Californians are stupid

[Tgo01]

Proof. (http://www.businessinsider.com/protesters-drought-shaming-nestle-out-of-california-2015-5)


Pressure is growing for Nestle Waters to move its water bottling operations out of drought-stricken California.

Last month, Southern California newspaper The Desert Sun reported that Nestle had been drawing water from an area just north of Palm Springs for nearly 30 years without officially testing how the bottling operation may be affecting the environment. According to the Sun, the company also has not renewed its permit to transport water from the forest since 1988.

In response to these reports and a growing sense of alarm about the situation in the state, protestors gathered outside two Nestle plants on Wednesday to demand that the company stop bottling water in the state. Many of them waved signs referencing a petition that has gotten 500,000 signatures and demands that the company leave California.

From a protest I was at earlier today outside Nestle's water-bottling facility in South LA. pic.twitter.com/ebSkRIDRQo
— Charles Davis (@charliearchy) May 20, 2015

Growing protest outside #Nestle bottling site; demand company stop tapping CA #Water amid #drought @KNX1070 pic.twitter.com/qbytPbBhED
— Margaret Carrero (@MargaretCarrero) May 20, 2015

Representatives from the San Bernardino National Forest Service, the area of land where Nestle is bottling its water, told the Sun they didn't know the permit had expired. They also said that they were in the process of investigating the operation's environmental impacts.

Business Insider's request for comment from the San Bernardino National Forest Service wasn't immediately returned.

Despite the protests, Nestle seems unlikely to back down from its water bottling operations.

In an interview with KPCC earlier in May, Nestle Waters North America's CEO Tim Brown defended his company's decision to draw water from the state, pointing out that "If I stop bottling water tomorrow, people would buy a different brand of bottled water." He then added, "In fact, if I could increase [bottling], I would.”

Other companies have responded to calls to stop bottling operations in California. Last week, for example, Starbucks declared it would be moving its bottling operations out of state.

But others have continued to bottle water despite the drought. Wal-Mart, for example, still bottles water in California, as do companies at more than 100 other plants that are still licensed to bottle water in the state.

So...you're against a company bottling water and selling the water to residents to drink because...there is a water shortage...

Meanwhile you have people with thousands of gallons of swimming pools and lush green lawns and 10 leaky toilets around their house and no one gives a shit.

California. Am I right?!

[SHAFT]

California knows how to party! In the city, of LA, in the city, of good ole watts, in the city, city of Compton, we keep it jumpin!

[Peppwyn]

It takes very little water to maintain a pool and lush green lawn. You seriously think fixing leaky toilets is going to impact a drought like the one we're having?

[Back]

TgoO1 had nothing to be mad at today so he picked on the people who were having a difficult time right now.

[everan]

It takes very little water to maintain a pool and lush green lawn. You seriously think fixing leaky toilets is going to impact a drought like the one we're having?

I'm not sure, but don't underestimate leaks. A leak can waste up to 10,000 gallons a years. Not sure how many leaky toilets are in California, but it can add up.

http://www.epa.gov/WaterSense/pubs/fixleak.html

[Tgo01]

It takes very little water to maintain a pool and lush green lawn.

I'll buy into the argument that it takes little water to maintain a pool but the initial filling is a whole heckuva lot of water. I also disagree about a lush green lawn taking very little water. Where I live we actually get a decent amount of rainfall and I still have to water our yard quite a bit to get it to stay green, I can't even imagine how much more I would have to water it if we got as little rainfall as some areas of California get.


You seriously think fixing leaky toilets is going to impact a drought like the one we're having?

A leaky toilet can waste up to 250+ gallons of water a day. 250 gallons of water a day is almost 100,000 gallons a year, for 1 leaky toilet. Let's say California has one million leaky toilets, that's 100 billion gallons of water wasted every year. Still a drop in the bucket (/rimshot!) compared to how much water California uses every year but still, that shit adds up. I would also be shocked if this plant they are protesting uses that much water in a year, but even if they did they are selling that water to people to drink, they aren't literally flushing it down the toilet.

