Though I don't know that area, Michigan has plenty of water resources.
What's not clear from the article is who was going to bear the expense of the new pumping station Nestle wanted. There's no mention of any benefit to that local government. It's not even clear there's a Nestle facility near that township that would see more jobs.
The only mention of cost to them is the cost of the application and renewals.
Surely it wouldn't be unreasonable for the township government to have their construction expenses covered, and possibly some ongoing investment into their water infrastructure from Nestle?
It seems that State and any local taxes (if there are any), by product produced and sold and employee wages, would be flowing into the coffers.
When the rights are leased/sold to them what they draw certainly does, as well as the profit made.
What leads depends on the reporter here.Sure, but I don't see Nestle making claims that there are any potential job\wage\tax gains in play at all, let alone for this township.
I'd expect they'd lead with that, if it existed.
Well, it's high time we stop the practice of leasing and selling things which belong to the commons.
No. That is how money is made.
As long as the rain keeps the aquifers filled there should be no problem.
When it starts to be a detriment that is when it should stop, which means the taxes created stop. Which is a loss all around.
Maybe you missed my earlier comments though?
That said.
**** you Nestle.
Go to the ocean and create your own desalination plants for water.
As long as the rain keeps the aquifers filled there should be no problem.
When it starts to be a detriment that is when it should stop, which means the taxes created stop. Which is a loss all around.
This whole thing bothers me to no end.
I just hate it when the Lower Peninsula calls any part of it "Northern Michigan". iLOL
Fact: You are wrong.Time we change that. What's underground belongs to everyone. It's time we wake up and realize that fact.
You seemed to be confused as to liking your position. I pointed out the falseness of it and then further disagreed with your response. :shrug:Well, if you like my anti-Nestle, position you should not have attacked my post.
Is that just a contribution or are you trying to argue something in reply to what I said?
Oh How I hate Ohio State. :mrgreen:As an Ohioan, I was raised to resent Michigan being considered part of the U.S., at least during college football season.
As previously noted, the Fees are set by the State.I don't see how $5000 + 20 jobs/year + $200/year is a good trade for 1.7 million gallons additional of water/year.
The state and township should be in business for itself, no?
In this case, it appears Nestle is attempting to use political clout to ram through a one sided deal for itself.
Figures.I don't think there's an aquifer in the US that's not in a state of depletion. My response was in direct reply to the part of your post I quoted.
Do you really think any aquifers in the US are refilled by the rain?
As you apparently don't know anything about aquifer depletion, you (especially) should read the link I provided.
Figures.
You are speaking your usual nonsense and making absurd assumptions.
As long as the rain keeps the aquifers filled there should be no problem.
When it starts to be a detriment that is when it should stop, which means the taxes created stop. Which is a loss all around.
Fact: You are wrong.
It doesn't belong to everyone.
Fact: It belongs to whom the States gives/sells/leases the Rights to.
That is how it works, not the collective bs you are spewing.
You can work to change that, and that is fine, but you do not get to misstate reality.
You seemed to be confused as to liking your position. I pointed out the falseness of it and then further disagreed with your response. :shrug:
My personal preference is that they take the water from the Ocean.
I don't see how $5000 + 20 jobs/year + $200/year is a good trade for 1.7 million gallons additional of water/year.
iLOLPerhaps if you read more slowly:As long as the rain keeps the aquifers filled there should be no problem.
When it starts to be a detriment that is when it should stop, which means the taxes created stop. Which is a loss all around.
That is an amazingly ignorant statement. I would only expect it from a child that has never been to middle school science class.
If you think rain maintains aquifer levels, you are completely detached from reality.
The link I provided can serve as a basic education on the topic.
You said it belongs to everyone. That would be collectivist nonsense.Besides how can it be "collectivist"? It's not Nestle's water. No one is collecting anything. We're denying them access.
iLOL
Wow, you really can't help yourself can you?
As wrong as your comments always are, this one must be a projection. (see how that works? You insult, you get insulted back.)
Nothing I said was wrong or based in ignorance.
You making an assumption about it clearly is wrong though, and clearly is a reply based in ignorance.
My comment is a generality that only addresses the point where I will have a problem with them drawing from it.
Not a damn thing required I be more specific in regards to it's sustainability. The generality of "filled" is just fine.
It is odd that you would not understand a simple thing like that since you apparently profess (but have yet to show) to have an education greater than a middle school science class child. :shrug:
But no, apparently you are to wrapped up in your own supposed self important comments to recognize that.
Take your feeble attempts at correction commentary elsewhere.
So, do you want to correct your behavior before continuing, or do you wish to continue down this path?
If not, perhaps you should make a valid argument if you wish to engage me.
You said it belongs to everyone. That would be collectivist nonsense.
And again, when the rights are leased/sold to them what they draw certainly does belong to Nestle.
iLOLDrinking water underneath us certainly does belong to everyone. What kind of twisted brainwashing would convince someone to believe otherwise?
We can pay someone to get it up for us, pump it, pipe it, store it, whatever. But, the resource is ours. It certainly is treated that way here where I live.
:2rofll:In other words, you thought aquifers are fine because of rain. Brilliant. Go read the link I provided, so you don't make such an absurd statement in the future.
:2rofll:
In other words, you again show you know not of what you speak.
There was nothing absurd about the statement.
A generality of "filled" was used. Filled in this case refers to sustainability.
But obviously you are incapable of acknowledging that even after being told.
It makes your argument a failure from the get.
Doh!No aquifer in the US is sustainable. Your fantasy is pathetic. Read the link I provided.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?