ROUND 1
PRO (Brendan Maletski):
HB5133, introduced by State Rep. Peter Lucido of Shelby Township, puts forth a tax on every gallon of Michigan fresh water that goes into bottled water. With a tax of 5 cents, this would quickly add up for every bottle filling company in the state, specifically Nestle. Nestle has been pumping water out of our state since 2002 and has really only paid around $200 in annual paperwork fees to the state government. These water bottlers make a mint off of the resources that belong to the people of the state of Michigan for next to nothing. What gives companies, especially multinational corporations like Nestle, the right to take away our resource and distribute it all over the world for their profit alone? We do not see a cut of their lucrative business and we most certainly do not see our water coming back to us anytime soon. Their free ride must end, especially since the Flint water crisis has yet to come to an end after several years. So it certainly seems like quite the contradiction that we allow our greatest resource to be pumped out of our state, while those inside it can’t even get clean drinking water from their taps.
CON (Samm Stein):
While it’s true we need to protect our resources, we need to evaluate the value of water. It’s an essential need in our lives. We cannot survive without it after approximately three days. Despite this, we act like we even have the right to bottle and sell it in the first place. As you said, there are people within the boundaries of our own state that don’t have access to clean, drinkable water. Many of those exact people are also living in impoverished conditions where affording bottled water isn’t something they can do. While HB5133 offers a better solution to the abuse of our water sources, it still won’t help those in need of water. The state of Michigan needs to enforce an end to using our water sources entirely until we have provided our own residents with stable, healthy living conditions. Section eight of the bill states “all taxes, penalties, or costs paid to the department under this act shall be paid into the state treasury and shall be placed in a restricted account to be used only for infrastructure improvements in this state as provided by the law.” Nothing in the bill states that the new additional revenue will be used to help provide clean drinking water to the city of Flint, as well as other cities affected by poisonous water.
ROUND 2
PRO (Maletski):
HB 5133 is a step in the right direction but it doesn’t quite push it far enough. I don’t believe this bill alone will solve any issues. It does not solve the issue of using up water from the Great Lakes. It does not solve the water crisis Michigan residents are still facing. The only thing it is doing is providing the state with more money. Another failing point is the fact that not only Michigan has rights to this water. Not a single Great Lake is entirely within Michigan’s border. We share borders with other states and Canada. So even if companies do opt to leave Michigan to get water, who is stopping them from moving to Wisconsin’s shores to pull water from Lake Michigan? Without an agreed cooperation with at least the other states that border the Great Lakes, the abuse could easily continue. Water is a necessity. At the end of the day, we all need clean water. Perhaps we could make an arrangement work if, in addition to paying the tax in all Great Lakes bordering states, companies such as Nestle were required to fund environmental movements (such as shoreline restoration and cleanup) and help fund the restoration of clean water to Flint. But as it stands, HB 5133 is only half of an answer at best.
CON (Stein):
HB5133 is a start to publically controlling all of the public water that these water bottlers use and consume. The vast majority of bottling companies pull their water from wells, which are firmly in Michigan and thus would have to pay this new tax. If they wanted to avoid the tax, this would require these predominantly well-based companies to abandon their already set up facilities, trained employees and drilled wells. The hassle of restarting or even transitioning to another state will be costly, so it logically doesn’t seem like they would want to abandon Michigan for cheaper pastures. This bill is still in its infancy and can be amended as part of the legislation process, so the destination of the funds can be easily changed to help the citizens of Michigan more or help clean up the environment. It’s important to talk about what is wanted from the legislature at this point so it can be changed to better suit the needs of the state and the people it serves. This is why people should be having discussions with their representatives in the state house to get better laws that actually help rather than hinder. HB 5133 is only a half-answer because it isn’t even half done.