[caelric]

Well, apparently, something is working, because overall, southern California exceeded their conservation goals. (So much so, of course, that some water companies are having to charge extra because their revenue dropped so drastically)

I'm all in favor of letting lawns turn brown. A lush green lawn is not all that good for the environment, overall. I'm not a tree hugger, at all, given I'm mostly on the right side of the fence when it comes to politics, but trying to water a desert (which most of so Cal is) always seemed foolish to me.

[Wrathbringer]

Yes, it's well known that the CA state heraldry has "The Retarded State" in azure bold, a gay whale rampant, a tresser or."

[Latrinsorm]

If the water wasn't bottled, it would be available to everyone else to use municipally, which is to say it would alleviate the shortage. Bottled water companies don't create water ex nihilo.

[Tgo01]

If the water wasn't bottled, it would be available to everyone else to use municipally, which is to say it would alleviate the shortage. Bottled water companies don't create water ex nihilo.

Some people use well water, Latrin. Some people use well water!

It's already turning into pandemonium in California! People are protesting bottled water plants because that's their water and they don't want them to have any!

[Latrinsorm]

Whose water do you think it is if not the People's?

[Androidpk]

Whose water do you think it is if not the People's?

Just because you live in a particular state does not mean the natural resources are inherently yours.

[Tgo01]

Whose water do you think it is if not the People's?

Exactly. The water belongs to the people. But some people (using municipal water) want to make sure the water stays in the municipal. They don't want those dirty well water drinkers to have any of their water.

We're all on the same side! Until the water runs dry.

[time4fun]

So let me get this straight....you found an article highlighting that California is trying to crack down on Nestle- who is literally bottling publicly available water and selling it back to people- as one step of many in the fight against the drought...and that's an example of California being stupid because California should be taking steps to battle the drought?

For your sake, I sincerely hope you're pretty.

[Tgo01]

you found an article highlighting that California is trying to crack down on Nestle- who is literally bottling publicly available water and selling it back to people-

If Californians want to say businesses shouldn't be profiting on water then that's one thing. It's a very stupid argument considering literally (figuratively?) every business in the world profits on water, but hey, that's still an argument. Thinking this is going to have any noticeable effect on the water shortage is the joke here.


as one step of many in the fight against the drought...and that's an example of California being stupid because California should be taking steps to battle the drought?

California should be taking steps to battle the drought. But, like, things that will actually have an impact, and they shouldn't be biting off their nose to spite their face. How many people do these plants employ? How many people in the state buy the water and actually have a real need to buy the water (dry or almost dry wells)?

I really do wonder how many gallons of water these plants use to produce one gallon of water? I imagine compared to most businesses they use a lot less water for their given product but this is just a guess. If anyone has any actual numbers I'd love to see them. You also have to figure that even if it takes 2 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of bottled water they are realistically only wasting 1 gallon of water per gallon of bottled water they produce because...well...they are producing bottled water.


For your sake, I sincerely hope you're pretty.

I am quite pretty, yes.

[~Rocktar~]

If California would really like to do something about the water shortage, try lining and covering the various open air aqueducts they have like they had planned to in the 60s.

[Androidpk]

I'd be interested in seeing numbers as well. This issue jas come up before and I recall someone saying a bottling facility uses as much water as a single golf course. There are over 1000 golf courses in California.

Also, by far the largest user of water is the agriculture industry, especially meat. 1 lb of beef requires something like 50,000 gallons of water.

[Wrathbringer]

I'd be interested in seeing numbers as well. This issue jas come up before and I recall someone saying a bottling facility uses as much water as a single golf course. There are over 1000 golf courses in California.

Also, by far the largest user of water is the agriculture industry, especially meat. 1 lb of beef requires something like 50,000 gallons of water.

wow

[Ashliana]

Proof. (http://www.businessinsider.com/protesters-drought-shaming-nestle-out-of-california-2015-5)



So...you're against a company bottling water and selling the water to residents to drink because...there is a water shortage...

