In reference to Tony Payne’s column in the Telegram June 20 (“Property rights issue swamps water debate”), wherein he extols the virtues of corporations, may I quote from his “Alliance for Maine’s Future” website home page: “Democracy is like a muscle — it works best when exercised.” How true this statement is.

Just ask the Kennebunk Board of Selectmen regarding their opinion of Central Maine Power, now a subsidiary of a Spanish multinational corporation, about how a corporation treats a small community with their corporate political influence and endless financial resources.

Ask the residents of Wells, when Nestle Waters launched a $1 million slick advertising campaign to convince voters on a new regulatory ordinance that would have permitted large scale groundwater extraction, funding a campaign barrage of television, radio and newspaper advertisements. The Wells voters were intelligent enough to become educated in the real issues and overwhelmingly voted “no” in last November’s referendum.

This is democracy in action! Yes, local citizens are beginning to flex their constitutional muscles when confronted with a corporation that comes into their community, two years in advance of a public announcement, and attempts to lay the groundwork with quiet meetings with local town and municipal officials. Small communities do not need a corporate-funded political action committee telling them what a great job corporations are doing for us.

We are already seeing the effects of that in the Gulf oil spill disaster. Can BP turn around and solve the country’s worst environmental disaster simply with the continued promise of jobs and capital investment?

Only local citizens, who are educated in the issues, participate in their local governments and display an entrepreneurial spirit, will turn around our state’s economy — not the corporations.

Bob Walter
Kennebunk

This editorial originally appeared in the Portland Press Herald on 7/4/10.
Online version here.

1) Far from being beneficial in any but the most limited of senses, large-scale commercial water-bottling is unnecessary, wasteful and, in its processes alone, harmful.

It’s unnecessary because most of us have potable water sources already available to us — water that is vastly cheaper, better monitored and even in some cases simply better than bottled water. It’s wasteful because all of the steps needed to extract it, bottle it and get it to us use energy that might better be expended elsewhere. And it’s harmful because each of those steps pollutes in varying degrees — in, for example, the gases emitted in truck transport and the millions of plastic bottles that end up as refuse.

2) Large-scale extraction of water from Maine’s aquifers, in numbers of gallons now figured in the trillions, is unprecedented and therefore, by its very nature, unsafe. Payne’s misleading figures notwithstanding, the science doesn’t yet exist that can tell us the full effects of massive and continuous aquifer draw-downs.

What is documented is the ongoing despoliation of the planet at the hands of big corporate enterprises who put profit above safety and lie about it. The monstrous BP oil-gushing calamity in the Gulf of Mexico is but the latest example.

3) Nestle richly deserves criticism not because it’s Swiss-based but because of what that location reveals about its size. It’s huge, and its size yields it money to pour into advertising, into taking opponents to court and into support for lobbyists, legislators and legislation.

The truth is that Nestle is putting Maine on the map in international battles for control of the world’s water, and when little Maine towns like Newfield, Shapleigh and Wells refuse to grant Nestle access to their share of it, they’re not participating in any sinister anti-business movement to “make what’s yours ours.”

They are simply working to ground these matters in fact, fairness and proper perspective.

Virginia Woodwell
West Newfield
This editorial originally appeared in the Portland Press Herald on 7/4/10.
Online version here.

Equally inappropriate is your headline for his April 27 column, which continues to muddy the issue of water extraction (”There’s no way Poland Spring could have depleted water in Wells”).

The professor seems to confuse the actions of the Kennebunk, Kennebunkport and Wells Water District trustees and those of the residents of the town of Wells. More than a year ago the trustees voted to table indefinitely the contract negotiated by their superintendent and representatives of Nestle/Poland Spring.

That contract would, indeed, have provided for substantial income to the water district, but the trustees, in their wisdom and in response to public sentiment, decided that revenue was not the single most important criterion in determining whether to do business with Nestle.

