Read this:
"However, singling out bottled water for stricter supervision ignores a fundamental principle that should underlie these protections. State policy ought to focus on what happens when water comes out of the ground, not where it goes after that.
High capacity wells can leave neighbors tapping dry aquifers, and can harm the environment. Addressing those concerns should be the priority.
There's no sound basis for legally distinguishing between water going out of Michigan as Aquafina, Coke or baby food. All could damage neighboring lakes, streams and wetlands, and all should be judged on the same basis."
In other words, if a company wants to sink a thousand wells in Michigan, each one of which cannot be demonstrated to have a "significant adverse impact", and ship the water to California, that's fine?
Then why did the entire process of this legislation begin when the public learned that a company wanted to ship 50 tankers of Lake Superior water a year to Asia? That would have no "significant adverse impact" in the world's largest lake by surface area.
But it would set a dangerous legal precedent.
Nestle is a genius at marketing; it has persuaded Michigan's editorial writers that its capture, private ownership and sale of water anywhere it pleases is of no consequence.
But perhaps the public will still understand that you can worry about BOTH adverse resource impact of a particular withdrawal, and the long-term legal danger of privatizing and exporting Great Lakes water.
http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1140450406234850.xml&coll=6&thispage=2
Posted by Dave at February 21, 2006 10:46 AM