Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
LastLast
  1. #1
    Over 9000! Milchshake's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Shitposter Burn Out
    Posts
    9,974

    USFS Issues Nestlé Permit for 36 Million Gallons of Water for $524

    If there was any doubt remaining that we're living in a New Gilded Age... It's basically giving away public resources for next to nothing.
    I believe the final snowpack report for CA 2018 was about 50% of historical averages. So expect a dry summer unless your name is Nestlé Arrowhead.

    Hereditary Water rights is a thing

    Nestlé has 60 days to sign and accept a three-year permit to draw water from the San Bernardino National Forest for its lucrative bottled water business.

    On Tuesday, June 26, less than a month after Nestlé’s 30-year-old permit was terminated in a settlement between the company and three conservation groups, the U.S. Forest Service offered the bottled water giant a new permit for occupancy and use of the national forest land within the Strawberry Creek watershed.

    “Nestlé Waters North America appreciates the time and effort the U.S. Forest Service dedicated to this decision regarding the permit renewal process at Arrowhead Springs,” Nestlé Waters spokeswoman Alix Dunn said in a statement. “We will carefully review the specifics of the decision, and will continue to comply with all permit requirements.”

    Under its 1978 permit, for which it paid $524 a year to maintain, Nestlé reportedly drew up to 162 million gallons of water per year from Strawberry Creek, the Center for Biological Diversity contends. Nestlé reported drawing 36 million gallons in 2015, or 29 percent less than the annual average over the last 10 years.

  2. #2
    Deleted
    I wonder how they came to the number 524. Does that cover administrative fees or something?

  3. #3
    Free market capitalism for the win...

  4. #4
    Warchief Themerlin's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    In the empty cookie jar.
    Posts
    2,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Deruyter View Post
    I wonder how they came to the number 524. Does that cover administrative fees or something?
    36 million Gallons!?

    That is disgusting.

    Nestle is paying 524$ and making a profit of of 194 million dollars roughly...

    and that resource is running low in California.

    Hardcore capitalism for the poor, Socialism for the rich.
    “Life is and will ever remain an equation incapable of solution, but it contains certain known factors.”

  5. #5
    So Nestle, is getting free water (524$) and then selling it back to US citizens, for a huge profit????

    How the hell is this even possible???

    Here in Denmark or the EU, that wouldnt happen in a million years (Atleast, I hope it wont)

    How much is a gallon of Nestle water anyways?
    "It takes a vast amount of self control to be this dangerous" he said.

    - Ogvai, 6th legiones Astartes.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Svad1287 View Post
    So Nestle, is getting free water (524$) and then selling it back to US citizens, for a huge profit????

    How the hell is this even possible???

    Here in Denmark or the EU, that wouldnt happen in a million years (Atleast, I hope it wont)

    How much is a gallon of Nestle water anyways?
    Like $4-5.
    The most difficult thing to do is accept that there is nothing wrong with things you don't like and accept that people can like things you don't.

  7. #7
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Svad1287 View Post
    So Nestle, is getting free water (524$) and then selling it back to US citizens, for a huge profit????

    How the hell is this even possible???

    Here in Denmark or the EU, that wouldnt happen in a million years (Atleast, I hope it wont)

    How much is a gallon of Nestle water anyways?
    Not really, no. We unfortunately have equal stories of governments basically handing off massive amount of funds or worth, for basically nothing.

    The funniest example that I can remember in recent memory, remember when government cut science grant funding in half? It wasn't professors or deans or students or anything that really were the ones you'd expect to say something about it first. No, it was Novo Nordic PR, because as it turns out, they ate up quite a share of that, basically free funding that they could turn a profit off, no questions asked for any kind of reimbursement.
    Last edited by mmoccd6b5b3be4; 2018-06-28 at 08:45 AM.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Svad1287 View Post
    So Nestle, is getting free water (524$) and then selling it back to US citizens, for a huge profit????

    How the hell is this even possible???

    Here in Denmark or the EU, that wouldnt happen in a million years (Atleast, I hope it wont)

    How much is a gallon of Nestle water anyways?
    Rest assured exactly the same happens in the EU as well.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...estle-accused/

  9. #9
    Deleted
    Seems it's at least better than letting the government handle your water supply.

    At least Nestle won't try to poison you.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Deruyter View Post
    Seems it's at least better than letting the government handle your water supply.

    At least Nestle won't try to poison you.
    I thought you guys believed it just turned frogs gay.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  11. #11
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Mormolyce View Post
    I thought you guys believed it just turned frogs gay.
    I have no idea. Is this a common believe in the US?

    Kinda funny tbh.

  12. #12
    I'm not actually sure what exactly the problem is. Isn't that what every single water selling company does?
    Buying rights to use a spring, ideally with a famous name, and then selling the water (for even a ridiculous high price)? No matter if its San Bernadino, Evian, San Pelegrino or whatever?
    It probably doesn't even have a famous name, the costs for some "no-name" water is probably less than the required logistics to bottle and distribute it.