Meanwhile you have people with thousands of gallons of swimming pools and lush green lawns and 10 leaky toilets around their house and no one gives a shit.

California. Am I right?!

Californians are actually pretty annoyed at people who have those pools and lawns you're talking about.

See: LA Times: Drought intensifies debate on backyard pools (http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-pool-drought-20150602-story.html)
California drought: Rebates offered for ripping out lawns under nation's largest program (http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/us/california-drought-lawn-sod-replacement-rebates/)
California drought: lawns are unsustainable, but hold the concrete (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/lale-0630-water-drought-california-20150629-story.html)

The wealthier say "let us use what we pay for" -- a sentiment that's not particularly controversial in our society. I'd argue that bottled water, in general, is stupid--no matter which state it's bottled in--but you're trying to say "Californians are stupid hypocrites because they don't care about pools and lawns," a conclusion that doesn't follow from your argument. They could easily tier water usage at different prices to curb high demand -- price water at average consumption at regular cost, and then quickly ramp up the price for those who overuse, and divert those funds into better managing water demand.

[Tgo01]

Californians are actually pretty annoyed at people who have those pools and lawns you're talking about.

See: LA Times: Drought intensifies debate on backyard pools (http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-pool-drought-20150602-story.html)
California drought: Rebates offered for ripping out lawns under nation's largest program (http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/us/california-drought-lawn-sod-replacement-rebates/)
California drought: lawns are unsustainable, but hold the concrete (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/lale-0630-water-drought-california-20150629-story.html)

The wealthier say "let us use what we pay for" -- a sentiment that's not particularly controversial in our society. I'd argue that bottled water, in general, is stupid--no matter which state it's bottled in--but you're trying to say "Californians are stupid hypocrites because they don't care about pools and lawns," a conclusion that doesn't follow from your argument. They could easily tier water usage at different prices to curb high demand -- price water at average consumption at regular cost, and then quickly ramp up the price for those who overuse, and divert those funds into better managing water demand.

I only skimmed those links but did any of them involve people protesting at homes of people with lush green lawns or people protesting companies that build/maintain swimming pools?

[Androidpk]

So far I have only seen protests over water bottling and well fracking.

[Kembal]

California's entire water infrastructure needs a massive overhaul. It's not designed to collect and treat rainwater on a broad scale, which is ridiculous.

And yes, fixing broken pipes, toilets, etc. to stop leaks would be incredibly important as a conservation effort.

[Latrinsorm]

Just because you live in a particular state does not mean the natural resources are inherently yours.This does not answer my question.
Exactly. The water belongs to the people. But some people (using municipal water) want to make sure the water stays in the municipal. They don't want those dirty well water drinkers to have any of their water.Eliminating an international bottling operation reduces the strain on the local water supply, whether it is obtained via well or tap.
I really do wonder how many gallons of water these plants use to produce one gallon of water? I imagine compared to most businesses they use a lot less water for their given product but this is just a guess. If anyone has any actual numbers I'd love to see them. You also have to figure that even if it takes 2 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of bottled water they are realistically only wasting 1 gallon of water per gallon of bottled water they produce because...well...they are producing bottled water.You assume this 1 gallon of water will stay in California. Why?
I only skimmed those links but did any of them involve people protesting at homes of people with lush green lawns or people protesting companies that build/maintain swimming pools?http://lmgtfy.com/?q=people+protesting+at+homes+of+people+with+lush+ green+lawns There's even a hash tag for it, you ignorant slut.

[Tgo01]

Eliminating an international bottling operation reduces the strain on the local water supply, whether it is obtained via well or tap.

You misunderstood my point about well water users. You have failed. You suck. Do not pass GO. Just SUCK IT!


You assume this 1 gallon of water will stay in California. Why?

