Nestle CEO: Water Is Not A Human Right, Should Be Privatized

[agentaqua]

http://themindunleashed.org/2014/05/nestle-ceo-water-human-right-privatized-2.html

Nestle CEO: Water Is Not A Human Right, Should Be Privatized

Awareness
May 9, 2014

Is water a free and basic human right, or should all the water on the planet belong to major corporations and be treated as a product? Should the poor who cannot afford to pay these said corporations suffer from starvation due to their lack of financial wealth? According to the former CEO and now Chairman of the largest food product manufacturer in the world, corporations should own every drop of water on the planet — and you’re not getting any unless you pay up.

The company notorious for sending out hordes of ‘internet warriors’ to defend the company and its actions online in comments and message boards (perhaps we’ll find some below) even takes a firm stance behind Monsanto’s GMOs and their ‘proven safety’. In fact, the former Nestle CEO actually says that his idea of water privatization is very similar to Monsanto’s GMOs. In a video interview, Nestle Chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe states that there has never been ‘one illness’ ever caused from the consumption of GMOs.

Watch the video below for yourself:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SEFL8ElXHaU?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The way in which this sociopath clearly has zero regard for the human race outside of his own wealth and the development of Nestle, who has been caught funding attacks against GMO labeling, can be witnessed when watching and listening to his talk on the issue. This is a company that actually goes into struggling rural areas and extracts the groundwater for their bottled water products, completely destroying the water supply of the area without any compensation. In fact, they actually make rural areas in the United States foot the bill.

As reported on by Corporate Watch, Nestle and former CEO Peter Brabeck-Letmathe have a long history of disregarding public health and abusing the environment to take part in the profit of an astounding $35 billion in annual profit from water bottle sales alone. The report states:

“Nestlé production of mineral water involves the abuse of vulnerable water resources. In the Serra da Mantiqueira region of Brazil, home to the “circuit of waters” park whose groundwater has a high mineral content and medicinal properties, over-pumping has resulted in depletion and long-term damage.”

Nestle has also come under fire over the assertion that they are actually conducting business with massive slavery rings. Another Corporate Watch entry details:

“In 2001, Nestlé faced criticism for buying cocoa from the Ivory Coast and Ghana, which may have been produced using child slaves.[58] According to an investigative report by the BBC, hundreds of thousands of children in Mali, Burkina Faso and Togo were being purchased from their destitute parents and shipped to the Ivory Coast, to be sold as slaves to cocoa farms.”

So is water a human right, or should it be owned by big corporations? Well, if water is not here for all of us, then perhaps air should be owned by major corporations as well. And as for crops, Monsanto is already working hard to make sure their monopoly on our staple crops and beyond is well situated. It should really come as no surprise that this Nestle Chairman fights to keep Monsanto’s GMOs alive and well in the food supply, as his ideology lines right up with that of Monsanto.

Credits: Natural Society, where this was originally featured.

 

[SpringVelocity]

Water isn't a basic right..I am fighting Ministry of Environment last 2yrs to keep my drinking water safe in our small community.. Don't believe all these things like your government will protect your water..They would sell it off in instant.. Or in our case remove the red tape and put in projects that will pollute your water source. Nestle gets it basically for free in BC...

As far as being privatized it pretty much is..

 

[agentaqua]

http://wcel.org/resources/environme...and-under-pressure-groundwater-bc’s-northeast

Underground and Under Pressure: Groundwater in BC’s Northeast

16 April, 2015

BC will soon lose the dubious distinction of being the “Wild West for groundwater”. As we reported last year, the provincial government is poised to require a license to use groundwater, just as a surface water license has been required for the past hundred years. But the government is currently developing new regulations that will determine just how much protection groundwater will receive.

Pressure on BC’s groundwater

Pressures on this buried treasure are growing. Despite BC being a relatively water wealthy province, the latest figures from the government’s Environmental Reporting BC on groundwater health reveals that almost a quarter of observation wells show either a large or moderate rate of decline in water levels. BC is currently Canada's second largest natural gas producer, and the provincial government’s emphasis on development of liquefied natural gas (LNG) for export will increase development pressures on both surface and groundwater.

