Forum Index > Stewardship > Crystal Geyser Co wants to tap Lewis Co aquifer
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Anne Elk
BrontosaurusTheorist



Joined: 07 Sep 2018
Posts: 647 | TRs
Location: Seattle
Anne Elk
  Top

BrontosaurusTheorist
PostFri Jun 14, 2019 6:34 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Brian R wrote:
I signed on here about a year ago to share trip reports, ideas, and, occasionally, stewardship thoughts related directly to trails, wilderness, and access. It appears the site moderators value green barkers more than experienced outdoorsmen and women willing to share their, well, experiences. Unfortunately, there is just too much noise here for me to remain.

The global warming thread is up to, what, 600+ pages? We have topical divisions in the forum, and indexes to the topics; you don't have to wade through stuff you're not interested in. My whole intent in starting the thread was to bring attention to, and express concern over the trend of what Ski simply described:

Quote:
an attempt to privatize what should be a publicly-owned and managed commodity: drinking water

Some here don't see that as a problem, at least locally; but there are more insidious, underlying issues re commerce law, thus the digression.  Plastics are the scourge of the earth, and bottling water is a stupid, unnecessary contribution to plastic proliferation, but that wasn't MY point in starting this thread. MtnGoat and a few others (including yourself) have interpreted my comments as an attack on capitalism and the (alleged) free market. Contrary to your claim, I don't see where MtnGoat accused me of "selective outrage" at all.

Brian R wrote:
Anne Elk wrote:
I don't think you're following some of the underlying issues... our water supplies become subject to public policy issues governing commerce, where it's been demonstrated that corporate priorities and contracts are taking precedence as a matter of law over the needs and wishes of a community.  So much for democracy.

Trite, that last bit. If you could better explain or illustrate what you mean above, it would read like more than rote.

My point was that the buying up of water rights by multinational corporations subjects our domestic water supplies to trade agreements and laws governing commerce in general, which, if history is any example, take precedence over a community's access to its own drinking water.  There are several citations demonstrating this in the threads.

Yes, I'm well aware that the USA is a republic and the implications thereof; in fact, I'd venture to say I know quite a bit more about it than you do, if these remarks are any indication:
Brian R wrote:
...government's job is to regulate...

...The US Congress--or, perhaps even Washington State----could deal with this water issue if they believed it to be a problem...EPA or the courts could step in if they believed an affront to "waters of the United States" was in play. They haven't, because there isn't."

...Capitalism is steered by our votes, albeit slowly."

"...government's job is to regulate..." And how they do it, and in whose interest, is part of the problem; baked right into the legal system.  Your last remark is a real chuckler, considering that most of our laws these days are written by proxies for corporate interests and our agencies run by shills for the same.  And it didn't just start with the current administration.

I challenge you to sit thru the Democracy School videos I cited earlier. Bet you can't tell me that there was nothing in there that you didn't already know.  This taping of an actual class was held in Spokane, coincidentally.  One can skip the intro preliminaries in the first video for the juicy stuff starting at 19:32.

Sorry about the digression from a simple PSA into material that's probably a little too close to one of the forbidden topics that shall not be discussed.   hockeygrin.gif

--------------
"There are yahoos out there.  Itís why we canít have nice things."  - Tom Mahood
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((į>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 10000 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((į>
PostFri Jun 14, 2019 7:38 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
yeah well.... the reality is that "Stewardship" is all about politics, no matter how you slice or dice it, so there's no use in trying to dance around it.

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Anne Elk
BrontosaurusTheorist



Joined: 07 Sep 2018
Posts: 647 | TRs
Location: Seattle
Anne Elk
  Top

BrontosaurusTheorist
PostSun Jun 16, 2019 4:29 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
The latest news from Lewis County, with lots of critical details: Bottling Proposal Draws Fierce Opposition in Randle  One thing not mentioned in the article was whether a rezone would be involved, and whether or not such happened before the company bought the land (for 3x the assessed value).

from the article:
Quote:
Most of the site, save for the northwest corner of the property, is designated as floodplain, meaning Crystal Geyser would need to do extensive mitigation work to be able to build there ó especially for a project of the magnitude itís proposing. The sliver of property thatís outside of the floodplain, however, is designated as a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area...