The contract was flawed and reflected little more than Nestle’s self-interest. Then there was the “small matter” of the district charter, which unambiguously stipulates that its water is only for its inhabitants.

The vote last fall by the citizens of Wells had nothing to do with a potential income stream from Nestle. We voted on an ordinance that would have allowed the town to permit and regulate large water extractions in the local aquifer. If it had passed, the town’s only revenue would have been minor and as a consequence of taxes on pipelines and loading facilities.

The water extractions would have occurred on private property, with private landowners profiting in accordance with their own contracts with private/corporate extractors. As the professor would say, statements to the contrary are false.

Voters overwhelmingly rejected the ordinance, preferring that large water extractions remain a non- permitted use. The question of whether there was sufficient water in the aquifer was a minor and peripheral issue, in contrast to what your paper suggests in its headline.

The central question was whether the town or a private corporation should control large water extractions. While it is true that the town writes its ordinances and enforces them, it is also true that large corporations can throw their weight around and unduly influence the permitting process.

Nestle/Poland Spring spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in a multimedia blitz last fall to influence the election. Voters resented that action, and were rightfully concerned that the town might not be calling the shots with regard to large water extractions from its aquifer.

Was that an anti-corporate bias? Yes, and rightfully so. For the professor to suggest that such an attitude is inappropriate is, to use his word, ludicrous. The making of good public policy involves far more than weighing economic and scientific data, as he would have us believe.

Our beliefs about what makes for a good community are complex, and can’t be reduced to simplistic notions about what is objective and measurable. Some communities ban big-box stores, others do not. Some allow public nudity, others do not. Some permit corporations to extract their water, others do not.

Don’t lecture us on how we make our decisions, professor.

Joseph W. Hardy”
Wells
This editorial originally appeared in the Portland Press Herald on 4/14/10.
Online version here.

Equally inappropriate is your headline for his April 27 column, which continues to muddy the issue of water extraction (“There’s no way Poland Spring could have depleted water in Wells”).

The professor seems to confuse the actions of the Kennebunk, Kennebunkport and Wells Water District trustees and those of the residents of the town of Wells. More than a year ago the trustees voted to table indefinitely the contract negotiated by their superintendent and representatives of Nestle/Poland Spring.

That contract would, indeed, have provided for substantial income to the water district, but the trustees, in their wisdom and in response to public sentiment, decided that revenue was not the single most important criterion in determining whether to do business with Nestle.

The contract was flawed and reflected little more than Nestle’s self-interest. Then there was the “small matter” of the district charter, which unambiguously stipulates that its water is only for its inhabitants.

The vote last fall by the citizens of Wells had nothing to do with a potential income stream from Nestle. We voted on an ordinance that would have allowed the town to permit and regulate large water extractions in the local aquifer. If it had passed, the town’s only revenue would have been minor and as a consequence of taxes on pipelines and loading facilities.

The water extractions would have occurred on private property, with private landowners profiting in accordance with their own contracts with private/corporate extractors. As the professor would say, statements to the contrary are false.

Voters overwhelmingly rejected the ordinance, preferring that large water extractions remain a non- permitted use. The question of whether there was sufficient water in the aquifer was a minor and peripheral issue, in contrast to what your paper suggests in its headline.

The central question was whether the town or a private corporation should control large water extractions. While it is true that the town writes its ordinances and enforces them, it is also true that large corporations can throw their weight around and unduly influence the permitting process.

Nestle/Poland Spring spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in a multimedia blitz last fall to influence the election. Voters resented that action, and were rightfully concerned that the town might not be calling the shots with regard to large water extractions from its aquifer.

Was that an anti-corporate bias? Yes, and rightfully so. For the professor to suggest that such an attitude is inappropriate is, to use his word, ludicrous. The making of good public policy involves far more than weighing economic and scientific data, as he would have us believe.

Our beliefs about what makes for a good community are complex, and can’t be reduced to simplistic notions about what is objective and measurable. Some communities ban big-box stores, others do not. Some allow public nudity, others do not. Some permit corporations to extract their water, others do not.

