The Great Nestle Water Heist

[Alcoholic Actuary]

california-says-nestle-lacks-permits-to-extract-millions-of-gallons-of-water

Apparently the Nestle Corporation stole an average of 54 million gallons of water per year from a state in a drought to sell as Arrowhead bottled water.

I know, I know, stupid state of California meddling in the free market again. Open competition was going to solve this tragedy-of-the-commons problem within the next 100 years all on it's own.

And then there's this gem:
nestle-layoffs-oakland-technology-jobs-nsrgy.html

Thanks Nestle. Go fuck yourself.

aa

 

[starwater]

And their pedaling of junk food in third world countries. This is a company run amok looking only for profits and is run on greed.

 

[Elixir]

And their pedaling of junk food in third world countries. This is a company run amok looking only for profits and is run on greed.

They're stealing water from the Upper Arkansas River system as well. Middle of the night back-room deal, over the residents' objections.

 

[Axulus]

62 million gallons per year is only .0004% of the annual amount of water used per year in CA. Far less than most farms in CA. To think that this would have an impact on drought conditions is silly. Drinking water is not the problem, agriculture is.

The core of the issue is whether Nestle has the proper permits/rights to extract the amount it does. They are claiming that they thought they had the right while the regulator says they don't. In other words, a standard business dispute that will be settled. The article provides no proof that their claims are false, but rather just in dispute.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

62 million gallons per year is only .0004% of the annual amount of water used per year in CA. Far less than most farms in CA. To think that this would have an impact on drought conditions is silly. Drinking water is not the problem, agriculture is.

The core of the issue is whether Nestle has the proper permits/rights to extract the amount it does. They are claiming that they thought they had the right while the regulator says they don't. In other words, a standard business dispute that will be settled. The article provides no proof that their claims are false, but rather just in dispute.

Uh huh. That's the way we're playing? In that case I use less water per year than 0.0004% of the amount Nestle stole. And yet I was under a water restriction, to which I adhered. And Nestle wasn't. They had the rights to 8m gallons. All they had to do was not steal more than what was permitted.

1) No one is blaming Nestle for the drought. They're just a bunch of classless assholes.
2) Yeah sure it was a misunderstanding that Nestle 'accidentally' removed 800% more water than was permitted.

srsly?

aa

 

[Underseer]

california-says-nestle-lacks-permits-to-extract-millions-of-gallons-of-water

Apparently the Nestle Corporation stole an average of 54 million gallons of water per year from a state in a drought to sell as Arrowhead bottled water.

I know, I know, stupid state of California meddling in the free market again. Open competition was going to solve this tragedy-of-the-commons problem within the next 100 years all on it's own.

And then there's this gem:
nestle-layoffs-oakland-technology-jobs-nsrgy.html

Thanks Nestle. Go fuck yourself.

aa

How dare you criticize a corporation? Communist! [/Conservolibertarian]

- - - Updated - - -

62 million gallons per year is only .0004% of the annual amount of water used per year in CA. Far less than most farms in CA. To think that this would have an impact on drought conditions is silly. Drinking water is not the problem, agriculture is.

The core of the issue is whether Nestle has the proper permits/rights to extract the amount it does. They are claiming that they thought they had the right while the regulator says they don't. In other words, a standard business dispute that will be settled. The article provides no proof that their claims are false, but rather just in dispute.

So as long as stealing water doesn't cause a drought, I can steal as much water as I want? Then why do I have to pay a water bill at all? Can't I just refuse to pay?

 

[ZiprHead]

They've been doing it for a long time in Michigan and it's pissing off the locals.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

They've been doing it for a long time in Michigan and it's pissing off the locals.

Its getting to the point where you can't steal water from anywhere any more and sell it for a profit. Damn regulatory state!

aa

 

[Axulus]

62 million gallons per year is only .0004% of the annual amount of water used per year in CA. Far less than most farms in CA. To think that this would have an impact on drought conditions is silly. Drinking water is not the problem, agriculture is.

The core of the issue is whether Nestle has the proper permits/rights to extract the amount it does. They are claiming that they thought they had the right while the regulator says they don't. In other words, a standard business dispute that will be settled. The article provides no proof that their claims are false, but rather just in dispute.

Uh huh. That's the way we're playing? In that case I use less water per year than 0.0004% of the amount Nestle stole. And yet I was under a water restriction, to which I adhered. And Nestle wasn't. They had the rights to 8m gallons. All they had to do was not steal more than what was permitted.

1) No one is blaming Nestle for the drought. They're just a bunch of classless assholes.
2) Yeah sure it was a misunderstanding that Nestle 'accidentally' removed 800% more water than was permitted.

srsly?

aa

It is under dispute whether they were allowed to extract that amount or not. They are saying they believed they were allowed.

 

[Axulus]

california-says-nestle-lacks-permits-to-extract-millions-of-gallons-of-water

Apparently the Nestle Corporation stole an average of 54 million gallons of water per year from a state in a drought to sell as Arrowhead bottled water.

I know, I know, stupid state of California meddling in the free market again. Open competition was going to solve this tragedy-of-the-commons problem within the next 100 years all on it's own.