Who cares where it goes. Do Californians use bottled water? What's that...yes? So California wants to make sure all bottled water is imported because they failed at water management. Well fuck California. Don't make their problem our problem. They should fix their problem. But I suppose it is a liberal's wet dream to have an entire state with no industry so they can't use any water, and thus no one can work since there are no industry, yet they are dependent on others to provide food and water to them. Talk about the ultimate welfare state.

[Androidpk]

According to Nestle it takes 1.3 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon and all water bottled in California is sold in California.

[Tgo01]

According to Nestle it takes 1.3 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon and all water bottled in California is sold in California.

The fuckers!!!!! They are personally responsible for the water shortage in California!

Hey ho!
Hey ho!
Nestle has got to go!

[Latrinsorm]

The fuckers!!!!! They are personally responsible for the water shortage in California!

Hey ho!
Hey ho!
Nestle has got to go!Your grasp of meter is as flawed as your grasp of everything relevant to this thread. Good day, sir.

[Tgo01]

Your grasp of meter is as flawed as your grasp of everything relevant to this thread. Good day, sir.

My grasp of YOUR FACE!

[Androidpk]

Another tidbit, there are over 100 water bottling facilities in California. Nestle owns a grand total of 4 of those. RAAAAAAAAAAGE!

[Tgo01]

We need someone to blame! We can't blame ourselves! We can't blame our government! Quick, to Nestle!

[Androidpk]

Nestle is just an easy target but as I've mentioned their are much larger users of water. I'm still trying to find specifics and I'm too lazy to do the math but from the numbers I've gathered..

There are over halfa million beef cows in California. These cows are harvested when they are between 1200 and 1400 pounds. About 98% of the meat is used for one purpose or another. That is around 580 million pounds of beef annually. Each pound of beef can cost up to 50,000 gallons to produce...

[Androidpk]

This article is from last year but it goes into some detail about how much water is used in California for agricultural reasons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/opinion/meat-makes-the-planet-thirsty.html?_r=0

[Tgo01]

Yeah wasn't it something like 100 gallons of water for one almond or some shit too? It's pretty crazy. I don't think the typical Californian realizes how much money their agriculture industry brings into the state, all they see is large amounts of water being used and freak out.

California and Californians should be looking for ways to conserve and produce more water without fucking themselves over by driving out industries. But hey, I'm sure Pennsylvania appreciates Californians driving out the bottled water plant from Starbucks they scared outta California and in to their state.

[Latrinsorm]

Nestle is just an easy target but as I've mentioned their are much larger users of water. I'm still trying to find specifics and I'm too lazy to do the math but from the numbers I've gathered..

There are over halfa million beef cows in California. These cows are harvested when they are between 1200 and 1400 pounds. About 98% of the meat is used for one purpose or another. That is around 580 million pounds of beef annually. Each pound of beef can cost up to 50,000 gallons to produce...Nestlé is not using water to create anything. They are just moving water from A to B, and doing so with less efficiency and at higher price than the government would do. Comparing that to agriculture or food does not make sense. Terrence's point about employment is at least internally coherent.

[Tgo01]

They are just moving water from A to B, and doing so with less efficiency and at higher price than the government would do.

The government is not moving water to people who have dry wells. The government doesn't care about well people!

Those people rely on bottled water. Nestle is literally provided an essential service. But I guess people would prefer if the water was bottled across the country so it would cost a fortune to have it shipped into California to help these well people.

Won't someone think of the well people?


Terrence's point about employment is at least internally coherent.

Damn right!

I think.

[Latrinsorm]

The government is not moving water to people who have dry wells. The government doesn't care about well people! Those people rely on bottled water. Nestle is literally provided an essential service. But I guess people would prefer if the water was bottled across the country so it would cost a fortune to have it shipped into California to help these well people. Won't someone think of the well people? Damn right! I think.Nestlé is literally stealing from those people and selling them back their own possession at an outrageous markup.

[Tgo01]

Nestlé is literally stealing from those people and selling them back their own possession at an outrageous markup.

Okay. Wait. WAIT! Hold on. Shut up. Hold on.

