Who Owns the Water?

In the eyes of the law, bottled water is no different from a can of soda or a bottle of beer. This could mean the Great Lakes are responsible for hydrating the world.

By carol navarro & mairin macdonald

Photo courtesy of stock.xchng

In the 1930s, when the world first started flying across the oceans, buying diesel engines and eating frozen foods, a blue-grass musician described a persuasive person as one able to do the impossible — sell water.

“Put it in a bottle, he could sell it,” Charlie Monroe had said. “And get cash for it.”
Fast forward 65 years. Bottled water now is projected to equal or surpass soft drink sales in the near future. Store shelves are filled with such a dizzying array of bottled water choices that consumers might soon need a crash course in “Label Reading 101.”

For Terry Swier and her neighbors in Mecosta County, Mich., those lessons also need to include an understanding of the science of hydrology, the environmental impact of removing groundwater and the associated legislation that is setting national precedents.

Five years ago, Swier founded Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation (MCWC) after a water bottling plant moved into her neighborhood — a mid-Michigan farming community surrounded by wetlands.

“I went to an informational meeting at one of the lake associations in Mecosta County and left with many unanswered questions after hearing the representative from Ice Mountain, a division of Nestlé Waters,” Swier said. “None of us were scientists, but we could not believe that withdrawing spring water from private land was going to benefit the people or the ecosystem.”

The non-scientists in the Michigan state legislature were soon faced with a similar question: What are the consequences of withdrawing water from the Great Lakes water basin and exporting it around the country and the world?

In January 2004, Michigan Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm proposed the Water Legacy Act, a plan to limit water diversions from the Great Lakes basin. The ensuing debates effectively asked lawmakers to consider the consequences of labeling bottled water either a “consumptive use” or a “water diversion.”

At that time, consumptive water use referred to products made with water, like soda, beer and juice. These products could be sold anywhere on the open market.
Water diversions, on the other hand, were any transfer of water from the Great Lakes basin to a watershed outside the Great Lakes basin, including anything in a container greater than 5.7 gallons (20 liters). Diversions require the approval of all Great Lakes governors.

In November 2005, an augmented Water Legacy Act — legislation once thought dead — passed through the state legislature with approximately 60 percent of legislators voting yea. Still, environmental and industry groups disagree about the augmented package’s potential effectiveness. And the citizens of Mecosta County are still seeking answers.

On Capital Hill

There is finally an answer to that “never-ending question,” according to Bill Rustem, president of Public Sector Consultants in Michigan: What is bottled water?

According to the Michigan state legislature, as of February 2006 it is the same thing legally as a can of soda, a bottle of beer or a pint of juice.
If the next question is why does that matter, Swier already has an answer. There are 33 million people in the Great Lakes basin, which includes parts of eight states and Canada. But Nestlé Waters is established in 130 countries and markets about 70 different brands, including Perrier, Ice Mountain and Poland Spring, to millions more.

“These numbers put the Great Lakes water basin under immense pressure,” said James Clift, policy director of the Michigan Environmental Council, a coalition of state environmental groups. “That’s why we’ve worked so hard to do something about the management of the water basin.”

Rustem, who works with Ice Mountain, said he likes the legislature’s answer:
“Whether it’s bottled water or bottled beer, the point is they both use water … [These bills] enable the state to move forward on a rational basis.”
Clift is less enthusiastic about the answer, calling it a compromise. In exchange for bottled water being termed a consumptive use, Michigan bottled water companies face a tougher permitting regime than in any other state.

For the first time, large water bottlers using more than 250,000 gallons a day will need a permit from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Each plant must prove it will not negatively impact natural resources, will protect riparian rights and will undertake activities to offset any measurable impact on Michigan’s environment.

The Michigan Department of Environ-mental Quality agreed that the increased regulations are a positive compromise. “Obviously our economy depends on the Great Lakes water supply, so it’s important that we create something to start eliminating large-scale water withdrawals,” said Robert McCann, the agency’s press secretary. “This package will ensure that the water will be there in the future. But at the same time we’re being protective, we will still be allowed to have water be a large part of the economy.”

But even with these increased regulations — which include a public review process — Clift said groups like Clean Water Action are not happy with the idea, perhaps just on principle, that bottled water may be sold like uncarbonated soda.

Representatives from the Michigan Manufacturers Association, however, said the new legislation is a success. “Now this package is the absolute right answer for Michigan,” said Mike Johnston, director of regulatory affairs for the MMA. “It recognizes the investment people make here as a result of the Great Lakes and that we have enormous water resources.”

Investments in Mecosta

One such investor is the Nestlé Waters facility in Mecosta. “Nestlé brings jobs and supports the economy,” said Deb Muchmore, the company’s spokeswoman.
According to Muchmore, the Ice Mountain facility in Mecosta County employs approximately 200 people at $18 to $24 hour per hour with full medical and dental benefits.

But Swier doesn’t think those benefits outway the harms. The 1,800-member community is nestled between Blue Lake, Round Lake and Lake Mecosta — just three of the county’s more than 100 named lakes.

“For many of those who live in the Tri-Lakes region, their lives and mine have changed for the worse since Nestlé came to Michigan,” Swier said. “The issue has pit neighbor against neighbor, friendships have been severed, and Nestlé has violated our lives directly or indirectly with polling, a private investigator going door-to-door, the FBI coming to our homes and a SLAPP suit against my youngest son.”

