locations, including those inside the big hunt camp where they eventually located their first pumping operations. To be fair, all the other sites had not yet been impacted by their testing as far as we could tell. We never got to go back to that site, but that visit left a *very* big impression in my mind about how things _really_ get done when it comes to permitting major developments within the upper administration of the DEQ/DNR. Allowing Nestle to expand this operation is a very bad precedent to set and could lead to significant impacts that do not show up for many more years to come. They somehow got their nose under the tent - now the rest of the camel is trying to sneak in.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Thanks, Benzie. Good info

It should be monitored, and if there is a problem, it should be corrected. Nobody can argue with that.

But we have to be realistic, every single item we use draws from the earth, the water you drink, the car you drive, your house, everything comes from the periodic table of elements.

We have to have economic activity to survive. It is up to the environmental agency's to police that thin line in the middle.


----------



## Lumberman (Sep 27, 2010)

I actually agree with swampy on this one. 1 storm that produces 1/2" of rain has way more effect then nestle. 

If they're drying out a trout stream then I'll be the first to jump in line to stop it but that doesn't seem to be the case. 

And FYI the Great Lakes water levels are way up this year.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Who pumps more water, golf course, people watering their lawns, farmers or Nestles? It's not like water isn't being used for human consumption.
> 
> Should we tax ground water? Should we have to buy water rights like the western states? Should water be treated like mineral rights?
> 
> I don't know but maybe the court system should decide who will be winners or losers.


It is way cheaper to and more profitable to bottle a gallon of water than it is to produce a gallon of oil. If the state charged them a tax of 5 cents per gallon of water they would not miss it at all. They could use the money to fix roads and lower gas taxes and we could all benefit.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Would anybody protest if they were bottling Budweiser or Pepsi instead of plain water ?


----------



## RonSwanson (Apr 20, 2016)

Lumberman said:


> I actually agree with swampy on this one. 1 storm that produces 1/2" of rain has way more effect then nestle.
> 
> If they're drying out a trout stream then I'll be the first to jump in line to stop it but that doesn't seem to be the case.
> 
> And FYI the Great Lakes water levels are way up this year.


Been awhile since hydrology but I'm not sure it's that simple.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Robert Holmes said:


> It is way cheaper to and more profitable to bottle a gallon of water than it is to produce a gallon of oil. If the state charged them a tax of 5 cents per gallon of water they would not miss it at all. They could use the money to fix roads and lower gas taxes and we could all benefit.


Are you suggesting a tax on everyone who uses well water?


----------



## KC Black (Sep 3, 2015)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Who pumps more water, golf course, people watering their lawns, farmers or Nestles? It's not like water isn't being used for human consumption.
> 
> Should we tax ground water? Should we have to buy water rights like the western states? Should water be treated like mineral rights?
> 
> I don't know but maybe the court system should decide who will be winners or losers.


OK, just follow me through this scenario --- They pump the water out, put it in bottles, people drink it, the yellow stuff goes into the sewer, they treat the stuff and make it good again, the good stuff goes into the water system, and then they pump it out again and again. The true water loss comes from the usage of the trees, plants, grasses, vegi's. It's simple----ain't it.


----------



## TK81 (Mar 28, 2009)

Benzie Rover said:


> The short answer is yes, the levels dropped in the source springs and the very small upper reaches of the stream channels near them, but the main stream channels (Big Twin Creek, etc) did not shown a significant decrease in flow to my knowledge. Some residents argued otherwise and felt their residential wells were compromised immediately, but that was never proven scientifically as best I know. Of course, if they start pumping from more spring sites and drained the aquifer at double their current rate as is proposed then there could easily be a big problem, IMO. Let's not forget that it was just last year that an oil fracking well in Kalkaska township (DEQ permitted) pumped that local aquifer so low that residential wells next door started sucking air. This was chalked up to an 'error in the DEQ water withdrawal calculator'. This incident was on the news and well covered. The bottled water issue is very important and more sportsman need to pay attention to what is going on here.
> 
> I was personally involved with the original permitting process for the Nestle plant back around 2000. I was under a confidentially contract with Nestle until 2007, but I can finally speak about the crazy BS that went on down there. I was finishing up grad school at that time and was working for a biological consulting firm that was hired by Nestle to conduct their original EIS (Environmental Impact Statement). The EIS is supposedly an objective analysis of the potential impact of a proposed project that is conducted BEFORE the project has started. It is important to remember that Nestle started this rape of our water resources under the guidance of the KL Cool leadership (Engler Admin). Cool directed Nestle on where in the Lower Peninsula to look for property and set up their drilling operation in order to reduce opposition. They were told to stay away from the AuSable, PM or Manistee watersheds for these reasons. So they focused on the very upper reaches of the Muskegon shed and then they let them get started on doing tests long before a single measurement could be taken for the EIS. That was where I was involved. My crew showed up at a proposed well site that was north of Standwood on a religious camp property. The area they were testing was a hardwood block that had multiple spring emergence sites at the base of a small hill. The springs all coalesced into a single stream within a few hundred feet of popping out of the ground. It was a very cool spot ecologically speaking. We were supposed to collect discharge, water quality samples, marcroinvertebrates and conduct electrofishing surveys. When we showed up my manager told our crew to 'just keep quiet about the fact that Nestle had already been out there for several weeks running pumping tests' and proceed as if it was a not an already impacted site. It was a total joke. As we were carrying the backpack shocker down to the stream I clearly remember walking past the spring emergence sight where a Nestle 'scientist' joker was totally floundering in his efforts to measure basic discharge of the stream. This is simple a function of volume and rate of flow, but he was stumped. Our manager showed him how to use his equipment and get some results. While this was just one of several employees they had out there, it was definitely an eye opener. We electro shocked the stream and found a solid number of YOY, age 1 and age 2 brookies along with mottled sculpin and a few other typical coldwater native species. We went on to sample several other proposed pumping locations, including those inside the big hunt camp where they eventually located their first pumping operations. To be fair, all the other sites had not yet been impacted by their testing as far as we could tell. We never got to go back to that site, but that visit left a *very* big impression in my mind about how things _really_ get done when it comes to permitting major developments within the upper administration of the DEQ/DNR. Allowing Nestle to expand this operation is a very bad precedent to set and could lead to significant impacts that do not show up for many more years to come. They somehow got their nose under the tent - now the rest of the camel is trying to sneak in.


