FAQFAQ   SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlistRegisterRegister  ProfileProfile   Log in[ Log in ]  Flint Talk RSSFlint Talk RSS

»Home »Open Chat »Political Talk  Â»Flint Journal »Political Jokes »The Bob Leonard Show  

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums


FlintTalk.com Forum Index > Political Talk

Topic: Nestle Corp-water not a basic human right so privitize it

  Author    Post Post new topic Reply to topic
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

that “Nestle CEO: Water Is Not A Human Right, Should Be ... - True Activist http://www.trueactivist.com/nestle-ceo-water-is-not-a-human-right-should-be-privatized/ - 85k - Cached - Similar pages Apr 26, 2013 ... Is water a free and basic human right, or should all the water on the planet
Post Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:57 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Nestle CEO: Water Is Not A Human Right, Should Be Privatized

April 26, 2013 | Filed under: News,Politics,Rights | Posted by: True Activist


Is water a free and basic human right, or should all the water on the planet belong to major corporations and be treated as a product? Should the poor who cannot afford to pay these said corporations suffer from starvation due to their lack of financial wealth? According to the former CEO and now Chairman of the largest food product manufacturer in the world, corporations should own every drop of water on the planet — and you’re not getting any unless you pay up.

The company notorious for sending out hordes of ‘internet warriors’ to defend the company and its actions online in comments and message boards (perhaps we’ll find some below) even takes a firm stance behind Monsanto’s GMOs and their ‘proven safety’. In fact, the former Nestle CEO actually says that his idea of water privatization is very similar to Monsanto’s GMOs. In a video interview, Nestle Chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe states that there has never been ‘one illness’ ever caused from the consumption of GMOs.



The way in which this sociopath clearly has zero regard for the human race outside of his own wealth and the development of Nestle, who has been caught funding attacks against GMO labeling, can be witnessed when watching and listening to his talk on the issue. This is a company that actually goes into struggling rural areas and extracts the groundwater for their bottled water products, completely destroying the water supply of the area without any compensation. In fact, they actually make rural areas in the United States foot the bill.




As reported on by Corporate Watch, Nestle and former CEO Peter Brabeck-Letmathe have a long history of disregarding public health and abusing the environment to take part in the profit of an astounding $35 billion in annual profit from water bottle sales alone. The report states:


“Nestlé production of mineral water involves the abuse of vulnerable water resources. In the Serra da Mantiqueira region of Brazil, home to the “circuit of waters” park whose groundwater has a high mineral content and medicinal properties, over-pumping has resulted in depletion and long-term damage.”

Nestle has also come under fire over the assertion that they are actually conducting business with massive slavery rings. Another Corporate Watch entry details:


“In 2001, Nestlé faced criticism for buying cocoa from the Ivory Coast and Ghana, which may have been produced using child slaves.[58] According to an investigative report by the BBC, hundreds of thousands of children in Mali, Burkina Faso and Togo were being purchased from their destitute parents and shipped to the Ivory Coast, to be sold as slaves to cocoa farms.”

So is water a human right, or should it be owned by big corporations? Well, if water is not here for all of us, then perhaps air should be owned by major corporations as well. And as for crops, Monsanto is already working hard to make sure their monopoly on our staple crops and beyond is well situated. It should really come as no surprise that this Nestle Chairman fights to keep Monsanto’s GMOs alive and well in the food supply, as his ideology lines right up with that of Monsanto.



Sources :
1.Natural Society
2.Image Credit
Post Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:01 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Misuse of Michigan water is why I refuse to ever buy Ice mountain water!
Post Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:02 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Nestle Ice Mountain Bottled Water Class Action Lawsuit http://www.topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/2692-nestle-ice-mountain-bottled-water-class-action-lawsuit/ - 135k - Cached - Similar pages Oct 17, 2012 ... Class action lawsuit claims Nestle Ice Mountain bottled water is repackaged tap

Nestlé Sued AGAIN For Falsely Representing Bottled Tap Water As ... http://www.forbes.com/sites/nadiaarumugam/2012/10/19/nestle-sued-again-for-falsely-representing-bottled-tap-water-as-naturally-spring-sourced/ - 81k - Cached - Similar pages Oct 19, 2012 ... (Photo credit: Wikipedia) A Chicago-based business has sued Nestlé over claims
Post Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:05 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Nestle Ice Mountain Bottled Water Class Action Lawsuit

By Sarah Pierce
October 17, 2012


Nestle Mountain Ice lawsuitA class action lawsuit claims Nestlé Waters sells phony bottled spring water that’s nothing more than regular ol’ tap water.

