Currently, Nestle has a permit to take 1.1 million litres of water per day from the Hillsburgh, Ontario watershed for its bottled water operations. Hillsburgh is a small town 50km northwest from Brampton. Unfortunately, other communities rely on the same aquifer as Nestle for residential water needs. Guelph, for example, is 80% to 90% reliant on groundwater. The region is currently suffering from drought.
Normally under Level 1 drought conditions, companies would comply with requests from local conservation authorities to reduce consumption by 10% in accordance with the Ontario Low Water Response Protocol. However such a request from authorities is not legally mandated. Such voluntary restrictions also apply to municipalities and any other businesses with a water pumping permit. A Level 1 drought is one that poses potential water supply problems, and occurs when precipitation is less than 70% of its seasonal average.
Level 2 drought conditions would provide a similar request that companies voluntarily reduce its pumping volume by a total of 20%. This applies when precipitation has decreased to less than 60% of its seasonal average, or when there has been no rain for one month, potentially causing major supply problems.
Droughts are managed by watershed-based water response team, conservation authorities, and the Ontario Water Directors’ Committee
Nestle is currently appealing a condition to renew its permit that will legally require it to reduce its water intake by 10% or 20% during Level 1 and 2 droughts respectively, since other companies voluntarily comply with the requests as stated above. The bottled water giant wishes to be subject to the same voluntary intake reduction as everyone else.
I don’t think it’s unfair that Nestle is subject to the same percentage water reduction as the rest of the region. If the only difference is that its water reduction would be mandatory rather than voluntary, then theoretically as a good corporate citizen, Nestle doesn’t stand to lose any more profit during a drought under its current mandatory restrictions than under the more widespread voluntary compliance.
The purpose of Nestle’s special conditions in the permit comes with the recognition that Nestle’s daily water intake is nearly 4000 times the water usage of an average person. The impact of Nestle on the area’s water supply is great enough that it must be regulated during drought to protect other residents and businesses who rely on the watershed.
Readers will forgive me for thinking this protection is necessary for Nestle. In April 2013, Nestle’s chairman, Peter Grabeck, declared that “access to water should not be a public right,” in opposition to Resolution 64/292 passed in 2010 by the United Nations General Assembly recognizing the human right to water and sanitation.
Leave a Reply