In the privatization of water there are two concepts that need to be considered; firstly there is the bottled water industry. This includes bottling plants, aquifers and the companies that are involved in the bottling of this water. Secondly, there is the privatization of municipal water which is when a city transfers its water right over to a private company to run the city’s water system. The privatization of water can have many disadvantages along with advantages but what is important is the people have water.
The companies privatizing water treats it like it is not a human right, even though water is needed for everyday life to exist. Without water a person will usually die within three days. This shows just how important it is for people …show more content…
One such Case is in Poland Spring, Maine, where Nestle has taken five hundred million gallons of water out per year (Thottam, et, al., 2005). There is a proposed law that would make Nestle have to pay ninety-six million dollars in owed taxes because of this water withdrawal (Thottam, et, al., 2005). If this proposed tax law was passed then nestle would shut down a new plant they were planning on making (Thottam, et, al., 2005). Another case is in Stanwood, Michigan, where Nestle has taken two hundred million gallons of water (Thottam, et, al., 2005). There is evidence that this much water being taken out is dropping the ground water levels to a dangerously low level (Thottam, et, al., 2005). However, Nestle says that the ground water is at a healthy level and that nothing there is no danger in how much water they have been taking out (Thottam, et, al., 2005). All of this shows that nestle has a major say in what goes on in how much water it can take out and if they are allowed to or …show more content…
Nestle has been getting water from a well in Hillsburgh since 1988 (Barlow 10). Nestle’s contract had recently ended so they signed a new one so they could keep getting water out of the well to sell (Barlow 10). In this contract it makes it so Nestle must reduce the amount of water they take out by twenty percent in times of moderate drought (Barlow 10). Nestle is trying to get this off the contract so they do not have to reduce the amount of water they can take from the well (Barlow 10). Luckily the water rights are in the hands of the County and not in the hands of Nestle. If Nestle had the water rights completely to themselves they could suck the well dry and no one could say a word. This is not the case though so they are trying to repeal with the fact that important resources such as water are held by the government on behalf of the citizens and thus also regulated by the government (Barlow 10). Unfortunately the court sided with Nestle and a new contract is being made removing the restriction of taking twenty percent less water out of the well when there is moderate drought (Barlow 10). If there is a drought Nestle can now continue taking as much water as they want out while the citizens of Hillsburgh are limited by how much they use (Barlow 10). Towns like Hillsburgh are the reason that some of the privatization of this water can be bad but good things do come out of this as
The companies privatizing water treats it like it is not a human right, even though water is needed for everyday life to exist. Without water a person will usually die within three days. This shows just how important it is for people …show more content…
One such Case is in Poland Spring, Maine, where Nestle has taken five hundred million gallons of water out per year (Thottam, et, al., 2005). There is a proposed law that would make Nestle have to pay ninety-six million dollars in owed taxes because of this water withdrawal (Thottam, et, al., 2005). If this proposed tax law was passed then nestle would shut down a new plant they were planning on making (Thottam, et, al., 2005). Another case is in Stanwood, Michigan, where Nestle has taken two hundred million gallons of water (Thottam, et, al., 2005). There is evidence that this much water being taken out is dropping the ground water levels to a dangerously low level (Thottam, et, al., 2005). However, Nestle says that the ground water is at a healthy level and that nothing there is no danger in how much water they have been taking out (Thottam, et, al., 2005). All of this shows that nestle has a major say in what goes on in how much water it can take out and if they are allowed to or …show more content…
Nestle has been getting water from a well in Hillsburgh since 1988 (Barlow 10). Nestle’s contract had recently ended so they signed a new one so they could keep getting water out of the well to sell (Barlow 10). In this contract it makes it so Nestle must reduce the amount of water they take out by twenty percent in times of moderate drought (Barlow 10). Nestle is trying to get this off the contract so they do not have to reduce the amount of water they can take from the well (Barlow 10). Luckily the water rights are in the hands of the County and not in the hands of Nestle. If Nestle had the water rights completely to themselves they could suck the well dry and no one could say a word. This is not the case though so they are trying to repeal with the fact that important resources such as water are held by the government on behalf of the citizens and thus also regulated by the government (Barlow 10). Unfortunately the court sided with Nestle and a new contract is being made removing the restriction of taking twenty percent less water out of the well when there is moderate drought (Barlow 10). If there is a drought Nestle can now continue taking as much water as they want out while the citizens of Hillsburgh are limited by how much they use (Barlow 10). Towns like Hillsburgh are the reason that some of the privatization of this water can be bad but good things do come out of this as