The Nestlé Waters class action lawsuit is filed by a Chicago company that says it’s been buying 5-gallon water jugs of Nestlé Ice Mountain brand water for its office dispensers since 2008. It wasn’t until July 2012 that a company official was allegedly told by a Nestlé employee that the bottles were filled with tap water, the class action lawsuit claims.

The company is suing Nestlé for false advertising, which includes a plethora of marketing materials that tout Ice Mountain water as spring-sourced. Information on the website even goes so far as to describe the water as coming from ancient glaciers and that trickled through mineral-rich glacial gravel deposits.

The Nestlé water class action lawsuit acknowledges that many brands of bottled water do not make a spring water claim and are assumed to be repackaged tap water, but they sell for far less than Nestlé charges for Mountain Ice’s so-called “100% Natural Spring Water.”

This isn’t the first time Nestlé Waters has been sued over allegations of false water labeling. In 2003, a Connecticut class action lawsuit blasted Nestlé for saying its Poland Spring brand of water came from an underground spring source “found deep in the woods of Maine” and “exceptionally well protected by nature,” when it actually came from a water well surrounded by parking lots. Nestlé settled the class action lawsuit for $10 million in discounts and charitable contributions.

The latest Nestlé bottled water class action lawsuit is filed on behalf of consumers in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and Missouri who purchased Ice Mountain brand water in the 5-gallon bottles and were misled into believing they were purchasing 100% natural, spring-sourced water containing naturally occurring minerals. It is seeking punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and more.

The Nestlé Bottled Water False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit case is The Chicago Faucet Shoppe Inc. v. Nestlé Waters North America Inc., Case No. 12-cv-8199, Illinois Northern District Court, Chicago.





Sign up for our free newsletter to get updates on new class action lawsuits and settlements.
Post Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:11 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Nestle raises stakes in bottled water battle

Jeff Alexander | Muskegon Chronicle By Jeff Alexander | Muskegon Chronicle
Follow on Twitter
on January 07, 2007 at 12:37 PM, updated April 23, 2007 at 1:26 PM


Chronicle • Ken StevensJay Peasley on his property along the White River near Hesperia. Nestle Waters North America is drilling test wells in the White River watershed for possible water withdrawal.

Jay Peasley lives in the kind of place nature lovers dream about: a house so close to the White River he can hear its gurgling waters from his couch and fish for trout and salmon a stone's throw from the back door.

The computer programmer thought he had secured a slice of solitude when he bought his riverside house in 1991.

Now he finds himself at odds with the world's largest water bottling corporation, Nestle Waters, which hopes to use the White River system for an entirely different purpose.

Nestle wants to pump millions of gallons of spring water from a site near the headwaters of the White River, about 20 miles upstream of Peasley's house, and bottle it at the company's Ice Mountain bottling plant in Stanwood.

Peasley is among a group of area residents who fear pumping spring water from the headwaters of the White would harm the river, which is the southernmost trout stream in the Lake Michigan basin.

"This is a pristine trout stream. I don't think any water should be taken out of it," Peasley said.

Nestle officials said the White River has "significant water resources" and that withdrawing millions of gallons of groundwater each year "would be unlikely to cause adverse effects on the environment."

Company officials said other businesses in the White River watershed, including farms and golf courses, use more water than Ice Mountain would extract and bottle.

"The ecosystems in the White River watershed don't care where the water goes. They only care that there is enough water -- do the ecosystems have what they need?" said Gregory Fox, natural resource manager at Nestle's Ice Mountain bottling plant.

Fox will explain Nestle's White River proposal at 7 p.m. Wednesday at Monroe Township Hall, 4141 E. Fillmore, White Cloud.

The battle over groundwater in the White River watershed is a high-stakes struggle that transcends the boundaries of this river.

The underground springs that feed the White and dozens of other Michigan trout streams -- including the Pere Marquette, Manistee, Boardman and countless others -- are potential gold mines for water bottlers.

