Battle Over the Bottle

The people who want to do it should be transported to the Sahara.

It's madness....who says it's their water to sell .

I know lets sucK out the whole atmosphere and compress it...we can then sell it peopleto breath.

This is capitalism gone mad.

Preliminary reviews of the Mount Shasta project indicate minimal environmental impact.
Yeh right..and I'm my Grannie's foot.

My preliminary reviews show that preliminary reviews are expedient horse feathers doubtless commissioned by those who want to steal this water....

Yes folks it's good old fashioned theft...

Del

Actually , mssr. kitty with long bow, That model has actually been tried. Our FDA looks askance at it, but here perhaps is the next krisdel (tm) entrepreneurial venture:

http://www.airheads1.com/

milo Doesn't the arrowhead kind squish the mice?

As long as they own the source. Can show that their is no environmental damage due to their construction that they are unwilling to clean up. That their will be no environmental damage as lost of wildlife and habitat that depends on what the stream provides. That the drawing of the water will not impact others that use the water down steam. As drinking water or lively hood as farms. I see no problem.

How on earth can they own the source?????

How can they tell where it comes from??
It may spring up on their land...but who knows where it has flowed underneath?

I see how they can own the fishing rights or navigation rights (although maybe that could be debatable).

The whole ownership of land is an interesting debate... especially in the UK.. where most of it got handed out by Kings (who won their position by force of arms) to people who helped them usually in battle of 'Other ways' in Henry VIII s case.

Maybe I should take my longbow and fight for some land?... cos that's how most of it got 'claimed'

In the USA you have a bit more of the stuff to go around , ah yes and you had the 'Landrush' wher you could stake your claim, at least that was a bit 'fairer'...although didn't the land belong to the natives in the first place?...(I knew that watching Westerns as a kid would be usefull one day)

Anyhow...trying to avoid politics, but it is an interesting question.

Del

All land belongs to the king, er, government. All you own are certain rights to use or transfer use. In every country it seems to be the same. And eminent domain is how they force you to give up the rights you own so the government can use your land, sometimes by selling those rights to someone else who will build a bigger house and pay more taxes [rent to the government] for using the land. It is not Constitutional if you read the words as written, but $ makes a lot of things that are wrong happen.

In this case if you "own" the land that the spring is on, you own the spring and are allowed to use it as you wish, providing that use does no harm to anyone. In some places you do not own fishing rights in a stream and people can fish in the creek behind your house as long as they do not set foot on shore and commit trespass. Laws are weird too.

Actually, given Californias history of water rights battles going back to the gold rush, you are limited in your use of groundwater sources even if you own the land. You must abide by the water code, CWA, and a huge number of other water laws in the State. You have some rights to use the water, and there are water transfer practices and such that occur under these rights, where northern california lands are removed from agriculture so the rights can be transferred for the average crop use to the sacramento river where they are conveyed to LA. Far northern California actually doesn't have a shortage of water over the region, they just lack conveyance to move water where they need it, and are out competed for rights to the water by LA. Purchasers buy rights, and convey the waters south for resale. some are for the environmental benefit, but most protect the rights of the state and other water rights holders. The water and land are the property of the people of the State, the government in theory functions as the agent of the people.

Also, typically what is perceived as a drought in california is actually just a mismanagement of water prior to and during a dry period. The Drought of the 1970s was one of the worst water shortages, but not a particularly bad dry period (only 2 consecutive dry years). This was perceived as a severe drought because water resources were mismanaged by government agencies prior to and during the dry period (there have been mouch longer and drier period since in california). Typically the term drought in California just means LA or sometime SF are having a water shortage during a dry year.

To my mind there is virtually no way in this situation that they can "own the source". They may own the land from where they remove the water, but if it is a stream, or a lake it belongs to all. Perhaps, if they would drill into an aquifer that is at such a depth below the surface that they cannot possibly interfere with water needed by anyone else it might be considered as their owners rights...

