In a quaint, quiet home along the bank of the Muskegon River, Valerie Duer
counts wildlife, trout and a giant multinational food and beverage
corporation among her nearest neighbors.

The critters were the desired part of the deal when Duer and her husband,
Paul, moved to Big Prairie Township in rural Newaygo County near Michigan's
west coast from Grand Haven seven years ago.

But Duer has spent most of those years fighting to oust Nestle Waters North
America, a corporation that pumps and sells some 107 million gallons of
spring water annually from wells that draw water from the Muskegon River
watershed.

"I'm worried that they will never stop. They'll just keep plunging holes in
the ground," said Duer, 59, who is retired. "There's just no way to stop
them. And all they are concerned about is the bottom line, the profits."

Despite a 2001 lawsuit from the grassroots Michigan Citizens for Water
Conservation against Nestle that lingers at the Michigan Supreme Court, the
company has sunk an additional well in Osceola County, further infuriating
those who claim another well will suck the life out of the Muskegon River
watershed.

Environmental groups and residents fear that the removal of water will lower
the levels of the state's rivers and lakes, trigger higher water
temperatures -- both of which could harm fish and other aquatic life -- and
drain wetlands.

The citizens-versus-multinational corporation lawsuit has drawn national
attention and led Michigan lawmakers in February 2006 to create the state's
first-ever law addressing water withdrawals. Sixty companies can process
bottled water in Michigan, but Nestle's operations are by far the largest,
said Jim Cleland, a state water expert with the Department of Environmental
Quality.

The 2006 law requires permits for wells that withdraw more than 250,000
gallons per day. Nestle plans to withdraw 216,000 gallons daily or up to an
additional 70 million gallons annually when the Osceola well becomes
operational later this year.

The water sale

The company sells 16 ounces of Michigan spring water for $1 under the Ice
Mountain brand, which is bottled at a plant in Stanwood. The company made
some $253.7 million in sales of Ice Mountain in 2005, the most recent year
statistics were available, according to company spokeswoman Deb Muchmore.

Nestle officials, armed with years of company-funded studies of the west
Michigan's watersheds, argue there's plenty of water available underground
and that their pumping operations do not cause "adverse impact" on nearby
lakes or streams. State studies estimate some 27 billion gallons of water
flow into underground aquifers statewide daily.

"The key purpose at looking at additional sites is to diversify the water
resources they rely on and using the whole network wisely," Muchmore said.
"They're making sure they have enough water supply to ensure the long-term
viability of the investment they have and the job base they've created."

Nestle spent some $150 million in 2002 to build the Stanwood plant, which
employs 250 people. The company this year will announce the construction of
another bottling facility, either in Evart or in Indiana, Muchmore said.

But the citizens group, led by Traverse City attorney Jim Olson, argues
Nestle's spring water withdrawals have already drained wetlands and lowered
the flow of the Dead Stream and the level of the Tri Lakes in the Muskegon
watershed.

The water fight

After six years of legal wrangling, the citizens group has questions
lingering before the Michigan Supreme Court which water and legal experts
say could shape the future of water withdrawals in Michigan.

States such as California, where water is scarce, have tough withdrawal
laws, as does Minnesota, which is more comparable to Michigan in terms of
water resources, Olson said. "We're very strong environmentally in
protecting streams, wetland and water quality. But what we have addressing
withdrawing groundwater is inadequate and not very comprehensive," Olson
said.

The court heard oral arguments on the case Jan. 11 but it is unclear when it
will rule. Two key issues:


a.. Whether laws prohibit groundwater users, such as Nestle, from removing
water from a watershed, especially if that water is then exported for sale.

b.. Whether groundwater is part of the public trust, which has historically
protected the public's right to access navigable waterways.
Dave Dempsey, Great Lakes policy adviser for Clean Water Action, a national
citizens' water organization, said a ruling in Nestle's favor could lead to
a rush to drill Michigan's groundwater.

"We're in a new era where government inaction or abdication of public trust
is allowing the international privatization of water," Dempsey said. "We're
at risk of losing control of this in the Great Lakes basin."

But Nestle attorney Mike Haines of the Grand Rapids firm Mika, Meyers,
Beckett & Jones, argues history -- and the law -- is on Nestle's side.

"If you have a cottage on a rivulet, or some other non-navigable waterway,
you don't have to allow people to walk through, just because it's water.
It's been that way from time immemorial," he said.

Expansion plans

Beside the yet-to-open Osceola County well, the company is also looking at
sinking a well in the White River watershed near White Cloud in Newaygo
County, Muchmore said.

That infuriates Jay Peasley, a member of the White River Watershed
Partnership, who lives on the White River about 20 miles downstream from the
proposedNewaygo County well. The White River watershed is much smaller than
the Muskegon watershed, which makes it much more vulnerable to environmental
decimation, he said.

"I don't have problems with farmers using groundwater to water their crops
because the water stays within the watershed," Peasley said. "What they're
proposing is a diversion, pumping it out and selling it to Timbuktu and it's
not coming back."

Nestle officials say preliminary studies show the White watershed has an
abundant flow of groundwater.

But Nestle's rapid expansion has Duer and other citizen activists accusing
the state of accommodating Nestle to the detriment of the environment.

"Ten years from now, people are going to say, 'Why didn't we do something
about this?' " Duer said. "People wage war over water, and Michigan just
gives it away. When will it stop?"

Original article

Ice Mountain water comparison by Det News