Should the Australian Government provide drought relief funds for farmers?

[Value Collector]

It has me baffled why farmers keep attempting to raise animals that require a steady supply of hay, in areas that have a long history of not being able to produce a steady supply of hay.

 

[luutzu]

It’s not the model in flint either, nestle has a permit to pump a set amount of gallons per year, and that rate is set by the authorities.

They don’t have to pay for the water, but the amount of water they pump is limited to the permitted amount.

You don’t seem to have a good understanding of the facts, or is it you are just twisting the facts to suit.

I don't lie dude. I might have an alternative interpretation of the facts but that's just being... critical... in reading stuff.

Summary:

Nestle' now only pays $200 a year to pump 100,000 times what the average resident in Flint consume.

The average resident pays $200 a month for their water (contamination comes free).

The residents are upset, for some reason. They complain because they're whinny. The board that granted Nestle' the largess says they can't make decision based on popular opinion.

Corporation: 1
Democracy: Go fark yourself.



https://www.sciencealert.com/flint-michigan-residents-clean-water-nestle-pump-gallons-cheap

Flint Residents Struggle For Affordable, Clean Water, While Nestle Pumps Gallons of It Nearby
Nestle pays only $200 a year.


CARLY CASSELLA
10 APR 2018


Last week, the state of Michigan approved a permit that would allow Nestle to significantly increase the volume of fresh water it currently pumps with no extra cost.

Four days later and 100 miles away, residents of Flint, Michigan were told they would no longer be receiving free bottled water from the government.

Naturally, many Flint residents were left wondering: why does a food and beverage giant get to bottle water for next to nothing, while residents are forced to pay for their right to lead-free water?

"We the citizens of Flint are unable to get water, but you can give Nestle water for free and force us to buy that back at a premium," said Flint resident, Anthony Paciorek.

"That ain't right."

While state officials have declared Flint tap water safe to drink, there are still thousands of lead pipes that remain in the city.

In fact, according to The Washington Post, more than 12,000 homes in Flint still have lead pipes that need replacing.

As a result, many residents remain worried by the quality of water in their homes, and they continue to rely on bottled water for their everyday needs.

Nevertheless, the governor of Michigan, Rick Snyder, announced on Friday that city residents would no longer receive free bottled water from the state.

Instead, residents will have to pay some of the steepest tap water prices in the country: around $200 per month for water they aren't even sure is safe to drink.


To put all of this into perspective, Nestle pays around $200 per year to pump almost 100,000 times the amount of water that the average Michigan resident uses.

And now, the company has been given the go ahead to pump nearly double that amount – with no additional cost, of course.

Even though over 80,000 people – including 9 Tribal Governments - have publicly protested Nestle's permit request, Michigan's Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) said it could not base its decision on public opinion.

But that didn't stop residents and politicans from trying.

"... there needs to be a balance between the economic benefit of Nestlé and the responsibility of the MDEQ to protect Michigan's environment and natural resources," said Michigan state representative, Tim Sneller, in a recent opinion article.

"What's more, Nestle Waters' request comes at a time when Flint residents are being told their pipes will not be replaced entirely until 2020," he added.

"This means they will have to continue relying on bottled water for the next three years and likely even longer."

In light of the permit approval, residents of Flint have announced plans to boycott Nestle's products.

Science AF is ScienceAlert's new editorial section where we explore society's most complex problems using science, sanity and humor.

 

[luutzu]

And this....
400 gallons per minute. 200,000 per day?

1 * 60 * 24 = 1,440 * 400 = 576, 000. Oh, 9 hours a day only.

$200 for the permit. Does that include the stamp and envelope with the inspectors being sent out to looksy?




https://www.accuweather.com/en/weat...r-extraction-sparking-public-outrage/70004797
Outrage ensues as Michigan grants Nestlé permit to extract 200,000 gallons of water per day

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) granted Nestlé Waters North America, Inc. (Nestlé) a permit to increase its groundwater withdrawal for the purpose of bottling drinking water, according to a MDEQ statement on April 2.

Nestlé is authorized to begin withdrawing water at a rate up to 400 gallons per minute from the White Pine Springs well located near Evart, Michigan. Withdrawal may begin once the monitoring plan is in place and the baseline data is collected.

The MDEQ determined that the application met the requirements for approval under the Michigan Safe Drinking Water Act.

