wATER IS THE LIFEbLOOd OF THE EARTH, but by 2025, according tothe United Nations, two-thirds of the world’s population could facechronic shortages of water. In fact, some countries are alreadyimporting huge supertank- ers of freshwater from other countries.But one place that’s definitely not short of water is the state ofMichigan, which has 11,000 lakes and is surrounded by LakesMichigan, Huron, Superior, and Erie. So it came as a surprise tosome. that the Nestle? company’s new Ice Mountain bottled-waterplant in Mecosta County, Michigan, dredged up so much con- troversywhen it began pumping water from a local spring.81 Nestle?’swillingness to invest $100 million to build a new410,000-square-foot bottling plant in Mecosta reflects the factthat bottled water is big business, with annual sales of $6 billion(up 35 percent since 1997). Many county residents, in fact, arethrilled about Nestle?’s being there. The Ice Mountain plantemploys about a hundred people at $12 to $23 per hour,significantly more than many local jobs pay. And the company shellsout hundreds of thousands of dollars in local taxes. Townshipsupervisor Maxine McClellan says, “This is probably the bestproject we’ve ever brought into Mecosta County.” She adds that shewants “a diversi- fied economy where our kids don’t have to moveaway to find jobs.” The problem, as some local residents see it, isthat Nestle? has also built a 12-mile stainless steel pipeline fromthe plant to Sanctuary Spring, which sits on an 850-acre privatedeer-hunting ranch and is part of the headwaters of the LittleMuskegon River, which flows into the Muskegon and then into LakeMichigan. The company started pumping 130 gallons of water everyminute from the spring, with plans to increase that to 400 gallonsper minute, or about 262 million gallons a year. But whose water isNestle? pumping? That’s the question being asked by MichiganCitizens for Water Conservation (MCWC), a local Mecosta group thathas filed suit contesting Nestle?’s right to the spring’s waters.Although the company has a ninety-nine-year lease on the land, MCWCcontends that the water itself is a public resource. As Jim Olson,MCWC’s lawyer, explains it, under the doctrine of “reasonable use”the owners of a stream can use its water for drinking, boating,swimming, or anything else “as long as it’s in connection withtheir land.” But, he argues, “this does not include the right totransport water to some distant land for [some other] use. We’rearguing that the same is true with groundwater—you can’t sever itfrom the estate.” Michigan State Senator Ken Sikkema, who chaired atask force on Michigan water issues, rejects that argument: “Afarmer pumps water out of the ground, waters potatoes, and sendsthe potatoes to Illinois—there’s no real differ- ence. The water inthose potatoes is gone.” This reasoning hasn’t assuaged the fearsof three American Indian tribes who have joined the fray. Citing an1836 treaty that protects their fishing and hunting rights in theGreat Lakes region, they have brought a federal lawsuit againstNestle? and the state of Michigan to stop what they see as amassive water grab. “Our fear,” says a spokesperson for the LittleTraverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, “is that the export couldsignificantly and permanently damage the fishery.” However, DavidK. Ladd, head of the Office of Great Lakes, argues that bottledwater is a special case. Legally, he contends, it’s a “food,”regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. “There’s nodifference between Perrier bottling water, Gerber making baby food,or Miller brewing beer. When you incorporate water from the basininto a product, it’s no longer water per se.” And Brendan O’Rourke,an Ice Mountain plant manager, adds that the 262 million gallons itwants to pump are less than 1 percent of the annual recharge rateof the local watershed, equivalent to just 14 minutes of evapora-tion from the surface of Lake Michigan. For their part, scientistsopposed to the project argue that Nestle?’s pumping has alreadylowered the local water table and that northern pike are havingtrouble spawning in a stream fed by Sanctuary Spring. Jim Olsonargues that the Ice Mountain plant should reduce its waterconsumption to 100 gallons per minute or less, not increase it to400 gallons. “Every gallon removed is needed for the stream tosustain itself,” he states. “The right to withdraw groundwater doesnot include the right to diminish . . . existing or future uses.”To the surprise of many, Michigan state court judge Lawrence Rootbought that argument and upheld the MCWC’s lawsuit. Ruling that theenvironment is at risk no matter how much water Nestle? draws out,he ordered the pumps turned off. Two years later, an appellatecourt reversed Judge Root’s deci- sion, and MCWC and Nestle?subsequently entered an agree- ment limiting Nestle?’s withdrawalsfrom Sanctuary Spring to 250 gallons per minute—although there hasbeen some legal skirmishing between the two antagonists since then.In the meantime, however, the political tide has turned againstNestle?. Small towns in Maine and California have opposed itsbuilding new bottled water plants in their jurisdictions; Congresshas held hearings into the diversion of groundwater by bottledwater companies and other businesses; and Michigan haspassed.legislation that, among other things, makes it virtuallyimpos- sible for operations such as the Ice Mountain plant toremove more than 100,000 gallons of groundwater per day

Assess this case from the perspective of the utilitarian,libertarian, and Rawlsian theories of justice. How would eachaddress the case? Which theory’s approach do you find the mosthelpful or illuminating