Okay. The water Nestle is using is either in the ground or they get it from a municipality. So Nestle is pumping water out of the ground/buying it legally from a city like everyone else, bottling it, and delivering it to stores where people can go and buy it with absolutely zero effort on their part to get the water out of the ground or drive all the way to the nearest municipality to, like, I don't know, break open a fire hydrant and get water from them.

But somehow Nestle is "literally stealing" from those people?

Explain please. You have 120 seconds for your rebuttal.

[Ker_Thwap]

Nestle is just an easy target but as I've mentioned their are much larger users of water. I'm still trying to find specifics and I'm too lazy to do the math but from the numbers I've gathered..

There are over halfa million beef cows in California. These cows are harvested when they are between 1200 and 1400 pounds. About 98% of the meat is used for one purpose or another. That is around 580 million pounds of beef annually. Each pound of beef can cost up to 50,000 gallons to produce...

http://www.yourdoctorsorders.com/2014/12/how-much-water-to-make-a-pound-of-beef/ This guy does some better math.

[Androidpk]

Naturally, do you know how hard math is when completely blazed?

[Androidpk]

I don't know how much those numbers apply to California as it calculates using corn as feed. Cows in Cali are fed alfalfa which uses crazy amounts of water.

[Latrinsorm]

Okay. Wait. WAIT! Hold on. Shut up. Hold on. Okay. The water Nestle is using is either in the ground or they get it from a municipality. So Nestle is pumping water out of the ground/buying it legally from a city like everyone else, bottling it, and delivering it to stores where people can go and buy it with absolutely zero effort on their part to get the water out of the ground or drive all the way to the nearest municipality to, like, I don't know, break open a fire hydrant and get water from them. But somehow Nestle is "literally stealing" from those people? Explain please. You have 120 seconds for your rebuttal.They are not buying it legally; your article declares that their permit to transport water is expired. This is the same way that you are free to record public television for your personal use but you are not allowed to record and sell it without special clearance.

For the remaining 100 seconds, I will be playing Kina Grannis music via the medium of interpretive dance.

[Tgo01]

They are not buying it legally; your article declares that their permit to transport water is expired. This is the same way that you are free to record public television for your personal use but you are not allowed to record and sell it without special clearance.

For the remaining 100 seconds, I will be playing Kina Grannis music via the medium of interpretive dance.

Latrin Latrin Latrin. If only you had used those extra 100 seconds to research the whys and hows of the expired permit.

You're making it sound like Nestle decided to not renew their permit and were hoping to fly under the radar so they could continue to pump water out illegally. It's not totally your fault; that's how the Anti-Nestle news articles make it sound like. What actually happened is the Forest Service sucks and they've been just SOOOO busy with other shit lately that they haven't gotten around to renewing permits. Yes. This backlog is some 20+ years old apparently. That's government action at it's finest!

Here is Nestle themselves to explain, surely they would have no reason to lie about this. (http://www.nestle.com/aboutus/ask-nestle/answers/is-nestle-contributing-to-water-scarcity-in-california)


Question: Has Nestlé Waters North America been operating illegally without a valid permit in the San Bernardino National Forest?

No. We understand that our permit is one of hundreds awaiting renewal by the US Forest Service (USFS). The USFS has repeatedly informed Nestlé Waters North America (NWNA) that we can lawfully continue our operations pending the reissuance of our permit and that the provisions of our existing permit are still in force until the effective date of a new permit. NWNA has continued to receive and pay invoices from the USFS for the annual permit fee, as we have since it was first issued. We also continue to report our water use from the spring to the State Water Resources Control Board.


Question: What is the status of the permit, will it be renewed?

In a letter to Nestlé Waters North America dated 7th April 2015, the US Department of Agriculture, Office of the General Counsel stated that: “In the interim, until the US Forest Service renders a decision on Nestlé’s permit application, the current amended permit remains in full force and effect according to its terms, including those provisions requiring compliance with all relevant State and local laws, regulations and orders.” The US Forest Service is responsible for reissuing the special use permit, which covers the operation of our pipeline.