[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ASSESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS OF THE WATER BOTTLING INDUSTRY'S
EXTRACTION OF GROUNDWATER
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 12, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-163
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.oversight.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
49-776 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman
TOM LANTOS, California TOM DAVIS, Virginia
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York DAN BURTON, Indiana
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOHN L. MICA, Florida
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
DIANE E. WATSON, California MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts DARRELL E. ISSA, California
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
Columbia BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota BILL SALI, Idaho
JIM COOPER, Tennessee JIM JORDAN, Ohio
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETER WELCH, Vermont
Phil Schiliro, Chief of Staff
Phil Barnett, Staff Director
Earley Green, Chief Clerk
David Marin, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Domestic Policy
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio, Chairman
TOM LANTOS, California DARRELL E. ISSA, California
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland DAN BURTON, Indiana
DIANE E. WATSON, California CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut JOHN L. MICA, Florida
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
Jaron R. Bourke, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on December 12, 2007................................ 1
Statement of:
Hauter, Wenonah, executive director, Food & Water Watch;
David W. Hyndman, Department of Geological Sciences,
Michigan State University; Noah D. Hall, Wayne State
University Law School; Joseph K. Doss, president and CEO,
International Bottled Water Association; and James Wilfong,
executive director, H20 for ME............................. 106
Doss, Joseph K........................................... 154
Hall, Noah D............................................. 123
Hauter, Wenonah.......................................... 106
Hyndman, David W......................................... 116
Wilfong, James........................................... 169
McFarland, Richard, founding member, McCloud Watershed
Council; Terry Swier, founder and president, Michigan
Citizens for Water Conservation; Bill McCann, member, Board
of Directors, Save Our Groundwater; and Heidi Paul, vice
president of corporate affairs, Nestle Waters North
America, Inc............................................... 13
McCann, Bill............................................. 26
McFarland, Richard....................................... 13
Paul, Heidi.............................................. 34
Swier, Terry............................................. 19
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Doss, Joseph K., president and CEO, International Bottled
Water Association, prepared statement of................... 156
Hall, Noah D., Wayne State University Law School, prepared
statement of............................................... 125
Hauter, Wenonah, executive director, Food & Water Watch,
prepared statement of...................................... 109
Hyndman, David W., Department of Geological Sciences,
Michigan State University, prepared statement of........... 118
Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Ohio:
Article dated Spring 2006................................ 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
McCann, Bill, member, Board of Directors, Save Our
Groundwater, prepared statement of......................... 28
McFarland, Richard, founding member, McCloud Watershed
Council, prepared statement of............................. 16
Paul, Heidi, vice president of corporate affairs, Nestle
Waters North America, Inc., prepared statement of.......... 36
Stupak, Hon. Bart, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan, prepared statement of................... 181
Swier, Terry, founder and president, Michigan Citizens for
Water Conservation, prepared statement of.................. 21
Wilfong, James, executive director, H20 for ME, prepared
statement of............................................... 171
ASSESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS OF THE WATER BOTTLING INDUSTRY'S
EXTRACTION OF GROUNDWATER
----------
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Domestic Policy,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dennis J.
Kucinich (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Kucinich, Shays, and Issa.
Also present: Representative Watson.
Staff present: Jaron R. Bourke, staff director; Charles
Honig, counsel; Jean Gosa, clerk; Natalie Laber, press
secretary, Office of Representative Dennis J. Kucinich; Leneal
Scott, information systems manager; Chris Mertens, intern; Alex
Cooper, minority professional staff member; Larry Brady,
minority senior investigator and policy advisor; and Benjamin
Chance, minority clerk.
Mr. Kucinich. Good afternoon. I am Congressman Dennis
Kucinich, chairman of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The committee
will now come to order. With me here is the ranking member of
the committee, the Honorable Darrell Issa of California. And he
and I will be participating in this hearing, examining the
environmental issues presented when water bottling plants
extract groundwater and spring water from water sources in
rural communities.
Now, without objection, the Chair and the ranking minority
member will have 5 minutes to make opening statements, followed
by opening statements not to exceed 3 minutes by any other
Member who seeks recognition. And without objection, Members
and witnesses may have 5 legislative days to submit a written
statement or extraneous materials for the record.
I have long had an interest in issues relating to water and
water supplies. As a matter of fact, in a Spring 2006 issue of
Waterkeeper Magazine, I wrote a piece explaining my concerns
about the annexation and overuse of waters in Lake Erie and the
Great Lakes, which is the largest source of fresh water in this
country. And without objection, I would like to submit that
article for the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Kucinich. Now, if we give any real thought when opening
a bottle of spring water, maybe it is to congratulate ourselves
on our healthy choice or to dream of a shrinking waistline. But
it may come as a surprise that virtually every aspect of the
bottling industry's extraction of groundwater, how much water
to pump and from where to pump it, the effects of pumping on
the surrounding environment and who should have the authority
to make pumping decisions, all these things are often hotly
contested. For a variety of reasons, bottled water is not like
any other commodity. And the protection of our Nation's
groundwater, often understood as held in public trust, involves
many crucial issues of public interest.
Some of these issues will not be our main focus today, such
as concerns about bottled water quality; the profit earned off
water even as public water infrastructure is neglected; damage
caused by the manufacture and disposal of the bottles; the
propriety of transferring water resources out of a region or
out of a country. Instead, we will focus on the environmental
effects of bottling on local communities.
The domestic bottled water industry, which includes both
distilled municipal water and spring water, has seen remarkable
growth. Last year, Americans spent more than $10 billion on
bottled water, which translates to an average annual
consumption of 27 gallons per person, double the amount
consumed just 5 years ago. This growth has been a boon to the
industry. The largest bottler is Nestle Waters North America,
which through rapid industry consolidation now controls 32
percent of the domestic market through its 14 different brands.
Because of the growing market for bottled water, bottlers
are constantly looking for untapped watersheds in relatively
undeveloped rural communities which disproportionately bear the
brunt of pumping's environmental impacts. As our groundwater
hydrologists will explain, for every gallon of water pumped out
of the groundwater, there is one gallon of water lost to
streams in the watershed. If the pumped water is not recharged,
there is a real danger of what could be called groundwater
mining, which the U.S. Geological Service describes as ``a
prolonged and progressive decrease in the amount of water
stored in a groundwater system.'' Moreover, high capacity
bottled water extraction in headwater locations can cause large
percentage reductions in the flow of streams and rivers and the
depletion of watersheds.
Bottlers may seek out private land owners or directly
contract with a municipality to obtain groundwater rights for
years or decades. The issue is complicated by the fact that
many rural communities have an interest in the economic
activity that has been promised by the water bottlers. And
indeed, some communities support the location of bottling
plants. Obviously, aside from the pure economic incentives,
certain interests of the water bottling industry are aligned
with those of the local communities. Both have an interest in
protecting the pristine water sources. In other respects,
however, these interests of bottlers and communities may
diverge, such as the downstream effects on surface waters or
the long-term visions of development and conservation.
Today we will hear from representatives of citizens groups
that have opposed the location of bottling plants in their
communities, on the slopes of Mount Shasta in California, in
Michigan and in rural New Hampshire. They have often been
frustrated by a complex patchwork of laws that they believe
does not adequately protect the public interest.
Traditionally, the vast majority of groundwater consumption
is used for agriculture, mining and nonbottled municipal water.
And groundwater use has been mainly regulated by the States.
Under common law, groundwater has largely been regarded as a
resource that can be extracted by anyone who owns the land
above an aquifer or spring. The common law was formulated
before modern science understood the connections between
groundwater and surface water, and before the advent of large-
scale mechanized pumping. As a result, it provides little
protection for conservation.
Given the toothless nature of the common law, it is not
surprising that States have enacted more comprehensive
regulatory systems covering groundwater extraction. These come
in a variety of forms. Some States like New Hampshire have
enacted comprehensive laws. And we will also hear about new
legislation passed in Maine and Michigan. These laws at best
address the connection between groundwater and surface waters,
mandate participation among those affected by pumping and call
for increasing levels of security for larger withdrawals. At
worse, State laws are woefully inadequate.
Although groundwater management is mostly a State concern,
many of the important decisions about locating a particular
plant are local, the Federal Government does have a role. For
years, scientists and policymakers have called on better
funding for the U.S. Geological Service so they can map and
monitor groundwater and its connection to surface water. The
Federal Government could, but generally hasn't, taken other
steps to prod the States to better groundwater management.
There is also the issue of whether Federal agencies adequately
enforce Federal protections such as the Clean Water Act, the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Environmental Protection
Act, that are triggered when surface waters are imperiled by
groundwater extraction. Finally, there is a concern that the
Food and Drug Administration's definition of spring water,
which purports to ensure water quality, actually creates
incentives for pumping at the most environmentally damaging
sites. As far as I am aware, this is the first congressional
hearing on many of these issues, and it is my hope that the
hearing will help the reform process at all levels of
government. So thank you.
And at this time I would like to recognize Congressman
Issa, the ranking member. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What most of you who
aren't here regularly don't know is the chairman and myself
have been able to very effectively find issue after issue we
agree on. When I say we agree on, we agree on the issues. We do
not always agree on the outcome or the view. The chairman and I
have been able to work together very well on finding good
issues. This is certainly one.
In this case, I find it unfortunate that perhaps we are not
looking at the underlying problem of bad potable water coming
from our taps. That is probably my greatest concern here today,
and we are not going to talk about it. Perhaps ancillarily,
over time we will begin working on the issue. For example, here
in the District of Columbia, if this water, as I suspect it
did, did not come from a bottle, and is simply being disguised
by being put into this carafe but in fact came out of the tap,
please don't drink it. The amount of lead in our water is such
that on a repeated basis each generation is told the previous
generation didn't do enough. We have relined. We have done all
kinds of things, but at the end of the day, and my staff behind
me reminded me, the District of Columbia recently sent Brita
filters out to take care of the accumulation of lead you will
have if you drink that water. This is a problem in the District
of Columbia and around the country.
Earlier, in the previous Congress, we dealt with arsenic.
Dealing with arsenic meant essentially the pumps in New Mexico
and other places were shut off, and people were forced to bring
their water in from other areas. We have a serious problem of
delivering quality drinking water, consumable water in this
country. To a lesser degree, we have a problem delivering water
for nondrinking purposes.
Mr. McFarland, I appreciate the fact you are from Shasta. I
am a Southern Californian. It is no surprise that southern
California, accused of killing fish and stealing water from the
north, might at times recognize that California is, if you
will, ground zero for this problem. Northern California has
over four times the rain and snowfall that southern California
has, while southern California has a majority of the
population. Notwithstanding the attempts to build canals and to
move water from the north to the south, far greater than all
the bottled water that is being taken out of groundwater in
California, far greater, and as a result, we could assume that
what doesn't go into the ground in northern California and
comes through peripheral and other canals doesn't go into the
groundwater. California has been having this argument for in
excess--well, I came to California--I will be honest--I came to
California in the 70's. It was the hot topic then. It is the
hot topic today.
Realizing that these problems in California and around the
country will not easily be solved, I am an advocate for any
system that guarantees healthy drinking water for our citizens.
I have questions for today that will not be answered.
And Ms. Paul, I am not letting you off the hook. I still
can't figure out why between drinking water and Starbucks
coffee, gasoline seems like a deal from OPEC. There is a high
cost of delivery of water through little bottles and so on. And
I think that is a problem. The chairman pointed out in his
opening statement that the question of disposal of tens of
millions of little plastic bottles, not just every year but
every month, is a real problem in America; the need to come up
with an aggressive recycling plan; the need to, if not
regulate, certainly ensure that bottled water and other forms
of water delivered around the public systems are at or greater
in quality to those that can be received from the tap.
I thank the chairman for his bringing up this point today
because it does open a dialog for the first time by this
committee and, as far as I know, for the first time recently in
Congress, to the fact that safe drinking water, affordable
drinking water and sustainable aquifers around the country are
in peril. So although I mentioned everything that wasn't in
today's committee hearing, you have to begin somewhere. I
commend the chairman for beginning the process. I am sure that
when we review the notes of today, we will find far more
available to us to digest than I am talking about here today.
And hopefully, in time, we will hit all of the issues leading
to America drinking high quality water.
And in closing, I will note that the chairman and I are
both native Clevelanders. So I share the fact that the Great
Lakes are the greatest body of fresh water available on the
planet and that very much bee need to look at that as a
resource that is carefully managed. And I yield back.
Mr. Kucinich. I want to thank my partner on this committee,
Mr. Issa, for his comments.
