Piping water from a national forest
Nestle's permit to transport water across the national forest expired in 1988. It hasn't been reviewed since, and the Forest Service hasn't examined the ecological effects...
Even with California deep in drought, the federal agency hasn't assessed the impacts of the bottled water business on springs and streams in two watersheds that sustain sensitive habitats in the national forest...
No state agency is tracking exactly how much water is used by all of the bottled water plants in California...
That information, when collected piecemeal by state or local agencies, often isn't easily accessible to the public. In some cases, the amounts of water used are considered confidential and not publicly released.
Even as Nestle Waters has been submitting required reports on its water use, the Forest Service has not been closely tracking the amounts of water leaving the San Bernardino National Forest and has not assessed the impacts on the environment.
While the Forest Service has allowed Nestle to keep using an expired permit for nearly three decades, the agency has cracked down on other water users in the national forest...
While Nestle's expired permit hasn't been scrutinized in nearly three decades, some other water users have been required to cut back. In the mid-2000s, as part of a regional review, the Forest Service went through the permits of hundreds of cabins on land in the national forest and reexamined their use of water from creeks. In Barton Flats, for instance, dozens of cabin owners were told they could no longer draw water from Barton Creek; instead, they would have to use wells or install tanks and truck in water. Cabin owners spent thousands of dollars putting in tanks.
"Some of these people had been using the water with water rights for 80 years... Nestle takes more water from the stream in one day than the total of all of those cabin owners in a year..."
"We made the little people do the right thing," he said, "and we're not making the big people do the right thing..."
"The U.S. government is just giving away our natural resources to an international corporation," Frye said. "I think that's really wrong."
Think it might have something to do with the millions of dollars that Nestle spends lobbying? Or the fact that 16 out of 25 Nestle lobbyist have previously held government jobs?
Anyone else notice that neither the money nor the water stops when the president, or the president's party changes?
Anyway, does anyone else think that this is oblique?
Or, is this business as usual?
After all, if the 'little people' spent millions of dollars lobbying, they could have water too...
Uno