Groundwater pressures are particularly high in the drought-prone northeast corner of the province, where oil and gas activity accounts for the largest share of consumptive use of water, according to the new Northeast Water Strategy. The amount of fresh water removed from the water cycle has been increasing over time with longer drill length and more fractures per well. The BC Oil and Gas Commission notes that over 90% of oil and gas wells drilled in BC target unconventional sources (such as shale gas development for LNG), and use techniques such as hydraulic fracking. In addition to fracking, groundwater is used to flood oil and gas reservoirs, and extract natural gas from deep coal beds. All this activity is happening with scant local information on groundwater: the provincial network of approximately 140 observation wells includes few Northeast wells and northeast aquifers are just starting to be classified.

(Gilles Wendling, GW Solutions)
The above map shows the number of wells in NE BC, from a presentation by Hydrogeologist Dr. Gilles Wendling to the Keepers of the Water VI in Fort Nelson, BC, hosted by the Fort Nelson First Nation.

Does the new BC Water Sustainability Act relieve the pressure on groundwater?

New tools in the Water Sustainability Act (WSA) will relieve some of the pressure. Groundwater licensing will:
•Require all owners of new and existing wells to obtain a water license unless the use is exempted. (Most domestic well owners will be exempt, though encouraged to register their well to limit impacts from new users.)
•Require groundwater licensees to use water in accordance with the new Act, comply with license terms and conditions, and pay annual water rentals.
•Require groundwater license applicants to assess the impact of their proposed extraction and use on known existing groundwater users, including exempted domestic groundwater users (if they’ve registered).

In water stressed areas covered by new WSA, tools such as an area-based regulation or a water sustainability plan could be used to require licensing of all wells, and/or require a drilling authorization to be obtained before a new well can be drilled.

(BC Ministry of the Environment)

What else needs to be addressed?

But exactly how those tools work will depend upon regulations that the government is currently developing. We’ll be tracking the following issues as the government develops regulations that flesh out the Act’s new groundwater protections:

Well leakage:Experts from the Canadian Council of Academies (CCA) report on shale gas development found that the greatest threat to groundwater was gas leakage from wells as the potential impacts of leaking wells are not being systematically monitored. Our lawyers heard about this issue first hand in recent meetings in Fort St. John.

Cumulative effects of development:The Canadian Council of Academies (CCA) report on shale gas development warned of potentially substantial cumulative impacts on aquifer water quality and quantity. Many residents of Northeast BC are concerned about the pace and scale of development, and the overall impact on water resources. Will new tools like area based plans or water sustainability plans actually be used to deal with cumulative effects?

Baseline Data: Again the Canadian Council of Academies (CCA) report on shale gas development sounded an alarm: "In most instances, shale gas extraction has proceeded without sufficient environmental baseline data being collected (e.g., nearby groundwater quality, critical wildlife habitat). This makes it difficult to identify and characterize environmental impacts that may be associated with or inappropriately blamed on this development." New regulations should address this issue.

Saline water: Including saline water in the new groundwater licensing scheme would allow regulators to set a pumping limit and would protect the use with a water right. Integrating groundwater and surface water licensing is a major step forward for water management in BC, and applying licensing to both saline and nonsaline water would extend this integration. On the other hand, BC could harmonize with Alberta and only include water that falls below a set saline threshold in the licensing scheme.

Public participation, accountability, and respect for Aboriginal and Treaty rights: As the following examples show, greater transparency and opportunities to take part in decisions about developments that impact groundwater are critical (and in the case of First Nations, constitutionally required):
•In Swan Lake, a recreation area south of Dawson Creek, community members were not notified that three natural gas exploration wells were being drilled beneath the lake, as the wells did not pass under private property. A local enhancement society opposes further drilling under the lake, and Ducks Unlimited Canada has also raised concerns about impacts on a nearby conservation area.

