Battling over Bottled Water - Essay Example

What initially started out as simply an economic investment for both Nestlé and the state of Michigan, the drastic increase in water being taken from the local ecosystem has started an environmental and ethical debate. The whole case is a battle between a company that claims legal authority to pump as much water as they desire from a public water source and the community backed up by the government that on the other side is lobbying for environmental conservation.

Ethical analysis

When analyzing the situation, it is important to look at the social obligations and relationships between the affected parties. The officials elected are there because of their relationship with the citizens; if they refuse to barter on behalf of those within their districts, then they are not upholding their moral responsibility to the people. It can even be argued that, as humans, we have a relationship with our environment and, therefore, a duty to uphold and protect it from harm. As the government tries to safeguard the environment it must also put into consideration the economic and financial gain they receive from Nestle Company through taxes and also providing employment to the citizens at much higher salary rates than any other company in the state. The bottled water market is worth “$6 billion in annual sales” (Barry & Shaw, 2014, p. 131), with monetary gain assured for Nestlé if they triple their output. The company is also supplying water to the majority of the citizens in Michigan State with clean drinking water, the product they never used to have before it was launched.

The company, however, has several negative impacts on the environment and the entire ecosystem of Michigan State by increasing its pumping rate from 130 gallons per minute to 400 gallons per minute. Over a continuous period, the number of fish in the water body will decrease drastically due to water shortage, and hence fishing will also be edged out of the economy of the state.

Ideas relevant in this debate would be environmental justice and equity for the people in Michigan communities. If water rapidly disappears, it also becomes an issue of efficiency with the renewability of supplies becoming in question. Nestlé has to deal with customer satisfaction, but also the satisfaction of their state business partners. It should work on modalities of moderating their production in a manner that will serve the customers to satisfy and generate enough profit while at the same time conserving the environment not to infringe on other people’s right to use the water body.

Solution

In solving the water battle between environmental conservation lobby groups and the Nestle Company several factors have to be put into consideration. On the part of the government of Michigan State, it should give an unbiased verdict on the case regulating the amount of water the company should pump. The amount that the company was legalized to use of 250 gallons per minute was an optimum amount that could sustain its operations so the government should ensure that that law is followed without violation. Putting into consideration the effects of global warming which risks the entire world of water shortage by 2025 this amount of water should keep reducing every year so as to take care of all the other users of the water body. For example, “scientists opposed to the project argue that Nestlé’s pumping has already lowered the local water table and that northern pike is having trouble spawning in a stream fed by Sanctuary Spring” (Shaw & Barry, 2014 pg. 132). Nestle usage is not reasonable.

Another issue that has to be handled clearly in order to focus on the greater benefit to the entire Michigan state ecosystem and population is the period of lease for which nestle company are to pump water from the water body. The period of 99 years is far from a reasonable time if at all the environment is to be conserved. This lease has, therefore, to be shortened to, say, ten or twenty years, and also the rate of water pumping must also be reduced. The company should not be selfish in its business ambitions to completely deplete a water source that is a source of living for many other people and animals.