And in response, I just want you to know that this is a
beginning. I would like to be responsive to what you suggest in
looking at questions of the potability of water, drinking
water, in this country as well as looking at the questions of
water quality generally, both for drinking and nondrinking
purposes, as well as the issues related to plastic, or bottled
drinking water. I also want to say, and I appreciate you
mentioning Cleveland, because as I indicated in my opening
remarks, the issues relating to Lake Erie and protecting that
drinking water and protecting the volume of the water are also,
you know, I know of concern to States like California, because
the access to water in your State is a serious issue as well.
So I want to work with you in making this the first of perhaps
many hearings we could have on this issue of water. And I
appreciate the gentleman's comments very much.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kucinich. I appreciate it. If there are no additional
opening statements, the subcommittee will now receive testimony
from the witnesses before us today.
We will hear from Mr. Richard McFarland, who is a founding
member of the McCloud Watershed Council, a nonprofit community-
based organization providing stewardship and advocacy for the
McCloud River watershed in the Mount Shasta region of
California. In addition to his advocacy, Mr. McFarland is
president of Terra Mai, a pioneer in the green building
movement, which uses recycled lumber for its building projects.
He has also worked as a professional river guide and an
expedition leader.
Next we will hear from Ms. Terry--is it Swier?
Ms. Swier. Yes.
Mr. Kucinich. Ms. Swier is the founder and president of the
Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation, a nonprofit,
grassroots organization of over 1,900 members. Ms. Swier has
helped educate State legislators and Members of Congress on the
Nestle water issue, and has raised the public's awareness of
the importance of water diversion and export. In addition to
her environmental work, Ms. Swier recently retired after 30
years as a university librarian.
Next it will be Mr. Bill McCann. He serves on the board of
directors of Save Our Groundwater and is chairman of the
organization's Committee on Legislative and Governmental
Issues. Founded in 2001 in response to a bottled water
company's attempt to draw from a local aquifer, Save our
Groundwater is a New Hampshire seacoast area citizens action
organization dedicated to protecting water in the public trust.
Mr. McCann has also been a New Hampshire State representative,
where he served on the Resources, Recreation and Development
Committee.
And finally, Ms. Heidi Paul. Ms. Paul has been vice
president of corporate affairs for Nestle Waters North America
since 2000. Ms. Paul is responsible for all aspects of the
company's corporate communications and community relations.
Before taking this post in 2000, Ms. Paul was the director of
brand management for Nestle Waters. She is also chairwoman of
the Project WET, a not-for-profit organization involved with
international water education.
I want to thank each of the witnesses for appearing before
our subcommittee today. And it is the policy of the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform to swear in all witnesses
before they testify. I would ask that you rise and to raise
your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Kucinich. Let the record reflect that the witnesses
answered in the affirmative.
I ask that each of the witnesses now give a brief summary
of their testimony and to keep their summary under 5 minutes in
duration. I would like you to bear in mind that your complete
written statement will be included in the record of the
hearing.
So let us begin with Mr. McFarland, if you would begin your
testimony and address the Chair, we appreciate your presence
here.
STATEMENTS OF RICHARD MCFARLAND, FOUNDING MEMBER, MCCLOUD
WATERSHED COUNCIL; TERRY SWIER, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, MICHIGAN
CITIZENS FOR WATER CONSERVATION; BILL MCCANN, MEMBER, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, SAVE OUR GROUNDWATER; AND HEIDI PAUL, VICE PRESIDENT
OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS, NESTLE WATERS NORTH AMERICA, INC.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD MCFARLAND
Mr. McFarland. Thank you, Chairman Kucinich.
My name is Richard McFarland. My wife, Erika, and I settled
in McCloud, CA, 20 years ago. We started a small reclaimed
lumber business, which has grown considerably and is currently
the largest private employer in our small town of 1,800. We
started a family, and our three sons are also growing rapidly.
McCloud sits at the base of 14,000-foot Mount Shasta, a
dormant volcano that dominates the landscape in far northern
California and draws visitors from around the world. Mount
Shasta's glacier and snow melt feed the McCloud River, a
hydrogeologically unique, crystal clear, ice cold stream, well
known as a world class trout fishery. It is a major tributary
of the Sacramento River, the backbone of California's public
water system.
McCloud is a former lumber company town. The McCloud
Community Services District provide our de facto city
government. We are blessed with a spring-fed municipal water
supply that provides exceptional quality, untreated cold spring
water to every tap in town.
When I settled here in 1987, McCloud was economically
depressed and was in a general state of disrepair. Most of the
buildings downtown were dilapidated or boarded up. In the last
two decades, there has been significant capital investment in
McCloud. One old timer recently told me that the town has never
looked better. To the objective visitor, McCloud would appear
to be thriving.
In the fall of 2003, during a public meeting, the 100-year
contract selling our water to Nestle was both announced and
approved. We had assumed that this hearing was going to be the
beginning of a public process. In fact, it was the culmination
of back room negotiations between Nestle and a few local
politicians and public servants. This triggered a series of
events: a 3-year lawsuit, which resulted in the contract being
thrown out by our county superior court and later reinstated by
an appellate court; Nestle serving harassing and intimidating
subpoenas on local community members, including myself; a draft
environmental impact report, environmental assessment that
generated an astounding 4,000 comments, most of them opposed to
the project; the development of the Siskiyou County Water
Network and the Siskiyou County Protect Our Waters Coalition.
The Mount Shasta area is already home to four other
bottling plants already pumping unlimited groundwater. The
scale of the proposed Nestle project raises serious concerns
about cumulative impacts to Mount Shasta's unique volcanic
ground and spring water systems. California lacks comprehensive
statewide groundwater legislation. Sound policy requires that
groundwater management be based on science.
This is a State and national water policy issue. I
respectfully request the following of the subcommittee:
Please consider Federal support for State and local efforts
to protect community water resources. Specifically helpful
would be U.S. Geological Survey scientific inquiry to monitor
and characterize Mount Shasta's ground and surface water
resources. This is especially important in the face of
potential climate change impacts on California's water supply.
Please ensure that the U.S. Forest Service completes an
environmental impact statement for the Nestle project in
McCloud. The pipelines for the project travel through several
miles of U.S. Forest Service land on public easements intended
for municipal use.
Please consider investigating the practices and impacts of
Nestle and other large water bottlers in McCloud and other
small rural communities around our country. Please consider
enacting legislation or policies that protect the significant
investment that taxpayers and ratepayers have made in our
public water supply infrastructure from corporate exploitation.
And finally, please consider investigating the negotiation
process that led to the contract between the McCloud Community
Services District and Nestle Waters North America. Thank you
very much for hearing my testimony today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McFarland follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you, Mr. McFarland.
Ms. Swier.
STATEMENT OF TERRY SWIER
Ms. Swier. Yes. Thank you.
It has been 7 years since the residents of Mecosta County,
MI, were made aware of Nestle's plan to pump over 250 million
gallons of spring water per year from a private hunting
preserve, divert it through a 12-mile pipeline that crosses
streams and wetlands to its plant, bottle it, and then truck it
outside the Muskegon River watershed and the Great Lakes basin
under the brand name Ice Mountain.
As Nestle moved into Michigan to privatize our water for
its own profit, it announced that there would be no adverse
resource impact to the natural resources. Then, in December
2000, about a hundred citizens met, and Michigan Citizens for
Water Conservation [MCWC], a nonprofit, grassroots corporation,
was formed.
MCWC's mission is and has been to conserve, preserve and
protect the waters and natural resources and public trust in
those resources of Michigan and the Great Lakes. MCWC has grown
to over 1,900 members and continues to work on water
preservation and conservation issues with other organizations.
MCWC began at the local level, asking our elected township
officials to place a moratorium on the Nestle project to give
us time to investigate and evaluate a proposal of this
magnitude for the potential impact on neighboring wells, lakes,
streams, wetlands, wildlife and the community's quality of
life. Elected officials did not hear or listen to our voices.
This eventually led MCWC to three petition drives on rezoning
ordinances, and to three courts, the Mecosta County Circuit
Court, the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme
Court.
The findings of harm from Nestle's pumping remain intact
and unaffected in all three courts. MCWC believed then, and it
now has been proven, that irreparable harm would occur to the
waterways due to pumping by Nestle at the Sanctuary Spring
site. Nestle's pumping has caused harm to the Dead Stream by
reducing the flow and level, narrowing the stream, exposing mud
flats and restricting the enjoyment of many of the members of
MCWC, and the public for fishing, boating and kayaking on the
stream. The findings of fact are in the court records that
Nestle's pumping has created and will continue into the future
to create adverse impacts to riparian uses and rights.
What will this ancient marsh watershed area, including
Thompson Lake, be like for future generations? The lives of the
1,900 members, including the plaintiffs, those who live on the
Tri-Lakes, and mine, have changed since Nestle came to
Michigan. The issue has pitted neighbor against neighbor,
friendships have been severed, and Nestle has violated our
lives either directly or indirectly with telephone polling,
private investigators, the FBI coming to our homes, and a
potential Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, a
SLAPP suit, against my son.
MCWC has spent nearly a million dollars on the lawsuit
against Nestle. We continue to hold fundraisers, such as bake
sales and garage sales, to continue to pay our legal and
environmental bills. Nestle has affected families emotionally,
physically, mentally and financially. MCWC believes much of
what it has done and stands for is supported by a majority of
Michigan citizens.
Michigan purports to be a good neighbor company to our
area, yet it continued to pump at high rates during a low
period of low participation and lower recharge. Even when
bottom land and other dramatic impacts and damages to the Dead
Stream, Thompson Lake and wetlands have occurred, Nestle has
continued to pump. Nestle was cautioned by the trial judge that
it proceed at its own risk in building its plant in Stanwood.
True to form, Nestle pushed ahead in building its plant and
continued to use the possible loss of jobs as ways to push
through with its lobbyists in Lansing to get to the Governor
and her staff and legislators to side with an international
company and not the citizens.
Water grabbers like Nestle undermine the interests of our
sixth-generation residents who live on the lakes and streams;
the public that fishes, boats, swims and enjoys our lakes and
streams; farmers who rely on our groundwater; and industry and
our economy that are so dependent on our water. Water is our
heritage and our culture. It must be protected for our future
generations. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Swier follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much.
Mr. McCann.
STATEMENT OF BILL MCCANN
Mr. McCann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon. My name is Bill McCann, and I am a member
of the Board of Directors of Save Our Groundwater, which is
located in Barrington, NH. I am a resident of the adjoining
city of Dover, the seventh oldest settlement in the United
States, having been settled in 1623. And I am also a member of
the Conservation Commission in Dover, as well as a former State
representative.
Last spring I submitted to this committee a document
entitled an Analysis of the New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services Reversal from its previous denials of
the Large Groundwater Permit for USA Springs on behalf of both
Save Our Groundwater and a spin-off group called Neighborhood
Guardians. I trust that at some point that will be entered into
the record and the members of the committee will have an
opportunity to review it. What transpired in Barrington was a
private corporation coming into the community with the goal of
extracting over 400,000 gallons of water a day. What
transpired, and I can speak to this as someone who was involved
when we passed New Hampshire's law, was the first
implementation of RSA 485-C, which was New Hampshire's
Groundwater Protection Act. And this was by far the largest
withdrawal that came under the jurisdiction of this law. And I
and other citizens in the area watched very carefully to see
what was happening, because we thought the groundwater would be
protected. What we saw was our State government and some
Federal agencies not implement what we had anticipated. We had
expected that there would be protections for the environment,
protections for prime wetlands, protections for the people who
live in the area.
Barrington and Nottingham are located in the southeast
portion of New Hampshire equal distance from Concord and
Portsmouth. All of their households rely on private wells for
all their potable water. There is no town water system. These
communities, like Dover, are old. Both were settled around 1719
to 1722. They have a rural nature. They try to work hard to
protect their citizens. A total of about 11,000 people live in
the two communities. What happened in this instance was a
failure by State government and Federal agencies to protect the
groundwater.
This company, as I said, a privately held company whose
business plan said they are going to bottle this water and ship
it overseas--in other words, take it out of the aquifer, have
no impact, there will be no recharge in New Hampshire. It will
have a definite impact on the quality of surface waters. The
Lamprey River, which is nearby, is a federally protected water
basin.
So we anticipated that between our State government and our
Federal Government that steps would be taken to protect. At
first it seemed to work. The permit was denied in 2003. It was
denied a second time later in 2003. But then they reapplied for
a new permit at the end of 2003, and 6 months later, the permit
was conditionally approved. I can tell you from firsthand
experience, a lot of people in the area of the southeastern
portion of New Hampshire became very disenfranchised with what
government was doing to protect their precious water resource.
They expect, and they still do expect that the State government
or the Federal Government or some combination of the two will
work to protect the aquifer and the water resources in our
State, and hopefully in other States, because I am sure, as we
have heard from these other witnesses, we are not the only ones
impacted.