•The Fort Nelson First Nation has said that the pace of shale gas development, the lack of groundwater regulation and inadequate monitoring and enforcement are among their chief concerns. Rapid shale gas development undermines their ability to live off the land; reduces their access to wildlife; and affects their ability to drink water from rivers and streams, travel along traditional transportation routes by boat, and harvest medicinal plants and fur bearing animals – all of which are essential to upholding their Treaty rights.

•The province set up a Groundwater Advisory Board, whose advice and membership were not publicly disclosed. In response to requests for disclosure, the government insisted that a formal application be made under the provincial Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and when the minutes were eventually produced, they were redacted.

Continued Use of Short Term Approvals: To obtain water, the oil and gas sector uses a streamlined short term approval administered by the Oil and Gas Commission rather than the Ministry of the Environment’s more rigorous water license approval process. Oil and gas companies have only nine active water licenses, whereas they have utilized 1,115 approvals in recent years, says the Pembina Institute. A judicial challenge to this practice was unsuccessful last year, and provisions in the Water Sustainability Act will increase government discretion to renew short-term approvals.

Collaboration with First Nations:The new WSA has been criticized for failing to address and give priority to the “prior, superior and unextinguished water rights of Indigenous Nations of British Columbia." Will a mutually-agreeable process for collaboration between First Nations and the Crown regarding regulation and decision-making about water be established?

More regulations to come

The Province is currently focusing on the new Groundwater Regulations but further regulations are expected over the next two to three years to fully implement the new WSA. We’ll be watching closely to see if these critical issues are addressed.

Blog Post by Linda Nowlan, Staff Counsel

 

[SpringVelocity]

Thanks for info agent...Very interesting.

 

[agentaqua]

U R welcome, SV. Sorry to hear of your troubles. One of my heroes/heroines in this struggle is Maude Barlow - you may have heard of her already:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maude_Barlow
http://www.canadians.org/maude

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6ufkAizDK7k?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

They made a documentary off of one of her books about the control of water resources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Gold:_World_Water_Wars
http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca...tem.html?ref=Search Books: %27Maude Barlow%27
http://houseofanansi.com/products/blue-future
http://www.bluegold-worldwaterwars.com/
http://www.blueplanetproject.net/

further references/factsheets:
http://www.canadians.org/sites/default/files/publications/report-blue-betrayal-0315.pdf
http://www.canadians.org/sites/default/files/publications/NWPA-factsheet.pdf

 

[agentaqua]

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/04/2...ce=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=200415
What's a Fair Rental Rate for BC's Water?

Tide of outrage over Nestle's rental rate of $2.25 per million litres misses the point.

By John Janmaat, Today, TheTyee.ca

KalLake_610px.jpg

Finding the sweet spot for water rates is a big challenge. Photo of Kal Lake, BC by Thomas Bullock in Your BC: The Tyee's Photo Pool.

Nestle Pays $2.25 to Bottle and Sell a Million Litres of BC Water

I repeat: Nestle pays $2.25 to bottle and sell a million litres of BC water.

Given that we pay about the same for a litre of the chilled stuff at the gas station, it is easy to be outraged that corporations like Nestle pay just $2.25 to use a million litres of water in British Columbia. That's the rental rate proposed by the B.C. government for water bottlers and many other industrial users, as well as for water utilities that supply domestic water.

The outrage is focused on Nestle, which operates a bottled water plant in Hope. Nestle bottles many millions of litres of water every year, a portion of which is exported. Before the new pricing rules were brought in, Nestle and other similar users of groundwater paid nothing, a fact that raised hackles during discussions leading up to the passage of B.C.'s Water Sustainability Act last May.

Some Canadian provinces charge a higher water rental (or royalty) rate. For example, Quebec charges $70 and Nova Scotia $140 per thousand cubic metres. But other provinces don't charge anything comparable to an annual rental for water use. So, while B.C. rates are clearly the lowest among those that do charge, at least it charges something.

What should B.C.'s rates be? It's not an easy question to answer. A quick look at the licence rental rates that B.C. has adopted shows a range of different use categories, each with its own application fee, minimum annual rent and volume-based annual rent. It seems complicated, but compared to other natural resources, water rental rates are pretty simple.

