Michigan Truth Squad: Democrat candidates blast Nestlé’s ‘free’ water

The waters of Twin Creek in Osceola Township, just outside of Evart. The Creek is a tributary of the Muskegon River that’s about 2.5 miles away from the well where Nestlé wants to withdraw 400 gallons of water per minute.(Bridge photo by Jim Malewitz)

Update: Nestlé to allow feds to monitor water withdrawals in central Michigan
August 2018 update: Gretchen Whitmer wins Democratic primary for Michigan governor

The Democratic race for Michigan governor is getting spirited, but all three candidates still find plenty to agree on ‒ including criticism of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality for granting Nestlé Waters North America permission to tap up to 400 gallons of water per minute (up from 250 gallons) from one Osceola County well.

Gretchen Whitmer, Abdul El-Sayed and Shri Thanedar each spoke out against the proposal, in some cases even before Gov. Rick Snyder’s administration granted the permit in April.

Although their language differed, all three candidates were accurate in their main argument: Michigan is charging next to nothing to allow the Swiss conglomerate to make a handsome profit off the state’s water.


The claims

At a March 22 event, Whitmer, the former Senate minority leader from East Lansing, said: "We have Nestlé, that's pulling as much ground water out as they want and pay a one-time, minuscule fee for doing it."

In remarks posted to social media, she said Nestlé is “pulling as much water out of the ground without paying for it.”

In April, El-Sayed blasted the state’s decision to end free bottled water to lead-contaminated Flint while approving the Nestlé permit, two very different but emotional water issues.

"I want you to think about the lack of empathy that this governor has shown. In the same week that he basically turned on the taps free of charge for Nestlé, he shuts it off for Flint,” said El-Sayed, the city of Detroit’s former health director.

The statement followed other criticisms from El-Sayed about the permit.

Thanedar, an Ann Arbor businessman, took to social media to call the DEQ permit “absolutely unacceptable.”

“Nestlé has taken enough of our water, and they've done so paying only pennies on the dollar,” Thanedar wrote.

The facts

Nestlé has nine wells feeding its Michigan plant for its Ice Mountain brand. It pays $3.50 per thousand gallons it pumps from two of those wells owned by the City of Evart — the same utility rate residents pay, according to City Manager Zackary Szakacs.  

But the increased withdrawals aren’t from those wells. And even in that case, Nestlé and other ratepayers are technically paying to deliver the water, not for the water itself.

“Whether you’re taking the water for growing crops, building widgets, drinking water or bottling it, we don’t pay,” Noah Hall, a professor of environment and water law at Wayne State University, recently told Bridge.

The DEQ permit at issue applies to a well just outside of Evart, in Osceola Township. It’s outside of any municipal water system, so Nestlé does not pay utility bills for what could amount to more than 210 million gallons per year under the DEQ’s permit. Like other states, Michigan law generally allows property owners to take water under their land for free so long as it doesn’t interfere with river navigability or the rights of others.

Nestlé has told Bridge it “pays the costs to build and maintain the infrastructure, energy and taxes, like all other Osceola Township businesses who do not rely on the neighboring Evart municipal supply.”

But then what’s the “one-time, miniscule fee” Whitmer mentions? Or the “pennies on the dollar,” from Thanedar’s Facebook post?

Nestlé, which sold $4.5 billion in bottled water last year, pays an upfront $5,000 fee to the state for the processing of its environmental permit, as well as a $200 annual fee.

Those offset administrative costs of processing the permits, but again, don’t pay for the water.

Whitmer, El_-Sayed, Thanedar
The Call

The verdict

Yes, Nestlé is basically getting the Osceola Township water for “free” or “without paying for it.” It’s also true that Nestlé pays the state small fees associate with its pumping — dollars that are dwarfed by its profits.

And while the candidates could have noted that other states also charge little for water, their statements nonetheless are accurate.


Facts matter. Trust matters. Journalism matters.

If you learned something from the story you're reading please consider supporting our work. Your donation allows us to keep our Michigan-focused reporting and analysis free and accessible to all. All donations are voluntary, but for as little as $1 you can become a member of Bridge Club and support freedom of the press in Michigan during a crucial election year.

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Donate now

Comment Form

Add new comment

Dear Reader: We value your thoughts and criticism on the articles, but insist on civility. Criticizing comments or ideas is welcome, but Bridge won’t tolerate comments that are false or defamatory or that demean, personally attack, spread hate or harmful stereotypes. Violating these standards could result in a ban.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.


Michael Kiella, PhD
Tue, 05/08/2018 - 9:48am

What more should we know about the sustainability of the aquifer, and expert description and assessment on the impact of Nestle's action?

Jim Malewitz
Tue, 05/08/2018 - 9:55am

Hi, Dr. Kiella. Thanks for reading and commenting. You can find more of our Nestle-related coverage here and here.

karen weaver
Tue, 05/08/2018 - 10:06am

Wouldn't it have been a win-win for the Governor to demand that Nestle pick up the free water bottle distribution to the city of Flint that the state decided to stop?

Tue, 05/08/2018 - 11:06am

Pure Michigan...Surprised the state didn't pay Nestle for Nestle to steal the water.

Tue, 05/08/2018 - 1:29pm

Seems reasonable - NOT! The state of the aquifer is another issue. The primary issue is another give away by the Nerd and his minions. The next question is why weren't our elected officials representing their constituents wants by screaming about this what amounts to a freebie where vast profits are made without paying but a trivial amount {$200.00} for the our states product. They didn't even wear masks or hoodies - or did they ?

Erwin Haas
Tue, 05/08/2018 - 6:57pm

Water in the ground is worthless. It is worth something only after someone digs a well, pumps it out and makes it palatable. Read your Locke.
And I posted my calculations on the amount of water that Osceola county loses-it's so small that it can't be measured.

David Richards
Thu, 05/10/2018 - 8:13am

Clearly, water is not worthless. It is a valuable necessity, and Nestle considers it to be of value. It is true that we do not normally charge for it and that what we do pay is for distribution, purification, and taking it away through a sewer system. This situation is a little different, in that the water is not used as part of what is required to live, or what is incidentally required in a manufacturing or other process involving economic activity, but is the actual product being sold. In addition, the usual practice is to keep water from the great lakes (and our rivers and ponds are essentially part of the great lakes) within the great lakes basin. This will remove it. The amount is incidental, but what happens when dry states in the west look to the great lakes for a water source?

Mon, 08/06/2018 - 3:49pm

That is like saying "a wetland is worthless. It is worth something only after someone fills it up, develops it and makes it usable." This market-driven, anthropocentric view of nature is what has gotten us into the ecological mess we are in.

Easy to use forms
Sat, 05/12/2018 - 3:54am

It has been found that most of the people complain that legal forms are hard for them to understand. The reason is that original forms have several rules and regulations mentioned in relation to the law that a common person cannot understand. It means that they will have to simplify the form in order to understand its requirements and fil it properly. At the experts have simplified all the forms to assure that you will not have to deal with any issues. All the forms that you will download from our website are available in the simplified version, so you will only have to fill them.

Thu, 09/06/2018 - 12:37pm

in a state that provides poison water..are they liable for who they kill, or are we?