Don’t lecture us on how we make our decisions, professor.

Joseph W. Hardy
Wells
This editorial originally appeared in the Portland Press Herald on 4/14/10.
Online version here.

Along with having a strong, four-year-term, publicly elected mayor in Portland, accountable to the people, I am all about seeing Nestle Corp. booted out of Maine entirely.

They’ve lied about many things, especially how many people they would hire and their (wolf guarding the henhouse) impact studies.

Nestle doesn’t give a damn about our people or our state as long as it can continue to pump millions of gallons of our water out to the world, making massive profits while tossing us a few bones along the way.

We are being duped by these shameless corporate leeches, and it’s positively disgraceful!

Water is our oil, and in the future it will be a lot more valuable than oil.

If people want “Maine spring water,” we could regulate our own water, hire three times as many people and be the richest state in the Union.

Let’s see the writing on the wall, folks! This is serious business. I hope the door does hit Nestle on its way out!

Laurence A. Kelly
Portland

This editorial originally appeared in the Portland Press Herald on 4/14/10.
Online version here.

Along with a small group of likewise concerned citizens, we spent countless hours researching the facts, and then spent more countless hours presenting these facts to the residents of Wells. The residents were then able to make informed decisions for themselves, resulting in the overwhelming defeat of the ordinance at the polls.

We are not specifically anti-corporation; we are, rather, totally opposed to the privatization, bottling and selling of our water. Poland Spring (Nestle Waters North America) just happened to be the corporation involved.

The issue was always about the volume of water that would have been pumped, and, the ensuing negative impact on our groundwater supply.

We have been fortunate of late to have a lot of water flowing due to heavy rainfall, but this might not always be the case.

If a long-term contract were signed, the company would be able to keep pumping and removing the same amount of water, no matter whether we were in a drought or not.

The economic gain to the town of Wells would be minimal. The company would only have to pay taxes on the land owned and pumped from, but nothing for the millions of gallons of water taken from the aquifer.

And how can a company be allowed to pump millions of gallons from a water supply, and then try to convince people that their wells and personal water supplies would not be affected?

Lastly, re: the creation of good-paying jobs: There would, at best, be only a handful of jobs needed to monitor a pumping station, certainly not enough to make a great impact on any town’s economy.

The selling of our water is a very emotional issue. It needs to be constantly addressed, keeping people aware of the facts and the dire consequences that result from apathy on this issue.

Valerie L. Murdock
Wells

This editorial originally appeared in the Portland Press Herald on 4/14/10.
Online version here.

Your editorial does a great disservice to your readers. You imply that local businesses will be financially threatened by an increase in their water rates.

This veiled threat is ludicrous.

I personally attended the Feb. 25 public hearing sponsored by the Kennebunk, Kennebunkport and Wells Water District to listen to its explanation for a 5 percent across-the-board rate increase.

Neither one individual nor one local business present at the public hearing expressed any objection to the proposed increase.

I suggest that you redirect your contrived outrage regarding the minuscule water rate increase toward a more substantial threat to local businesses, such as the 25 percent rate increase in insurance premiums that is proposed by Anthem Blue Cross-Blue Shield, on insurance policies that businesses are lucky enough to afford.

Lastly, there is no need to suggest that a deal with a water bottler “would be worth a second look.” The citizens of the town of Wells have already defeated last November’s referendum on a proposed groundwater extraction ordinance, thus preventing Nestle Waters North America from gaining access. There is no need to take a “second look.”

The previous proposed contract between Nestle and the KKWWD would have not resulted in the creation of any new jobs, nor would it have benefited the local communities.

I suggest your Editorial Board educate itself on the issues before making insinuations that selling water “would be worth a second look.”

Bob Walter
Co-chair, Save Our Water
Kennebunk

This editorial originally appeared in the Portland Press Herald on 4/14/10.
Online version here.