We are impacted because we don't know right now when this
plant will start operation. There are people who are concerned
that when that plant starts to operate, they are going to get
up in the morning and find they don't have water. They don't
have any reassurance from our Department of Environmental
Services or from the Army Corps of Engineers or any other
Federal agency like EPA that there is protection in place for
this possibility. So they are very concerned that this
particular situation with USA Springs, as I said, a privately
held company, we don't know what will transpire once the plant
is built. They are in the process of doing it. They are
building the plant even though they have not received final
approvals on their wetlands permits and there are appeals
pending. The only thing they have used for their basis to
continue moving forward is they did get a Supreme Court case to
go their way in 2006.
But when the State issued the permit, there were 10
conditions. They haven't been met yet. And I hope that this
committee can take a look at the situation and maybe be able to
assist the people of New Hampshire, as well as the rest of the
country, from having problems like this in the future. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McCann follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much, Mr. McCann.
Ms. Paul.
STATEMENT OF HEIDI PAUL
Ms. Paul. Hello, Chairman Kucinich. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before the subcommittee today. My name is
Heidi Paul. I am vice president of corporate affairs of Nestle
Waters North America.
Nestle Waters bottles and sells 15 regional brands of
bottled water, including Deer Park and Poland Spring. We employ
9,000 employees in North America, and we have plants in 21
communities in the United States and two in Canada. We have
been invited today to testify about the environmental effects
of bottled water on groundwater and our operations in
communities. Bottled water represents 0.02 percent of
groundwater used. As a company, our use is sensitive to the
environment and very efficient. We bottle a very healthy
beverage. Not including bottled water, there are close to
75,000 different types and sizes of containerized beverages for
sale in America. Most have calories, coloring, chemicals,
alcohol or caffeine. In 2006 alone, Americans avoided 356
billion calories because they switched from soft drinks to
bottled water.
Today Americans consume twice the amount of calories from
beverages as they did a generation ago. Childhood obesity is up
370 percent in the last 30 years. And at this rate, 25 percent
of our children and 75 percent of our adults will be overweight
or obese by 2015. Part of the solution to this epidemic is to
drink more water, tap or bottled.
And bottled water has another important social role. For
those who have ever lived through a natural disaster or other
interruption of water service, including the hurricanes in
Florida, ice storms in Maine, 9/11, Katrina, wildfires in
California, floods in the Midwest, bottled water is the safety
net to the most critical need of all, potable drinking water.
Bottled water is also easier on the environment than any of
these other beverages. It uses less water, and it uses less
plastic.
And when it comes to collecting and bottling spring water,
Nestle Waters has an inherent interest in being a steward of a
healthy environment at our spring sites. Our spring sources and
the facilities that use them represent our most valuable
investment. And using springs in a responsible manner today is
the only way to ensure our continued success. Moreover, we
select only those sites with a safe and sustainable yield,
measuring any effects of our withdrawal, and understanding the
cumulative impacts of all water users and a shared supply.
It is appropriate that communities would have questions and
concerns about our water use and other impacts on the
community's quality of life, both in terms of opportunities,
like jobs, and challenges, like truck traffic. For example, in
Michigan, there are concerns about the water use impact. In
fact, it went to court, as Ms. Swier mentioned. Michigan courts
ruled that bottled water is a proper and beneficial use of
water in Michigan, and the company has the right to withdraw
water at an appropriate rate determined under the State's
reasonable use balancing test. Following the Court of Appeals
ruling, the company and project opponents engaged in mediated
negotiations to determine the allowable rate of water use. Data
reflects that this is a very safe level.
In McCloud, CA, we are in the middle of a comprehensive
environmental and community-based regulatory process. In
response to concerns, we are engaged with environmental groups,
concerned citizens, together with third-party science experts
in biology and hydrology from the University of California,
Davis. The goal is to get increased information on the
sustainable and safe water use levels for the project. There
remain open questions on the economic benefits to the town and
other impacts. There are materials provided that address some
of these concerns. We plan to meet with all stakeholders to
discuss the economic reports that have just come out, and gain
a greater understanding of concerns and different points of
view. We respect differences and try to address concerns
through a variety of actions, but there are also times when we
have not been as successful. And we are learning in those
places and are open to work with stakeholders to do this in a
better way that is open and transparent.
We also have a responsibility to the environment. My
company has supported and will continue to support
comprehensive science-based laws and policies regulating water
withdrawals. The goals must be long-term sustainability,
fairness for all water users, openness to public input in order
to provide a responsible framework for decisionmaking. For
example, in Maine, New Hampshire and Michigan, we have
supported recent legislation that meets these standards. Thank
you for your time and attention.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Paul follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much, Ms. Paul. I would like
to begin by asking Mr. McFarland--and I may ask the same
question of Ms. Swier--in McCloud, did Nestle hold any public
hearings before you signed the contract with the municipality?
And how many public meetings has Nestle--before the contract
was signed with the municipality, and how many public meetings
has Nestle held since the signing of the contract?
Mr. McFarland. There was one public meeting that the
contract was discussed. And that was the same public meeting
that the contract was approved.
Mr. Kucinich. So since the signing of the contract----
Mr. McFarland. Since the signing of the contract, I believe
that Nestle has held two or three public meetings in the
community. And they have been--they have been designed to--they
were public relations events.
Mr. Kucinich. What do you mean by that?
Mr. McFarland. They touted all the benefits of the project
and didn't really discuss any of the potential negative
impacts.
Mr. Kucinich. Did the general community have an opportunity
to participate in designing the plant?
Mr. McFarland. None.
Mr. Kucinich. Where it was located?
Mr. McFarland. No.
Mr. Kucinich. What about in Michigan?
Ms. Swier. The same in Michigan.
Mr. Kucinich. If you could turn the----
Ms. Swier. I turned it on.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you.
Ms. Swier.
Ms. Swier. Yes. No, in Michigan either.
Mr. Kucinich. No to what? No participation in designing the
plant, where it was located?
Ms. Swier. No.
Mr. Kucinich. What about, did Nestle hold any public
meetings before the contract was signed with the municipality?
Ms. Swier. We are not a municipality.
Mr. Kucinich. With the area?
Ms. Swier. Pardon?
Mr. Kucinich. With your community. Was there any public--
were there any public meetings before the contract was signed?
Ms. Swier. The contract was signed with a private property
owner.
Mr. Kucinich. And were there any public meetings before
that?
Ms. Swier. I knew of two public meetings before. No, not
before, not before--I am sorry, not before we found out about
Nestle coming into Mecosta.
Mr. Kucinich. OK. And since the signing of the contract,
were there meetings?
Ms. Swier. Yes, there have been meetings.
Mr. Kucinich. And what was the nature of those meetings?
Ms. Swier. The nature of the meetings were Nestle would get
up and speak to the audience of what a good neighbor they
were--that it was going to be and that there would be no
adverse resource impact.
Mr. Kucinich. And were you there present to respond, or
were there people from the community that responded, or was it
pretty much accepted that what Nestle said was true?
Ms. Swier. No, there were people at the meetings, like
myself, that were able to get up and ask questions.
Mr. Kucinich. Mr. McCann, in your opinion, what would be
the effects upon your community of the proposed water bottling
plant?
Mr. McCann. Well, clearly the major impact is the unknown
factor of what will be the impact on everyone else in the area.
You are talking 307,000 gallons of water a day. You are looking
at wells that are--that are considerably less deep than what
has been proposed. So the impact on those wells is the unknown.
And those were the questions that were asked at the public
hearings that the State had.
Mr. Kucinich. Do you think it would be possible for the
bottling plant to exist without causing the kind of
consequences you are talking about?
Mr. McCann. I don't believe so, no. I think that the
situation is such that, without a thorough scientific review
ahead of time, but here you have a company that owned the land
and just decided this is where we are going to do it.
Mr. Kucinich. To your knowledge, has there been any
thorough scientific review?
Mr. McCann. There has been some scientific review done by
both the company and by one of the towns involved, and they
aren't in agreement. The State becomes, I guess you would say,
the mediator. And the final decision is the State's of whether
or not to grant the permit.
Mr. Kucinich. Does the company show an interest, Mr.
McCann, in being responsive to the community's concerns?
Mr. McCann. No. Unfortunately, the company took the
attitude from day one that it was their land; they could do
what they want. They--beginning back in 2000, they actually
went in and disturbed some of the wetlands without a permit.
This is the way it started. And this is what had the people
concerned. And their attitude throughout the whole process has
been, ``You people shouldn't be out here bothering us. You
shouldn't be complaining. We are going to provide jobs. We are
going to provide--increase the tax base.'' So they had a very
negative view of public input.
Mr. Kucinich. Do you feel existing laws and regulations are
sufficient to prevent those consequences even if the company is
not willing to prevent them on their own?
Mr. McCann. Well, as I said in my opening statement, I
thought what we had done in 1998 to protect the environment
seemed on the surface to work good, but in actual operation,
no, I would say now that the State and Federal laws failed.
Mr. Kucinich. In your written testimony you criticize
Governor Lynch for his role in the permitting process. What
should he have done differently in your opinion?
Mr. McCann. I wouldn't say I was being necessarily
critical. I just think that the reality is the Governor could
have probably come in sooner and maybe worked with EPA and the
Army Corps of Engineers instead of waiting until 2005. I think
that what he has tried to do was thwarted by what had been done
by his predecessor, who made sure that DES was, quoting as he
said in one of his speeches, ``more business-friendly.'' I
think that the Governor had some difficulties that were not his
fault, but he also had a situation where I think he could have
acted sooner, but he didn't.
Mr. Kucinich. You criticize the role of the Army Corps of
Engineers. What should they have done differently?
Mr. McCann. As I understand the request from the Governor
to them, they were supposed to evaluate the information
provided by the applicant, USA Springs, the State and the
scientific data that I mentioned earlier that was provided by
the Town of Nottingham and the consultant Nottingham had. In
reviewing what they issued in August 2006, they basically took
the information provided by the applicant and accepted it as a
fact.
Mr. Kucinich. I am going to return to the questioning in a
moment. The Chair is going to recognize the distinguished
Member from California, Congresswoman Diane Watson, for a round
of questions.
Congresswoman.
Ms. Watson. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding
what I feel is a very important meeting, and very sensitive and
relevant to our climatic conditions and what is happening
today. The consumption of water is increasing at a rapid rate.
And in the year 2002, Americans consumed 6,018 million gallons
of bottled water. And I think I did most of that consumption
myself. The United States, as well as the global population, is
putting the strain on existing water supplies. And that is
putting a strain on our existing supplies of groundwater and
surface water.
And the bottling industry is currently seeking to extract
more water from rural areas to meet this growing demand. And I
understand some of the water companies are taking the water in
their city and bottling it and selling it in stores. And so
there is a double profit there. But I am very, very concerned
in the way the process is being done, not only our drinking
water but our purification of water. And you might be aware
that along the southern coast of California, we have a great
deal of mercury in our water. And it has contaminated the sea
life and particularly gotten into our fish life, particularly
tuna, and we warn our citizens to not eat tuna off the western
coast of California.
So I understand that water that is extracted from ancient
sources, and once that water has been depleted, it is gone
forever. I missed the first part of the hearing, Mr. Chairman,
but I don't know if the witnesses are from areas where there
are ancient sources of water. And as you were speaking, I
thought maybe you could tell us what we need to do to protect
those sources and particularly now when we are in drought in
California. And we have our water up in the northern part of
our State. And we had talked at one time about a peripheral
canal with the water from the north in the deltas could come
down to southern California into our desert. But what can we
do, and should we regulate the way groundwater is extracted and
how much could be extracted? And should these fields be left
alone for a while so groundwater could accumulate? That would
take millions of years in California because we don't get much
rain truly. But let me just start and go down the panel. What
would you have us do here in Washington to protect that
groundwater from ancient sources?
Let me start with Mr. McFarland.
Mr. McFarland. Thank you very much. As I said in my opening
testimony----
Ms. Watson. That I missed.
Mr. McFarland. Yeah, one thing that I think that is really
critical, and you talk about ancient groundwater, and one
thing, I am from Mount Shasta in far northern California, and I
requested that this committee, the subcommittee, encourage U.S.
Geological Survey scientific inquiry to monitor and
characterize Mount Shasta's ground and surface water resources.
This is especially important in the face of potential climate
change impacts on California's water supply. So what it gets
down to is good science. And I think that we don't really know
whether the water that Nestle is proposing to bottle in McCloud
is ancient water, or if it is water from last year, or if it is
water from 10 years ago. And I think it really points to the
need for really good U.S. Geological Survey studies of these
aquifers before we start drawing them down.
Ms. Watson. Thank you.
Mr. McFarland. Thank you.
Ms. Watson. Ms. Swier.
