But there were strong groups that did not want the state to regulate groundwater. Large enterprises, including farms and producers, answered “no”.
They did not want government regulations on the amount of groundwater they used. They also realized that “it has a responsibility to protect the state, not just give the state a chance to do so,” said Michael Bloom, a law professor at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon, who has written extensively on public trust doctrine. .
If the state does not protect resources, citizens can sue.
Bob Wilson, a longtime adviser in the Michigan Senate, said it was a good move to expand the public trust doctrine to include groundwater.
But to believe that allocating water dispensers for regulation is wrong.
He said that whether it is bottled water, beer, irrigation or production, all types of groundwater should be treated equally.
“You needed to regulate and look at drainage just for the sake of the impact on our natural resources. It shouldn’t matter, end users of water, it shouldn’t matter at all. “
However, it is difficult for politicians to ignore people’s outrage over bottled water. Remember these 81,000 public comments protesting against Nestle’s water abstraction plans.
A Rabbi spokesman says people want to do something about it.
“This law says, look, it’s not okay when a company comes to Michigan, pumps out our groundwater. Put a price tag on it and make a profit. That’s not the case. “
Two years after it received permission to pump more groundwater in western Michigan, Nestle sold its bottling business to another company, Blue Triton. Later that year, Blue Triton announced it would not take advantage of the permit.
Asked to comment on the story, the company said: “Blue Triton Brands is unable to comment on the law at this time because it has not been introduced or made public.”
The law is expected to be introduced in mid-March.