Swier said the Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation was for her son’s comments to a northern Michigan publication. Nestlé never pursued the lawsuit after the initial filing. The FBI had visited area homes in a door-to-door attempt to discover the manufacturer of what was thought to be a homemade bomb found on Nestlé’s premises. While it turned out to be a false alarm and no one was apprehended, Swier said it was still an intimidating incident.

But Nestlé says they were on the defense.

“A company has the right, just like an individual, to defend themselves against inaccurate things in the press,” Muchmore said. “This is obviously a core group of people who are resistant. They raise some fair questions that we have an obligation to answer.”

Muchmore denied citizens’ accusations that the Nestlé bottling plant has dried up any local springs. She said science plays a major role in how the company develops and manages a water resource.

“Ice Mountain cannot by law stop the flow of springs when they withdraw water,” Muchmore said. “They have not dried up any wells. No streams have dried up. No ecosystems have been harmed. The science backs this up.”

Swier’s concern is with the long-term effects of water withdrawal and how it will be replenished at the rate water is removed.

“Two courts — the district court in Mecosta County and the Michigan Court of Appeals — held there was clear environmental harm from Nestlé’s pumping in Mecosta,” Swier said. “I believe there would not be any legislation if [Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation] had not put pressure on the legislators and Lansing.”

But Nestlé won a favorable decision from the Michigan Court of Appeals in December 2005. Now the grassroots organization — which raised more than a half million dollars, but still owes close to that for court costs, lawyers and community education efforts — is appealing to the Michigan Supreme Court to uphold its November 2003 victory.

According to an article in The (Toledo) Blade, many legal experts view the dispute as a landmark for efforts to keep Great Lakes water from being diverted outside the region.

Jim Olson, Traverse City attorney for the Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation, said, “The public needs to be aware to protect itself from being taken advantage of at taxpayers’ expense. This is not beer, pop or juice. The public’s water would be re-sold at huge gains simply because the water is in a container called a bottle.”

According to Olson, industry and business water use and needs within a watershed must be separated from those who export it outside the watershed. So far, Nestlé has been able to lump itself in with industry and business. Studies have not been done about the long-term effect of treating exporters, like Nestlé, the same as local farms, golf courses, ski areas, municipal utilities.

“In effect,” Olson said, “this means that all businesses, as a matter of legal precedent, will have to compete for water with those out of the watershed. Over time, as that demand grows, the competition for water will grow.”

Exporting Demand

Rustem agrees, saying that water resources in Michigan are a long-term issue that has more to do with demand than definitions. “The problem is the Southwest states are gaining in population,” he said.

Illustration courtesy of Thomas Gaumer and Dave Davis / The Plain Dealer

State migration rate per 1,000 residents The states with growing populations, and increasing water needs, are far from the Great Lakes, while the states surrounding one-fifth of the world's fresh water supply are loosing in population.

Arid regions in other areas of the United States lack water resources as vast as the Great Lakes, which contain one-fifth of the world’s fresh water. Because water is now officially a “consumptive use” in Michigan, that means everyone has access to that water through their local grocery store.

A significant percentage of the Michigan population is retiring to the southwest, where water shortage is a well-known issue.

“The increasing demand for water in Arizona from a growing population also means a larger representation in Washington, D.C.,” Muchmore said. “There is power shift occurring from the Midwest to the Southwest, and this is where the Great Lakes Region is at most risk.

“Concerns have been expressed that a pipeline will be installed from the Great Lakes to Arizona,” she continued. “[Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation] believes that the bottled water industry opens that door. I don’t agree with that, but I understand how they get there.”

But demand for bottled water isn’t just due to arid regions’ lack of water resources.
According to Muchmore, the bottled-water boom is due to three simple factors: convenience, water quality and health concerns.

“There has been a change of habits with Americans,” she said. “There was the soft drink boom in the 60s and 70s. Then in the 80s and 90s, the fitness craze began. Bottled water is a packaged product like soft drinks. It’s convenience and health. There is a shift occurring. Soft drink sales have flattened out. People say, ‘I don’t trust my tap water.’”

Swier doesn’t buy any bottled water. She doesn’t understand how people can spend money for a bottle of water, especially when they complain about the price of gasoline.

“If water is terrible in the home, then people would be better off to save their money and install a filter or purifying system,” she said. “By using the same technology principles as the bottled water industry, people would save money in the bigger picture.

“Bottled water is a marketing ploy,” she continued. “The consumers have bought into the taste, the convenience and image. It is expensive and not necessary. It’s affecting our water table. And what about all of the plastic bottles in the landfills?”
Muchmore said bottle recycling is not the responsibility of an individual company.
She also noted that industry and agriculture impact the water table, too.

Whether Nestlé and other water-bottling companies affect the watershed more than other water-intensive activities — such as manufacturing soft drinks and watering corn fields — bottled water industry sales have no where to go but up.

According to the Beverage Marketing Corp., Americans spent more than $9 billion on bottled water in 2004. The product’s growth rate was almost 10 percent a year for the previous 10 years — something almost unheard of in food marketing, according to a recent New York Times article.

Newly formed industry associations — such as the Michigan Bottled Water Association, funded by a $50,000 grant from Nestlé — also help legitimize the industry as it positions itself as a major player on the national and international markets

According to Swier, citizens in small communities like Mecosta County are forced to face an ocean of issues surrounding the world’s drinking water supply and the average American consumer’s view on wants versus needs.

BACK TO TOP