Groundwater is free in Michigan and the state's new water withdrawal law allows bottled water to be sold outside of the Great Lakes basin provided it is shipped in bottles smaller than 5.7 gallons. Theoretically, a company could load a freighter with thousands of bottles of Michigan water and sell it anywhere in the world.
Some water policy experts call such scenarios unrealistic.

But consider this: Clean water is in short supply in much of the world and bottled water is a red-hot commodity in the U.S.

Bottled water consumption in the U.S. increased from 5.1 billion gallons in 2001 to 8.2 billion gallons last year, with sales reaching $10.9 billion in 2006, according to the Beverage Marketing Corp.

If current trends continue, bottled water will surpass soda as the nation's most popular beverage by 2020, said Michael C. Bellas, chairman and CEO of the Beverage Marketing Corp. "I've never seen a phenomenon like bottled water," Bellas was recently quoted as saying.

The soaring popularity of bottled water has economic and environmental implications for Michigan, located in the heart of one of the water-richest regions on the planet.
Nestle, for instance, is poised to double its production of Ice Mountain bottled water.

The company, which employs 250 at its Stanwood facility, is considering building a second Ice Mountain bottling plant in Evart or at a site in Indiana.

And when it comes to bottled water, Nestle is the biggest fish in the pond. Based in Switzerland, Nestle is the world's 53rd biggest corporation and the world's largest producer of food and bottled water, according to industry data.

Nestle controls about one-third of the global bottled water market, according to industry data. The company produces 75 different types of bottled water at 103 factories in 36 countries, according to company data.

Nestle's Ice Mountain facility is by far the largest water bottler in Michigan, according to state data. Michigan has 44 licensed water bottlers, but only three pumped more than 1 million gallons of water in 2006.

Its Stanwood plant bottled 226 million gallons of groundwater last year. That dwarfed the 54 million gallons of groundwater bottled by Absopure, Michigan's second-largest water bottler. The only other firm that bottled more than 1 million gallons of Michigan water last year was Shay, which bottled 1.1 million gallons, according to state data.

Pepsi and Coke buy water from the city of Detroit, purify it and sell it as Aquafina and Dasani, company officials said. Because those companies purchase water from a municipal water supply, they are not required to report the volume of water used.

Some experts said Nestle's bid to pump spring water from sites near the headwaters of the White and two trout streams that flow into the Muskegon River, near Evart, raises the stakes in Michigan's bottled water war.

Nestle has never pumped spring water near a Michigan trout stream. The company currently pumps spring water from wells in rural Mecosta County that flow into a warm water stream. Nestle also buys spring water from the city of Evart.

Allowing Nestle to pump water near the White River would make the natural springs that feed all trout streams in Michigan fair game for water bottlers, said Mark Luttenton, a Grand Valley State University biology professor and river expert.

"If the state is willing to compromise our cold-water rivers, particularly systems like the White and Pere Marquette rivers, I don't see any recourse the state has to prevent the permitting of water wells anywhere else in the state," Luttenton said.

Why is Nestle suddenly scouting for more water near some of Michigan's most treasured natural resources -- trout streams? The answer lies in Nestle's thirst for corporate profits and a strategy to establish a Midwest beachhead for its growing bottled water empire.

Nestle is a relative newcomer to the bottled water industry, which has its roots in Europe.

Bottled water has been sold for centuries to the rich and powerful in Europe, who drank spring water while visiting exclusive spas. European immigrants imported the spa and spring water phenomenon to the U.S. in the 1800s, according to water industry officials.
Perrier, with its sparkling water and distinctive green bottles, became the first bottled water to achieve mass appeal in the U.S., in the late 1970s.

Sales of bottled water began to escalate in the U.S. in the mid-1990s, fueled by increased marketing and development of cheap and durable plastic bottles. Within a few years, plastic bottles of water were ubiquitous in gas stations, grocery stores and vending machines.

Nestle dove into the bottled water industry in 1992, when it bought Perrier. In the ensuing 14 years, Nestle went on a corporate shopping spree that snapped up 73 other brands of bottled water, including Poland Spring in Maine, Zephyrhills in Florida, Arrowhead in California and Ice Mountain, then based in Pennsylvania.

The company has created only one new brand of bottled water, Nestle Pure Life, in 1998.

Nestle targeted Michigan after its attempt to build a bottled water plant in Wisconsin failed in 2000. The company encountered a fierce controversy in Wisconsin when it tried to tap into spring water wells near a popular trout stream.

