Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsthe EnvironmentMichiganEnvironmental PolicyResource ManagementGroundwaterBottled WaterStates: Michigan•••Started 4mos agoActive 7 days ago

Should Michigan ban private companies from extracting groundwater to sell as bottled water?

The Michigan Dept of Environment (EGLE) currently permits companies like BlueTriton (formerly Nestlé) to pump hundreds of gallons of groundwater per minute for a nominal administrative fee of just $200 per year. Critics argue this effectively gives away a public natural resource to a private corporation for profit, risking long-term damage to local stream ecosystems and trout populations. Proponents argue the withdrawals are science-based and sustainable, that companies have legal property rights to the water beneath their land, and that the bottling plants provide essential rural jobs. A 'Yes' vote supports banning commercial extraction to conserve the Great Lakes basin; a 'No' vote supports allowing it under current regulations.

+
Expand

Knowledge quiz

How much do you know about Michigan?

See if you know more than the average American.

Test your knowledge!

23 Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...4mos4MO

Yes

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...4mos4MO

Yes, water is a public right, not a private commodity

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...4mos4MO

Yes, stop corporations from draining the Great Lakes

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...4mos4MO

No

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...4mos4MO

No, property owners have a right to the water beneath their land

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...4mos4MO

No, charge a fair extraction fee instead of a ban

 @BDZ4YF8 from Michigan  answered…7 days7D

No, charge an extreme extraction fee instead of a ban.

 @BDYJ8FB from Michigan  answered…1wk1W

Yes, unless they are bottling and shipping from here in the state of Michigan

 @BDY38VX from Michigan  answered…1wk1W

If the water bottle is cheap and has no sketchy stuff to it then no, but if it does have sketchy stuff in it then yes, or if it just expensive bottles then yes

 @BDM8CV8 from Michigan  answered…1mo1MO

No but I think they should regulate it.

 @BD9RP3MDemocrat from Michigan  answered…1mo1MO

if they are taking to much or cause prombles then yes

 @BD73VSY from Michigan  answered…2mos2MO

No but I feel like there should be a larger bill

 @BD54MYS from Michigan  answered…2mos2MO

Property owners have a right to the water beneath their land, but there needs to be regulations to prevent the ecological effects of our lakes and environment.

 @BCV8ZJD from Michigan  answered…2mos2MO

they should ban the exportation of the water. I'm fine with them extracting the groundwater to sell within the local watershed so that it returns to its source. taking it away from its source should be banned.

 @BCSHQFN from Michigan  answered…2mos2MO

No, but only if it is not harming the broader ecosystem beyond the confines of their private property.

 @BCRXSG8 from Michigan  answered…2mos2MO

I think there should just be more limits/regulations on using groundwater for bottled water.

 @BCF4KTB from Michigan  answered…3mos3MO

charge an extraction fee and put that money to public needs like public transportation and or healthcare.

 @BC6TH92 from Michigan  answered…3mos3MO

Yes, water globally should be public and free, no company should be allowed to bottle and resell it.

 @BC6QYBJDemocrat from Michigan  answered…3mos3MO

No, but it should be checked for health code violations.

 @BBW33GHSocialist from Michigan  answered…3mos3MO

I believe yes if it causes harm and there should be more regulations regarding the extraction of groundwater

 @BBVDRY9 from Michigan  answered…3mos3MO

no, but it will have to be filtered to avoid bacteria and sickness

 @BBSY3L3 from Michigan  answered…3mos3MO

if too many do it it wont be regulated we will run out of water

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...4mos4MO

No, banning it would kill local manufacturing jobs

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

Israeli Bombings Kill 2,300 In Lebanon in 3 weeks

Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.The Israeli military has ordered people living in more than a quarter of Lebanon to flee, according to a UN calculation, as its fight with the Iran-backed Shia militant group Hizbollah threatens to engulf the Mediterranean country.Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.More than 1mn people have fled their homes in Lebanon in under a month, according to its government, a dramatic forced movement of the population in a country of only about 5mn inhabitants with a land mass smaller than the US state of Connecticut. Israeli forces began a ground offensive in south Lebanon two weeks ago, in their fourth invasion of the country in under five decades. They had already destroyed large parts of the densely populated southern Beirut suburb where Hizbollah had its headquarters, and killed many top militant commanders in air strikes, including former leader Hassan Nasrallah.Rema Jamous Imseis, Middle East director of UNHCR, told journalists in Geneva that “over 25 per cent of [Lebanon is] under a direct Israeli military evacuation order”. “People are heeding these calls to evacuate and they’re fleeing with almost nothing,” she added, saying that 80 per cent of the shelters opened by the Lebanese government — mostly in schools — were now full.

▲  1012 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

A Moment of Darkness': Washington Post's No-Endorsement Decision Ignites Media Firestorm

Even though the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is neck and neck, The Washington Post has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years, the publisher and CEO announced Friday."We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates," Will Lewis wrote in an opinion piece published on the paper's website. He referenced the paper's policy in the decades prior to 1976, when, following the Watergate scandal that the Post broke, it endorsed Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. The last time the Post did not endorse a presidential candidate in the general election was 1988, according to a search of its archives.Colleagues learned the news from the editorial page editor, David Shipley, at a tense meeting shortly before Lewis' announcement. The meeting was characterized by someone with direct knowledge of discussions on condition of anonymity to speak about internal matters.Shipley said that he told other editorial board leaders Thursday by management that there would be no endorsement, though he has known for weeks. He added that he "owns" this decision. The reason he cited was to create "independent space" where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump's presidency, denounced the decision starkly."This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."A similar decision by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong led this week to the resignations of the paper's editorials editor and two editorial board members. Soon-Shiong said that he had asked the editorial board to draft a "factual analysis" of Trump and Harris' policies and plans. In her resignation letter, editorials editor Mariel Garza said the decision made the paper look “craven and hypocritical,” given its past reporting and editorials on Trump.

▲  1013 replies