|
|
| |
RELATED STORIES
OTHER
RESOURCES
|
|
 |
06.13.03 |
War over bottled
water could leave many dry
Michigan fight is
Great Lakes issue
by Michael Hawthorne
Chicago Tribune
STANWOOD, Mich. -- Great Lakes states long have worried about Asian
supertankers scooping up the region's coveted fresh water or thirsty
western states siphoning it away in massive pipelines.
Instead, it's leaving in millions of tiny plastic bottles.
Huge pumps can draw as many as 400 gallons of water every minute
from wells drilled by Nestle Waters North America Inc. in the
rolling hills of north-central Michigan. The water, part of the
complex hydrological system of the Great Lakes, fills the clear jugs
and bottles of Nestle's Ice Mountain brand, found on supermarket
shelves across the Midwest.
Late last year a trial court judge ordered Nestle to shut down its
wells, finding that the wells are damaging the environment by
lowering a nearby stream, lake and river that flow into Lake
Michigan.
The case could result in standards being set for groundwater pumping
in a state where such water withdrawals are largely unregulated. The
company is continuing to pump while it appeals the order.
The bottled water battle also puts a new twist on a long-running
debate about who should control the spigot for one-fifth of the
planet's fresh water.
Most of the nightmare scenarios for Great Lakes politicians and
planners involve diversions of water from the lakes themselves. Now,
experts are focusing on the intricate network of streams, lakes and
underground aquifers that feed the world's largest source of fresh
water and attract operations such as the Ice Mountain plant.
"Think of an aquifer as a giant milkshake that we drink with a
straw," said Robert Glennon, a University of Arizona professor and
author of "Water Follies," a book about groundwater pumping. "If you
put too many straws into the same glass, it's a recipe for
disaster."
Planners say water will become as coveted in the next century as oil
was during the last. That could turn Michigan, the only state
entirely within the 291,200-square-foot basin that drains water into
the Great Lakes, into the Saudi Arabia of water. (Despite Chicago's
proximity to Lake Michigan, most of the city is outside the Great
Lakes basin and drains water toward the Mississippi River.)
Later this month, leaders of the eight states and two Canadian
provinces that border the lakes are expected to announce new
restrictions on water use. Known as Annex 2001, the pact is an
attempt to set uniform standards that can withstand challenges under
international trade agreements, which leaders fear could lead to
more water exports.
Competing demands for water are raising some difficult questions:
Should bottled water drawn from the ground be treated as an export
of water from the Great Lakes, subject to a veto by any of the
governors? Or is it simply another consumer product that contains
water to be lumped together with beer and concentrated juice?
Moreover, should fast-growing communities just outside the basin be
allowed to tap into the lakes, as Chicago, Milwaukee and Detroit
have been doing for decades? If they are, would that make it easier
for arid states in the West to demand access to the lakes?
"We've got to show people we can use our water wisely, or those
decisions will be made for us by people outside the basin," said Sam
Speck, director of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and
chairman of the Great Lakes Commission.
Early drafts of the pact would require most of the water taken out
of the lakes to be replaced with treated water to ensure that there
is no net loss. The agreement also is expected to require the states
and provinces to impose more aggressive conservation measures, such
as Mayor Richard Daley's proposal to install meters in the 350,000
single-family homes and apartment buildings whose owners for years
have enjoyed an unlimited supply of water for a flat fee.
Those involved in the negotiations are sketchy about the details.
But bottled water may end up being treated as routine consumption of
water rather than a diversion from the lakes, a distinction that
would subject new bottling plants to less stringent standards.
"How is bottled water any different than eyewash solution that is 98
percent water shipped across the country from a Michigan factory?"
said Bill Rustem, an aide to former Michigan Gov. William Milliken
who now works as a Nestle consultant. "The water isn't the value
here. It's the convenient package."
Even if bottled water won't bring about the demise of the Great
Lakes, the Ice Mountain legal case highlights the need for better
water management, some experts say.
"Right now anybody can drop a well and start pumping with little
oversight," said Noah Hall, water resource program manager for the
National Wildlife Federation's Great Lakes Natural Resource Center.
"This case is important because it documents the connection between
groundwater withdrawals and the impact on surface water."
To anyone gazing at the murky blue horizon off the shore of Lake
Michigan, it might seem ludicrous to think the region could ever run
out of water. But water shortages already are an occasional problem.
And demand within the basin is expected to increase as much as 25
percent by 2035, according to the International Joint Commission,
another U.S.-Canadian group that oversees the lakes.
Groundwater accounts for about 80 percent of the flow in streams
that feed Lake Michigan, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
For the entire Great Lakes basin, groundwater provides 45 percent of
the stream flow.
Michigan is the only state within the basin with no legal framework
to control how much groundwater can be siphoned off for businesses
and homeowners.
Water that burbles to the surface from underground springs is a
lucrative commodity for Nestle and other players in the nation's
$8.3 billion bottled water industry. Americans drank 22.6 gallons of
bottled water per person last year, up from just 1.6 gallons per
person in 1976, according to the Beverage Marketing Corp., a New
York research firm.
"The Midwest is the last growth region for bottled water," Nestle
spokeswoman Deb Muchmore said.
Nestle chose to drill wells 50 miles from Lake Michigan in rural
Mecosta County after it abandoned another site in central Wisconsin,
where local opponents argued the pumping would devastate a popular
trout stream.
The legal battle over the Michigan bottling plant turned into a
choice between dueling hydrologists. Both sides agreed the wells
would draw down nearby wetlands, streams and lakes that are tied to
the underground source of water, but Nestle's expert argued the
operation would not harm the environment.
Mecosta County Circuit Judge Lawrence Root generally agreed with the
group of neighbors that sued Nestle. Among other things, he ruled
the slower stream flows would harm fish by raising water
temperatures and increasing sedimentation. He also said the lower
water levels would harm waterfront property owners and others who
use the water for fishing and recreation.
"I have taken all of this water for granted," said Terry Swier, a
former college librarian who heads Michigan Citizens for Water
Conservation, an anti-Nestle group formed after she and her husband
retired to a home on a nearby lake. "We're fighting not only for our
little part of the country, but for all of the Great Lakes."
Nestle counters that recent data collected by Michigan officials
shows the area surrounding the Ice Mountain wells has not been
harmed. Company officials say they spent more than $1 million on a
network of monitoring wells and periodic studies to ensure the
waterways are protected.
Groundwater has been drawn down in some areas, company officials
said during a recent tour of the well field, but the loss has been
more than offset by ample rainfall.
Copyright (c) 2004, Chicago Tribune
|
|