Ms. Swier. I agree with Mr. McFarland on his proposals
also. Also, I think that there needs to be a protection of
Federal and State wetland laws from water extraction and
diversion for export. And all water bottlers must meet
standards to be set by the courts and the State law, including
the no likely pollution impairment or destruction standard of
Michigan's well-respected Michigan Environmental Protection
Act, and an amendment to the Federal Water Resource Development
Act to provide interested citizens with the right to enforce by
citizen suits.
Ms. Watson. Thank you.
Ms. Swier. Thank you.
Ms. Watson. Mr. McCann.
Mr. McCann. I would agree with what has been said earlier,
and I think that the important thing is the Federal
Government's role should be to help bring, through the
geological information that has been talked about, the facts to
the situation when we have developments proposed like was in
New Hampshire or what has happened in Michigan or California. I
found from my own experience that we don't know the science of
the aquifers. And a consultant for a company can come in and
say, ``Oh, there is tons of water here; we don't need to worry
about the impact,'' and there is no scientific backing for
that. And I think the Federal Government's role would be to
help provide that data so that both parties could sit down and
look at what an aquifer--what the impact may really be. And so
I would support what has been said by the two previous
speakers.
Ms. Watson. Should that be the responsibility of EPA?
Mr. McCann. I would think EPA or the Department of Interior
or both. I mean, the Department of Interior has some of the
records because they have designated, like I mentioned in my
testimony earlier, one of the rivers that could be impacted in
the New Hampshire case, the Lamprey River, is a wild and scenic
river. It is so designated by the Department of Interior. So I
would think that a combination of the Department of Interior
and the EPA would probably have the best data.
Ms. Watson. Thank you.
Ms. Paul.
Ms. Paul. I first want to clarify that we don't use any
ancient waters that are not replenishable. One hundred percent
of our water use is from replenishable sources.
As far as the Federal role, I think we support the Linder
bill, which would say that we need a commission to look at
water needs for the next 50 years and what information can be
provided, for example, from the USGS to inform the decisions at
the State level.
Ms. Watson. I kind of like that idea, Mr. Chairman. Maybe
we are looking at a different organization to develop
standards, and let States--and we have Cal. EPA in California.
Water is our big issue. And I think, State by State, we ought
to require them to have their own standards, their own
organization that deals with water, and plan for the next
hundred years or so. Thank you so much, panel. I appreciate
your input.
Mr. Kucinich. I thank the gentle lady for her questions.
To Ms. Paul, in your testimony, you represent yourself as a
trustworthy steward of the environment. Absent a court order or
other legal requirement, if local people in a community bring
to your attention significant adverse environmental impacts
from your pumping operations, such as low stream flows, would
your company be willing to reduce or to stop pumping?
Ms. Paul. We base all of our pumping decisions on the
science that says what is a sustainable use. So if the science
was showing it was not a sustainable use, yes, we would cut
back.
Mr. Kucinich. OK. Well, if that is the case, and I take it
as you say it is what you believe, this subcommittee has been
informed that your company continued to pump from its Stanwood
plant in Michigan in the summer months this year even when
presented with photographic evidence that clearly show the flow
levels in the stream-fed Dead Stream were dangerously low. We
have a photo that was supplied to us by attorneys for MCWC that
appears to show the Dead Stream living up to its name. Now, I
would like you to look at the picture there, which represents
the low flow levels of the Dead Stream. We have also been
informed that while Nestle's pumping may have been technically
in compliance with a court order, this court order was only in
place pending remand to a trial court after MCWC won its court
case in order to determine safe pumping levels. Now, did Nestle
see these photos? Have you ever seen these photos?
Ms. Paul. I have never seen that photo.
Mr. Kucinich. Have you ever seen any photos similar to
that? Have you seen any photos of the Dead Stream?
Ms. Paul. Let me say, I think the question that is being
raised here is I think those might be the mud flats? Are those
the mud flats? Well, I guess I can't--so this is what I know.
Mr. Kucinich. This represents a picture taken of the Dead
Stream.
Ms. Paul. There are low flows and high flows of water
bodies naturally occurring. And just because there is a low
flow----
Mr. Kucinich. So you are maintaining that this was a
naturally occurring low flow. Is that your position?
Ms. Paul. My position is that there is no harm to the
environment, that there are naturally higher and lower flows,
that this is affected by dams built by beavers, by many things;
that the mud flats--when they show are a feature that has
resulted from a dredging, a historic dredging, and is the
natural sediment coming back to replace the dredged amount, the
dredged soils.
Mr. Kucinich. So again----
Ms. Paul. So no harmful impact from our use. I do agree
with that statement.
Mr. Kucinich. And that is based on science. Is that
correct?
Ms. Paul. Yes. Yes, it is.
Mr. Kucinich. And so it is either--now, that position that
you have offered, is that the result of scientific studies that
you have had done, or is it only your study, or is it a
consensus of a number of scientific studies that have been
done? And do you have those studies to make them available to
the committee?
Ms. Paul. We do have studies, and we would be happy to make
them available.
Mr. Kucinich. But is it one study that you have done or are
there other studies? Are there studies that are independent of
your studies?
Ms. Paul. I know of no independent studies, but I am happy
to share our studies.
Mr. Kucinich. Do you have any kind of knowledge of any
scientific opinion that disagrees with your characterization?
Ms. Paul. What I can say to that is there were in the
original lower court some models created of what would be,
could be, the impact of our use. That would be information that
is different than what we have seen when we have actually used
the water source.
Mr. Kucinich. Now, Ms. Paul, it is my understanding that
the source of the groundwater in McCloud is partly from a
glacier. How is Nestle going to address the restriction on
water supply over the next hundred years with climate change,
which potentially will change the amount of water flows from
your source given that your source is glacier-fed?
Ms. Paul. We have a permitted amount that we are planning
to use. If there were any harm of that use, we would cut back.
The amount--I feel compelled to give a little history here, but
maybe I shouldn't. McCloud came to us asking for our interest
in coming to the area to build a bottling water plant. The
reason being, it was a town, a lumber town built that was in
decline. And today, in the school built for 250, there are
eight students. It is my understanding that there is not--they
are not able to afford an ambulance driver in the day. It is a
community that is looking for opportunity, for more jobs. They
are looking for a light industry. They had a water use of the
lumber mill prior that they wanted to allow that water to be
put to good use. And the contract to which you referred
earlier, there were four meetings, public meetings on that
contract.
Mr. Kucinich. Has Nestle ever had any meetings with the
Garrison Place Real Estate Investment Trust and/or Francesco
Rotondo, trustee, doing business as USA Springs, Inc.?
Ms. Paul. No, not to my knowledge.
Mr. Kucinich. Do you know if there was any contact that any
of those entities have had with Nestle?
Ms. Paul. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Kucinich. Do you know if Nestle either offered or
received a request to engage in a business transaction with any
of those entities----
Ms. Paul. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Kucinich [continuing]. Relative to the Barrington-
Nottingham----
Ms. Paul. I don't believe we have any connection, any
dialog.
Mr. Kucinich. Has Nestle done any site characterization of
that area at any time or engaged in any discussions with any
principal or representative relative to the siting of a water
bottling plant or business transactions subsequent to that in
New Hampshire?
Ms. Paul. Anywhere in New Hampshire?
Mr. Kucinich. In that area, at Nottingham and Barrington.
Ms. Paul. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Kucinich. Any other place in New Hampshire?
Ms. Paul. We look for spring sites in many States, and we
have likely looked in New Hampshire.
Mr. Kucinich. But you don't know; you have never heard of
Mr. Francesco Rotondo?
Ms. Paul. No, I have had no contact with him.
Mr. Kucinich. Or USA Springs, Inc.?
Ms. Paul. I have heard of them. I don't know them.
Mr. Kucinich. Has it been Nestle's practice over the period
of time, given the large share that you have in the bottled
water market, to acquire bottling companies or bottling
interests or to lease or to purchase any assets that relate to
water bottling and the acquisition of the water that the
bottling plants use?
Ms. Paul. Yes, we sometimes do buy those rights or the
business from others, yes.
Mr. Kucinich. How many, in how many instances have you done
that? Is it rare, or is that the way your business grows?
Ms. Paul. I would say it is neither rare nor how the
business grows, but it is a way; it is one of many ways. If you
would like me to find out the details of that, I would be happy
to offer it in written testimony.
Mr. Kucinich. Yes, I would also like you to provide this
committee, since you expressed that you didn't know, any kinds
of documents that you have relating directly or indirectly to
the Nottingham-Barringtonsite that relates to the Garrison
Place Real Estate Investment Trust, Francesco Rotondo, USA
Springs, any discussions, memoranda, e-mails, letters that
relate to contact relative to that site or to the principals
who are involved in that site. If you would do that, this
committee would appreciate it.
Ms. Paul. We will do that.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much. I want to--my time has
expired I have been informed. And the gentle lady from
California is recognized.
Ms. Watson. I would like to give you my time, Mr. Chairman,
so you can continue your line of questioning.
Mr. Kucinich. I want to thank the gentle lady.
I want to go back to Mr. McCann. Mr. McCann, in your
testimony you alleged specific failings in the enforcement of
the New Hampshire and the Federal laws with respect to the
siting of a water bottling plant in your community. To what do
you attribute these failings? Are the laws adequate, or do they
clearly prescribe the environmental safeguards that must be
followed? And if it is a question of inadequate enforcement, to
what do you attribute this laxity?
Mr. McCann. I think, as I said earlier, it is the law as
written perhaps can provide some public protection. The
implementation needs to be improved. The Federal role was, to
put it mildly, I think very vague to people in the first year
or two of this project. The environmental--Department of
Environmental Services' role was to be fair. I think they were
overwhelmed with the fact that this company wanted to take this
water out and didn't appear to have all the scientific data
that DES had looked for and that people like myself were asking
for. So I think that it was, as I mentioned in my earlier
testimony, this was the first test of our State law. I think
the report card is still mixed. It is probably in the vicinity
of C-minus. And most of that might be as a result of poor
administration by the agencies involved, not necessarily poor
writing of the law. But I don't deny that there is perhaps room
for improvement in correcting what we have seen in the first 10
years of that law.
Mr. Kucinich. I had asked Ms. Paul, whose presence we are
grateful for, a series of questions. Is there any question that
I should have asked that I didn't ask relative to the issues
that relate to the community that you are here on behalf of?
Mr. McCann. As far as the connection with the----
Mr. Kucinich. I am just saying, are there any questions
that I did not ask that you think should have been asked?
Mr. McCann. I can't think of any, Mr. Chairman. I think you
did a thorough job.
Mr. Kucinich. OK. Let us go down the line here, starting
with Mr. McFarland. Water bottlers often choose relatively
remote or rural areas for bottling or pumping sites, and will
often seek access to watersources that are located in protected
natural areas, areas that are protected either because of their
intrinsic natural value or because of their relative ecological
fragility. How do you think this committee should weigh the
economic value of the industry of the water that is extracted
and bottled versus the ecological value of protecting the
delicate balance of these areas?
Mr. McFarland. I think they should use good economic
analysis and look at the true costs versus benefits of all of
the resources in the area. And you know, I think that the
subcommittee understands that there is economic value to the
water for downstream uses. Not only is it of economic value
to--in terms of commerce, direct commerce. So I think that the
science of economics today looks at the other value of those
resources aside from just the pure, you know, dollar value of
the resource put into a bottle.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you.
Ms. Swier.
Ms. Swier. Yes. I am from Michigan, which you know, and we
are living--I live in an economically depressed area. And I do
feel that we have to look at the economic picture. And when
Nestle came into our area, that was one of the major draws that
Nestle had said of coming into Mecosta County. But we also, as
residents of my area, this is our livelihood. I am surrounded
by lakes. I happen to live on a lake myself. And this is one
of--the water is our heritage. And I feel that it needs to take
into effect what the effect is going to be in the area. And
with more scientific data available, MCWC has hired a
hydrologist. And he is continually looking at what the harm is
to our area, to our natural resources, which a good one was,
you know, the one that you had there. And I live just 5 miles
from the Dead Stream.
Mr. Kucinich. Could that have been--that low water level,
could that have been caused by beavers?
Ms. Swier. There had been beavers there on and off for
years. The people who live on the Dead Stream have never----
Mr. Kucinich. Is that a yes or a no? I mean, could that
have been caused by beavers?
Ms. Swier. Yes. Yes, it can be caused by beavers.
Mr. Kucinich. And in this case, do you think that it was
caused by beavers?
Ms. Swier. I can't answer that. I do not know.
Mr. Kucinich. OK. Thank you.
Mr. McCann, do you want to comment as to the fact that
these water bottlers are choosing relatively remote and rural
areas for bottling or pumping sites and often seek access to
water sources that are located in protected natural areas? And
how do you think this committee should weigh the economic value
of the industry versus the ecological value of protecting the
delicate balance in these areas and also the access to water
for civilian populations?