It is true a steam or lake belong to the State, but not all citizens of the State have rights to use of the stream or lake. As property owners they will have riparian right to streams on their property, and groundwater underlying the property. However, these rights may be superceded by certain public agencies, such as water district, who may have obtained either the surface or groundwater rights for the property, or by government agencies responsible for compliance with the laws and regulations of the State when there is a violation that necessitate restrictions or removal of rights. Water rights are quite similar to land ownership rights, you do not actually own the land, the State does, you just have specific rights to utilize the land. They will only need to demonstrate no significant adverse impact to current users, the public and the environment

If the water is put into glass bottles, that is eco friendly. But one of the worlds most un-eco friendly devices happens to be plastic bottles?

Every year thousands of these gets washed ashore from the worlds oceans, and there is an enormous pool of these bottles in the middle of the pacific ocean, they are then eaten by sharkes and other marine creatures which happens to kill a vast amount of sea animals!

Spencer.

Once big business moves in to bottle water they want more and more. They start out small. This happened in Western Michigan. If you can keep th ebig boys out of town that is th ebest thing. Consider the local community doing th project and having the employees own it.

My brother has a "certified" natural spring water bottling plant, Ledgerock Springs on our farm in Wisconsin. The spring water can be traced to the origin. This water comes from the Niagra Escarpment. The interesting thing about the springs (7) are that they were the only ones in the area that were certified for bottling. The water is 100% free of any pollutants. The water never gets above 40F. At 42F bacteria has a chance to grow. We had a bottle of the water sitting in the sun for over 5 yrs and it was just as it came out of the ground. We had it tested and also drank what was left after the test. Water of this quality is very rare throughout the world.

The sad part of this quality water is it is in plastic bottles. I am working with him to try to convert to another container. It is very expensive to do this.

John

"Work Hard Work Safe"

Try glass or paper.

Prior to my current job, I spent 8 years working for a local Bottled water company. We dealt solely with the large 18.9L size, marketing under the company label and custom bottling for several other companys as well. The fellow I worked for had done extensive work getting government approval, doing water quality testing, etc. and was licensed to a maximum volume per year. The spring and bottling plant were on his own property and the investment of capital was all his own. Not a large corporation with its inherent greed!

During my time in the water business I heard many stories regarding quality issues and carelessness in the industry. Also many wild ideas on where to get water, mostly gimics to try to attract customers. Glacial water, treated/filtered lake water, river water, etc. were all sources for bottled water. When considering the lack of water we need to look closely at usage. Bottled water is merely being re-routed, through our bodies, before continuing on its merry way to the sea. Better to control the permanent removal of huge volumes of water being used for deep well injection in the petroleum industry. Stronger promotion of a bottle recycling programs would help with the waste. Water shortages now and in the future will continue to be a growing issue that each of us needs to address in what ever way we can.

To paraphrase Robin Williams, 'bottled water is God's way of telling us we have too much money.' My family (4) and I go through a case every couple of weeks. They are handy to take along in the car, to work, school etc., but they are a disaster for the environment. At least try to refill them several times (research indicates that after two or three days they become a health risk).

One of the underlying problems is that in many locations the quality of the water supply is not good. It may technically be healthy, but only because of the high chlorine content, which makes it taste and smell bad, and probably is itself a long term health risk.

As for Mt Shasta water, that is a stunningly beautiful area, but it's practically a desert, and will probably get worse as California slips into a drought (yes even Nor Cal). No doubt there is considerable underground water from centuries of snow melt, but rumor has it that those conditions are a thing of the past. Better bottle it up fast before its gone.

With our increasing human population and rising standards of living, all the good sources of water are already taken, are being depleted, and polluted. Competition over fresh water will probably be one of the dominant themes when and if the history of the current century is written.

Bottled Antarctic ice sheets anyone?

Well we will be safe here on the East Coast of the USA because of all the Coal plants buring high sulpher coal in the west. The winds move all the micro mercury from those smoke stacks to our rivers, steams and lakes. We have had do not eat catfish warning here in Eastern Tennessee over the years because of the levels.

<...The winds move all the micro mercury from those smoke stacks to our rivers, steams and lakes....>

Don't forget all the radioactive stuff in it as well (ever pointed a Geiger Counter at a large lump of coal?).

Hi PWSlack,

As a mineralogist I own a geiger counter, and I have only ever found one lump of coal that was slightly radio-active!

It is a falacy to believe that all coal is radio-active eg, the coal from the Newton Grange coliery in Scotland was never radio-active, neither was the coal from Nottinghamshire.

Spencer.