And then there's this gem:
nestle-layoffs-oakland-technology-jobs-nsrgy.html

Thanks Nestle. Go fuck yourself.

aa

How dare you criticize a corporation? Communist! [/Conservolibertarian]

- - - Updated - - -

62 million gallons per year is only .0004% of the annual amount of water used per year in CA. Far less than most farms in CA. To think that this would have an impact on drought conditions is silly. Drinking water is not the problem, agriculture is.

The core of the issue is whether Nestle has the proper permits/rights to extract the amount it does. They are claiming that they thought they had the right while the regulator says they don't. In other words, a standard business dispute that will be settled. The article provides no proof that their claims are false, but rather just in dispute.

So as long as stealing water doesn't cause a drought, I can steal as much water as I want? Then why do I have to pay a water bill at all? Can't I just refuse to pay?

A property right dispute does not necessarily equal theft. If you think you have a legitimate claim to use as much water as you want without paying anything and are prepared to defend your claim, go for it.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Nestle was doing this from 1947 to 2015 so what were the authorities doing?

 

[Elixir]

62 million gallons per year is only .0004% of the annual amount of water used per year in CA. Far less than most farms in CA. To think that this would have an impact on drought conditions is silly. Drinking water is not the problem, agriculture is.

The core of the issue is whether Nestle has the proper permits/rights to extract the amount it does. They are claiming that they thought they had the right while the regulator says they don't. In other words, a standard business dispute that will be settled. The article provides no proof that their claims are false, but rather just in dispute.

Uh huh. That's the way we're playing? In that case I use less water per year than 0.0004% of the amount Nestle stole. And yet I was under a water restriction, to which I adhered. And Nestle wasn't. They had the rights to 8m gallons. All they had to do was not steal more than what was permitted.

1) No one is blaming Nestle for the drought. They're just a bunch of classless assholes.
2) Yeah sure it was a misunderstanding that Nestle 'accidentally' removed 800% more water than was permitted.

srsly?

aa

It is under dispute whether they were allowed to extract that amount or not. They are saying they believed they were allowed.

Ok then. “They are saying they believed”.
Guess it’s all good as long as they’re saying they believed. I’m sure the judge will understand.

 

[LordKiran]

It is under dispute whether they were allowed to extract that amount or not. They are saying they believed they were allowed.

Ok then. “They are saying they believed”.
Guess it’s all good as long as they’re saying they believed. I’m sure the judge will understand.

Just like when I say I believe I was going the speed limit.

 

[Elixir]

It is under dispute whether they were allowed to extract that amount or not. They are saying they believed they were allowed.

Ok then. “They are saying they believed”.
Guess it’s all good as long as they’re saying they believed. I’m sure the judge will understand.

Just like when I say I believe I was going the speed limit.

... in the stolen car you say you believed you had a right to. As long as you say you believed, no problemo.

 

[starwater]

And their pedaling of junk food in third world countries. This is a company run amok looking only for profits and is run on greed.

They're stealing water from the Upper Arkansas River system as well. Middle of the night back-room deal, over the residents' objections.

Do you have any links you can share about this?

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Nestle was doing this from 1947 to 2015 so what were the authorities doing?

Ah yes. The old "better never than late" argument.

aa

 

[laughing dog]

How dare you criticize a corporation? Communist! [/Conservolibertarian]

- - - Updated - - -



So as long as stealing water doesn't cause a drought, I can steal as much water as I want? Then why do I have to pay a water bill at all? Can't I just refuse to pay?

A property right dispute does not necessarily equal theft. If you think you have a legitimate claim to use as much water as you want without paying anything and are prepared to defend your claim, go for it.

Of course, but your willingness to defend your actions does not mean they were necessarily legal.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

62 million gallons per year is only .0004% of the annual amount of water used per year in CA. Far less than most farms in CA. To think that this would have an impact on drought conditions is silly. Drinking water is not the problem, agriculture is.

The core of the issue is whether Nestle has the proper permits/rights to extract the amount it does. They are claiming that they thought they had the right while the regulator says they don't. In other words, a standard business dispute that will be settled. The article provides no proof that their claims are false, but rather just in dispute.

Uh huh. That's the way we're playing? In that case I use less water per year than 0.0004% of the amount Nestle stole. And yet I was under a water restriction, to which I adhered. And Nestle wasn't. They had the rights to 8m gallons. All they had to do was not steal more than what was permitted.

1) No one is blaming Nestle for the drought. They're just a bunch of classless assholes.
2) Yeah sure it was a misunderstanding that Nestle 'accidentally' removed 800% more water than was permitted.

srsly?

aa

It is under dispute whether they were allowed to extract that amount or not. They are saying they believed they were allowed.

We might have a dispute if I say my property line extends a yard or two into your property. If I say my property constitutes 'ALL' of your property plus 7 more adjacent properties owned by others, I don't just 'misunderstand' property rights and hold them in dispute. I am either willfully subverting property law or am criminally insane.

aa

 

[repoman]

If this were a small company such that this water bottling in California was the majority of their operations they would be fucked so hard.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

62 million gallons per year is only .0004% of the annual amount of water used per year in CA. Far less than most farms in CA. To think that this would have an impact on drought conditions is silly. Drinking water is not the problem, agriculture is.

Thank you. I was sure it was drop in the bucket but I didn't know how small.