Mr. McCann. I think that, clearly in the past, in the
instance especially in Barrington and Nottingham, but I read
about, you know, other companies, obviously the economic value
of a proposed development is part of the process to quote-
unquote sell it to the community. And if a community has had
hard economic times, it is clearly one mechanism they can use
to try to come in.
I think the Federal legislation and the ideas that have
been put forward by Mr. McFarland make sense. I think we need
to have a level playing field, which means we try to, as I said
earlier, balance the scientific data, but we also work to try
to have equal opportunity for development but also at the same
time recognizing, as you said, that we have a very delicate
balance. And if there is a reason for the government to become
more involved, I think it is to protect the environment and to
ensure that a well-regulated industry is working. But it
shouldn't be at the deprivation of the environment or the
people who live in the community.
Mr. Kucinich. Out of fairness, Ms. Paul, do you want to
respond?
Ms. Paul. Yes. Thank you. Everything is made with water.
Everything. In fact, our bottle--the biggest user of water is
the plastic bottle--which is the lightest weight plastic bottle
on the market, as I mentioned; it is less than a half an ounce.
So think of anything made of plastic that is greater than half
an ounce; it is made with more water. We are a very visible
user of water, but we are not a very large user of water on the
global scale or on the U.S. scale or on our region's scale.
On a particular site, we do two things. We pick sites where
our use can be sustainable, and then we monitor that use.
Mr. Kucinich. What about the environmental effects? Do you
consider those at all times, the ecological effects of what you
do?
Ms. Paul. Yes, we do. I think we are a model water user.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much.
I want to thank the members of the panel for responding.
I am going to recognize Mr. Issa. And I want to say that
our clock for some reason always stays on green.
Mr. Issa. Which is looking better all the time right now.
Mr. Kucinich. Which is good. OK.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A lot of the questions that needed to be asked, you asked.
And so I will try to do followups mostly.
Ms. Paul, do you produce, does Nestle produce beer?
Ms. Paul. No.
Mr. Issa. Do you produce soft drinks?
Ms. Paul. No. Well, define soft drinks. We do have----
Mr. Issa. Pepsi, Coca-Cola type products?
Ms. Paul. No.
Mr. Issa. OK. Now are these figures in your estimation
accurate, that bottled water consumes about 1.3 gallons per
gallon of water delivered, while soft drinks consume about 1.7
gallons per gallon delivered, and beer consumes about 2.1
gallons for every gallon delivered? Do those figures ring a
bell to you from your history?
Ms. Paul. My history would say that our company uses 1.3;
that carbonated soft drinks, for just processing, uses 3, not
counting the water to process the ingredients or the water to
grow the ingredients; and beer is more like 9 gallons, not
counting the growing and the processing of the ingredients.
Mr. Issa. Right. Because they have to boil the hops and all
the----
Ms. Paul. It is distillation.
Mr. Issa. I apologize for the low figures. I chose the
lowest of all of them I could get just because I love Anheuser-
Busch, and I am a beer drinker from time to time. So I didn't
want to do anything adverse.
Mr. Kucinich. Let the record stipulate.
Mr. Issa. But as a Californian, I love my wine, too, let us
not kid that. But I am a Californian. Let me understand this.
If you are a typical crop producer, for every gallon of water
you pump out--let me rephrase that--for every 10 gallons you
pump out, 8 gallons are going to evaporate. Basically, nothing
is going to deplete the groundwater table as much as, for
example, our rice production in northern California. By
definition, we are spraying water out and asking it to please
evaporate in a 100-degree Sacramento day. Is there anyone--Mr.
McFarland, you know, you have seen that. That is essentially
how we grow rice is you spread water over it and ask it to
please evaporate.
Mr. McFarland. Absolutely.
Mr. Issa. So although today we are talking about the
bottled water industry, and clearly you concentrate your taking
from one area, wherever your plant is, we have in California
and around the country, but particularly California where we
don't have the Great Lakes, which my understanding the Great
Lakes are basically a river with some big puddles in them, that
every bit of water--if we took every bit of water out of the
Great Lakes today, in a matter of 2 years, they would
essentially refill. I know there is a gentleman shaking his
head no, but I am a Clevelander. I remember when the Great
Lakes were dead, and it took less than a decade for them to
come back to life because they flow completely through every
couple of years. We don't have that in California.
So, Mr. McFarland, excluding the fact that I clearly
understand how you are personally affected and your water table
is affected, don't we have a national problem of groundwater,
ground table, aquifer management? Wouldn't you say that you are
picking out this particular point because it is in your
backyard, but you would agree that we have throughout
California and the Nation a question of, how are we managing
groundwater?
Mr. McFarland. Yes.
Mr. Issa. And I think although you are not in agriculture,
you shook your head yes like most of us as Californians, we
understand that agriculture, clearly needed, is the biggest
consumer, because of the fact that we spill it on the ground,
of water that doesn't get back into the water table.
Mr. McFarland. Absolutely. And I believe that if Nestle was
paying as much in McCloud as the rice farmers pay for their
water in Colusa, that there would be less opposition to it in
McCloud.
Mr. Issa. Well, and I am a businessman, so I understand a
problem is something money can't solve. It does sound like
money could solve this one.
Mr. McFarland. It could solve part of the problem here.
Part of the big problem here is that this is an outrageously
egregious contract. It is very unfair to the community of
McCloud.
Mr. Issa. The price.
Mr. McFarland. The price.
Mr. Issa. The price they are paying for the water.
Mr. McFarland. They are stealing it.
Mr. Issa. As a southern Californian, remember, I opened up
with all northern Californians think southern California
steals. But I get your point that it is a question of how much
money is being spent for the resource that is being taken from
your region. I am a Federalist. I believe the Federal
Government only has the right to do what it implicitly has the
right to do. Other than ensuring Federal access to navigable
waterways, the national fisheries and the Clean Water Act,
other than those, do any of you know a legitimate existing
Federal hook that we can take? I mean, and those three are big.
We do have a right to make sure that Nestle or anyone else is
not taking water in a way that pollutes somebody else's water.
We have to make sure that the 0.3 gallons that don't go into
the bottle don't end up being backflushed in some way. And we
all know some of the history of that. But are there any other
hooks that we should really be aware of that exist today
beyond--because we primarily make sure that agencies are doing
their job. That is one of the biggest things we do on this
committee. So are those three the big three that we should be
looking at as we are going through this problem not just of a
particular bottling operation or two, but groundwater and safe
drinking water?
Mr. McFarland. Boy, that is a question that is out of my
league.
Mr. Issa. But those thing three ring a bill, and you are
comfortable----
Mr. McFarland. Yeah, the navigable waterways thing, that
comes up as definitely potentially applicable here.
Mr. Issa. We can certainly make sure the Corps of Engineers
ensured that not so much water was taken from any source as to
adversely affect navigable waterways.
Any of the rest of you have anything I've missed? Because
when this hearing is over and any subsequent hearings, that's
what we have to look at, is can we make agencies do their jobs
better. And something the chairman and I try to do whenever
possible is make the agencies do their jobs without
legislation.
Ms. Paul, you know, you're obviously the subject of a lot
of this because of your company's operations. You mentioned
your stewardship of the environment and how you make sure--or
you said that what you take is sustainable. In the case of the
Mount Shasta operation, could you go through the
sustainability, in your company's opinion, the environmental
impact and how you reached the decision for how much you can,
individually and with the other companies already operating
there, collectively take out of the aquifer or the groundwater?
Ms. Paul. Yes. We're still in the middle of that regulatory
process. We signed the contract, which we actually pay more for
the water than any other users. And it is reliant on meeting
the terms of CEQA. CEQA is involved in the environmental impact
statement.
We have done the science to look at what our impact would
be; and, in this case, it is a unique situation in the sense
that we could take the amount of water that we'd use at peak
out of the system to see the impact. You can't usually do that.
You usually have to model it. But because of the way the
springs come together and then we could divert one of the
springs and just have the amount left----
Mr. Issa. You could test the theory.
Ms. Paul. We could test the theory. That said, we have
heard from the town and from environmental groups that they
want more information. And we are in a process--we're sitting
down with environmental groups, concerned citizens and a third-
party hydrologist and biologists from UC Davis at the
recommendation of environmental groups; and we're going through
what more science would they be comfortable with, that we'd be
comfortable with to get more information.
Mr. Issa. Excellent.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this takes us a long way
with this panel. I appreciate your calling this hearing.
Mr. Kucinich. I thank the gentleman from California for his
participation as always. I know that you have a markup and
you're trying to do double duty here. I appreciate you being
here.
The gentlelady from California has informed me she doesn't
have any other questions of this panel. Nor do I. I want to
thank each member of the panel for your participation. This
committee will continue to look at the issues that have arisen
as a result of your testimony, and we reserve the right to
submit additional questions in writing.
And I appreciate Ms. Paul's presence here; and we would ask
that you'd respond, you know, to the committee's inquiries as
you indicated you would.
So I'm going to dismiss the first panel, and we're going to
call the second panel to come up. Thank you again.
Will the second panel please come forward.
I want to thank all of the members of the first panel
again. We're going to try to get this second panel started in
an expeditious manner, and I would ask that the witnesses be
seated.
I'm going to do some introductions.
We have here Ms. Wenonah Hauter, who is the executive
director of Food & Water Watch, an organization dedicated to
educating policymakers and the public about food safety,
agriculture, environmental issues and water rights.
From 1997 to 2005, Ms. Hauter served as director of Public
Citizens Energy and Environmental Program, which focused on
water, food and energy policy. Before that, she was
environmental policy director for Citizen Action and worked on
sustainable energy campaigns for the Union of Concerned
Scientists.
Next, Mr. David Hyndman. Mr. Hyndman is professor of
geological sciences at Michigan State University where he
studies the physical and chemical processes that influence
groundwater flow. Professor Hyndman's research also examines
how land use changes in regional watersheds affect ecological
health. For the past 10 years, Professor Hyndman has been
associate editor of the journal Groundwater, was association
editor of the journal Water Resources Research for 5 years and
is published widely on hydrological issues.
Professor Noah Hall is a professor at Wayne State
University Law School in Detroit, MI, where he teaches
environmental law and water law. Before joining the Wayne State
faculty, Professor Hall taught at the University of Michigan
Law School and was an attorney with the National Wildlife
Federation where he managed the Great Lakes Water Resources
Program. Professor Hall also worked in private practice in
Minnesota for several years and clerked for the Honorable
Kathleen A. Blatz, Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme
Court.
Mr. Joseph Doss is president and CEO of the International
Bottled Water Association in Alexandria, VA. The IBWA was
founded in 1958 and is the trade association representing the
bottled water industry both internationally and domestically.
Mr. Doss has extensive experience in association management,
food and drug matters, governmental affairs, public relations
and legal issues. Before joining the IBWA, Mr. Doss was the
director of Public Affairs At the Consumer Healthcare Products
Association from 1997 to 1999.
Mr. James Wilfong is an entrepreneur, educator and public
servant. He is executive director of H20 for ME, a ground water
advocacy group. He also served as a member of the Maine
Legislature and as an assistant administrator for the Office of
International Trade at the Small Business Association during
the Clinton administration. Mr. Wilfong is co-founder of
several enterprises, including Atomic Ski USA and Innovative
Applied Sciences, a software development company of which he is
the chairman.
I want to thank the members of the panel for being here. It
is the policy of the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform to swear in all the witnesses before they testify. I'd
ask each of you to rise--all of you to rise and raise your
right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much. Let the record reflect
that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative.
As with the first panel, I ask that the witnesses give an
oral summary of his or her testimony and to keep this summary
under 5 minutes in duration. Bear in mind the complete written
statement will be included in the hearing record.
I'd like to begin with Ms. Hauter.
Thank you. You may proceed.
STATEMENTS OF WENONAH HAUTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FOOD & WATER
WATCH; DAVID W. HYNDMAN, DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES,
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY; NOAH D. HALL, WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY
LAW SCHOOL; JOSEPH K. DOSS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, INTERNATIONAL
BOTTLED WATER ASSOCIATION; AND JAMES WILFONG, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, H20 FOR ME
STATEMENT OF WENONAH HAUTER
Ms. Hauter. Good afternoon, Chairman Kucinich and
Congresswoman Watson. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
today.
My organization, Food & Water Watch, is very concerned
about the commodification of water, which is a resource owned
by no one and needed by everyone. In setting the context for
the discussion of the bottled water industry's mining in rural
communities, it is important to acknowledge both the industry's
explosive growth over the last 20 years and its profit--that
its profitability is based on selling the myth that bottled
water is some how safer and better than tap water.
The truth is that bottled water is generally no cleaner, no
safer or healthier than tap water and that the Federal
Government requires far more rigorous and frequent testing and
monitoring of municipal drinking water. Almost half of all
bottled water is nothing more than reprocessed tap water. The
FDA only requires that companies test four empty bottles once
every 3 months for bacterial contamination, and they must test
a sample of water after filtration and before bottling for
bacteria once a week.