As opposition mounted in Wisconsin, former Michigan Gov. John Engler began courting Nestle. The company built a $150 million bottling facility in Stanwood and began producing Ice Mountain bottled water in 2002 despite public opposition, relentless criticism by environmental groups and a lawsuit filed by a citizens group.

The major difference between Nestle's experiences in Wisconsin and Michigan was where the company sought to sink its wells.

After being chased away from trout streams in Wisconsin, Nestle officials met with officials at the Michigan chapter of Trout Unlimited, an influential anglers group, before selecting a pumping site here. Trout Unlimited warned the company to stay away from hundreds of trout streams, according to Nestle and Trout Unlimited officials.

The result: Nestle opted to pump spring water from beneath The Sanctuary, a private hunt club in Mecosta County. Groundwater beneath the Sanctuary flows into a warm water stream, the Dead Stream, which does not support trout.

Though Nestle initially stayed away from trout streams here, the company never lost its thirst for the cold, clean groundwater that percolates out of the ground and is the very essence of Michigan's trout streams.

Nestle officials said the company has been studying the possibility of pumping spring water from sites near trout steams in Osceola County since 2001. The company began scouting for water near the headwaters of the White River in 2003, company officials said.

"I think Nestle learned a lesson in Wisconsin, to not go after a trout stream in Michigan right off the bat," said Luttenton, a former officer with Trout Unlimited.

"I think Nestle had a clear strategy," Luttenton said. "They got the state's attention with jobs and built excess capacity at their plant in Stanwood, anticipating they would be looking for more sources of water down the road. Now they're targeting trout streams."

Nestle spokeswoman Deb Muchmore said Luttenton's claim was "generally accurate."
Muchmore said Nestle is trying to develop more pumping sites -- near the White River and other trout streams -- so its Ice Mountain bottling operation doesn't place too much strain on the natural resources at any one site.

But she acknowledged that construction of a second bottled water plant, whether it's built in Evart or Indiana, would enable the company to double production of Ice Mountain spring water.

The prospect of Nestle sinking more wells near trout streams worries environmentalists and some people, like Peasley, who live along the rivers the company has targeted.
"I've always expected Nestle to sink more wells in Michigan. When are we going to say, 'Enough is enough?' " said Terry Swier, director of Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation.

Swier's group sued Nestle in 2001 in a bid to shut down its Ice Mountain bottling facility. A circuit court judge ruled against Nestle and ordered the company to turn off its wells. An appellate court allowed the company to continue operating and Nestle reached a settlement with MCWC that allowed Nestle's Ice Mountain facility to pump 218 gallons of groundwater per minute from the Sanctuary site.

In 2005, the MCWC asked the state Supreme Court to overturn the appellate court ruling, claiming a Nestle court victory would open the door to more water bottling operations in Michigan. The Supreme Court is now reviewing whether MCWC has legal standing in its lawsuit against Nestle.

Swier said her group is broke and that Nestle has become "an unstoppable force" in Michigan.

Muchmore said Nestle's Ice Mountain operations boost Michigan's economy without harming its environment. She said many other companies in Michigan -- including soft drink firms, juice makers, food producers and golf courses -- use more water each year than Nestle.

Critics contend Nestle is unfairly making money by exploiting a public resource -- water -- and shipping some of that water out of the Great Lakes.

Nestle officials counter that Michigan's 2006 water withdrawal law defined water as a product that can be bottled and sold anywhere, provided it is shipped in containers smaller than 5.7 gallons.

"I think people are freaked out about bottled water because it is an obvious use of water and because of the size and the international nature of our company," Muchmore said.
Rich Bowman, the former director of Trout Unlimited's Michigan chapter who worked with Nestle when it came to the state, called the bottled water battle much ado about nothing.

