Nestlé cannot claim bottled water is ‘essential public service’, court rules

nestle bumperstickers In: Nestlé cannot claim bottled water is 'essential public service', court rules | Our Santa Fe River, Inc. | Protecting the Santa Fe River in North Florida

 

So totally refreshing to see some judges that do not bow to industry and who have a lick of common sense.  We need them in Florida and all over the world.

Read the complete article here in the Guardian.

 

Comments by OSFR historian Jim Tatum.

[email protected]
– A river is like a life: once taken,
it cannot be brought back © Jim Tatum


Nestlé cannot claim bottled water is ‘essential public service’, court rules

Michigan’s second-highest court rules in favor of township in case that could damage company’s effort to privatize water

Michigan’s second-highest court has dealt a legal blow to Nestlé’s Ice Mountain water brand, ruling that the company’s commercial water-bottling operation is “not an essential public service” or a public water supply.

The court of appeals ruling is a victory for Osceola township, a small mid-Michigan town that blocked Nestlé from building a pumping station that doesn’t comply with its zoning laws. But the case could also throw a wrench in Nestlé’s attempts to privatize water around the country….

The Osceola case stems from Nestle’s attempt to increase the amount of water it pulls from a controversial wellhead in nearby Evart from about 250 gallons per minute to 400 gallons per minute. It needs to build the pump in a children’s campground in Osceola township to transport the increased load via a pipe system.

The township in 2017 rejected the plans based on its zoning laws, and Nestlé subsequently sued. A lower court wrote in late 2017 that water was essential for life and bottling water was an “essential public service” that met a demand, which trumped Osceola township’s zoning laws.

However, a three-judge panel in the appellate court reversed the decision.

The appellate judges acknowledged that water was “essential to life”, but wrote that the context in which water is sold also had to be considered. Marketing bottled water in an area where tap water is available is unessential.

“The circuit court’s conclusion that [Nestlé’s] commercial water bottling operation is an ‘essential public service’ is clearly erroneous,” the judges wrote. “Other than in areas with no other source of water, bottled water is not essential.”

The court noted that infrastructure that provides essential public services included electrical substations, sewage facilities or other similar structures. Nestlé’s pumping station does not fit in that category.

The judges also disagreed with Nestle’s argument that it represented a “public water supply”. They said state law “unambiguously” implies public water supplies are “conveyed to a site through pipes” while nonessential water is provided in bottles.

“We conclude that [Nestlé’s] proposed booster-pump facility is not a ‘public water supply’ under [Michigan law],” the court wrote.

Osceola township’s attorney, William Fahey, told the Guardian it was clear that Nestle’s bottling operation “is a commercial purpose” and the pump was prohibited by the township’s zoning laws. He said Nestlé could appeal to the Michigan supreme court, or it could attempt to build the pump elsewhere in the township.

In a statement to the Detroit Free Press, Nestlé’s natural resource manager, Arlene Anderson-Vincent, said the company believes “the plan we proposed met the Township’s site plan and special land use standards”.

“We will evaluate our possible next steps in the legal process,” she said.

The court’s determination could also have an impact on the state permit that allows Nestlé to increase its extraction load to 400 gallons per minute. The Michigan department of environment, Great Lakes and energy (EGLE) issued the permit in part because it determined Nestlé provided an essential public service and was not damaging the local water table.

Several Native American tribes and the environmental attorney Ross Hammersley are challenging the permit in state administrative court. Hammersley told the Guardian the appellate court finding that Nestlé is not a public water source could help in his case, as could remarks about the company’s impact on the water table.

“[Nestlé] extracting water and sending it to other places where it cannot return to the water table, and, critically, doing so faster than the aquifer can replenish, is an ‘irretrievable’ depletion unless the pumping is reduced or halted,” the judges wrote.

The administrative court’s ruling is expected early next year, but Olson already views the latest decision as a “huge victory”.

“In the context of the larger question, ‘Who owns the water?’ – in this round, the state and public do, because selling containerized water for profit is simply private, not public,” Olson said.
——————————–
our goal

America faces an epic choice…

… in the coming year, and the results will define the country for a generation. These are perilous times. Over the last three years, much of what the Guardian holds dear has been threatened – democracy, civility, truth. This US administration is establishing new norms of behaviour. Rampant disinformation, partisan news sources and social media’s tsunami of fake news is no basis on which to inform the American public in 2020. Truth is being chased away. But the Guardian is determined to keep it center stage.

You’ve read more than 13 articles in 2019. More readers in the US than ever before are reading and supporting the Guardian’s independent, fact-based journalism. We now have supporters in every state in America. The need for a robust press has never been greater, and with your generous help we can continue to provide reporting that offers public scrutiny and oversight. And, together, we can help the truth triumph in 2020.

“America is at a tipping point, finely balanced between truth and lies, hope and hate, civility and nastiness. Many vital aspects of American public life are in play – the Supreme Court, abortion rights, climate policy, wealth inequality, Big Tech and much more. The stakes could hardly be higher. As that choice nears, the Guardian, as it has done for 200 years, and with your continued support, will continue to argue for the values we hold dear – facts, science, diversity, equality and fairness.” – US editor, John Mulholland

On the occasion of its 100th birthday in 1921 the editor of the Guardian said, “Perhaps the chief virtue of a newspaper is its independence. It should have a soul of its own.” That is more true than ever. Freed from the influence of an owner or shareholders, the Guardian’s robust editorial independence is our unique driving force and guiding principle.

We also want to say a huge thank you to everyone who has supported the Guardian in 2019. You provide us with the motivation and financial support to keep doing what we do. We hope to surpass our goal by early January. Every contribution, big or small, will help us reach it. Make a year-end gift from as little as $1. Thank you.

Support The Guardian

Learn more

Back to top
Skip to content