In contrast, the EPA requires that public water systems
serving more than one million residents test water 300 times
per month and utilities serving more than 3 million people must
collect and test 480 samples monthly.
Now I raise this issue because the lax regulation of the
bottled water industry is one of the things that helps make it
profitable, along with the little that they pay to access
water.
A former chairman of Perrier was quoted as saying, ``it
struck me that all you had to do is take the water out of the
ground and then sell it for more than the price of wine, milk
or, for that matter, oil.'' And it is true. Bottled water costs
more than gasoline or the companies charge about $1.50 for a
20-ounce bottle of water which penciled out to more than $9 a
gallon. That profit must be measured against the mere cents
that it costs them to bottle the water.
But those few cents are only the company's internal costs,
the ones they have to pay. The mining of water does not include
the external economic, social and environmental costs to rural
communities and society in general, such as the loss of
groundwater, toxic emissions from plastic production and
disposal, air pollution and damage to roads and other local
infrastructure from transporting the products.
For instance, plastic bottle production in the United
States annually requires more than 1.5 million barrels of oil,
enough to fuel 100,000 cars. Worldwide bottling of water uses
about 2.7 million tons of plastic. And after the production of
billions of plastic bottles and the national and international
travel of bottled water, billions of those empty bottles
remain. Eighty-six percent of empty plastic water bottles in
the U.S. land in the garbage instead of being recycled.
Besides the cost to the environment of the plastic bottles,
water mining could have long-lasting effects on the rural
communities where it is mined. When the flows and levels of a
region's springs, wetlands, lakes, streams and rivers are
materially altered because of the extraction for bottling, the
entire local and even regional environment suffers; and this
extends to the activities that depend on water: agriculture,
the individuals in the community, businesses, tourism and
recreation.
And groundwater is a fragile resource. Our Nation's
groundwater reserve is not a single vast pool of underground
water but is contained within a variety of aquifer systems that
cross political lines at county, State and international
boundaries.
Groundwater management decisions in the United States are
made at local level by a State municipality or special district
formed for groundwater management. The monitoring of
groundwater reserves is uneven around the country and often the
amount of water available in an aquifer is unknown because of
lack of data collection and the analysis that is needed to
support informed decisionmaking about groundwater.
Some communities across the country developed water
management plans that take into account such issues as
population and climate change, including drought. The people
and businesses living and operating there have to live within
the rules set forth in these plans, but often bottling
companies get a nearly free pass, even though they're
permanently removing water from a community's aquifer. Indeed,
in McLeod, CA, which we discussed earlier, they plan to extract
about 500 million gallons of water annually; and it appears
that the contract would give the company preference over the
town's ratepayers.
What is more, the local water district bears all the
responsibility for the well-being of the springs and the water
infrastructure. The ongoing extraction of water from cities and
rural areas to be bottled and sold----
Mr. Kucinich. I'm going to ask the gentlelady to wrap it up
because your time has expired, and I just want to try to keep
to the 5-minute rule. Thank you.
Ms. Hauter. So our recommendation is that the Federal
Government should, of course, strengthen bottled water quality
regulations. But, just as importantly, we believe that there
must be some kind of regulation or standard at State and local
levels that addresses how much water bottling companies can
extract from State. Federal funding should be provided to
collect adequate data about the health and quantity of
groundwater, and this data needs to be properly analyzed.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you. I want to thank you for your
excellent testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hauter follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Kucinich. I just want every member of the panel to know
that your statement, the entire statement, will be included in
the record of the hearing. So, you know, I know, having been on
the other side of a panel and testifying, that the tendency is
to try to get in every word. That's where I learned how to talk
fast. But you can just present a good, solid 5 minutes, and
we'll include everything in the record, and I think during the
Q&A we'll probably have an opportunity to cover it all.
So, with that, again I want to thank Ms. Hauter for her
testimony and proceed to Professor Hyndman.
STATEMENT OF DAVID W. HYNDMAN
Mr. Hyndman. Thank you, Chairman Kucinich and members of
the subcommittee, for inviting me to testify today.
Mr. Kucinich. Could you move a little bit closer to the
mic.
Mr. Hyndman. Certainly, Sir.
In addition to my research in groundwater hydrology and
surface water hydrology that you mentioned, I've also been an
expert witness in several cases involving groundwater; and
those have included several that relate to the bottled water
industry. And in all cases so far, I have been retained by
those opposed to the bottled water industry. However, today
I've been asked to come here on my own behalf and give general
scientific opinions about the impact of the bottled water
industry on surface water, groundwater and riparian areas. And
in addition to that testimony, I'll briefly discuss some issues
related to the Food and Drug Administration's definition of
spring water, which I think relates to many of the issues where
bottled water companies are placing their plants in the
headwater of stream systems.
The issues that I see with the FDA definition is there is
little to distinguish spring water from diffuse groundwater
seepage into stream systems. In addition, if we look at what is
happening in groundwater systems, an area that could be called
a spring is really a focused area where water is coming out of
the subsurface, whereas most groundwater is flowing in in a
diffused sense along the surface water systems; And that is
where I think some of the confusion comes to play.
The FDA has a specific definition that says if the
groundwater is not extracted directly from the orifice of the
spring, then it can be tapped by a bore hole that is in
connection with the same formation and that connection has to
be shown in a hydrogeologically scientific fashion.
The issue with that specific clause leads bottle water
plants to often be put in headwaters of streams. Because, in
those areas, it is really easy to demonstrate that connection
because there is very little flow coming into the system other
than what is coming in via some localized areas. The problem
with that is that these headwater systems are also
environmentally sensitive, and they are areas where the
consequences and impacts of pumping may be the largest.
If you separate these out into really groundwater and
surface water issues and you look at what the previous
panelists have already mentioned, most of the impacts that you
heard were related to surface water and that is because that's
where a lot of the environmental concern is.
You also heard a little bit about groundwater concerns. If
there are people living in the vicinity of high capacity wells,
the water table or the level of water in the subsurface is
declined in the vicinity of that well, and that can extend over
a large area. So there are potential impacts to localized
groundwater users.
I'll focus most of my testimony, however, on the surface
water issues because that is where, again, the most
environmental harm is. If you pump shallow groundwater
effectively, there is a one-to-one relationship between how
much is pumped and the reduction in stream flow in the nearby
areas. So high capacity wells can, as a result of that, cause
large percentage declines in the flow of surface water.
When you reduce surface water flow, by the nature of doing
that you're also reducing the level of streams. If you reduce
the level of streams, there is environmental consequences,
especially if there are riparian wetlands right in the vicinity
of that. Some of the concerns that have been expressed in cases
I've been involved are reduced navigability, degraded aesthetic
quality and impairment of the stream for aquatic organisms and
fish. In addition, the pumping can alter the water temperature,
which can also be a problem for the ecological systems.
Finally, some of the most sensitive systems are wetland and
lake systems where if you lower the groundwater level below
these, if they're connected to groundwater, the level of the
wetlands will also decline.
The seasonal effects are worse. If you look at pumping
during the middle of the growing season, the declines will be
more significant. They are even more significant if you're in a
drought period. So all of these things are on top of the
natural variability in a system.
In terms of recommendations, I'd recommend additional
funding in areas of hydrologic science. Several people have
mentioned this already in terms of examining new mapping
approaches and new approaches that characterize what the
impacts are of not only bottled water pumping but any broad
level of pumping and climate change and land use change.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.
Mr. Kucinich. I thank the gentleman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hyndman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Kucinich. Professor Hall.
STATEMENT OF NOAH D. HALL
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee.
I'm going to very briefly summarize the applicable State
and Federal law that deals with the extraction and pumping of
groundwater both for bottled water and for other water uses.
Water use and extraction, both groundwater and surface
water, is primarily the domain of State law. The rules
governing how much water you can pump, from what resource, how
much impacts are allowed are typically addressed under State
law.
State law comes at groundwater pumping from two directions.
There is background common law principles that are intended to
primarily address conflicts between water users of a shared
water resource. The original rule that was used here was what
was called a rule of capture. What this meant was basically if
you could pump the water, it is yours. It would be no different
from me turning to Mr. Doss on my left here, grabbing his
water, drinking it and saying I got it and now it is mine. So,
in effect, the rule of capture is really no rule at all.
That rule has not remained in almost any State. The one
exception being Texas, which I'll come back to in a moment. But
in almost every other State, the rule of capture, we've moved
beyond that, and we've evolved toward a more correlative rights
approach to share groundwater resources. What this means is
that a landowner has the right to the reasonable use of the
groundwater below his property unless that reasonable use
interferes with the neighboring landowner's reasonable use of
the same groundwater.
And when reasonable uses of shared waters are in conflict
or interfere with each other, courts reconcile those conflicts
using a variety of equitable principles, including
opportunities for water conservation, sharing, reduction of
need, reasonableness of use, economic values, social harms,
environmental impacts, etc.
Most recently, we've seen this shared correlative rights
approach to groundwater use extend to the types of conflicts
that Professor Hyndman just mentioned where groundwater
withdrawals impact surface waters and courts have begun
applying the same principles: shared, reasonable use,
correlative rights, equitable remedies to resolve groundwater
and surface water conflicts.
The common law, however, is not perfect. It has some
serious shortcomings. Primary among those, I believe, are,
first of all, the cost of litigation, which several members of
the first panel can attest to firsthand. Common law litigation
tends to be very expensive and requires the use of numerous
expert testimony.
Second, the common law does a very good job of protecting
shared rights and groundwater, but it doesn't do such a great
job of ensuring environmental protection of public resources
from water pumping, and this is where State statutes have come
in. Many--I'd say most, but not all, State have in place some
type of regulatory statute scheme to ensure that water
withdrawals don't have unreasonable harm on natural resources,
aquatic life, fisheries, wetlands, etc. Some of these systems
and programs work quite well. Some of them don't. There is
tremendous diversity both in how strict the standards are, how
well they are enforced and in the ability for citizens to avail
themselves of remedies under the statutes.
Beyond State law, I want to briefly mention the Federal
role in all of this. The Federal Government doesn't regulate
water use, and for the Federal Government to take on regulation
of water use would be an undertaking that would make regulation
of carbon emissions seem modest in comparison.
But the Federal Government has been a driver of water use.
The Food and Drug Administration [FDA], for over a decade
through its source identity regulations have required that if
water bottlers want to label their bottled water as spring
water--and spring water seems to be the label that consumers
prefer over any other--then, as Dr. Hyndman said, it requires
the water bottlers to go to groundwater that has an immediate
and direct connection to a natural spring.
Inadvertently, this puts tremendous pressure on the water
resources that are least able to withstand groundwater pumping
pressures. Bottled water is not a large user of groundwater
nationwide or on a macro scale. But when water bottlers, to
comply with the FDA regulations, go into the headwaters of a
relatively small spring system, even a modest size withdrawal,
a few hundred thousand gallons per day, which is modest in this
area, can have a significant environmental impact.
So I'd offer two brief recommendations for the committee's
consideration. The first is, I would echo the recommendations
of several of the panelists before me that we give the USGS,
U.S. Geological Survey, increased support and resources to
conduct extensive groundwater mapping, water use data analysis,
investigative studies. The USGS data is critically important to
both State and private decisionmakers in this area.
Second, I would encourage this committee to exercise its
oversight jurisdiction and powers to work collaboratively with
the FDA and other stakeholders involved in this issue to reform
and revise the FDA's bottled water identity rules to basically
allow water bottlers to continue to identify their product in a
way the consumers demand and deserve but doesn't put pressure
on our most vulnerable springs.
Mr. Kucinich. I thank the gentleman for his testimony, and
I will note that you presented this committee with an extensive
preparation. And I think the Members are grateful to you and to
all of those who have presented this voluminous testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Kucinich. So, Mr. Doss, please continue.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH K. DOSS
Mr. Doss. Good afternoon, Chairman Kucinich. And
Congresswoman Watson I think has just left.
My name is Joe Doss, and I am president and CEO of the
International Bottled Water Association. We appreciate this
opportunity to discuss environmental issues associated with the
bottled water industry's extraction of groundwater.
Groundwater, particularly spring water, is the primary
water source for bottled water products sold in the United
States. Because a long-term, sustainable supply of high-quality
water is the foundation and lifeblood of bottled water
companies, IBWA members recognize the critical importance of
environmental conservation and stewardship of all water
resources. In particular, IBWA supports groundwater management
laws that are comprehensive, science-based,
multijurisdictional, treat all users equitably and balance the
rights of current users and the future needs to protect the
sustainable resource.
The bottled water industry uses only minimal amounts of
groundwater to produce this important consumer product and does
so with great efficiency. According to a 2005 study by the
Drinking Water Research Foundation, annual bottled water
production accounts for less than 2/100 of the 1 percent of the
total groundwater withdrawn in the United States each year.
