LANSING, MI — A state administrative judge has upheld a permit that allows global food and beverage giant Nestle to boost the amount of Michigan groundwater it extracts for sale under the Ice Mountain bottled water brand.

In a decision dated April 24, Judge Dan Pulter ruled that Nestle’s plans to withdrawal 576,000 gallons of groundwater per day from the headwaters of two cold water trout streams in Osceola County will not negatively impact the surrounding natural resources.

The ruling upholds a controversial and unpopular permit approval Nestle received just over two years ago from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) under former Gov. Rick Snyder.

The Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation (MCWC) and the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians filed a challenge to that permit approval in July 2018.

Pulter’s decision paves the way for Nestle to increase extraction from its well near Evart, although it likely must construct new infrastructure to move additional water after a setback in a separate case halted plans to boost pressure on its existing water pipeline.

Related: Michigan township wins appeal in Nestle zoning lawsuit

Nestle must also satisfy watershed monitoring requirements developed by the DEQ, which was renamed the Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy, or EGLE, last year.

MCWC and the tribe argued that EGLE erred in granting the permit because, among other reasons, it was done using modeling data rather than actual field measurements. Nestle claims its data shows the withdrawal rates are sustainable and will not harm the surrounding environment.

In his decision, Pulter disagreed with estimated reductions in stream flow and fish populations put forth by MWCW and the tribes, and called the proposed extraction “reasonable under common law principles of water law in Michigan.”

In a statement, Nestlé Waters North America said it was pleased with Pulter’s decision.

“We firmly believe that the EGLE’s decision to approve our permit application was appropriate, as it carefully reviewed and considered our permit application in what it called “the most extensive analysis of any water withdrawal in Michigan history.”

Peggy Case, president of the MCWC — which has opposed Nestle groundwater withdrawals in Michigan dating back to 2000 — said the group is reviewing its options for next steps.

It is possible MCWC or the tribe could file a complaint in circuit court or appeal to a new state environmental permit review panel created by the Republican legislature to oversee EGLE decisions. In his decision, Pulter indicated the review panel would not have authority to review the contested case and any appeal would go to EGLE director Liesl Clark.

Case said her group has tried unsuccessfully to meet with Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and director Clark to discuss why Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s administration is defending the Snyder-era decision. Nessel’s office defended EGLE’s permitting decision in written and oral arguments. Nestle was an intervening defendant in the case.

The MCWC has also filed a complaint with EGLE’s environmental justice advocate.

“We’ve heard nothing on that,” Case said. “No response.”

EGLE spokesperson Scott Dean said only that “EGLE has received the Administrative Law Judge’s decision and will consider its proposed findings.”

Pulter’s decision comes nearly four years after Nestle submitted its initial application to increase withdrawal on its White Pine Springs Well No. 101 in Osceola Township. Nestle drilled the well in 2001 but did not begin using it for commercial extraction until 2015. At that time, it was allowed to withdrawal up to 250 gallons-per-minute (gpm). Nestle can now increase that to 400-gpm.

Nestle’s application was revealed by MLive on Oct. 31, 2016 and subsequently generated intense public outcry. Concerns were raised about potential impacts to Muskegon River watershed and the tiny $200 annual paperwork fee Nestle pays per facility to extract millions of gallons of Michigan groundwater to sell for profit. Regulators backpedaled and put the application through a more rigorous review.

Much of the broader opposition was from those upset that Nestle could source groundwater at essentially no cost while people in Flint were drinking water contaminated by bacteria and lead, and low-income residents of Detroit were having their taps shut off for non-payment.

Democrats in Michigan have since moved to limit Nestle’s ability to distribute Michigan groundwater outside the Great Lakes basin, and House Democrats in Congress have launched an oversight probe into the bottled water industry.

Jim Olson, a Traverse City environmental attorney who represented citizens in a lawsuit that resulted in a 2009 settlement limiting the amount Nestle can pump in Mecosta County, said the Whitmer administration is “perpetuating” errors made under Snyder.

During her 2018 campaign, Whitmer criticized “poor water policy” in Michigan, citing Nestle’s ability to source water at essentially no cost.

“Everybody in the election knew darn well this was a major issue that needed to be corrected,” Olson said. “We’re really no further ahead than we were before.”

Olson said the state owns groundwater as a sovereign for reasonable public use, but it has never asserted its authority to prohibit or allow its sale for public benefit.

“The failure of the legislature and the administration to assert that position is a de-facto capitulation to the continuing grab of public water by bottled water companies, both from private wells or use fee taps on public water systems,” he said.

“It’s a massive subsidy.”

Related stories:

Why Nestle pays next to nothing for Michigan groundwater

How Michigan water becomes a product inside Nestle plant

In Detroit, Nestle holds private roundtable on future of water