Great post Benzie. I live fairly close to the area and remember seeing pictures of a couple small streams and marshes that appeared to be drying up. That was 6 or 7 years ago. Not sure if it was propaganda or not, but I am definitely not in favor of pumping water to put in plastic bottles and sell far away. The whole bottled water (plastic) industry just needs to go away.


----------



## MIfishslayer91 (Dec 24, 2013)

Benzie Rover said:


> The short answer is yes, the levels dropped in the source springs and the very small upper reaches of the stream channels near them, but the main stream channels (Big Twin Creek, etc) did not shown a significant decrease in flow to my knowledge. Some residents argued otherwise and felt their residential wells were compromised immediately, but that was never proven scientifically as best I know. Of course, if they start pumping from more spring sites and drained the aquifer at double their current rate as is proposed then there could easily be a big problem, IMO. Let's not forget that it was just last year that an oil fracking well in Kalkaska township (DEQ permitted) pumped that local aquifer so low that residential wells next door started sucking air. This was chalked up to an 'error in the DEQ water withdrawal calculator'. This incident was on the news and well covered. The bottled water issue is very important and more sportsman need to pay attention to what is going on here.
> 
> I was personally involved with the original permitting process for the Nestle plant back around 2000. I was under a confidentially contract with Nestle until 2007, but I can finally speak about the crazy BS that went on down there. I was finishing up grad school at that time and was working for a biological consulting firm that was hired by Nestle to conduct their original EIS (Environmental Impact Statement). The EIS is supposedly an objective analysis of the potential impact of a proposed project that is conducted BEFORE the project has started. It is important to remember that Nestle started this rape of our water resources under the guidance of the KL Cool leadership (Engler Admin). Cool directed Nestle on where in the Lower Peninsula to look for property and set up their drilling operation in order to reduce opposition. They were told to stay away from the AuSable, PM or Manistee watersheds for these reasons. So they focused on the very upper reaches of the Muskegon shed and then they let them get started on doing tests long before a single measurement could be taken for the EIS. That was where I was involved. My crew showed up at a proposed well site that was north of Standwood on a religious camp property. The area they were testing was a hardwood block that had multiple spring emergence sites at the base of a small hill. The springs all coalesced into a single stream within a few hundred feet of popping out of the ground. It was a very cool spot ecologically speaking. We were supposed to collect discharge, water quality samples, marcroinvertebrates and conduct electrofishing surveys. When we showed up my manager told our crew to 'just keep quiet about the fact that Nestle had already been out there for several weeks running pumping tests' and proceed as if it was a not an already impacted site. It was a total joke. As we were carrying the backpack shocker down to the stream I clearly remember walking past the spring emergence sight where a Nestle 'scientist' joker was totally floundering in his efforts to measure basic discharge of the stream. This is simple a function of volume and rate of flow, but he was stumped. Our manager showed him how to use his equipment and get some results. While this was just one of several employees they had out there, it was definitely an eye opener. We electro shocked the stream and found a solid number of YOY, age 1 and age 2 brookies along with mottled sculpin and a few other typical coldwater native species. We went on to sample several other proposed pumping locations, including those inside the big hunt camp where they eventually located their first pumping operations. To be fair, all the other sites had not yet been impacted by their testing as far as we could tell. We never got to go back to that site, but that visit left a *very* big impression in my mind about how things _really_ get done when it comes to permitting major developments within the upper administration of the DEQ/DNR. Allowing Nestle to expand this operation is a very bad precedent to set and could lead to significant impacts that do not show up for many more years to come. They somehow got their nose under the tent - now the rest of the camel is trying to sneak in.


Basically the streams that are drying up are the cold water feeder streams and wild brook trout creeks?


----------



## RonSwanson (Apr 20, 2016)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Are you suggesting a tax on everyone who uses well water?


 if they are profiting from a shared resource, then yes. Personal consumption, no.


----------



## lancenelson (Jun 10, 2009)

I cannot believe there are "sportsmen" on here who are so apathetic to the world's largest and most valuable resource... WATER!

The sale and use of bottled water at its current scale is just absolutely atrocious. The amounts of dangerous plastics that end up in our rivers, oceans, lakes, landfills, you name it simply DO NOT breakdown and have adverse effects on the earth's ecosystems. Not to mention the tremendous amounts of energy it takes to manufacture plastic, ship plastic, recycle plastic. 

Essentially doubling the taking of water from Michigan aquifers unintentionally doubles the use of energy and fossil fuels required to manufacture bottled water, etc. 

Money isn't everything, in fact, its the cheapest thing we have in today's society. Sure we all want it and wish we could have more but guess what, it just causes more problems! Socially, ethically, environmentally, etc.!

we need to wake up and start protecting our valuable resources. 

Stop buying bottled water, stop supporting nestle and for christ's sake go to Meijer or whereever and buy a damn reusable water bottle for yourself. It'll be cheaper and more convenient in the long run!


----------

