2 - Nestle's Pumping, and the Social and Legal Effects

Social and Legal Effects: What's happening, and what makes this an issue.

-water facilities in places where they're unwanted by locals

-extracting water without a legal permit, not meeting standards that would be required by an updated permit

-extracting water that flows on public grounds

Along with being the largest food and beverage producer, Nestle is the world's largest producer of bottled water. (source)

Nestle's history of bottling water:
In the 1990's Nestle entered the bottled water business when it purchased San Pelligrino and Perrier. With the purchase of Perrier in 1992 Nestle acquired Poland Spring, Arrowhead and Zephyrhills, and then Deer Park in 1993.
It was argued from the beginning that selling water bottles in poor developing nations "would make the governments of those countries less inclined to invest in the infrastructure needed for reliable public water systems" (source), but the first legal confrontation Nestle faced concerning it's water industry was in 1995 when Nestle received permission from the state of Texas to pump water in the town of Eustace, and the locals protested. Bart Sipriano, a local landowner took Nestle to court when his own well dried up due to Nestle's nearby pumping, which eventually made it to the supreme court in 1999. Though Nestle won this case, there were many others where locals managed to justify against the legal pumping of Nestle. For example; Nestle also faced controversy when concerning their pumping in 1998 when attempting to raise the amount of water they were allowed to extract from a Florida aquifer from 310,000 gallons a day to 2.6 million, which they lost in court against the local water district. Then in Wisconsin from 2000 to 2001 Nestle fought and eventually lost an appeal to extract water from the Mecan River. In Michigan Nestle tried to build a pumping and bottling plant  however the Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation organization took Nestle to court, and in 2003 it was decided in favor of Michigan, based on the environmental harm the pump would do. However Nestle appealed and took this case to the supreme court as well, and in 2007 was granted legal permission to pump in Michigan. Very many cases such as these followed, some were won and some were lost.

Curiously enough, cases concerning the locations and quantity of pumping were not the only legal battles Nestle faced concerning their water industry. According to The Corporate Research Project; " In 2003 a series of class-action lawsuits were filed against the company, charging it with false advertising for calling its Poland Spring brand natural spring water. Nestlé, apparently not eager to defend the integrity of its brand under oath, settled the disputes out of court for $12 million." (source)
The case was that Poland Spring's "natural spring water" was considered false labeling and advertising, and Nestle is facing a similar case currently in which "a Chicago-based company" is suing Nestle for selling bottled tap water, and it's been claimed that "nearly half of the bottled water in PET plastic bottles is actually from a tap" (source). Nestle continues to face similar legal battles, including ones concerning the sanitation of their water and misleading advertising and labeling, all of which further show Nestle's lack of concern with ethical practices.

Clearly the controversial water extraction is happening on a wide scale, but lets focus on one particular area - California.

California has been facing a drought since 2014 (source) and has been estimated to be it's worst in 1200 years (source). Restrictions have been placed to restrict water consumption, and yet Nestle continues to pump in multiple locations of California, both shipping the water nationwide (and in the case of their Pure Life brand, worldwide), but also selling this water back to the California citizens who have to restrict their water use, and are in need due to the lack of ground water. On the Morongo Band of Mission Indians' reservation in California Nestle has been extracting water for over a decade. While Nestle has been avoiding releasing reports on the amount of water extracted since 2009 its been estimated at about 200 million gallons a year. (source) But this is only one example of Nestle's water extractions in California, in fact, Nestle has 11 in California (source).

While there are many more cases of Nestle extracting water in California during it's drought, the one that turns the most heads is the extracting happening in California's San Bernardino National Forest. Nestle's permit to extract water from the area expired in 1988, however Nestle has continued it's water extraction without hesitation, withdrawing a recorded 27 million gallons in 2013 (this is not including the other 51 million gallons it extracts from the area annually with a standing permit) (source).

(source)

While the permit would only require 18 months to process, Nestle actually isn't working to renew it.  Because of Nestle's questionable practices and massive quantity of water extracting, it would be complicated and expensive to renew their permit, and if they did they would have to follow any new regulations that have been added since 1988 (source) . The annual fee on the expired permit is only $524, practically nothing compared to Nestle's 2016 operating profit of 13.7 billion (source), so it's not worth it for them to go through with the processes and new regulations when they can pay such a relatively small amount a year to keep doing what they're doing.

 In this video, Nelson Switzer, Nestle's chief sustainability officer, states "I hope people remember that water itself is a renewable resource, as long as that is managed properly that system will be renewable forever." (source)


But is Nestle's extractions of millions of gallons a year from drought-ridden California considered proper managing of this resource?



Sources:
Andrei, Mihai. “Why Nestle Is One of the Most Hated Companies in the World.” ZME Science, 19 May 2017, www.zmescience.com/science/nestle-company-pollution-children/.
“Annual Report 2016.” Nestle.com, Nestle, 2016, www.nestle.com/investors/annual-report.
“California Drought.” California Drought Information | USGS California Water Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey California Water Science Center, 31 May 2017, ca.water.usgs.gov/data/drought/.
“Humans Are Free.” Nestle Pays Only $524 to Extract 27,000,000 Gallons of California Drinking Water, 1 Jan. 1970, humansarefree.com/2015/08/nestle-pays-only-524-to-extract.html.
James, Ian. “Little Oversight as Nestle Taps Morongo Reservation Water.” Desert Sun, TDS, 31 Mar. 2015, www.desertsun.com/story/news/environment/2014/07/12/nestle-arrowhead-tapping-water/12589267/.
Mohan, Geoffrey. “Nestle Drawing Millions of Gallons of California Water on Expired Permit, Suit Claims.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 13 Oct. 2015, www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nestle-water-lawsuit-20151013-story.html.
“Nestlé: Corporate Rap Sheet .” Good Jobs First, Corporate Research Project, 9 Mar. 2013, www.corp-research.org/nestle.
“Nestlé Faces Backlash Over Collecting Water From Drought-Stricken Southern California.” CBS Los Angeles, 19 May 2017, www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nestle-water-lawsuit-20151013-story.html.
“Nestlé Faces Backlash Over Collecting Water From Drought-Stricken Southern California.” CBS Los Angeles, 9 May 2017, losangeles.cbslocal.com/2017/05/09/nestle-waters-backlash-california-drought/.
Tajalli, Maryam. “Beneath All That Delicious Chocolate, Nestle Has A Lot Of Bad Behavior.” Carbonated.TV, www.carbonated.tv/news/nestle-lead-maggi-india-lawsuit.