Below is the Detroit Free Press interpretation of the state of Michigan brief in the Nestle case that is going to an appeal June 14. The article is correct on the portion of the brief it discusses, but not the remaining two-thirds. The remainder is an at best ill-advised challenge to the decisive, anti-export, pro-public trust findings of the lower court judge. Or as a friend involved in fighting Nestle says in opposition to the state brief, "We don't want to see the withdrawal of water by anyone up to the point of serious injury and for all parties who withdraw water to be treated equally." In-watershed riparian uses should take precedence over the private capture of water from a watershed for bottling, profit and export. Why would the state argue otherwise?
http://www.freep.com/news/mich/water24e_20050524.htm