4. What are other people (reporters, bloggers, editorialists, perhaps even government officials) saying about this issue? Write a blog that explores what other people are saying about the issue and what you think about their positions and insights or lack of a position or insight. Make sure you cite your sources, and include a minimum of three commentators, from at least two mediums (print, broadcast and/or web).
People’s response to the Nestle water situation has been the same across the board. The people in the communities affected by the company only speak badly of them. It is understandable for them to be frustrated when they pay “much higher rates for tainted water than Nestlé did for clean water” (Perkins, 2019). Another side effect of Nestlé’s bottling production is that they cause a disruption in the eco-system of the streams and that surrounding the streams. Even a former forest service leader, Gary Earney, is one of Nestle’s biggest critic. Even though Earney “administered Nestlé’s water permit between 1984 and 2007”, he believes that Nestles bottle production is hurting the environment (Perkins, 2019). Another problem is that the budget for the Forest Service was severely cut, which led to staff not being able to monitor and manage Nestle and their activities.
The only people that seem to be saying positive things about Nestle are people that work for the government. They see it as a positive when Nestle funds “new ambulances and fireworks for economically struggling communities… [along with] new baseball diamonds for the district’s baseball team” (Perkins, 2019). And that makes sense when Nestle employees are put on state’s environmental protection board or lead a state’s department of environmental protection or that Nestle or its lobbyists are donating to politicians.
Here is a video by Company Man. He goes over what specifically makes Nestle water in general so controversial.
Here is the link if you have trouble viewing the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRWWK-iW_zU&list=RDCMUCQMyhrt92_8XM0KgZH6VnRg&index=1
Here is a video by CBS This Morning. They go more into detail about water bottling production and the public opinion in California.
Here is the link if you have trouble viewing the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aG62UJIsmd4
Sources:
Nestlé faces backlash over water sourcing from drought-prone California. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aG62UJIsmd4
Nestle Waters – Big and Controversial. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRWWK-iW_zU&list=RDCMUCQMyhrt92_8XM0KgZH6VnRg&index=1
Perkins, T. (2019, October 29). The fight to stop Nestlé from taking America’s water to sell in plastic bottles. Retrieved March 28, 2020, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/29/the-fight-over-water-how-nestle-dries-up-us-creeks-to-sell-water-in-plastic-bottles
Sidney Ponikau 
I totally understand why the people in California are protesting and are upset at this company because they are taking their water which is making them have a drought from it. Watching the second video, the man who was being interviewed stated “water is not owned to anyone” which is an accurate statement but also it’s not right that you are taking majority of their water and making California be under a drought for Nestle to make a profit on it.
LikeLike
I mean if I were told to reduce my household water intake and had to follow specific rules and then found out a company was taking an absurd amount of water from my area, I would be very upset.
LikeLike
I do understand why people in California are getting upset. Maybe Nestle should start taking a big amount of water from one place, but start taking it from multiple other places, so it doesn’t leave California out to dry. I also think that people who are against this situation are stating their opinions, but are they interviewing people who are “for” this situation? And what are those people saying about it?
LikeLike
I agree. I think it would be a lot better to source water from multiple places, especially from areas that are not going through droughts. People that are “for” this situation are mayors and other government officials and boards. Nestle brings jobs and tends to fund things for the community so they like to look past the environmental problems.
LikeLike
Including the videos in this post helped tremendously. While there are multiple viewpoints that people are taking on the situation, I have to say that I do agree with many government officials. We can’t disregard the issues that Nestle is incurring on the planet, but in todays current world, the main focus needs to be on the economic outcomes. Yes, Nestle has hurt the environment in many different ways, but what good is their company if they cannot benefit financially? I think it would be in the interest of Nestle to determine the exact dollar value amount of the impacts their company has had on the planet. Then compare this to the exact dollar amount of profits the company has seen. Using this they can determine a way to still profit from their products while giving some of the money to an organization that seeks to better the planet.
LikeLike
I agree, Nestle is bringing benefits to the communities. But people in the communities however feel that those benefits don’t out weigh the problems Nestle brings. And I think today’s current world needs to rethink what the main focus should be. We only have one earth and we need to protect it.
LikeLike
I thought the CBS report was very informational. It described Nestles dependency to Californian water. Nestle pays little money to the State of California for the water that they profit highly from. They capitalizing on a public natural resource.
LikeLike
Nestles profit is so big due to the license being so inexpensive. I think it is very understandable that people are upset that they are paying a large amount more for their tap water than what Nestle is paying in order to pump water to bottle.
LikeLike