Water is not the only thing that B.C. collects a royalty for. We also collect royalties on "trees and rocks." These are even more complicated. The B.C. Ministry of Forests calculates a unique royalty rate -- called stumpage -- for each block logged. Turning to rocks, things are no simpler. Mines pay a Net Revenue Tax and a Net Current Proceeds Tax, with the former based on profits and the latter on the value of sales. For oil and gas, royalty rates are specific to each well. These are not simple rates.

The government balances several goals when setting royalty rates. These include maximizing long-term revenues to the Crown, treating large and small producers equitably, and picking a rate that is simple to administer and verify. The government regularly reviews the performance of its royalty program, with results available to the public. In general, resource companies get to cover their costs before paying anything for using the resource. If the rates are too low, then the people of B.C. don't get a fair return for their natural resources. If they are too high, then companies won't invest, and the people of B.C. won't get a fair return either. The challenge is to find the sweet spot, where the province earns as much as possible.

Far from perfect rates

Finding the sweet spot for water is a bigger challenge. Most trees and rocks are harvested, processed and sold by industry. But we all use water, and need it to survive. If pressured, we would pay a lot for it. We probably feel the same way about the water used in hospitals, in schools, and for other public functions. For uses like these, we don't want the government to set rates that generate the most revenues. In fact, we expect water to be treated as a basic human right, and are scared that if it is treated like any other commodity, we'll be forced to pay a lot more for it.

The government charges different rates for different uses, in part because of the way we value these uses. But when we get past the basic uses -- household and public -- we're still faced with difficult choices. Farms, family run campgrounds, etc. need water for their businesses. We want to encourage these small enterprises, not charge them a high price. The campaign against the new water rates has ignored these subtleties, and just trained its sights on Nestle. Sadly, this doesn't help raise the debate.

Clearly, one provincial water rental rate schedule can't possibly serve this province alone. Hope, where Nestle's plant is located, gets more than two metres of rain per year. If that water isn't bottled and sold, it will quickly flow into the Fraser and out to sea. No jobs, no tax revenues, and no royalties. Osoyoos, in the south Okanagan, gets a bit more than one-quarter metre of precipitation per year. Using more water in the south Okanagan means someone else gets less or the environment suffers. One price applied to the whole province can't possibly deal with the real value of water, when that value changes so much from place to place.

Most of the water Nestle bottles is sold right here in B.C. Should those of us who drink bottled water pay more? If we do charge industrial users more, are we then treating water like a commodity? This would seem to be why the water rental rates are not just about making money for the province. Instead, they are about raising enough money to pay for things promised in the new Water Sustainability Act, such as the auditing of water use to ensure efficiency, and much more detailed monitoring of stream flows to ensure that environmental needs are protected. Are the rates high enough to pay for these things? My guess is no. The government will need to review these rates, and I expect raise them, once the true implementation costs are known.

The new rates are far from perfect, but are at least better than what we had. A periodic review of the rates, a commitment to full cost recovery, and a commitment to reinvesting all royalties into water stewardship -- something the government has not, at this point, committed to -- would help ensure there is enough money to administer and fully implement the act and manage water into the future.

 

[agentaqua]

http://canadians.org/protect-bc-water

ACTION ALERT: Protect B.C.’s water from corporate freeloaders

Imagine a place where companies can take as much water as they want. They don’t need to ask permission from government or the community. And they don’t have to pay any fees for the water they use.

Sound unbelievable? Well, it’s not – at least not in British Columbia.

B.C. doesn’t require companies to apply for permits when they withdraw groundwater, nor to report how much water they are taking. This allows industries, such as bottled water and fracking, to use groundwater at no cost.

Nestlé alone withdraws 265 million litres of groundwater a year from Hope, B.C.

Tell the B.C. government that enough is enough. You want action now!

