In my home town, we have a glass-making facility which negotiated a tax break which will last the practical life-expectancy of the plant.

The County 10 years ago tried to do a similar deal with a huge egg-production facility which would generate tons of manure and oder (in a tourist area) raise millions of chickens within 20 miles of 3 of the largest turkey production plants in the country (chickens have a disease which is similar in danger to a cold–to chickens–but kills turkeys.) The county was to get a handful of minimum-wage jobs.

The county board was impressed that the company wanted to build a $5 million plant, saying “they’re spending that much money, they’ll do it right and be environmentally sound.” Except that the company has a long track record in Illinois of illegal waste dumping.

I suppose the State of Florida was similarly impressed with the $100 million promise, but I’ve yet to see a community come out of such a deal better than they went into it. But to Nestle, the $100 million is nothing. They will make at least $1 per gallon after expenses, so their return on investment is high enough that they can just walk away in less than a year and still make a profit.

The problem is that there is usually no contractual, enforcible contract to make certain that the company actually delivers.

I’m willing to bet that it will NOT revitalize the community, but will instead cost the area greatly in increased infrastructure repairs as the trucks tear up their roads–and the drought is not likely to end for good withing the next 10 years, and it will take at least 5 years after the rain returns to recharge the aquifer.

Add to that Nestle’s less than stellar record around the world….

The State would have been better advised to get a percentage.

And you’re wrong, “…we normally wouldn’t condone one person or business being treated differently than another.” It is one thing to use 10,000 cubic feet of potable water a month, locally, where it gets back to the local environment. It is an entirely different matter to EXPORT that water from your area.

This is why the Great Lakes are protected from transport of water outside of the drainage basin!

And pulling that much water from a drought area nearly insures that somewhere down the line the local people will pay the price–whether that be in higher water costs, lower water quality or in some other way. Effectively, this is a fascist action–the State demanding that resources which belong to the people be GIVEN to corporate entities. At the very least, Nestle should have been made to turn over stock to the State and local governments.

This is government at it’s worst.