01/12/07 FROM CHRONICLE NEWS SERVICES

When it comes to protecting Michigan's water, the state Supreme Court is being asked to answer this question: How far can an environmental group go?

The fight between Nestle Waters and an environmental group over rights to groundwater in Mecosta County -- and harvesting it for sale -- spilled into the Supreme Court on Thursday.

The argument is whether neighboring property owners and the Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation have legal standing -- the right to sue -- over what happens on land controlled by Nestle. An attorney for the group said the court's ruling could be "very significant" for the "future of water in the state of Michigan."

"There is much at stake," said attorney James M. Olson.

The oral argument before seven justices was over water being pumped from 800 acres of land leased by Nestle east of Stanton. Nestle bottled 226 million gallons of water last year in nearby Stanwood under the company's Ice Mountain brand.

The MCWC, formed to represent nearby property owners and others, has fought to stop it.

The Supreme Court hearing came a day after 150 people turned out in Newaygo County, which adjoins Mecosta County, to protest Nestle's plans to bottle millions of gallons of water from springs that feed the White River. That water also would be bottled in Stanwood.

Nestle also wants to bottle 70 million gallons of spring water from a new well in Osceola County, near the headwaters of two trout streams that flow into the Muskegon River near Evart.

Nestle's existing groundwater pumping at a Mecosta County site known as Sanctuary Springs has lowered water levels on a nearby stream and lake.

After MCWC sued Nestle, a Mecosta County circuit judge said the company's groundwater pumping harmed surface waters downstream. The judge ordered the company to shut off its wells.

Nestle appealed and the state appeals court said Nestle could make "reasonable" use of available water resources on land it leased. The company and MCWC then reached a deal that reduced Nestle's groundwater pumping at Sanctuary Springs by half, to 218 gallons per minute.

As part of that deal, the sides were allowed to file appeals with the Supreme Court.

The high court on Thursday explored whether neighboring residents had standing to allege harm to a local lake and three wetlands in light of the court's 2004 ruling rejecting the idea that a 1970 state law allows literally anyone to sue to halt pollution or other environmental degradation.

Nestle's attorney argued that the Court of Appeals ruling let the environmental group go too far.

The MCWC has based its arguments on damages to the area's entire ecosystem, including wetlands leased by Nestle.

Nestle attorney Adam Charnes argued the group has no standing over what happens on the leased land. It's of no concern to nearby land owners if "organisms in the wetlands live or die," or if a rare flower is endangered, he said.

"They don't have standing to try to protect the flower," he argued. "They don't see the flower."

Charnes argued it's the state's job to protect the environment. It was the state Department of Environmental Quality that gave Nestle a permit for the wells, he said.

The group's attorney argued the entire ecosystem was connected and that Nestle shouldn't be allowed to "carve out" parts of it.

Nestle is "trying to insulate themselves from damage they do to the environment of Michigan," Olson said after the hearing.

"If every person can scorch the Earth and harm their own property and not be answerable to the Environmental Protection Act, the resources of the state could be destroyed and no one could do anything," he said.