Today's Detroit News has a point/counterpoint on whether Michigan should conserve and protect water quantity through state standards, or let the rules of the frontier apply.
Here's the pro-rules position by Andy Guy of the Michigan Land Use Institute:
http://www.detnews.com/2005/editorial/0507/03/A15-235262.htm
Here's the position of Doug Roberts, Jr. of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce:
http://www.detnews.com/2005/editorial/0507/03/A15-235265.htm
Sadly, the Chamber doesn't realize that Nestle's interests and those of 99% of its members diverge. Here's the passage that reveals the misunderstanding:
According to the governor's order, Ice Mountain is allowed to purchase water from the city of Evart for bottling -- much the same way several other Michigan water and beverage bottlers do -- but forbids the company to market its products within the same marketplace to which other Michigan bottlers enjoy unrestricted access.
Imagine if similar restrictions were placed on other Michigan manufacturers, all of which rely heavily on having access to and use of water. The state's economy would grind to a standstill.
Imagine if the moon were made of green cheese. No one is proposing restrictions on manufacturers. And note the errant use of the word "manufacturers." The only thing Nestle is manufacturing is the bottles in which it is putting the public's water. Nestle didn't create water; I think higher powers had something to do with this.
Nestle's claim to "ownership" of water is what discriminates, not the Governor's order. Every other traditional use -- manufacturing among them -- has nothing to fear from restrictions on private ownership of water. But if the Chamber persists in protecting Nestle, soon its members will be competing with other out-of-state-based, even multinational companies that can pay more for Michigan's water than the members can.
Posted by Dave at July 3, 2005 02:03 PM