ESPN

WAUTOMA, Wis. — Just a few years ago, states and provinces around the Great Lakes acted quickly and decisively to stop private companies from collecting and selling surface water, claiming the liquid resources of the Great Lakes were public property.

Now, instead of surface water, ground water supplies are being targeted. This time around, however, politicians have been strangely silent and only private citizens are protesting.

"I'm as upset with the (state) legislature as I am with Perrier," said one Wisconsin citizen. "They heard testimony from many ground water experts and they didn't do anything."

Another added: "He (former Gov. Scott McCallum) stood up in the Dells and promised us that Perrier would never come here. He promised us one thing and then turned around and did another."

Owned by Nestle, Perrier is trying its best to establish ground water pumping sites in Wisconsin, hard on the heels of a facility already established in Michigan. (See related story.) The public water is to be bottled and sold under such names as Ice Mountain, Poland Springs, Zephyrhills and Ozarka, as the company races to meet the every growing demand for bottled water.

The world's largest food company, Nestle already owns a third of the bottled water business in the United States and operates 70 pumping sites in scattered states from Maine to California. And, of course, Perrier is not the only company bottling and selling water to grab a share of what's estimated to be a $7.6 billion market each year. State and local governments seem happy for these companies to establish in their jurisdictions, hire a few people and turn huge profits. But in Michigan and Wisconsin, activists are fighting back, fearful that withdrawals of as much as 750,000 gallons of water per pump per day could have catastrophic results for area lakes and streams, and, eventually, even the Great Lakes.

"Once water is removed from a region, it is gone forever from the normal evaporation/precipitation cycle," said activist Jim Chapralis. "You don't need an environmental impact statement to know this."

Yet, Perrier was invited into central Wisconsin in 2000 by Forward Wisconsin, a business-development group. Amazingly, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources was going to allow it to withdraw water from state property in Waushara County. Its target was Mecan Springs, headwaters for the Mecan River, a premiere trout stream.

But "Friends of the Mecan" and members of Trout Unlimited protested so fiercely that Perrier decided to look elsewhere. The same thing happened when the company considered drilling on private land and when it explored options in nearby Adams County.

The battle, however, is far from over. Perrier and other bottled water companies have succeeded in other places and undoubtedly will find places to drill in even more. "It (Perrier) dangles substantial political contributions at the right places. It promises jobs and construction of plants," said Chapralis. "It works out secret deals and only when the pieces are basically in place does it announce its plans to the surprised, unprepared local citizens.

"Blame must also be placed on most states, because they still have antiquated ground water laws … It is imperative that stringent legislation is in place immediately, or the adverse consequences in Wisconsin, Michigan and other states would be irreversible."

Battle brewing over Perrier water source

BIG RAPIDS, Mich. — A legal battle is being waged in central Michigan to determine if Perrier will be allowed to continue pumping ground water from Mecosta County. If not extracted, that same water would feed the Muskegon River and, finally, the Great Lakes.

Last November, Circuit Judge Lawrence Root ordered Perrier to stop taking water when he ruled in favor of citizen activists, saying that such pumping has or will reduce lake levels, make streams sluggish and dry wetlands.

Shortly after the ruling, the Michigan Court of Appeals said that the company could continue to pump as it appeals the order. Perrier had argued that 120 workers would be idled if extraction was stopped.

Perrier was aided in its case by the state, which filed a supportive brief with the Court of Appeals.

"It's awfully disheartening to have the DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality) support & this pumping," said Jim Olson, an attorney for the Michigan Environmental Council and several waterfront property owners. "But we will take the DEQ at face value that they're not disagreeing with Judge Root's ruling."

DEQ spokesperson Patricia Spitzley said that the state has not taken sides.

"This (brief) is not a comment on the specifics or merits of this case," she said, explaining that DEQ reports show water levels near the pumping operation are at an "all-time high."

"We would like to keep things 'status quo' at the Nestle plant while the courts rule on appeals and the legislature wrestles with water withdrawal rules," she added. In addition, Gov. Jennifer Granholm has promised to bring "comprehensive water withdrawal and water use statutes" to the legislature this year.

If Michigan citizens doubt such promises, they have good reason.

When Perrier was considering the Mecosta County site in 1998, it met with Gov. John Engler. Citizens didn't find out for two years.

"Perrier received almost $10 million in incentives and school taxes were waived for 12 years," said water activist Jim Chapralis.

"Since the water was free, it was estimated by experts that Perrier could gross between $0.5 million and $1.8 million a day. . . . Yet the contribution to the local economy was minimal."

What's inside bottled water?

WASHINGTON, D.C. — As individual Americans consume an average of 21.1 gallons of bottled water each year, and while the industry grows 10 percent annually, companies like Perrier are raking in the profits.

But just what do consumers get for their money? Is the water they pay for cleaner or healthier than the free water they could draw from their own taps? It might be, but there's no guarantee, according to a 1999 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The organization tested 1,000 bottles of 103 brands of bottled water.

"While most of the tested waters were found to be of high quality, some brands were contaminated. About a third of the waters tested contained levels of contamination, including synthetic organic chemicals, bacteria and arsenic," said a NRDC spokesman.

The NRDC also determined that "bottled water regulations are inadequate to assure consumers of either purity or safety, although both the federal government and the states have bottled water safety programs."

Nationally, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for the safety of bottled water. But, as of 1999, its own rules exempt waters that are packaged and sold within the same state, and that accounts for between 60 and 70 percent of all bottled water sold in the United States. In addition, 20 percent of states don't regulate this in-state water either.

"Even when bottled waters are covered by the FDA's rules, they are subject to less rigorous testing and purity standards than those which apply to city tap water," NRDC said.

"For example, bottled water is required to be tested less frequently than city tap water for bacteria and chemical contaminants. In addition, bottled water rules allow for some contamination by E. coli or fecal coliform, contrary to tap water rules, which prohibit any confirmed contamination with these bacteria." Ironically, public concern about tap water is what has led to the booming business in bottled water.

"This bonanza is also fueled by marketing designed to convince the public of bottled water's purity and safety, marketing so successful that people spend from 240 to over 10,000 times more per gallon for bottled water than they typically do for tap water." And according to the NRDC, about 25 percent of the bottled water sold is actually tap water.

Click here to JOIN BASS!