Editorial: Water down the Nestle rhetoric (July 18, 2008)
The recent decision of Norman Labbe, chairman of the Kennebunk-Kennebunkport-Wells Water District board of trustees to consider tabling a vote on a contract with Nestle Water to tap the Branch Brook aquifer spring was a responsible move in light of the public outcry over the proposed deal. While the meeting where the motion will be debated took place after we went to press, it seems likely the board will support the chairman’s recommendation.
Any time a government chooses to provide more information and more opportunity for the public to weigh in on affairs conducted in their name is a good thing.
That does not mean we believe the contact itself is a bad thing.
On this page, readers will find several arguments why the district should not go forward with any such contact. Just because we choose to print them, does not mean we believe all such arguments are valid.
When I reported for our sister paper The South Portland-Cape Elizabeth Sentry, I often heard a mantra familiar to those who paid attention to Cape Elizabeth’s often contentious debates over taxes, education and other public business: “Reasonable people can disagree.”
It was within this framework that debates often (although not always) took place.
It seems the opponents of this deal ought to take a breath an internalize this phrase.
Vilifying public officials, exaggerating the stakes and casting vague and unsubstantiated allegations as fact overshadow the substantive issues that ought to be addressed in public and possibly in amending the proposed contract. The ideologues have cast this debate as a battle between the right and the left.
Those on the left should be wary they do not imitate the politics of fear so well deployed by the administration they despise.
The stakeholders within and adjacent to the district should focus on the proposal at hand and its direct implications.
This proposed contracts effects on drought-stricken areas hundred or thousands of miles away are at best tenuous.
The environmental implications of more plastic, more trucks and more waste in our backyard are far more plausible. While Nestle Waters may feel such criticism unfairly singles out their niche in a much large bottled beverage industry, the fact is there already exists a much more efficient method of delivering clean, healthy water to people: indoor plumbing financed by the public to benefit the public.
Yet that is not true in all cases. Sometimes distributing bottled water is the safest and surest means of fulfilling a need.
Those who believe this industry ought to be limited or eliminated will never succeed in reducing the supply. There are many options available to those who seek to profit from the demand.
Focusing on that demand – in homes, businesses, schools and elsewhere is where such critics ought to focus their energy.
In the mean time, allowing the water district to subsidize the public water and possibly expand infrastructure by allowing Nestle Waters to responsibly tap a plentiful and sustainable supply does not seem unreasonable at all.
–Ward Peck, editor
Any time a government chooses to provide more information and more opportunity for the public to weigh in on affairs conducted in their name is a good thing.
That does not mean we believe the contact itself is a bad thing.
On this page, readers will find several arguments why the district should not go forward with any such contact. Just because we choose to print them, does not mean we believe all such arguments are valid.
When I reported for our sister paper The South Portland-Cape Elizabeth Sentry, I often heard a mantra familiar to those who paid attention to Cape Elizabeth’s often contentious debates over taxes, education and other public business: “Reasonable people can disagree.”
It was within this framework that debates often (although not always) took place.
It seems the opponents of this deal ought to take a breath an internalize this phrase.
Vilifying public officials, exaggerating the stakes and casting vague and unsubstantiated allegations as fact overshadow the substantive issues that ought to be addressed in public and possibly in amending the proposed contract. The ideologues have cast this debate as a battle between the right and the left.
Those on the left should be wary they do not imitate the politics of fear so well deployed by the administration they despise.
The stakeholders within and adjacent to the district should focus on the proposal at hand and its direct implications.
This proposed contracts effects on drought-stricken areas hundred or thousands of miles away are at best tenuous.
The environmental implications of more plastic, more trucks and more waste in our backyard are far more plausible. While Nestle Waters may feel such criticism unfairly singles out their niche in a much large bottled beverage industry, the fact is there already exists a much more efficient method of delivering clean, healthy water to people: indoor plumbing financed by the public to benefit the public.
Yet that is not true in all cases. Sometimes distributing bottled water is the safest and surest means of fulfilling a need.
Those who believe this industry ought to be limited or eliminated will never succeed in reducing the supply. There are many options available to those who seek to profit from the demand.
Focusing on that demand – in homes, businesses, schools and elsewhere is where such critics ought to focus their energy.
In the mean time, allowing the water district to subsidize the public water and possibly expand infrastructure by allowing Nestle Waters to responsibly tap a plentiful and sustainable supply does not seem unreasonable at all.
–Ward Peck, editor
It's interesting, as the editor requests for individuals not to submit unsubstantiated allegations, he, himself does so. He assumes that this is a "right/left" division? Where is the proof. (Nestle has long maintained that stance.)
I am a life long Republican and business supporter, and former business owner, who is an outspoken critic of Nestle and their way of doing business as water bottlers.
It is known that in Siskiyou County in California, where Nestle is trying to extablish a water bottling facility, that they do so with an open purse. Those of us who oppose Nestle have learned that it is difficult to have anything printed that is opposing Nestle. We go elsewhere, like Business Week. These local papers print material that is clearly one-sided in Nestle's favor.
When presented with an opposing point of view,even when based on factual information,that point of view is never printed.
Curious.....
Reply to this
What is most curious is the commenter's denial that the opinion section overwhelmingly represents the opponents side. She also misread the editorial. I did not request that individuals not submit unsubstantiated rumors, only noted that they do. The commenter also ignores the fact that within the editorial itself there is criticism of the bottled water industry. My point there is that trying to shut down the supply is a losing strategy (can you stop Coca Cola or Pepsi from selling what amounts to bottled tap water?). Trying to curb demand by educating the public that such purchases of bottled water is unnecessary may be the more fruitful way to go. I understand its easier to go after a corporation than asking people to exercise individual responsibility. It's also pretty easy for people to label those who don't agree 100% with their point of view as stooges for to corporates. Just because you can make a connection, doesn't mean it exists. Most reasonable people understand that.
