Hacker News Reader

Comment by ucaetano | Hacker News Reader

> Nestlé's request to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to pump 576,000 gallons of water each day

For perspective, all of Michigan uses 9 billion gallons of water each day. Nestle will be using 0.006% of what the state uses.

Looking just at groundwater, Michigan uses 690 million gallons of water per day. Nestle will be using 0.08% of what the state uses.

This is irrelevant. And I'm glad the personal opinion of 80k comments was ignored.

Source: http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7-135-3313_3684_45331-370...

View on HN

This is not a useful comparison. It equates statewide use to a factory that will presumably source water from a focused area. What are the conditions like at the site of the factory? Can that site accommodate that intake? Is 0.5m the final scale of the factory?

Maybe it's not a big deal, maybe it is, but you can't use wide geographic generalizations like this to dismiss the concern.

That is all covered by the environmental report, as it should be:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-dwmad-eh-swpu-Fina...

4) The supply potential of the water source, considering quantity, quality, and reliability and safe yield of hydrologically interconnected water sources;

Application materials, extensive evaluation and consideration by staff, along with experience with the aquifer in the area, lead staff to conclude that the aquifer can sustain the proposed withdrawal without deleterious effects to the dependent resources.

The ruckus and commotion by the public is just pointless and useless activism.

If you can't understand why there's so much ruckus and commotion by the public you shouldn't be calling it pointless or useless.

People are angry because of the disaster that was Flint. When government officials refuse to answer for large-scale disasters, people resort to other outlets and places to direct their anger. People are angry because they see corporations swooping in to bottle and sell more water in the same state where those people are suffering due to greed and failure.

> If you can't understand why there's so much ruckus and commotion by the public you shouldn't be calling it pointless or useless.

I can understand, but that doesn't make it any less pointless or useless.

> People are angry because of the disaster that was Flint. When government officials refuse to answer for large-scale disasters, people resort to other outlets and places to direct their anger. People are angry because they see corporations swooping in to bottle and sell more water in the same state where those people are suffering due to greed and failure.

Sure, and the two issues are disconnected. Not only that, but the protests and anger actually cause a loss of value to society and to the state.

And saying that this protest is pointless and useless doesn't mean I don't sympathize with those suffering at Flint.

Flint is not even close to the only issue. Locals are aware of the damage Nestle has already caused to the local ecosystem by dropping the water supply. There is also much worry that legal draw limits were not set with that area's situation in mind, but Nestle is pointing to the legal rate and saying everything will be okay.

For perspective, one teacup holds 150ml of liquid. Nestle will be using 14 535 981 teacups of water.

Is this a relevant comparison? Just as much so as comparing a local watershed-impacting factory to a state's usage.

> Just as much so as comparing a local watershed-impacting factory to a state's usage.

Well, since you ask, here's the watershed comparison:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-dwmad-eh-swpu-Fina...

4) The supply potential of the water source, considering quantity, quality, and reliability and safe yield of hydrologically interconnected water sources;

That's excellent information to have, thank you for the link!

No problem, I happen to be very close with a professional environmental engineer. It is amazing the amount of work put into modeling environmental impact, especially on hydro models. A lot of the original models and methods still used today were developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers.

Maybe their opinions were based on principle. I know you do not care, but your dismissal of 80k people you don't and will never know says volumes about you as a person.

Personal attacks are not allowed on HN, regardless of how wrong another commenter may be. We ban accounts that do this, so would you please not post like this again?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> I know you do not care, but your dismissal of 80k people you don't and will never know says volumes about you as a person.

Thanks for the ad hominem.

It isn't that I care or not, approving this well is a technical environmental decision, and shouldn't depend on how much people scream. It doesn't matter if there were 10 million people against it, the agency isn't there to evaluate public support for a project, it is there to evaluate the technical and environmental aspects of the project.

Don't let an angry crowd make technical decisions.

> Thanks for the ad hominem.

That wasn’t an ad hominem. The parent was making an observation—unnecessary as it may be and regardless of its accuracy—on your character based on your comments. The parent was not dismissing your argument based on or by switching to refuting it with a personal attack of your character.

> approving this well is a technical environmental decision, and shouldn't depend on how much people scream.

That's completely incorrect because the state is run by politically elected leadership who ultimately answer to the people. If the people hated Nestle because its factories were painted green, they have the right to complain and ultimately vote for leadership that would disallow Nestle to paint their factories green.

> That's completely incorrect because the state is run by politically elected leadership who ultimately answer to the people.

This isn't being voted by elected officials, this is being approved by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality following the standard procedure set in law by elected officials.

> If the people hated Nestle because its factories were painted green, they have the right to complain and ultimately vote for leadership that would disallow Nestle to paint their factories green.

Yes, and they should do so at the ballot or at their elected officials.

Or are you suggesting that any laws and regulations are legally void when 80k people comment against it?

> If the people hated Nestle because its factories were painted green, they have the right to complain and ultimately vote for leadership that would disallow Nestle to paint their factories green.

What if they didn't like Nestle hiring black people?

You have the right to complain, yes. That doesn't mean you automatically get your way. Not even if everyone votes for it.

again, the Civil Rights Act was passed by a politically elected congress.

Not sure why everyone is so upset by my post that essentially is reiterating, "the people have a right to be heard and they ultimately elect how their town/state/country is run".

> again, the Civil Rights Act was passed by a politically elected congress.

Imagine a hypothetical world where the South won the Civil War and successfully seceded.

The elected government of the Confederate States of America says that black people have no civil rights whatsoever.

Okay by you?

You've been breaking the site guidelines by getting into flamewars. Please don't do that—it's just what we don't want here.

A comment like this one also breaks the guideline that says: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com