LANSING, MI -- A Republican state lawmaker has introduced a bill that would impose a per-gallon tax on bottled drinking water production in Michigan, a move which the state's largest water bottling company quickly called "inappropriate."

House Bill 5133, or the Michigan Bottled Water Excise Tax Act, was introduced by Rep. Peter Lucido, R-Shelby Township, on Wednesday, Oct. 18 and referred to the House committee on natural resources.

The bill would impose a 5-cent per gallon fee on "each bottled water operator engaged in the business of producing bottled drinking water in this state," regardless of the water source in Michigan. The revenue would go into a restricted account to fund infrastructure projects.

State Rep. Peter Lucido, R-Shelby Township.

Lucido is a Detroit-area lawmaker known for penning lots of legislation. He's running for state Senate next year. He said the revenue would compensate Michigan for the loss and sale of a natural resource.

The proposed tax would only apply to drinking water used by bottling companies and would not apply to water withdrawn and sprinkled back into the ground, he said.

The bill doesn't single out Nestle Waters North America, which bottles Michigan groundwater under the Ice Mountain brand. However, in a statement, Lucido notes the proposed tax would end up costing Nestle more than $20 million a year under its present extraction rate of 1.1 million gallons of water per day.

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality is considering a controversial permit application that would allow Nestle to extract more water from a well in Osceola County.

Presently, Nestle pays a $200 annual paperwork fee per facility in Michigan but does not pay a tax or royalty on its extraction -- a fact which rankles many around the state in the wake of the Flint drinking water crisis and water shutoffs in Detroit.

Under Michigan's "reasonable use" standard for groundwater extraction, property owners like Nestle can pump groundwater for free as long as the high volume pumping does not harm the environment or dry up neighboring wells.

Nestle is one of several self-supplied water bottlers in Michigan. The state has granted more than 100 source approvals for water bottling since 1980, although most Michigan water bottlers purchase municipal water at the standard rate, purify and re-sell it.

Bottled water tax revenue could be a steady funding source to help upgrade and maintain the state's aging water and sewer infrastructure, Lucido said.

"It's not fair that these out-of-state and out-of-country corporations can swoop in, take millions of gallons of our groundwater, and sell it for a profit. They're basically poaching our water," Lucido said.

"Why are we giving away our resources for free? Our state and its citizens deserve some compensation when companies are making a financial killing off our water -- a resource they're getting for practically nothing," he said.

Lucido does not yet have any co-sponsors on the bill.

In a statement, Nestle fought back against the proposed tax by citing the company's in-state economic benefit through employment and purchasing, and noting that bottled water accounts for a small percentage of total water use in Michigan.

Michigan's "abundant water supports jobs across numerous farms and industries in the state," said Arlene Anderson-Vincent, natural resources manager at the Ice Mountain plant in Stanwood, calling water a renewable resource when "managed responsibly."

"It would be inappropriate for the state to impose an excise tax on just one type of water user," she said.

Her comments aren't the first from Nestle about a tax.

Last year, Nelson Switzer, chief sustainability officer for Nestle Waters North America, said that if Michigan were to consider a tax, "we'd be very pleased to be able to sit down and discuss what pricing policy might make sense and how they could make sure the cost that would be levied would go toward the sustainable maintenance of the aquifer system."

In July, Robert Glennon, a water policy expert and law professor at the University of Arizona, called it a "great idea" for Michigan to tax large quantity water withdrawals like Nestle's to pay for infrastructure improvements, but that any tax should fall more heavily on "consumptive" uses that remove the water from the watershed without replacing it.

The DEQ considers water bottling a consumptive use.

Opponents of Nestle's groundwater pumping argue that Nestle has local environmental impacts that total water use accounting doesn't consider. Ice Mountain is a spring water brand, which means it must be sourced from a spring aquifer. Spring aquifers are shallow and connect to the surface, greatly raising the potential for the withdrawal to impact local lakes, streams or wetlands.

In July, the DEQ told Nestle to revise its application to demonstrate how the proposed withdrawal rate of 400 gallons-per-minute on its White Pine Springs well No. 101 near Evart wouldn't harm the environment. That deadline has been extended twice. It's now Nov. 3.

On Nov. 15, Ludington circuit court judge will hear oral arguments in a zoning dispute between Nestle and Osceola Township, which denied Nestle approval to build a booster station along its water pipeline between the well and a U.S. 10 tanker loading dock.

Nestle needs the station to increase pressure and move the extra pumping capacity to market if the DEQ approves its permit.

Nestle claims the increased pumping won't harm the environment. Environmental groups disagree. Members of the Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation say they are preparing to challenge a DEQ permit approval in court if necessary.