January 28, 2004
Lansing State Journal
Editorial Page
122 East Lenawee
Lansing, MI 48933
517-377-1298 Fax
Dear Editor:
Governor Granholm unveiled her much-anticipated Water Legacy proposal to immediate, deserved praise. However, the process by which the proposal was conceived may undermine its strength if the Governor and Legislature are not vigilant.
Good public policy and even-handed rules of law are not drafted to accommodate exceptions for special interests. This may not be the example with the Water Legacy proposal because it may not apply to the Nestle Waters North America, Inc. diversion and sale of water under the Ice Mountain brand for bottled and containerized water. If our water law makes exceptions for Nestle or other corporate giants that want to seize our water, our chance for protecting our water legacy, which is recognized by our common law and the public trust in our waters, will be lost.
In December 2003, the Governor allowed two of her Cabinet members to file an amicus brief in support of Nestle’s Ice Mountain bottling plant in Mecosta County. In a widely supported citizen lawsuit against Nestle, Circuit Court Judge Lawrence Root shut down the well field and his ruling made it clear that the pumping and diversion of water diminished the stream and two lakes and violated basic principles of Michigan’s water law of lakes and streams. Yet, the Governor supported Nestle’s last minute attempt to stay Judge Root’s injunction to protect the jobs of the workers, but not the state’s and citizens’ water. The Governor was wrong to put 120 jobs above the integrity of Michigan’s water resources.
Why did the Governor take the extraordinary action in filing an amicus brief in Nestle’s support? According to a reliable source, paid representatives for Nestle requested that she support the stay. It may be that the Governor was concerned about the jobs at stake pending the appeal. If that is so, then she must demonstrate that through her legislative and other actions required to secure our states water for everyone who works and lives here.
The Governor’s Water Legacy proposal may be construed to exempt Nestle from the injunction. The Governor should make it clear that Nestle and its loss in the courts is not exempt, and that Nestle’s diversion and sale of water is far different than the reasonable use and withdrawal of water by those industries and businesses that rely on the use of water that is found here. Nestle has no vested interest in preserving our water resources other than for the sole purpose of exporting it, so the company exists only to squander our water for its own mercenary motives. Research that refreshes our memories of Nestle’s baby formula “dumping” strategy in the Third World in the 1980’s, endangering the lives of thousands of African infants, indicates that when it comes to water, the company may not be all that interested in our health, welfare, environment, or even jobs.
The Governor is on the right track with her call for a Michigan Water Legacy law. Legislation can be developed, without the influences of paid Nestle lobbyists, and not at the expense of our treasured water- our present and future legacy. Water is Michigan’s soul and that is not for sale.
Terry Swier
President Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation
231-972-8856