Embedded Files
Introduction
Introduction
Nestlé’s groundwater extraction, particularly in Northern Michigan, has sparked controversy over its impact on water access, the economy, and legal disputes. Water is one of the most basic things people need to survive and because of this, having access to water is essential to life. There have been debates around if it should be a resource available to all or sold as a product by private companies. Nestlé argues for the privatization of water because they believe that water management is more efficient and sustainable when handled by private companies rather than public entities, which is a direct attack on access to water. As companies like Nestlé extract water from the ground they often leave the communities with no economic benefit. The company’s extraction has been linked to declining water tables, despite legal challenges and protests from environmental groups who want to see the extraction stopped. Nestlé often does not break any laws or get penalized because Michigan's groundwater laws are outdated and fail to protect rural communities from their exploitation. The communities that are targeted by Nestlé are often low income and do not have the money to fight back. Understanding the social and economic consequences of Nestlé’s groundwater extraction on local residents and businesses in Northern Michigan through an analysis of over-extraction, groundwater laws, corporate influence, and human rights.
Research Question
Research Question
How does Nestlé’s groundwater extraction impact water access and the economic well-being of residents and businesses in Northern Michigan?
Literature Review
Literature Review
Water access is declining as Nestlé continues extraction despite community protests.
Economic inequality grows as Nestlé profits while local communities see little benefit.
Weak water laws favor corporations, making legal challenges difficult for residents.
Activists argue that water should be a public right, not a corporate commodity.
Over-extraction harms ecosystems, depletes aquifers, and increases pollution.
Nestlé’s financial power allows it to outlast communities in legal battles.
Continued extraction threatens water security, property values, and local economies.
Hydro-Hegemony Framework
Hydro-Hegemony Framework
The Hydro-Hegemony framework explains how powerful actors, like large companies or governments, can control water resources by using three main factors: riparian position, power, and exploitation potential.
Riparian Position: This is about where the actor is located in relation to the water. The closer you are to the water source, the more control you can have over it.
Power: This refers to the ability to influence decisions and rules around water use. The more resources (like money or legal influence) an actor has, the more they can control how water is distributed.
Exploitation Potential: This is the ability to use the water resource to its fullest, often for profit, without facing consequences. Powerful actors can use their resources to make sure they keep control, while weaker groups struggle to protect their access.
This framework helps explain the power imbalance between Nestlé and the low income communities in Northern Michigan.
References
References
Hall, N. D. (2007). Federal and state laws regarding bottled water-an overview and recommendations for reform. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1072887
Jaffee, D. & Case, R. (2018). Draining us dry: Scarcity discourses in contention over bottled water extraction. Local Environment, 23(4): 485–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2018.1431616
Kumar, R., Mishra, A., & Goyal, M. K. (2024). Water neutrality: concept, challenges, policies, and recommendations. Groundwater for Sustainable Development, 26, 101306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2024.101306
Lusch, D. P. (2011). An overview of existing water law in Michigan related to irrigation water use and riparian considerations. Institute of Water Research, Michigan State University. https://www.canr.msu.edu/uploads/236/43605/lyndon/Michigan_Water_Law.pdf
Mechlem, K. (2016). Groundwater governance: The role of legal frameworks at the local and national level—Established practice and emerging trends. Water, 8(8), 347. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8080347
Nehaluddin, A., & Lilienthal, G. (2021). Right to water as a human right: A critical overview of international instruments. Environmental Policy and Law, 50(4-5), 299-308. https://doi.org/10.3233/EPL-200232
Prasanna, S., Verma, P., & Bodh, S. (2024). The role of food industries in sustainability transition: A review. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04642-1
Schroering, C. (2019). Water is a human right! Grassroots resistance to corporate power. Journal of World-Systems Research, 25(1), 28–34. https://doi.org/10.5195/jwsr.2019.899
Silva, J. A. (2024). Ethics of manufacturing and supplying bottled water: a systematic review. Sustainability, 16(8), 3488. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16083488
Westmaas, R. (2021). Old law, new solution: Bottling water in the great lakes states. Michigan State Law Review (2). https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/mslr2021&i=684
Zeitoun, M., Eid-Sabbagh, K., Talhami, M. and Dajani, M. (2013). Hydro-hegemony in the Upper Jordan waterscape: Control and use of the flows. Water Alternatives 6(1): 86-106. https://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/alldoc/articles/vol6/v6issue1/200-a6-1-5/file
Zeitoun, M., & Warner, J. (2006). Hydro-hegemony–a framework for analysis of trans-boundary water conflicts. Water Policy, 8(5), 435-460. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2006.054
Page updated
Report abuse