Ward Peck, editor
Reply to this
I find the editorial's conclusion puzzling when you suggest that opponents of the industry will never succeed at reducing the supply of spring water. Nestle typically pays little for spring water, which it turns around and sells at above-gasoline prices.
Why wouldn't local populations try to protect that resource - at the very least for the purposes of getting fair payment for it? After all, scarcity breeds higher prices (if I read my economics texts correctly).
The number of communities who have recently said "no" to Nestle makes it clear there is a growing barrier to getting the spring water Nestle wants. Simply put, you're wrong on this point.
Also, I find it interesting that you're willing to paint opponents with one broad brush (using words like ideologues).
Nestle's tactics in other towns bear a little scrutiny, and in my neck of the woods, they even attempted to subpoena the private financial records of bottling plant opponents.
That was a pretty clear attempt at legal intimidation, and while I find that *some* of the barbs aimed at Nestle are over the top, the corporation's model for dividing communities and using legal means to get what they want (ask Fryeburg if you don't know what I mean) means it's earned a lot of the vitrol it experiences.
After all, Nestle's big-dollar PR agencies muddy the waters with their fatuous comparisons of bottled soda to bottled water (forgetting that soda does not run freely from most taps), or their attempts to justify a hugely wasteful industry by trumpeting the water they sometimes send to disaster areas.
You didn't take aim at those doozies in your editorial.
Finally, an economic study done on Nestle's proposed McCloud plant showed the very real potential for a net negative economic effect on the community. Short-sighted politicians (and yes, even editorial writers) never really seem to account for the negative costs associated with a Nestle plant (infrastructure wear, pollution, loss of lifestyle, lost opportunity costs, etc), happying themselves with the prospect of minimal payments for a precious resource and a handful of jobs (the better-paying of which typically don't go to locals)
Is Nestle sometimes the victim of over-the-top rhetoric? Sometimes, yes. Do their "divide and conquer" policies, obtuse PR campaigns and intimidating legal tactics foment that kind of rhetoric? Yes again.
And finally, why is it so hard for a segment of a community to say "no" to a wasteful, unprofitable, largely ridiulous use of a precious resource without being labeled as "idealouges" or "anti-growth" or worse?
In other words, who's the victim of over-the-top rhetoric in that instance?
Reply to this
You make some very reasonable points – most of which have not been made by opponents within our pages. The majority of letters against the proposal have charged one of three things: 1. Nestle is bad because it is a corporation (still worse an out of state corporation). 2. The water will run out and 3. The district does not have the authority to enter this contract.
The first argument is an ideological one, made by ideologues (and, by the way, not necessarily false but then why stop at Nestle?). While, hopefully, the winds may be blowing in a different direction these days, it doesn't take a Karl Rove to know that positions cast as "liberal" do not fare well in the court of public opinion, which is likely why Nestle is eager to cast it as such, which is your point, I believe. Why would opponents want help them achieve that dichotomy rather than stick to pragmatic and demonstrable augments? The second argument is simply false, or at the very least highly improbable and would be covered in any final agreement. You note, even if the water does not run out , there are potential environmental costs directly associated with tapping a spring. Thank you for that. I believe I did note the other costs. The third argument is one of legal interpretation and something tells me Nestle has a few lawyers in addition to PR people.
Saying no to wasteful, largely ridiculous use of a precious resource is a laudable goal. But in order to be persuasive to a larger segment of the community, opponents need to do a better reason explaining why.
Ward Peck
Reply to this
This gentleman's points WERE made by the people at the many meetings at which your paper did not attend, Ward. You haven't heard them from us before because you haven't gone to these meetings or you would not assert that this is the first time they were being said, and not by idealogues, either, but by people from all points on the compass.
It was because I believed your attendance was vital that I felt called, albeit inappropriately, to say I was there for your paper--as a proxy,attending a meeting where I could later report back to the paper, which I have done for several editors prior to you. Not as a reporter, but as a person getting information for a former employer.
I said "I DID work at the Post", when I went into the private meeting with the Trustees where they planned to vote for or against the contract.
I never changed this explanation, even though you said I changed my story. Your editor got it wrong and it was clear she was mistakenly conflating the two times I mentioned your paper--the first time was when I said I USED TO BE A REPORTER at the very first water meeting attended by hundreds of people.
The context is what you are missing, largely because you haven't been attending these extremely important meetings. We would not have to be advising you after the fact, such as the meeting last night at the UU Church in Kennebunk, where 50 people showed up to discuss the movie 'Thirst' and its relevance to our situation. No, of course you were not there, again.
Is it your interest in this corporation's advertising that influences your editorial content?
I suggest that you absolve your paper from any possible taint of accusations of conflict of interest and make a declaration of intent to immediately suspend ANY advertising you could derive from your denunciation of Nestles opponents. In other words, no ads for Nestle!!!
Since we are clearing the air, let's also tell people that I told you that I had spoken to the CAMERAMAN at WERU, not the reporter. Yes, the cameraman said I could say I was 'with WERU' if I had any problems with the Nestle enablers at the water district meeting. You never printed a clarification, preferring to let people think I had lied about this association. I also told the Nestle enablers, NOT THE GATEKEEPERS these points of clarification, since they were hectoring me in the meeting, due no doubt to the fact that I pulled no punches with the trustees and insisted on a public forum prior to any vote.
As a local newspaper you could do more to more objective. That is what the public is repeatedly trying to tell you. Are you listening?
Reply to this