EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Putting a Cap on the Bottled Water Industry
Ovoer a half-billion dollars of Massachusetts' taxpayer money will be spent this year on clean drinking water program loans to communities, yet Beacon Hill has been strangely silent about -- and invested not one penny in defense of -- small- and often low-income rural towns that stand alone against what many see as a threat to their drinking water supplies: Swiss-based Nestlé Waters.Nestlé, the old candy company that once spawned an international boycott of its products for proffering cheap infant formula as better than mother's milk to women in developing countries, now profits from what many say is sullying another sacred solution: the bottling of pristine waters. It may soon do this in some of the state's most water-stressed and fragile communities.
For more than a year, Nestlé and its well drillers, technical consultants, and lawyers have been quietly surveying the profit potential in the few remaining unspoiled springs and aquifers in Central and Western Massachusetts. In its attempts to strike blue gold, the firm has aggressively pursued water extraction deals that have many locals seeing red.
Two recent efforts by Nestlé to pursue pumping operations in small towns illustrate why withdrawals for commercial water bottling operations in our state pose unacceptable risks, not only to local drinking water supplies, but also to such natural assets as fisheries and conservation land. Last summer, Montague residents halted -- at least for now -- Nestlé's pursuit of the spring water beneath Montague Plains, a state wildlife management area that also recharges critical ground water for a state fish hatchery and the local wells on which many homes and farms depend.
This spring, after considerable public outcry, Clinton town officials appeared to have finally rejected Nestlé's bid to extract and export up to a quarter-million gallons of spring water a day -- equal to 4 million servings of some of the cleanest drinking water in the state -- from the nearly 600-acre Wekepeke Reservation land that Clinton owns in the town of Sterling. The offer posed several legal issues, not least the fact that Clinton's 19th-century water rights to the Wekepeke are for surface water -- not spring water -- and only for town public water supply needs.
Clinton stopped using Wekepeke water in the 1960s and the town is now supplied by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. Sterling residents, 70 percent of whom rely on the Wekepeke for ground water to supply their home wells, were incensed and asked why another town would have the right to literally sell the water beneath their feet for global export to the highest bidder.
Since when has Massachusetts enjoyed a surplus of pristine drinking water supplies that multinational firms, not Bay State citizens, are considered more deserving to receive? The state classifies 70 percent of state river drainage basins as "flow-stressed." Since when have they been restored to such good health that we now have a surfeit of naturally clean freshwater ready for shipping to bottle-chugging out-of-staters -- and this in an era in which we face unprecedented global warming, increased agricultural irrigation needs, and worsening water pollution, which requires skyrocketing treatment costs?
Leaders in government, business, religious, and spiritual movements across America are increasingly rejecting bottled water because of its indefensible environmental costs. It is time that this state also calls a halt to the aggressive intrusions of the bottled water industry into the vulnerable water sources that supply small-town homes, farms, and public conservation lands.
The Legislature should place an immediate statewide moratorium of at least two years on new bottled water extractions along with a cap on existing withdrawals.
In the meantime, an assessment of the state's available water supplies and needs -- coupled with long-term climate change forecasts -- must be made. Further, a statewide law must be enacted that affirms that the waters of Massachusetts shall be protected in perpetuity for its inhabitants, first and foremost, and that communities and aquifer protection areas may ban out-of-state water exports.
Unless it can be proven that Massachusetts has water to spare, there is no time to waste in stopping the bottled water industry from draining our most prized and irreplaceable sources of clean drinking water.
Amy Vickers, who lives in Amherst, is an engineer and water conservation consultant.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

12 Comments so far
Show AllThe technology exists to provide everyone on the planet with clean drinking water. This may sound like allowing communism to get a foot in the door, but consider where we spend the efforts of our best and brightest: i phones, cars that talk to us, and other trash for those who have everything already but can never be satisfied.
Whatever it takes we have to do better than this. I can't believe I am the only one who is ashamed.
Trust me. You aren't.
Nietzsche: Lately I've been worrying a lot about potential "water wars" both here and abroad -- particularly with the alarming melt on the Tibetan plateau, in the Rockies, etc. You say "The technology exists to provide everyone on the planet with clean drinking water." Would you be kind enough to suggest a link where I can learn more about this technology? Many thanks,
Adele
In Michigan -- The Great Lake State -- where I live, water is a touchy subject. You might think we'd be happy to sell our water, but you'd be wrong. We have an abundance, yes, but the abundance created our natural habitats and must be retained in order to keep those habitats flourishing.
Folks here who wouldn't otherwise reach consensus on any other political, economic, educational, social or cultural issue are near unanimous in their belief that water taken out of our lakes must be returned to the local watershed, no exceptions.
"Water, water everywhere
and all the boards did shrink,
water, water everywhere
and not a drop to drink>" S.T.Coleridge
With all the water on this earth, why can't the bottlers of our pristine waters develope their own purifing systems. They charge enough (more than for oil), The knowledge to desalinize water is there, let them use it.
http://www.unccd.int/secretariat/sns/menu.php
will give you some good leads
Members of the corporate sector of the govorporation care not for where the water comes from; profit is their only motive. Look to what Coca Cola has done w/ the local water source in India.
In another ten or twenty years, maybe less, these corporations, like Nestle, will own all the world's water, and if you think the current $5 a gallon for gas is high - wait until you see the price for a gallon of water then. And if the predictions about clean water are correct, water will be going to the highest bidder.
this is ground zero. peeps must stand and draw the line right here, where these communities did. the war for water must honor bioregional sanity, not corporate profits.
The Bush family has bought several thousand acres of land in Paraguay above the large fresh water aquifer, Gran Chaco. That tells me that there will be hoarding and sale for HUGE profits.
"Control the food and you control the people" said Kissinger. When one controls water, s/he controls All Life.
Time to pay Very close attention to this scene.
We ARE paying close attention to this in Michigan. If anyone thinks the fallback position to severe national drought involves putting a pipeline into Lake Michigan, they're going to be in for a very rude awakening. Look at Nevada's reaction to becoming a national repository for nuclear waste and multiply that outrage by a factor of 10.
Luckily for us, four of the five Great Lakes are international waters. Even if we permited diversion, Canada won't hear of it.
I agree passion unspent. It is no longer defensible for US pundits to point the finger at Germany or Russia for breeding monsters.
If Henry and George did not kill as many people as Stalin and Hitler it is only because they did not have the opportunity.