 

[agentaqua]

http://globalnews.ca/news/2099418/n...dwater-operations-as-drought-levels-increase/

Nestle faces renewed criticism of their B.C. groundwater operations as drought levels increase

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/u-s-firm-sues-canada-for-10-5-billion-over-water-1.180821

U.S. firm sues Canada for $10.5 billion over water

CBC News Posted: Oct 22, 1999 9:44 PM ET| Last Updated: Jul 09, 2015 9:31 AM ET

An American-owned water export company has launched a massive lawsuit against Canada for preventing it from exporting fresh water from British Columbia.

Sun Belt Water Inc. of California is suing Canada for $10.5 billion US, the Canadian foreign ministry said Friday.

The suit has been filed under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Sun Belt says it has been "mistreated" by the B.C. government.

The clash over exporting water goes back to 1993, when Sun Belt and Snowcap Waters Ltd., a Canadian partner, sued the B.C. government for banning bulk water exports to California. Snowcap Waters agreed to a settlement of $335,000 (Cdn).

Sun Belt did not settle with the province. The company says the B.C. government's banning of water exports from the province violates the terms and conditions of NAFTA.

The lawsuit has upset environmentalists who are angry that companies wanting to make money exporting water are using NAFTA to override environmental laws. Ottawa has 90 days to examine the Sun Belt lawsuit.

In a related development, at a hearing Thursday night in Montreal, groups concerned about exports of bulk water demanded the International Joint Commission include this recommendation when it reports to Ottawa and Washington early in the new year.

The IJC is the group appointed by the Canada and U.S. governments to manage the countries' shared water.

The problem with NAFTA's Chapter 11 is that it allows water to be regarded simply as a good or product that can be sold or traded between countries. If a country stops its export, the company proposing the commercial use could sue for compensation

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/judi-t...ore_b_7797526.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063
If B.C. Charges Nestlé More For Bottling H2O, It Will Open Door To Massive Water Sales

"I have to make a statement about the growing hysteria around B.C.'s laws on water, which terrifies me because the campaign is wrong. Do NOT demand that the province charge Nestlé money, unless you want to open the door to massive water sales in BC. Please read my full statement very carefully because water is more important than politics.

Context: I have been campaigning against bulk water exports since the late 1980s, arguing against the Free Trade Agreement, and later NAFTA, which defined water as a commodity eligible for export, and contained clauses locking us into sustained export levels regardless of our domestic need. Recent news stories alleging that the BC government is 'giving away' our water to Nestlé and stating that the government should be 'charging a fair price' for it are dangerous.

Currently, Nestle pays the same fees that everyone else pays for access to water. Nestle is on the record saying they will pay a fair price and in fact want the province to do an inventory of its fresh water.

Understand this as you sign the petition DEMANDING that the province charge Nestle for water: you are lobbying our government to turn our water into a commodity for sale. That's what you are doing when you post articles and petitions. You will make Nestle VERY happy if you succeed, because then we can NEVER turn off the taps due to the international trade deals in place.

Do NOT sign the petition do NOT ask that our water become a commodity. When Environment Minister Mary Polak says "We don't sell water. We charge administration fees for the management of that resource" she is trying to tell us this - we are NOT selling it. And that is the ONLY way we can protect it. By NOT selling it.

Honestly, this campaign terrifies me. Every headline I have read is misleading and intended to make you angry and lobby for something very bad. Please share."

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...tion-against-nestlé-an-exaggeration-1.3154934
Bottled water industry calls petition against Nestlé an 'exaggeration'

 

[Seafever]

You cannot live with out air.

You cannot live without water.

Therefor these two things are 100% vital to human life.

As they are a vital necessity then they are a basic human right.

Anyone who controls these factions to the point where they are not available unless you pay is a murderer......because there are many people on this planet who cannot afford to pay.

 

[agentaqua]

Well stated Seafeaver. We are already into this fight for basic human rights. Some would argue - that is the real reason the government supports and defends open net-cage aquaculture and pipelines. no salmon - no worries. Dam the rivers for power, pipe the water to the thirsty US and elsewhere.

Some would also state that it's the reason the crooks in the Harper regime changed all the laws through the numerous undemocratic omnibus bills - changing laws like the Fisheries, Navigable Waters, CEA, and other Acts.