"It's easy to demonize a big foreign company that's coming here to supposedly steal our water," Bowman said. "There are other, real environmental problems in this state we need to address."
Post Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:22 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

A grassroots Michigan group declared victory on behalf of the state's water Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestlé Waters North ... http://justice4michigan.org/files/hfp_nestle_case.pdf - - Cached - Similar pages groundwater rights to an area known as Sanctuary Springs, in Mecosta County,

Settlement reached in Mecosta County, Ice Mountain water case ... http://www.mlive.com/news/grand rapids/index.ssf/2009/07/settlement_reached_in_mecosta.html - 93k - Cached - Similar pages Jul 7, 2009 ... A group of local residents, Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation, sued Nestle

History Highlights | Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation http://www.savemiwater.org/about/history/ - 18k - Cached - Similar pages Attorney General Granholm opposes Nestlé diversion of Michigan spring water.
Post Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:26 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestlé Waters North America, Inc.
Nestlé began as a case about water. In December 2000, Nestlé Waters North America, Inc., a spring water bottling company that produces Ice Mountain brand bottled water, purchased the groundwater rights to an area known as Sanctuary Springs, in Mecosta County, Michigan. Nestlé planned to pump and bottle water from a local aquifer.
Mecosta County, Michigan

SOURCE:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/com
mons/thumb/d/d6/Map_of_Michigan_highli
ghting_Mecosta_County.svg/200px-
Map_of_Michigan_highlighting_Mecosta_C
ounty.svg.png
SOURCE:
http://www.savemiwater.org/photogallery/P
hoto's%20Individual/mecosta.jpg

Nestlé installed four wells on the Sanctuary Springs property that would allow it to pump spring water from the aquifer. Nestlé applied for and obtained permits from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to take up to 400 gallons of water per minute. The aquifer that Nestlé sought to pump water from is directly connected to bodies of surface water including Osprey Lake, Thompson Lake, the Dead Stream, and several wetlands.

Seeking to stop the harmful and possibly irreparable impacts that Nestlé’s pumping would have on their properties and on the surrounding environment, R.J and Barbara Doyle – owners of property on the Dead Stream; Jeffery and Shelley Sapp– owners of property on Thompson Lake; and a non-profit organization called Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation (MCWC) brought a legal action in Mecosta County Circuit Court seeking to stop Nestlé from pumping the groundwater. MCWC was formed to protect and conserve water resources in Michigan. Both the
Doyles and the Sapps were members of this organization.

The Doyles, Sapps and MCWC’s right to challenge Nestlé’s water pumping activities came from a provision in Michigan’s Constitution. In the Constitution, the People of Michigan expressed the importance of preserving the state’s natural resources by creating a provision to specifically address the protection of the air, water, other natural resources, and the public’s trust in those resources. The provision states that the citizens consider the conservation and development of the state’s natural resources a “paramount public concern” and makes the Legislature responsible for
creating laws to protect them. To fulfill the Constitution’s mandate, the Legislature, in 1970, enacted the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (“MEPA”). MEPA says that “any person” has the authority to bring a legal action to protect the state’s
natural resources from pollution, impairment or destruction. This was a revolutionary law that served as a model for similar laws in other states and for federal environmental laws.

The Trial Court Judge Found that Nestlé’s Pumping Impaired Surrounding Natural
Resources

Judge Root of the Mecosta County Circuit Court presided over the Nestlé trial. Based on the evidence that both sides presented, he found that Nestlé’s pumping would adversely affect the water resources that the Doles, Sapps and MCWC fought to protect and that it would harm the ecosystems that those resources were a part of. As a result, Judge Root ordered Nestlé to stop pumping water from the Sanctuary Springs aquifer.

To understand Judge Root’s decision, it is important to note that the aquifer, Thompson Lake, Osprey Lake, the Dead Stream and the wetlands were all interconnected. When Nestlé pumped water from the aquifer, the water levels in each of water bodies decreased as a result. Experts demonstrated that when the water levels dropped all sorts of things would happen: the water’s
temperature would change, the stream’s flow would be reduced and plants would begin to take it over. The use of the water for fishing and recreation would be limited and the areas overall appearances would change as well.
SOURCE:

http://www.savemiwater.org/MAIN%20PAGES/Photo%20Pages/Photo%20Canoe%20Dead%20 Stream.htm

The experts also demonstrated that decreasing water levels in the wetlands would limit their important functions. Wetlands purify water, prevent erosion and control floods. They also serve as a habitat for various species of plant and wildlife. Reduced water levels would impair these functions.

The Supreme Court Limited the Right that We, the Citizens of Michigan, Once Had to
Challenge Actions that Impair Our Natural Resources

After Judge Root found in favor of the Doyles, Sapps and MCWC, Nestlé appealed the trial court’s decision. The case made its way to the Michigan Supreme Court. The only issue that the Supreme Court considered was whether Nestlé’s actions were appropriately challenged in the first place. In legal terms, the court examined whether the plaintiffs had “standing” to bring a claim under MEPA. “Standing” is an initial threshold that a plaintiff, the person or group raising a legal challenge, must satisfy before a court will consider that challenge.