...The Cowlitz watershed is among the areas currently under a state-declared drought emergency...

...Opponents point to stories around the country ó a depleted trout stream in Michigan, dried-up springs in California ó as evidence of the bottled water industryís ecological destruction. In the Northwest, efforts by bottling giant Nestle to extract water have been stymied by strong local opposition in places like Walla Walla and the Oregon cities of Cascade Lakes and Goldendale.

The danger is that these small communities end up completely sand-bagged by large corporations, as Crystal Geyser's parent company did to Weed, CA:

Quote:
...CG Roxane made a deal to purchase water supplied from springs owned by a lumber company. Those springs had been the source of Weedís water supply, and the company told the city it would need to find a new source ó privatizing and exporting what had long been a community resource. That shift, announced in 2016, is enmeshed in its own legal dispute.

The Crystal Geyser plant proposed for the Shasta area (mentioned in the above article) is now deeply into its own legal dispute. Among other oversights, the local gov't geniuses down there approved the preliminary application and studies without setting any limits on how much water the company could draw.

The citizens will likely find out that in the absence of other over-arching water protections for the region, once the company corrects the flaws in the enviro reviews and performs any required mitigations, the citizens won't be able to stop the project, because the corporate rights to a "permitted use" will take precedence.  This is one of the foundational flaws in our legal system.

--------------
"There are yahoos out there.  Itís why we canít have nice things."  - Tom Mahood
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((į>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 10000 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((į>
PostSun Jun 16, 2019 9:04 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Alex Brown, reporting for the Daily Chronicle wrote:
That dispute involves the Crystal Geyser Water Company, which is technically a different legal entity than CG Roxane. However, the two are affiliates of the same Japanese company, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, and share the same California address.

Why don't they go extract water in Japan?

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Anne Elk
BrontosaurusTheorist



Joined: 07 Sep 2018
Posts: 647 | TRs
Location: Seattle
Anne Elk
  Top

BrontosaurusTheorist
PostMon Jul 22, 2019 2:24 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Latest update: Crystal Geyser COO accidentally forwards email intended for CG president to Lewis County news reporter, revealing suggestions for hardball tactics in lieu of successful PR:  cheers.gif

Crystal Geyser mistakenly emails Chronicle


Interview w/Chronicle reporter on KUOW.

--------------
"There are yahoos out there.  Itís why we canít have nice things."  - Tom Mahood
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Bernardo
Member
Member


Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 1963 | TRs
Location: out and about in the world
Bernardo
  Top

Member
PostMon Jul 22, 2019 4:55 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
The idea that peoples' views reflected in purchasing decions are a valid way to assess societal utility has a lot of merit.  But like most things in economics there are agent problems to consider.  In our form of government we are represented by agents whose interests may not allign perfectly with the general good or our own specific interests.  I'd go so far as to say it's foolish to believe that just because a contract is signed between our agents and a private entity and that there is a market demand for the ensuing product, in this case water, it can be assumed that our agents have represented us well.  Without constant scrutiny it is a certainty that the interests of the appointed agents will diverge significantly from those of the general public.  So I see little value in debating the philosophy, but if I wanted to make a decision based on a paradigm, I'd consider it more conservative and prudent to be cautious about selling things and making decisions with long term, possibly unknowable consequences.  The specific facts matter, but must include the full set of externalities through time.   It's probably a safe bet, that they have not been truly considered and that agent interests are not alligned with the general good.

While I can't judge the facts in this case, I'd be conservative and not make a long term commitment until provided with overwhelmingly convincing evidence of the merits of the proposal.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 48 | TRs
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
  Top

Member
PostMon Sep 16, 2019 8:13 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Opinion: Bottled Water Is Sucking Florida Dry
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Pyrites
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Sep 2014
Posts: 1198 | TRs
Location: South Sound
Pyrites
  Top

Member
PostWed Sep 18, 2019 1:19 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Iíd thought the biggest barrier was going to be crossing traffic with left hand, uphill turn, from Peters Rd onto Hwy 12 with heavy loaded semiís 40 or 50 times a day.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Crystal Geyser Co wants to tap Lewis Co aquifer
  Happy Birthday Creaky Knees, ryleymyers!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy