Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

More Bad Press for Nestlé in their Quest to Pilfer Spring Water

Posted by Tara Lohan, AlterNet at 4:15 PM on April 15, 2008.


Opposition to the beverage giant's inroads in rural communities is gaining steam.
nestle1

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Water in your
mailbox!

 

Rural communities beware. Although we've reported it before, Nestlé's attack on rural communities and the corporation's pilfering of spring water has made the news again -- this time in Business Week. In "A Town Torn Apart: How a deal for a bottled water plant set off neighbor against neighbor in struggling McCloud, Cailf.," Michelle Conlin explains how the small NorCal town is fighting to keep the world's largest food and beverage company from taking their spring water.

It is here that Nestlé Waters North America (NWNA), a subsidiary of the Swiss food and beverage giant, plans to operate one of the largest spring-water bottling plants in the U.S. The 1 million-square-foot facility -- picture five Wal-Mart supercenters strung together -- is to rise on the site of McCloud's defunct lumber mill, a 250-acre swath of land that bends around the base of the mountain. Nestlé aims to draw 1,250 gallons a minute of water from McCloud's glacier-fed springs. The company would then pack 300 semi-trailers a day full of Arrowhead brand water, truck it as far away as Los Angeles and Reno, and sell it at prices that are as much as 1,000 times more than the cost of tap water. In exchange, Nestlé has agreed to pay McCloud roughly $350,000 a year for the water and create up to 240 jobs in and around the town.

The plan was made with the company by district board members behind closed doors and with no public input. McCloud, a town on the economic mend, apparently was looking for someone to fill the shoes of the departed lumber industry. But it seems like the board members weren't all that sure what they were getting into with Nestlé, considering their track record in other towns in Michigan and Maine. And according to this article, they couldn't afford to hire a lawyer to look over the paperwork.

When the town found out about the deal, there was a great deal of concern, followed by anger and then action.

Nestlé Waters has run into a wall of opposition, prompting it to delay construction and resubmit its environmental permit application. Since learning about the bottling plant, nearly half of McCloud's 1,300 residents have mobilized into a well-armed resistance force. Furious that their elected representatives inked the deal without consulting them and worried about the potential impact the plant could have on Mount Shasta's delicate local hydrology, they have ordered up studies, signed up wealthy backers, and lobbied politicians.

The Business Week story lightly touches on the growing movement against bottled water -- the "tappening" movement and includes some info after the end of the article from Food and Water Watch's Wenonah Hauter dispelling myths about how some erroneously believe all bottled water is better than tap as well as figures about the environmental footprint of bottled water. It would have been good to see that info built into the story, but at least it was there ... somewhere. Overall it is good to see this information about water privatization making it to more mainstream media.

Digg!

Tagged as: water, bottled water, water privatization, mccloud, nestle

Tara Lohan is a managing editor at AlterNet.


Peter Gleick: Water and the Next President
Leading water researcher Peter Gleick has a few words for the next man in charge.
Post by Abigail Brown. October 2, 2008.
Baghdad Getting Only Half of Needed Water Supplies; Iraq Approves Oil Deal with China
First Saddam-era deal approved; UNICEF blasts Iraqi government for not investing in drinking water.
Post by AlterNet Staff. September 3, 2008.
Communities Rally to Close Coca-Cola Bottling Plant
An official declaration has said that Coke has "overexploited" a town's groundwater.
Post by Tara Lohan. August 26, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The best reason to STOP buying bottled water!!!
Posted by: Chloe2005 on Apr 16, 2008 8:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we stop buying bottled water, these companies can be reined in. This has been a long battle for the little town. I would hate to see them loose. It would ruin the beautiful Mount Shasta area. 300 hundred trucks a day on those little windy roads would ruin the environment and create a safety problem. If you don't like the taste of your water or what's in it, buy a water filter and make your own. It's less expensive and you will be helping towns like McCloud.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Otto
Posted by: otto on Apr 17, 2008 5:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The same problem has been taking place in the outskirts of Guelph, Ontario in Canada. Nestles has been taking cheap underground water that is having severe effects on the water suppply and general ecology of the area. The people have been fighting to stop them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

unsustainable
Posted by: toddcory on Apr 17, 2008 6:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As our earth's resource extraction based economy is failing, these kinds of business will soon go away simply because they are not sustainable.

Putting water in petroleum based plastic bottles and shipping it all over the planet with fossil fuel trucks is hardly something that will continue for long. The days of cheap energy are behind us. People are struggling to afford rising food and fuel prices. $4.00 a bottle water will soon go the way of the McMansions and SUV penismobiles.

Todd

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The gravity of this situation
Posted by: MIST on Apr 17, 2008 7:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's likely true that rising fuel costs will make shipping bottled water more expensive. But the profit margins are high, and polluted water elsewhere makes bottled water desirable. More people fear the water in their own communities than the chemical contamination of bottled water. That's why Nestle is fighting so hard for this lucrative business regardless of the consequences for McCloud.
McCloud and nearby communities near Nestle's delivery routes face significant pollution from diesel exhaust, noise and traffic impacts of the 600+ daily round trips of heaving trucking. But bottled water alternatively could be shipped by railroad at a lower fuel cost.
It is surprising that Nestle hasn't figured out that it could deliver water from McCloud's 3000 foot elevation to distant, low-lying communities cheaply and efficiently in stainless steel pipes using gravity flows. But then again, the profit margins are so high they just don't care.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

leftbank
Posted by: markw4786 on Apr 17, 2008 8:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just as the "good people" of Mcloud destroyed the forests in the area,they WILL destroy the aquifer...any bets. The stupid part about it is Nestle offered Mcloud $350,000 per year. That comes to $270.00 per year.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: leftbank Posted by: markw4786