However, more than 80,000 people have said they oppose the proposal, while only 75 people said they are in favor of it.

As Nestlé works to extract more clean water resources, residents in Michigan cities, most notably Flint, struggle to find what they believe to be affordable, safe water.

 

[Value Collector]

I don't lie dude. I might have an alternative interpretation of the facts but that's just being... critical... in reading stuff.

Summary:

Nestle' now only pays $200 a year to pump 100,000 times what the average resident in Flint consume.

The average resident pays $200 a month for their water (contamination comes free).

The residents are upset, for some reason. They complain because they're whinny. The board that granted Nestle' the largess says they can't make decision based on popular opinion.

Corporation: 1
Democracy: Go fark yourself.



https://www.sciencealert.com/flint-michigan-residents-clean-water-nestle-pump-gallons-cheap

Flint Residents Struggle For Affordable, Clean Water, While Nestle Pumps Gallons of It Nearby
Nestle pays only $200 a year.


CARLY CASSELLA
10 APR 2018


Last week, the state of Michigan approved a permit that would allow Nestle to significantly increase the volume of fresh water it currently pumps with no extra cost.

Four days later and 100 miles away, residents of Flint, Michigan were told they would no longer be receiving free bottled water from the government.

Naturally, many Flint residents were left wondering: why does a food and beverage giant get to bottle water for next to nothing, while residents are forced to pay for their right to lead-free water?

"We the citizens of Flint are unable to get water, but you can give Nestle water for free and force us to buy that back at a premium," said Flint resident, Anthony Paciorek.

"That ain't right."

While state officials have declared Flint tap water safe to drink, there are still thousands of lead pipes that remain in the city.

In fact, according to The Washington Post, more than 12,000 homes in Flint still have lead pipes that need replacing.

As a result, many residents remain worried by the quality of water in their homes, and they continue to rely on bottled water for their everyday needs.

Nevertheless, the governor of Michigan, Rick Snyder, announced on Friday that city residents would no longer receive free bottled water from the state.

Instead, residents will have to pay some of the steepest tap water prices in the country: around $200 per month for water they aren't even sure is safe to drink.


To put all of this into perspective, Nestle pays around $200 per year to pump almost 100,000 times the amount of water that the average Michigan resident uses.

And now, the company has been given the go ahead to pump nearly double that amount – with no additional cost, of course.

Even though over 80,000 people – including 9 Tribal Governments - have publicly protested Nestle's permit request, Michigan's Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) said it could not base its decision on public opinion.

But that didn't stop residents and politicans from trying.

"... there needs to be a balance between the economic benefit of Nestlé and the responsibility of the MDEQ to protect Michigan's environment and natural resources," said Michigan state representative, Tim Sneller, in a recent opinion article.

"What's more, Nestle Waters' request comes at a time when Flint residents are being told their pipes will not be replaced entirely until 2020," he added.

"This means they will have to continue relying on bottled water for the next three years and likely even longer."

In light of the permit approval, residents of Flint have announced plans to boycott Nestle's products.

Science AF is ScienceAlert's new editorial section where we explore society's most complex problems using science, sanity and humor.

Nestle pays for a permit, to pump a set amount of untreated water from the ground, which they then pay a lot of money to treat, bottle and distribute.

There is no point comparing what nestles permit costs to water a city water user pays on their bill.

You are trying to compare the cost of a permit to produce a commodity, with the final retail rate of a delivered product.

And again, nestles system has nothing to do with the cities water system, they aren’t using any city water infrastructure, it’s a completely different source, completely different(private) infrastructure.

If you are blaming nestle for the problem you are wrong.

If you think that nestle should be some how subsidizing the flint water Infrastructure just because they happen to be dealing in the same commodity, you are wrong.

If is mismanagement by the water authority and that’s it, put the blame where the blame lies.

 

[SirRumpole]

If you think that nestle should be some how subsidizing the flint water Infrastructure just because they happen to be dealing in the same commodity, you are wrong.

So really, there is nothing wrong with closing public roads and forcing people to take a private tollway is there ?

 

[luutzu]

Nestle pays for a permit, to pump a set amount of untreated water from the ground, which they then pay a lot of money to treat, bottle and distribute.

There is no point comparing what nestles permit costs to water a city water user pays on their bill.

You are trying to compare the cost of a permit to produce a commodity, with the final retail rate of a delivered product.

And again, nestles system has nothing to do with the cities water system, they aren’t using any city water infrastructure, it’s a completely different source, completely different(private) infrastructure.

If you are blaming nestle for the problem you are wrong.

If you think that nestle should be some how subsidizing the flint water Infrastructure just because they happen to be dealing in the same commodity, you are wrong.

If is mismanagement by the water authority and that’s it, put the blame where the blame lies.

Things don't operate in a vacumn you know. They do affect each other.

But alright, Nestle' just pump the state's water for nothing. Heck, they even have to "purify" it at a rate of 400 gallon a minute... do you realise how dirty and/or powerful a purifier must be to clean all that impurity out at that rate?

Think of the costs and high investment Nestle must bare to bring water to humanity. And here I am giving Nestle a hard time about it.

 

[SirRumpole]

It has me baffled why farmers keep attempting to raise animals that require a steady supply of hay, in areas that have a long history of not being able to produce a steady supply of hay.

Hay supplies would be adequate if there wasn't a drought. There is a limit to how much hay you can store but certainly some farmers over stock and hope and then complain when natural events disadvantage them.

A national drought strategy is needed, but it will never happen because once the drought ends the farmers will forget it ever happened and go back to the old ways.

 

[Smurf1976]

I won’t claim any expertise on farming but knowledge of other things (eg water resources which is subject to the same issues with drought) tells me that it should be very possible to calculate the probability that any given level of hay can be produced on a particular farm.

You’ll have the 10% probability level, the 50%, the 80% and so on.

On the surface of it at least it all seems very doable to me if the required inputs are available which they would be to farmers.

Whether or not farms are actually run in such a scientific manner I don’t know but large scale water resources are.

 

[Tisme]

Things don't operate in a vacumn you know. They do affect each other.

But alright, Nestle' just pump the state's water for nothing. Heck, they even have to "purify" it at a rate of 400 gallon a minute... do you realise how dirty and/or powerful a purifier must be to clean all that impurity out at that rate?

Think of the costs and high investment Nestle must bare to bring water to humanity. And here I am giving Nestle a hard time about it.

Seen the deal Adani got with water?

 

[macca]

Perhaps some farmers need to face reality, having driven through the drought area recently I was mystified to see so much stock still on some places

<<In NSW's central west, farmers Laurie and John Chaffey have seen and read the stories about farmers in drought shooting starving livestock that they cannot afford to feed.

The Chaffeys don't ever want to be in that position, and that meant being prepared for this drought and future ones.>>

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/...armers-who-have-braced-for-the-big-dry/528308

 

[luutzu]

Seen the deal Adani got with water?

Yea, but don't know the exact figures. But water is plentiful while we can't get enough of coal though.

You can replace water with drinking the refreshing coke; coal just have no alternatives.

 

[Smurf1976]

Yea, but don't know the exact figures. But water is plentiful while we can't get enough of coal though.

I recognise the sarcasm but it is worth pointing out that if properly managed water is indeed an abundant resource and a renewable one at that.

In contrast it’s a given that continued use will eventually exhaust all high grade deposits of metallic minerals and fossil fuels.

If someone’s left the hose running on the ground and the car engine idling then it’s the car that we should be rushing to turn off first not the water.

 

[luutzu]

I recognise the sarcasm but it is worth pointing out that if properly managed water is indeed an abundant resource and a renewable one at that.

In contrast it’s a given that continued use will eventually exhaust all high grade deposits of metallic minerals and fossil fuels.

If someone’s left the hose running on the ground and the car engine idling then it’s the car that we should be rushing to turn off first not the water.

I understand that water will be recycled. But mother nature doesn't always return it to where it was, or where we needed it.

So while chemically and all that, the total amount of water the earth have will always remain the same. Just it'll be shifted to other parts of the world.

And that, as far as human survival is concern, is more or less a non-renewable source if it's not managed properly.

For example, if water dries up across north America, the US will get a drought and currently suffers 100 major bushfire.

The amount of water that's shifted from the US gets dumped on, say, Asia or Switzerland... landslides and flash flooding.

 

[Smurf1976]

I’m referring to Australia here not globally.

There’s a perpetual drought in minerals, oil never rains from the sky etc, but if we’re short on water then that comes down to management in a country where we’ve had major flooding in recent memory and now there’s a drought. That scenario exists even within the same state eg Queensland.

The way we manage water is akin to living pay to pay and spending half the time broke dispite having an income which would be more than sufficient if better managed. We treat rain as thought we’ve won the lottery and then wring our hands in despair when the next drought arrives (and if history is any guide this one is most likely just getting started).

Surely there’s a way to do it better.

 

[Value Collector]

Hay supplies would be adequate if there wasn't a drought. There is a limit to how much hay you can store but certainly some farmers over stock and hope and then complain when natural events disadvantage them.

A national drought strategy is needed, but it will never happen because once the drought ends the farmers will forget it ever happened and go back to the old ways.

That’s the issue though, regular droughts are just part of the Australian climate, and always will be, so attempting to raise these animals is these drought prone regions has a lot of risk, for both the farmer and the animal.

 

[Value Collector]

So really, there is nothing wrong with closing public roads and forcing people to take a private tollway is there ?

That’s not the case,

The correct analogy would be that the city mismanaged their roads, and was forced to close them due to their own incompetence, but a private company owned an alternative road across their own land.

Then people say “hey, shouldn’t we have been charging this company a fee to allow them to have a road, so then they could pay for our mismanaged roads”

Flint’s water problems would exist even if the nestle water plant didn’t exist.

 

[luutzu]

That’s not the case,

The correct analogy would be that the city mismanaged their roads, and was forced to close them due to their own incompetence, but a private company owned an alternative road across their own land.

Then people say “hey, shouldn’t we have been charging this company a fee to allow them to have a road, so then they could pay for our mismanaged roads”

Flint’s water problems would exist even if the nestle water plant didn’t exist.

I heard that in the US, pretty much all toll road operators signed a deal with the relevant gov't that would not permit the gov't to build or improve roads that would compete with the toll roads.

That kind of fine-print doesn't exist? Or exist but for the benefit of everyone?

Dude, think about it. When a toll road operates it will cost everyone more. For one thing, those driving on it will obviously pay.

Those choosing not to pay will congest local roads.

More congestion means more wear and tear. Can't fix it because of such non-competing clauses. Can't fix the roads because there are now less revenue.

But sure, public employees are just lazy and incompetent. It's capitalists and investors that know how to save everyone.

 

[luutzu]

That’s not the case,

The correct analogy would be that the city mismanaged their roads, and was forced to close them due to their own incompetence, but a private company owned an alternative road across their own land.

Then people say “hey, shouldn’t we have been charging this company a fee to allow them to have a road, so then they could pay for our mismanaged roads”

Flint’s water problems would exist even if the nestle water plant didn’t exist.

How?

If Flint were to charge Nestle a fee for the common state resources. That's not going to matter to their account balance? They'll just waste it anyway?

 

[Value Collector]

How?

If Flint were to charge Nestle a fee for the common state resources. That's not going to matter to their account balance? They'll just waste it anyway?

You could say that for any business, you could add an additional tax to any company,

Can we say-

eg. "flints water is crap because the farmers in the state haven't been paying for the water they draw from their dams etc, if we just charged every farm per litre for the water they draw from the rivers and dams, flints coffers would be over flowing in coin"

These farmers are using the states water to grow corn and rear chickens which they then sell FOR PROFIT, immoral bastards, people of flint have no drinking water due to the city's mismanagement while these farmers continue still pumping water, FOR FREE to raise chicken to sell FOR PROFIT.

 

[luutzu]

You could say that for any business, you could add an additional tax to any company,

Can we say-

eg. "flints water is crap because the farmers in the state haven't been paying for the water they draw from their dams etc, if we just charged every farm per litre for the water they draw from the rivers and dams, flints coffers would be over flowing in coin"

These farmers are using the states water to grow corn and rear chickens which they then sell FOR PROFIT, immoral bastards, people of flint have no drinking water due to the city's mismanagement while these farmers continue still pumping water, FOR FREE to raise chicken to sell FOR PROFIT.

There's the common good vs private good.

A case can be made for mom and pop farmers needing water, and getting it for next to nothing, or free.

The average farmer is not the average Nestle'.

And Nestle' is not paying any "additional" tax on their water. They're paying nothing for them. Is it immoral to ask them to pay for what is a common?

If it is wrong in Nestle will simply pass on the cost to their consumers. Then why must Flint's residents subsidise Nestle and its consumers?

that's like asking Optus and Foxtel to not pay for its use of the poles because they'll just charge their consumers more anyway.