Before the Supreme Court, this case was not about whether Nestlé should or should not pump water from the aquifer. It was about whether, if someone believes this action to be harmful, they are able do something about it. If the plaintiffs have “standing,” then they have access to the courts to challenge the action that they believe is harmful. If the plaintiffs do not have standing, then they cannot legally challenge that action. With its decision, the Supreme Court’s majority changed the Michigan Environmental Protection Act at its core. It changed the way that thirty years of case law interpreted the Act and took away the right of a citizen to protect the state’s natural resources. While the Court decided that the Doyles and Sapps had standing with respect to the Dead Stream and Thompson Lake, it held that they did not have standing with respect to Osprey Lake or the wetlands. In effect, the Court said that because the Doyles and Sapps owned land that touches the Dead Stream and Thompson Lake, they have the right to protect them. Because they did not own land touching Osprey Lake or the wetlands, they have no right to protect them.

Now remember what Judge Root found based on the trial evidence: when Nestlé pumps water from the ground, the water levels in all of the resources drop. This means that giving the Sapps and the Doyles the right to protect only some of these resources does not make any practical sense.

Take a look at this cross section of an area in which water pumps have been installed. The diagram demonstrates the interconnectedness of all resources in the pictured area. Underground, the streams, rivers and lakes are all connected – pumping water at a single location affects all of
these resources.
SOURCE: Muskegon Chronicle, Groundwater pumping -- when is it too much? Jan 7, 2007
The diagrams below demonstrate the effect of pumping:
SOURCE: David P. Lusch, Ph.D.,
Groundwater in Michigan. Available at
http://www.rsgis.msu.edu/datadocs.htm.
Under natural conditions, water flows to the lakes and streams. When a high capacity pumping
well is installed and operated, water that would otherwise go into the lake instead is pumped
from the well. Since less water goes into the lake, the level of the lake becomes lower.
If water levels drop in Osprey Lake and the wetlands, areas that they do not have standing to
protect, the effect is that water levels in the Dead Stream and in Thompson Lake will also drop
and all of the adverse consequences that come along with the drop will follow. The Court’s
decision ignores the complex hydrological interconnection between all of the resources and as a
result leaves the Doyles, the Sapps, and the resources they want to protect, without any real relief
from the effects of Nestlé’s pumping.
The Supreme Court Took Away From Michigan Citizens a Right Guaranteed By Our
Constitution
The Michigan Environmental Protection Act’s purpose was to give the citizens of the state the
power to protect their environment. Lawmakers responsible for this statute recognized the
interconnectedness of our natural resources. By their very nature the air and water do not just
stay in one place. Rather, the particles that they are made up of are in constant motion. Even if
we do not own property near a chemical plant, its emissions can still travel to where we do live.
Even if we do not own property on a river where a manufacturer releases toxins, those toxins can
still make their way into our water supply, the air we breathe, or the food we eat. Often, the
harms that result are not apparent until some lengthy time after the polluting act takes place. This
is why MEPA gave all citizens the right to protect the natural resources from future harm.
For 30 years, there was no question that MEPA empowered private citizens to enforce the
environmental laws and to protect the natural resources of this State. The Michigan Supreme
Court itself previously considered MEPA “significant legislation which gives the private citizen
a sizable share of the initiative for environmental enforcement.” Eyde v. State of Michigan and
the Charter Township of Delta, 393 Mich 453, 454 (1975). Sadly, the present majority of the
present court, Justices Taylor, Markman, Young and Corrigan, have essentially struck down
MEPA’s citizen suit provision.
The End Result: Our Right as Citizens to Protect the Natural Resources of Our State Has
Been Critically Impaired.
Nestlé began as a case about water. It turned out to be a case about our right, as citizens, to
protect our natural resources - a right that the majority of the present Supreme Court has
effectively taken away.
Post Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:36 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Obviously the Republican Governors campaign agrees with the Nestle corporation about water or they would never have run the ridiculous ad against Schauer!
Post Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:15 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
  Display posts from previous:      
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  


Last Topic | Next Topic  >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums

Website Copyright © 2010 Flint Talk.com
Contact Webmaster - FlintTalk.com >