Here's a headline that grabbed my attention:
The Feds Just Got Sued for Letting Nestlé Bottle Water in California’s Drought Country
Is this lawsuit good news, or what?
It's pretty well known that there is a drought in California, so why would the US Forest Service still allow Nestle to pump water? And, why allow the company to "illegally divert millions of gallons of water from California's San Bernadino National Forest to use for Arrowhead brand bottled water?"
Water activists around the world have to be shaking their heads over this decision and asking how this was allowed to happen.
The plaintiffs in the case are the Center for Biological Diversity, the Story of Stuff, and the Courage Campaign Institute. They charge the Forest Service with "breaking its own policies by allowing the bottling operation to continue, as the siphoning of water from already depleted water source is harming local habitats and wildlife."
And how about this:
"Recent reports have indicated that water levels at Strawberry Creek are at a record lows," said the plaintiffs in a statement. "In exchange for allowing Nestle to continue siphoning water from the Creek, the Forest Service receives just $524 a year, less than the average Californian's water bill."
This sounds like a 5th grader would be able to determine that this was not a good deal for California, so why has the US Forest Service determined that it is?
Water activists must remain vigilant!
Read full article here: http://linkis.com/www.motherjones.com/6TRgU
The Feds Just Got Sued for Letting Nestlé Bottle Water in California’s Drought Country
Is this lawsuit good news, or what?
It's pretty well known that there is a drought in California, so why would the US Forest Service still allow Nestle to pump water? And, why allow the company to "illegally divert millions of gallons of water from California's San Bernadino National Forest to use for Arrowhead brand bottled water?"
Water activists around the world have to be shaking their heads over this decision and asking how this was allowed to happen.
The plaintiffs in the case are the Center for Biological Diversity, the Story of Stuff, and the Courage Campaign Institute. They charge the Forest Service with "breaking its own policies by allowing the bottling operation to continue, as the siphoning of water from already depleted water source is harming local habitats and wildlife."
And how about this:
"Recent reports have indicated that water levels at Strawberry Creek are at a record lows," said the plaintiffs in a statement. "In exchange for allowing Nestle to continue siphoning water from the Creek, the Forest Service receives just $524 a year, less than the average Californian's water bill."
This sounds like a 5th grader would be able to determine that this was not a good deal for California, so why has the US Forest Service determined that it is?
Water activists must remain vigilant!
Read full article here: http://linkis.com/www.motherjones.com/6TRgU
No comments:
Post a Comment