Dear Mr. Dzwonkowski,

 Please note the following comment regarding Nestlé's claim in Mr. Scott Go ward's op ed piece for Nestle.

Everyone knows Nestle has not only ignored the findings of the lower court's that it has caused and will

cause harm to the environment, but that the company has attacked the scope of the cause of action

granted to citizens by MEPA.  Plain land simple, Nestle wants polluters to be insulated from MEPA
suits brought by citizens who have been admittedly harmed by its actions, so polluters can foul

their own property and Michigan's environment with out liability.

     Nestle should be taken to task for its  somewhat deceitful op ed piece July 5, 2007.  Of course, that's been the way the company

has operated from day one.  Nestle reported its studies showed that its diversion of 210 million  gallons from the headwaters of a stream would cause no harm.  In fact, the computer model was flawed,  water supply was overstated, and during the months of trial part of the stream turned into a mudflat.

After the trial judge sliced through the fallacies, found there would be harm, and halted the pumping,  Nestle tried to label the judge "extreme" when in fact he enjoyed a reputation for independence, seasoned analysis, and neutrality.  Now Nestle wants to deceive the public into thinking it supports the Michigan

Environmental Protection Act ("MEPA") and our citizens' right to maintain actions to protect the environment. 

      Consider the following:

       1.    The trial court found as a matter of fact that Nestlé's pumping at 400 gpm , even lower rates during the trial, would cause harm to wetlands on Nestlé's Sanctuary well-field property.  The Court  found pumping would drop  wetland levels, shrink  wetland size, and  impair wetland resources  and habitat. The Court of Appeals affirmed these findings. 

       2.   Based on the  finding of harm, the trial court ound an "impairment"  of wetlands in violation of the MEPA.    While the Court of Appeals reversed the MEPA violation  on technical grounds, it remanded the matter for the trial court to correct by explaining how the harm constituted an "impairment" in violation of the MEPA -- a conclusion quite obvious and a logical extension of the findings of harm.

        4.    Nestle has asked the Supreme Court to nullify citizen standing to bring any lawsuit under the MEPA to protect the environment, such as wetlands, from harm that are located on Nestle's Sanctuary property.   Nestle wants to be immune from causing damage to the environment on its own property. Basically, Nestle is asking the Supreme Court to rule that, from now on, no citizen or landowner, even if harmed, can bring an action to protect the environment under MEPA for harm caused by a defendant like Nestle on its own property.  This is an absurd proposition, for it would mean corporations ,  like Nestle  or Kennecott now after the Huron Mountains in the U.P. for nickel mining, could buy up land,destroy the environment on a property-by-property basis, and citizens and neighbors could do nothing about it.

       Now, if this is not "opposed to citizens exercising their legal rights , " as granted by the legislature under the MEPA, I don't know  what is. 

 Sincerely,

 Jim Olson

Attorney of Record for Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation

Appellant and Cross-Appellee,

Michigan Citizens for Michigan Water Conservation v Nestle, pending in Michigan Supreme Court

Nestle supports and follows the EPA  View article...