  13. #13
    I wish that progressives could go after this as effectively as they go after idiotic identity politics issues, but sadly they cannot because they are largely in the pockets of these corporations. Modern activist politics are designed to divert attention from issues like this.
    Most people would rather die than think, and most people do. -Bertrand Russell
    Before the camps, I regarded the existence of nationality as something that shouldn’t be noticed - nationality did not really exist, only humanity. But in the camps one learns: if you belong to a successful nation you are protected and you survive. If you are part of universal humanity - too bad for you -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

  14. #14
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Venant View Post
    I wish that progressives could go after this as effectively as they go after idiotic identity politics issues, but sadly they cannot because they are largely in the pockets of these corporations. Modern activist politics are designed to divert attention from issues like this.
    I like that it is on progressives to shift their focus, meanwhile it is completely okay that we are up to our eyeballs in corporate influence groups

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Venant View Post
    I wish that progressives could go after this as effectively as they go after idiotic identity politics issues, but sadly they cannot because they are largely in the pockets of these corporations. Modern activist politics are designed to divert attention from issues like this.
    There's a lot of projection going on. You're really clueless. Most of these contracts were made years ago under conservative administrations.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Puri View Post
    I'm not actually sure what exactly the problem is.
    Water rights for the people that live there are part of the commons of owning the land. I'd actually argue that nobody, including the government, has the right to sell the water - ideally it would be shared equally by the people that can access it via wells or municipal systems.

    Let's say you and I are neighbors on two farms that are side by side. Would I have the right to use the ground water to the extent that you had none for your needs? Because that situation exists in Kern County, California. I refer specifically to - I shit you not - "The Wonderful Company" that produces Fiji bottled water and Pom. People don't have water to even flush a toilet or bath in their own homes because the ground water is being hogged by a corporate entity.

    And see? That just seems wrong to me...

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Louisa Bannon View Post
    Water rights for the people that live there are part of the commons of owning the land. I'd actually argue that nobody, including the government, has the right to sell the water - ideally it would be shared equally by the people that can access it via wells or municipal systems.

    Let's say you and I are neighbors on two farms that are side by side. Would I have the right to use the ground water to the extent that you had none for your needs? Because that situation exists in Kern County, California. I refer specifically to - I shit you not - "The Wonderful Company" that produces Fiji bottled water and Pom. People don't have water to even flush a toilet or bath in their own homes because the ground water is being hogged by a corporate entity.

    And see? That just seems wrong to me...
    Drinkable Water is a human right. Everyone needs it to survive. It's not a commodity that should be sold for max profit, let alone in monopoly situations like these. It should be the governments task to make it accessible and to keep it clean, at a reasonable price. Everywhere in the world, where water has been privatised for one reason or the other, prices have skyrocketed, and the people have no means to defend from these locusts.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Louisa Bannon View Post
    Water rights for the people that live there are part of the commons of owning the land. I'd actually argue that nobody, including the government, has the right to sell the water - ideally it would be shared equally by the people that can access it via wells or municipal systems.

    Let's say you and I are neighbors on two farms that are side by side. Would I have the right to use the ground water to the extent that you had none for your needs? Because that situation exists in Kern County, California. I refer specifically to - I shit you not - "The Wonderful Company" that produces Fiji bottled water and Pom. People don't have water to even flush a toilet or bath in their own homes because the ground water is being hogged by a corporate entity.

    And see? That just seems wrong to me...
    that would be socialism. You are american, man up and give away your water to the best lobbyist. Everything else would be communism or something.

    funfact: nestle pulled bakc all their waterproducts from my country about a year back because nobody bought it. Quite schadenfreude inducing I must say

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Louisa Bannon View Post
    Water rights for the people that live there are part of the commons of owning the land. I'd actually argue that nobody, including the government, has the right to sell the water - ideally it would be shared equally by the people that can access it via wells or municipal systems.

    Let's say you and I are neighbors on two farms that are side by side. Would I have the right to use the ground water to the extent that you had none for your needs? Because that situation exists in Kern County, California. I refer specifically to - I shit you not - "The Wonderful Company" that produces Fiji bottled water and Pom. People don't have water to even flush a toilet or bath in their own homes because the ground water is being hogged by a corporate entity.

    And see? That just seems wrong to me...
    Obviously the amount taken from the water source has to be regulated (if it is really limited in the first place), which it is in this case according to the source: "According to the news release, surface water diversions and groundwater extraction will be allowed when there is water available consistent with the forest’s Land Management Plan.".
    Nothing in the article says that the settlement will cause any water shortage, they are just adressing the environmental issues for such a large industrial operation in a national park, which obviously is a different matter.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Puri View Post
    Obviously the amount taken from the water source has to be regulated...
    Again, I think the people that actually live in California have a right to the water if it can be transported to areas where its needed, and not sold to a multinational corporation so they can transfer wealth away from the source. You know, water doesn't just exist underground in infinite supplies. It can be over used and it has been by the likes of Nestle and a select few fortunate others that are allowed to prosper while others are squeezed out of existence.

    This kind of shit is precisely why I continually laugh at conservatives, everything is being sold out from under us and they still suck that 1% corporate cock like their lives depended on it, when in all reality their lives might actually depend on doing the exact opposite of that. Wouldn't we all be better off without stupid shit like bottled water being sold anywhere at all?

    Nestle is basically being handed a free ride here to profit for millions.

    I'm a mere citizen and the govt has never done anything that would allow me to profit from a limited resource like that. It's not sour grapes to recognize corruption so profound it "shocks the senses" as the courts like to say.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •