A group of residents trying to stop Nestlé from opening a water-bottling plant in Sacramento plans to join forces with other Northern Californians fighting the same battle elsewhere. Meanwhile, California Attorney General Jerry Brown will consider whether to request a copy of the plan for a division of Nestlé, the world's largest food company, to bottle and sell spring water and an unlimited amount of city tap water taken from the American River every year. NestléWaters North America plans t... Suzanne silverchase 2009-10-07T20:31:52Z 2009-10-07T20:31:52Z

Nestle did the same thing in Poland Springs, Maine, and skipped out on paying most of its promised fees/taxes to the local government. Somebody should investigate that situation and see how it was resolved before allowing the same thing to happen here.

silverchase 2009-10-07T20:31:52Z KentBrockman 2009-10-06T22:08:30Z 2009-10-06T22:08:30Z

When did it become necessary to sustain fluid levels on the way to work or to the store? I realize it has become very fashionable, but it is not necessary. Bottled water should be taxed in proportion to its environmental impact, thereby making the cost prohibitive, and reminding people that water flows directly into their homes. Does your water taste funny? Buy a filter.

KentBrockman 2009-10-06T22:08:30Z Jim Knapp 2009-10-06T15:18:07Z 2009-10-06T15:18:07Z

I don't fault Nestle at all for trying to do what they do...bottle watter. It's like the parable of the Scorpion and the Frog... don't fault them for doing what they do...it's their corporate profiteering nature. I do however blame our City Council, the worst City Council this City has ever had. They will sell out our natural resources in a hot second if they think it will bring in more tax revenue. It is beyond the pale that the City has waived the CEQA environmental review requirements on this water plant. How can anyone claim that using this much water would have no effect on the environment? How can anyone claim that their product, which most importantly includes PLASTIC BOTTLES, has NO impact on the environment? But thats not really the point though.. THE REAL POINT HERE IS that a full CEQA Environmental Impact Report would try to determine IF this project could potentially have ANY negative impact on the environment...well by waiving the CEQA REVIEW, OUR CITY COUNCIL HAS DETERMINED THAT THEY DON'T EVEN WANT TO KNOW IF THERE WOULD BE ANY IMPACT ON THE ENVIORNMENT! and guess what..they do this ALL OF THE TIME. This is an election year and we need to throw them all out in the next election... no matter who is running against them...vote out the incumbent. But most importantly, if you have ANY concern for the environment...you simply cannot re-elect ANY of these Council members.

Jim Knapp 2009-10-06T15:18:07Z plumj 2009-10-06T04:16:32Z 2009-10-06T04:16:32Z

Corporate control of water has been an issue all over the world. It's astounding to see it close at hand right here in River City

plumj 2009-10-06T04:16:32Z tommy 2009-10-05T22:22:54Z 2009-10-05T22:22:54Z

Lord forbid, that would be like Capitalism-Free Market-Profit. Bite your tongue, this is afterall The Peoples Republik of Kalifornia.

tommy 2009-10-05T22:22:54Z trapper 2009-10-05T21:13:54Z 2009-10-05T21:13:54Z

If the City did it instead of a private company the cost to bottle water would cost twice as much. Just look at their track record. Plus, the city does not have the know-how or money to start something like this. Who would buy City of Sacramento water anyway? Hahaha!!!

trapper 2009-10-05T21:13:54Z Rodney 2009-10-05T15:40:09Z 2009-10-05T15:40:09Z

Why doesn't City of Sac bottle their own water and market it to offset funding shortfalls?

Rodney 2009-10-05T15:40:09Z