The two largest users we've heard before of groundwater in
the United States are irrigation and public water systems.
According to the 2004 U.S. Geological Survey, irrigation
accounted for 68 percent of the total groundwater withdrawn,
while public water systems was the second largest user at 20
percent.
It is important to note that an aquifer or other
groundwater source does not know the difference between water
withdrawn to produce bottled water and water withdrawn to make
other beverages or consumer products. Although bottled water is
currently the second most consumed beverage in the United
States, its consumption volume is about half of that of
carbonated soft drinks and only slightly ahead of milk and
beer. All such beverage products fundamentally have a high
water content. Bottled water is just one of countless products
and enterprises that use water; and to single out any one
product or industry, particularly one that accounts for only
0.02 percent of all withdrawals, will not be effective in
sustaining groundwater resources.
The States have a strong interest in regulating and
ensuring efficient use of water resources and must effectively
manage them to ensure that this important resource will be
sustainable for all users. IBWA believes that in order to
ensure sustainable water resources, a comprehensive management
approach must be taken. To this end, the bottled water industry
has been a strong and vocal supporter of comprehensive State
groundwater management legislation that requires the permitting
of large groundwater withdrawals and ensures a science-based
approach to evaluating potential impacts of all users.
For example, we recently supported the enactment of such
laws in Maine, Michigan and New Hampshire. Based on our
experiences in the State, it is very clear to IBWA that there
is a need for more and better data on the aquifers throughout
the United States in order to assist State authorities in
managing available water resources. We think that this is an
area where the Federal Government can play an important role.
As a result, IBWA supports the enactment of H.R. 135 which
would establish the 21st Century Water Commission to make
recommendations on how to ensure comprehensive water resource
strategy in the United States.
The Commission would be authorized to, one, project U.S.
future water supply and demand; two, study current water
management programs of Federal, intrastate, State and local
agencies; and, three, consult with representatives of such
agencies to develop recommendations for a comprehensive water
strategy.
Bottled water is comprehensively regulated as a processed
food product by the FDA. By law, FDA's bottled water
regulations must be as stringent and protective of the public
health as EPA's standards for public drinking water systems.
Under FDA regulations, there are two fundamentally distinct
types of bottled water products. The first type is natural
water, such as Artesian water, mineral water and spring water,
which all have groundwater sources. The second type is
processed water, such as purified water, which could be from a
groundwater or a municipal water source. Bottled water is sold
in small containers at retail locations and restaurants and is
also delivered to homes and offices in three- and five-gallon
bottles used with water coolers.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, bottled water is a safe, healthy,
convenient food product and is an extremely small user of
groundwater when compared with all other users. The bottled
water industry is a conscientious and dedicated steward of the
environment which has been demonstrated by its active pursuit
of responsible groundwater management policies at both the
Federal and State level.
IBWA supports groundwater management policies, laws and
regulations that are comprehensive, science-based,
multijurisdictional, treat all users equitably and balances the
rights of current users and the future needs to provide a
sustainable resource.
Thank you for considering our thoughts, and IBWA stands
ready to assist the committee and the subcommittee as it
considers this very important issue.
Mr. Kucinich. I thank the gentleman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Doss follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Kucinich. Mr. Wilfong.
STATEMENT OF JAMES WILFONG
Mr. Wilfong. Thank you, Chairman Kucinich. Thank you very
much for inviting to testify here today on this very important
topic.
I'm from a little town in the western mountains of Maine
called Stow. Stow is located in a very freshwater rich area
backed up against the State of New Hampshire in the White
Mountain National Forest.
In 2003, several citizens of this region, including myself,
were concerned about the large-scale extraction that was taking
place in the Fryeburg, ME, section of the Saco River Sand and
Gravel Aquifer, an aquifer that extends from Bartlett, NH, to
Hiram, ME. The recipient of this extracted water is the largest
bottled water company in the world, Nestle. We knew that they
were not here for a little water, that they were here for a lot
of water. This raised several immediate questions and concerns
for us.
One, who owns the water?
Two, who will control the usage of the water?
Three, how will the water be allocated if it becomes
limited?
Four, is damage being done to the aquifer or the
surrounding environment?
Five, do the citizens of Maine have a financial interest in
this resource?
Six, which regulatory agency is responsible to sort out
these many questions? Is it a State, local or Federal
responsibility.
And, seven, since water is considered a tradable good or
commodity, is trade treaty law somehow involved and how would
that law affect local, State and Federal laws in the
environmental area?
And finally, eight, is our community ready for this
business?
I'm sure that we had a few more thoughts, but this was a
start. The answers to these questions in Maine were not
encouraging. We are ruled by the common law of absolute
dominion. Essentially, this law means if the water runs under
your property, you can pump it. In Texas, they call it the law
of the biggest pump. Under this doctrine, the landowners over
groundwater claim ownership. This may seem strange, as
groundwater and surface water are part of one hydrological
system and in Maine surface water is in the public trust and
groundwater is not.
So several questions remain to be answered.
So who will allocate the usage?
It is not clear. It still has not been decided.
Is the environment and the aquifer being damaged?
Well, in some cases, studies have been done, but, in many
cases, expertise for review and long-term evaluation has not
been sufficient and the public isn't sure the resource is being
protected.
What can citizens do to protect their interest?
In Maine, we wanted to pass a comprehensive law. We looked
at four legislative concepts. We wanted to extend Maine's
environmental law to large-scale extraction. We wanted a fair,
open and transparent citizen's process. We wanted to establish
reasonable use standards. We wanted to place groundwater under
the public trust doctrine, and we wanted some recognition of
the public investment in clean water. We suggested a severance
tax on major extraction and to have the revenues invested in a
permanent fund similar to Alaska's oil trust.
H20 for ME, the bottlers and their stakeholders launched
into a Statewide debate and added to the national debate on
groundwater issues. After nearly 4 years of debate and
discussion, H20 decided it was necessary to protect the
resource and the environment as a first step. We found
legislators who agreed. We also found a willingness among the
bottlers and other stakeholders to be constructive, and we
negotiated a position.
In June 2007, the Maine legislature passed a law that does
the same.
It places all large-volume wells under the Natural Resource
Protection Act.
Two, it provides for an open and transparent citizens
process.
Three, it requires perpetual monitoring of all high-volume
wells.
Four, it requires the applicant to pay for expert
consultants to review, evaluate and make recommendations to the
State.
Five, it establishes a freshwater resource committee within
the State planning office to investigate all freshwater uses
within watersheds.
And, six, it places environmental management and review
responsibility for groundwater into two departments.
That is essentially what it does. It does not establish a
public trust with water. It does erode absolute dominion. The
law will only be effective if citizens are diligent about the
enforcement of its intent.
Finally, what could the Congress do to help the situation?
Well, it could provide financial resources and technical
assistance to local and State regulators involving
environmental studies and review.
Two, it could establish Federal minimum environmental
standards for major extraction wells.
Three, it could review trade rules concerning water being
designated as a tradable good and ensure access and control of
clean freshwater for the long-term best interest of U.S.
citizens.
Four, it could extend standing to U.S. citizens using the
Clean Water Act as a model.
Five, it could place all freshwater in the public trust,
and it could hold the national conference on freshwater issues.
The Maine law is a start. Each State must review its
situation and adjust its State statutes to meet the new
realities of the freshwater demands of the bottled water
industry. For those States with weak and outdated law, the new
Maine law could be a first-step model.
I wish that more than 30 years ago when I was a young
legislator who was working on clean water law that I could have
seen the future. We could have fixed our groundwater law right
then. Water was bestowed upon us by the same power that granted
us our freedom. Water is life. When it comes to potable water
law, we can't afford to get it wrong.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Kucinich. I thank the gentleman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilfong follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Kucinich. We're now going to go to questions of the
panel and to Professor Hall.
In many of the bottling cases, Federal jurisdiction is
invoked when groundwater extraction affects surface waters. Do
you believe that Federal agencies such as the Army Corps and
the EPA diligently enforce acts like the Clean Water Act and
the Endangered Species Act in these cases?
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In the bottled water cases--in many of the bottled water
cases, including some of the ones I've been involved in--and I
should disclose that I represented some conservation groups,
Trout Unlimited, National Wildlife Federation and the Nestle
case in Michigan--Federal jurisdiction and Federal statutes
were not an issue. Federal statutes really come into play only
incidentally, if, for example, the water bottler is also
discharging pollutants into a navigable waterway or filling a
wetland. But keep in mind that the Federal wetland regulations
only pertain to the placement of dredged or filled material
into a wetland, not the draining of water out of a wetland. So
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers doesn't really have much of a
hook to address the environmental impacts of water withdrawals.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you.
Now, in the proposed Great Lakes Compact that has not been
ratified by Congress, I understand there is an exception to the
anti-diversion provisions for products that are less than 5.7
gallons. Does this provision effectively exempt typical bottled
water products? And if it does, is there environmental
justification for the 5.7 gallon threshold requirement?
Mr. Hall. That is an excellent question, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Of course, I've been intimately involved in both the
negotiation and drafting of the proposed Great Lakes Compact.
The exception that you mentioned, the Great Lakes Compact, bans
diversions of water out of the Great Lakes basin which includes
parts of eight U.S. State plus two Canadian provinces. Exempted
from that ban on diversions of water out of the basin is water
in containers less than 5.7 gallons, basically an office
cooler. So you're correct. Bottled water is exempted from the
ban on diversions.
However, the Great Lakes Compact would also require public
management by the State of water withdrawals, both ground and
surface water, at the State level for water that is used within
the basin; and water withdrawals for bottled water or any other
use are still subject to those requirements.
So I think it is actually a pretty fair compromise, all
things considered. A water bottler within the Great Lakes
basin, if the Great Lakes Compact is enacted, which I hope it
is, would be subject to a long list of permit requirements,
environmental protection standards, water conservation
measures, as well as citizen review and judicial review of any
permits that are granted. They wouldn't be flat-out banned, but
they would be under pretty good regulations, and I think it
would be a step in a good direction.
Mr. Kucinich. It is my understanding that the FDA did not
subject its spring water classification to a NEPA review. Do
you think it was obligated to do so under law? And if it did
undertake such a review now, what would be the practical
consequences? Could anything be gained.
Mr. Hall. That's another good question.
When the EPA promulgated its current bottled water rule, it
did not conduct an environmental impact statement pursuant to
the National Environmental Policy Act. I believe it should
have. The issue was not raised at the time.
I think it is very clear, even just looking at the common
agreement among the panelists, that bottled water withdrawals
from springs certainly have the potential for significant
environmental impacts, which is the threshold requirement for
an environmental impact statement. And I think if the FDA were
to relook at that rule or reconsider it or if there were a
petition for rulemaking filed to the FDA, it would absolutely
have to comply with the environmental impact statement in
connection with its bottled water spring rule.
Mr. Kucinich. I think that is quite significant.
Now, in the wake of recent Supreme Court decisions
narrowing the definition of navigable waters in the Clean Water
Act, have there been proposals to enact new legislation to
expand Clean Water Act jurisdiction to the maximum that the
Constitution permits to believe that this legislation is
advisable and will it make much of a difference for the types
of disputes that we have heard about today?
Mr. Hall. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. I believe it is
Congressman Oberstar and my Congressman, Congressman Dingell,
who have led an effort to enact the Clean Water Restoration Act
which would make clear really that the Federal Government's
jurisdiction over navigable waters extends to all waters of the
United States to the extent of the commerce clause of the
Constitution. I think that is excellent legislation. That is
how the Clean Water Act was enforced and applied for over 30
years. I'd hate to see us take a step back in the wake of the
Supreme Court's recent Rapano's decision.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you, Professor Hall.
Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having
this hearing.
I view water as precious as gold in so many different ways.
And it was not lost to me that foreign companies came and
bought a number of water companies in the New England area
because they bought it for the water and they bought it for the
land because there is so much land that is reserved to protect
our water supply.
I'm wrestling, though, with this topic as it is designed
against--as it appears to be focused on bottlers of water. I
look at Candlewood Lake in my State. I think a lot of that
water goes to New York City. And I'm wrestling with the fact
that water from northern California goes to southern
California. I am wrestling with the fact that soda uses water.
You know, Gatorade uses water. And yet we're focused on the
water company. You know, I am tempted to ask you, Ms. Hauter,
if you'd prefer and do you think that Coca-Cola is better for
me than drinking water from a bottle. Is it better?
Ms. Hauter. Well, I think what we believe----
Mr. Shays. No, no, I need you to----
Ms. Hauter. I think that what we believe is that it is a
societal question. Do we want safe and affordable----
Mr. Shays. That's not what I asked you. I asked you
specifically if you think the water in a Coca-Cola is better
for you than the water that would be pure?
Ms. Hauter. I think that is a question--it is an unfair
question.
Mr. Shays. It is not an unfair question. If you are going
to come and testify before us and you are going to attack
companies for making money, it is very fair. Otherwise, you're
a meaningless witness, and I shouldn't ask you any questions.
Do you want to be relevant? Do you want to testify? Then
answer the question. Please answer the question.
Ms. Hauter. I think that Coca-Cola is unhealthy and that
drinking a glass of tap water is a better option than drinking
bottled water.
Mr. Shays. Let me ask you this, though. Why would you not
have the concern--I guess I don't know. Maybe Professor Hall.
Where does Coca-Cola get its water from?
Mr. Hall. Coca-Cola--both for the product Coke and as well
as for what I believe is their Dasani brand primarily uses
water from a municipal water supply.
Mr. Shays. Doesn't the same analogy apply to soda and beer
that would apply to bottled water?
Mr. Hall. In some instances, yes, it does. For example,
Coke, which primarily sells bottled water that comes from
municipal water supply, I believe it is Dasani is their brand
name.
Mr. Shays. I'm not talking bottled water.
Mr. Hall. Yeah, it is the same as Coke.
Mr. Shays. So they are depleting, in a sense, the water
supply locally and distributing it nationwide?
Mr. Hall. Correct.
Mr. Shays. OK. Water, basically, I believe is 1/50th
percent of the water that we consume. In other words, it is
less than a percent. It is not 1/10th of a percent. It is 1/
50th of a percent. So, in the realm of things, why should I be
focused on this issue, as opposed to the other 99 percent?
Mr. Hall. That is an excellent question, Representative.
I would say that, as I hopefully made clear in my initial
testimony, bottled water is a tiny microscopic use of the
overall national water supply. And from a macro level, it is
really not a major concern in terms of our water conservation
and use. The concern is that spring water bottlers withdraw
water from, by definition, springs which are very small,
vulnerable water resources such that----
Mr. Shays. These are unique water systems that you're
making the point about?
Mr. Hall. Exactly.
Mr. Shays. Let me ask you. In Stanford, CT, next door was
Greenwich, CT. Greenwich--American Water Co., I think is the
name of it, didn't have enough supply. The bog reservoir, they
were going to pump from the ground and put into the pond--into
the lake, and then they were going to take it. And we realized
in Connecticut that we didn't have anything that focused on the
water table. We focused on surface water.
So what I did as a State legislator is I gave that right to
the Department of Health. Because I do think Ms. Hauter and
others have an issue as it relates to a locally confined area
that may find its water table being drawn down. Why wouldn't
that just be an issue that Maine, New Hampshire and others
should work out on their own without the Federal Government
stepping in?
Mr. Hall. Well, first off, I'm pretty familiar with that
region. I actually grew up in Richfield right by Stanford.
Mr. Shays. Do you have family still there.
Mr. Hall. Yeah. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shays. Geez, I have to be on my best behavior. I just
want to say you have been an excellent witness.
Mr. Kucinich. And even though the gentleman's time has
expired, since there is this local connection, I'll ask the
professor to answer the question.
Mr. Hall. Thank you. And, in all seriousness, it is an
excellent question. I think that primarily water use should be
managed at the State and local level; and I think, by and
large, State and local governments have done and are doing an
excellent job of improving their management. But, however, the
FDA through the spring water rule has created essentially a
national market for some of the most vulnerable water resources
in localities and State, and so this is a problem that in some
part was caused by the FDA and to some extent can be fixed by
the FDA.
Mr. Shays. Just last, though, I mean, if the State of New
Hampshire or Maine or whatever is concerned with what is
happening with its aquifers, with its springs, it does have the
legal authority to step in, correct?
Mr. Hall. Absolutely. Yes.
Mr. Shays. And I would just say that I hope it does in a
constructive way working with the bottlers and so on.
Mr. Kucinich. I thank the gentleman. His time has expired.
To Professor Hyndman, is there a difference from a
hydrological perspective when you use groundwater for
irrigation for agriculture versus using it for extraction for
water bottling?
Mr. Hyndman. The primary difference is exactly what
Professor Hall just mentioned. I mean, groundwater is
groundwater. If we're talking about shallow groundwater, the
quality of much of the shallow groundwater across, say, the
Midwest is fairly similar. The main difference in agricultural
pumping is that is largely from deeper aquifer systems that are
further down in a watershed. They're not in the headwaters of a
watershed.
Mr. Kucinich. Is one more damaging than the other?
Mr. Hyndman. Yes. The spring water pumping is more damaging
because of the fact that it is in the headwaters.
Mr. Kucinich. Would you repeat that.
Mr. Hyndman. Yes. The spring water pumping is more damaging
in my opinion because it is done in the headwaters of
watersheds.
Mr. Kucinich. Because it is done?
Mr. Hyndman. In the headwaters of watersheds in
ecologically sensitive areas.
Mr. Kucinich. Now I'd like to ask you one more question,
but I'd also like to ask Mr. Doss and Ms. Hauter to respond.
And I've always wondered this. Can people typically perceive a
difference in taste and is there a quality of difference
between FDA defined spring water and bottled water that does
not technically meet the spring water designation. Professor
Hyndman.
Mr. Hyndman. For me, that would be a personal choice. And
I--personally tasting between the two of them in a blind
tasting, I probably could not tell you if one is spring water
versus not.
Mr. Kucinich. Professor Hall.
Mr. Hall. I doubt the average person could tell the
difference. And, in fact, some municipalities like Evart, MI,
have as municipal water, water that meets the FDA spring water
definition.
Mr. Kucinich. And Ms. Hauter.
Ms. Hauter. No. There have been many taste tests around the
country and people have difficulty. Basically, bottled water is
marketed on its packaging and its sex appeal and the claims
that it is healthier, not taste.
Mr. Kucinich. Sounds like a Presidential campaign.
Mr. Doss.
Mr. Doss. It is a consumer choice. Obviously, some
consumers may prefer tap water; some consumers may prefer
bottled water. We don't disparage tap water. We think that if
people are drinking water that is a good thing, because it is a
very healthy product. Again, it boils down to consumer choice.
I can tell the difference in many bottled waters, just as I can
tell the difference between tap water and other beverages.
Mr. Kucinich. You are saying you can't or cannot.
Mr. Doss. I can.
Mr. Kucinich. You can?
Mr. Doss. Absolutely.
Mr. Kucinich. Can we take a test right now.
Mr. Doss. I'm just saying I can certainly tell the
difference in many bottled waters that I drink.
Mr. Kucinich. You're under oath, but you're----
Mr. Doss. Absolutely.
Mr. Kucinich. We'll give you an exemption.
OK. Mr. Wilfong.
Mr. Wilfong. Yes, I think there really is no difference.
The water just happens to hit a low point in the ground and
bubbles up and out of it. It is all essentially the same water
system.
Mr. Kucinich. OK. To Professor Hyndman, if the FDA changed
its definition of spring water--I'd like to ask Mr. Doss to
answer this, too, so you can get ready. If the FDA changed its
definition of spring water to include groundwater not
immediately and directly connected to a lake or spring, that
is, you don't have to draw down the spring when you pump in
order to sell it as spring water, would that alleviate the
direct impacts in spring wetland surface water situations like
in the McCloud, NH, and other locations where they have been
having problems during lower precipitation--or there have been
problems during lower precipitation or drought-like conditions.
Mr. Hyndman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an excellent
question.
If the FDA changed the definition to include groundwater
that is in the vicinity and even deeper groundwater, that could
resolve the concern because the pumping would not be pushed
into those headwater areas. And, in fact, you could do
hydrogeologic studies that would basically define the best
areas to put this pumping where it would have minimal impact.
Mr. Kucinich. Mr. Doss, would you like to respond.
Mr. Doss. I think the issue really goes back to the
question of sustainability at the State level. When a State
grants a permit for a bottled water company to withdraw that
water, they should take into consideration all the science
involved. They should take into consideration all the concerns
raised here today by these professors. And if they decide that
the water source is not sustainable with the bottled water
plant, then they should deny the plant the ability to pump
water from that particular source. So I think it gets back to
sustainability.
Mr. Kucinich. I'd like to just go and ask every member of
this panel a question. From your written and oral testimony,
there seems to be broad support for the proposition that the
USGS should be empowered and funded to assume a much greater
role in groundwater mapping and monitoring. And if this is so,
why hasn't it been done yet and what political obstacles stand
in the way of that reform? Ms. Hauter.
Ms. Hauter. I think it is something that has been
overlooked and there has been a lack of funding for and that we
have to get busy and it is not just for bottling--for bottled
water, but we need to do it for a range of water issues from
agriculture to industry.
Mr. Kucinich. Professor Hyndman.
Mr. Hyndman. I think that the issues go beyond just mapping
for the U.S. Geological Survey. In fact, it is very important
for the funding for the USGS to have monitoring of surface
water. It is an incredible network that the U.S. Geological
Survey has across the country, but the funds have been
continually cut. They have to keep going back to cooperators
for money.
And personally when I do research on broad scales to try to
figure out the impacts on the things like climate change and
land use change, it is very difficult when these USGS gauges go
off line or, you know, a new one will startup somewhere else
because that is where a cooperator has an interest. If we don't
maintain the network for the type of science we're talking
about, it is very difficult to talk about what the impacts will
be.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you.
Professor Hall.
Mr. Hall. The truth is that doing the scientific work,
gathering information, the research, it is not sexy. It doesn't
capture the public's imagination. The work that Professor
Hyndman does, the work that I do, the work that USGS does is
often overlooked, and that is unfortunate because really that
information is the foundation for making good decisions. And so
I think one of the most important things that this committee
could do would be to strongly recommend more funding and
support for USGS.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you.
Mr. Doss.
Mr. Doss. I think I would say that we have a consensus here
that decisions need to be made on sound science, and I would
agree with that. And IBWA has supported the enactment of the
21st Century Water Commission, which will help those Federal
agencies share data with the State, that can allow the State to
make more informed decisions, have better science. We think
that is a great thing, and we support passage of that Federal
legislation and think that is a proper role for the Federal
Government.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you.
Mr. Wilfong.
Mr. Wilfong. Yes, I would agree with all that has been
said. We need a lot of help, especially in the smaller
communities that have few financial resources to be able to
take a hard look at the groundwater situation.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you.
Mr. Hyndman, we showed a photo of the Dead Stream to the
first panel witness from Nestle. And this photo was taken at a
time after Nestle began pumping in Michigan. My staff was
informed that this photo was shown to Nestle. What did you
think the photo shows? What do you think it shows?
Mr. Hyndman. This is the mud flats in front of the Doyles'
property, and the Doyles were involved in that case. And during
this summer, as well as at least one previous summer, the
conditions went to a point where the levels had fallen below
what had been observed prior to pumping. And it is a situation
where the pumping that is occurring is drawing down the water
level beyond what the natural conditions would be. So,
therefore, the impacts are exacerbated by the pumping that
Nestle has----
Mr. Kucinich. Was this beavers that did this?
Mr. Hyndman. No, this is not beavers. This is a low water
level.
Mr. Kucinich. How do you know? How do you know it wasn't
beavers?
Mr. Hyndman. Because I am very aware of what is happening
at this site. And there has been a beaver dam intermittently
down below this site.
Mr. Kucinich. How many beavers would it take do that?
Mr. Hyndman. I am not sure how many beavers.
Mr. Kucinich. OK. I just thought I would ask.
Ms. Hauter, is there a connection between what you see as a
threat of privatization of public water resources and the
deterioration of the public water infrastructure? Could there
be some sort of taxation scheme by which either consumers or
producers of water products fund improvements in the public
infrastructure, such as the Clean Water Fund that you propose
in your written testimony?
Ms. Hauter. Yes. This is one of our main concerns with
bottled water. Because it is sold as safer, because we no
longer see public water fountains being built, we are concerned
that it is actually undermining our public water systems. And
we do generally have very safe and affordable drinking water,
but we have real infrastructure problems. And every year there
is a $22 billion deficit. And in the future, in the very near
future, if we don't have more Federal investment in our water
infrastructure, we could be in a situation where there isn't
safe and affordable drinking water. So we would like to see
that public commitment to safe drinking water grow. And we do
need a clean water trust fund to do that.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much.
I want to thank all the witnesses. I am Dennis Kucinich,
chairman of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight
and Government Reform Committee. This has been a hearing on
assessing the environmental risks of the water bottling
industry's extraction. I want to thank all the witnesses from
the first and the second panel for their cooperation. The
subcommittee will be in correspondence with you to followup on
some of the points that were raised today. I want to thank the
staff on both sides for their participation, Mr. Issa for his
cooperation.
And without further discussion, this committee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:26 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[The prepared statement of Hon. Bart Stupak follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]