Powered by Twitter Tools.

Several stories in the regional press covered the hearing (It’s difficult for Nestle to sneak into town any more), and several passages were telling.

First, this project offers almost no benefit to the citizens of Chaffee County (one of the considerations in the 1041 permitting process), and at least one commissioner was willing to point that out.

This from the Salida Citizen’s Lee Hart:

John Graham, chair of Nestle opposition group, Chaffee County Citizens for Sustainability, said that what confused him about the deliberations is the commissioners emphasis on “when, when, when and condition, condition, condition.” Graham said he doesn’t think it’s the county’s role is to “suggest ways for Nestle’s proposal not to fail.” He said the commissioners’ decision should be based solely on whether or not Nestle’s proposal does or does not meet the 1041 requirements.

County Special Legal Counsel Barbara Green, explained 1041 regulations allow the commissioners to “approve, deny or approve with conditions” Nestle’s proposal. She said some of the proposed conditions; such as limits to truck traffic and providing a permanent conservation easement on the project property were in a direct response to public testimony.

Green, who said conditional approvals are commonplace in land use reviews in cities and counties throughout the state, explained that in the end, when the commissioners look at all the conditions, they must be satisfied the project will create no significant adverse impact on the county.

EJ Sherry and Alan Rule, who also oppose the Nestle project, both said they think the county is making a big mistake if they approve the project since they believe the economic benefit and fiscal impacts to monitor the project’s compliance with all the conditions as well as litigate any subsequent disputes with Nestle will adversely affect taxpayers.

The Pueblo Chieftan had this to say:

“One of the biggest issues for me is the impact on any aspect of the local economy,” said Commissioner Tim Glenn. “It would add some value, but the benefits don’t outweigh the potential losses like the forever inability to develop the resource to have a major economic benefit in Chaffee County.” Said Commissioner Dennis Giese, “All of us, everyone involved, would like to see more economic benefit to the community. The cost to us to regulate this – and it not producing the money in taxes – the county would need to offset that.”

Giese said local construction jobs would be minimal during construction of a 5-mile pipeline from the spring site to a Johnson’s Village trucking station. Regular local employees would also be minimal.

Possible conditions under study are require use of local contractors for construction and repairs, 50 percent local drivers and use of local materials.

Commissioners also discussed concerns about pumping rates and the possible decline of wetlands in the area. Giese suggested limiting pumping to 150 gallons per minute.

The commissioners also said they would like to set conditions on how to mitigate damage to wetlands should it occur and whether the conditions could include a cease-pumping order.

“I want to make sure we are not at a major impasse with Nestle Waters. They could say it is not my pumping but something else like someone changing irrigation practices that is drying out the wetlands and then were are in a lawsuit and that will be a cost to the taxpayers,” Glenn said.

Nestle’s actions in other rural towns are finally catching up with them; faced with what’s happened elsewhere, communities are waking up to the need to protect themselves from Nestle’s scorched earth legal tendencies, which naturally begs the question: Why deal with them at all?

Stipulations

It seems that Chaffee County’s Commissioners aren’t looking to deny the permit, but looking to add stipulations to the deal to make it work.

Many seem to include guarantees of local employment – the very stipulations Nestle has said were illegal when asked about them in other areas.

Should they accept them in Colorado, I’d suspect their representatives will have questions to answer elsewhere.

The commissioners told county staff to come up with possible conditions for approval of a 1041 land-use permit, but the board appeared divided on the controversial project.

“Nestle has made a decision not to create a lot of economic benefit in Chaffee county,” said Commissioner Tim Glenn. “They are coming in. They are taking a valuable resource out of the system and they are giving very little back in the way of utilizing that resource. That’s a concern of mine.”

The company wants to withdraw 65 million gallons of spring water a year for its Arrowhead brand of bottled water from springs a few miles south of Johnson Village. The company operates 27 bottling plants and taps 50 springs around the country. The water would be trucked to a plant in Denver.

You can read the Gazette story here: No decision yet on Nestle bid to tap spring water | county, nestle, commissioners – Colorado Springs Gazette, CO.

Powered by Twitter Tools.

That’s why we’re happy to post it again – and to announce the World Premiere, which takes place (appropriately) in Waterville, Maine – and features some of the folks fighting Nestle Waters of North America’s predations in Maine:

World Premiere of the documentary Tapped from Atlas Films
(by the director of “Who Killed the Electric Car”)

featuring Maine Water Justice Activists in the struggle

Sunday, July 12th at 3:30pm
Waterville Opera House
Waterville, Maine

(Movie site: http://www.tappedthemovie.com/)

Time is ticking. It’s been nine years now since Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation first went to court to stop Nestlé from pumping millions of gallons from a rural Michigan wildlife preserve. And the outcome of a court hearing on July 6 will determine whether our judicial system can work to protect community water rights.

There are two things at stake:

The first is the outcome of the case, which will determine whether or not Nestlé can continue to drain large quantities of water from rural Michigan, narrowing streams, exposing mud flats, and reducing flow levels. A Nestlé victory guarantees the world’s largest bottler access to water at the expense of local ecosystems and businesses, such as tourism, that depend on the watershed’s long-term viability.

The second is whether Nestlé will win merely on the basis of financial might rather than on the basis of what’s right. Going to court is expensive, especially against Nestlé, a massive global corporation that can easily pour millions into defending its profits. The Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation have dug deep, running bake sales and raffles to garner the resources needed to stand up to Nestlé in court through several rounds of Nestlé appeals. Now, as the community is heading into the most crucial round of the Nestlé battle, they are in urgent need of additional funds to keep them in the courtroom through the close of the summer hearing — the legal fees are no joke, amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The case could have been over in 2003, when a judge determined that Nestlé’s withdrawal of 400 gallons of water a minute was having a negative impact on several local streams and ponds, and called a halt to the pumping. But the pumping never stopped. Nestlé appealed and hired its own scientists to produce studies that validated its operations. To counter Nestlé’s efforts, the community has had to continue to hire lawyers and experts and the fees are piling up. Nestlé has run the community dry in more ways than one.

This case underscores the importance of water resources remaining in public control and decisions about water being made locally and democratically…water is too precious to hand over to Goliath.

For more information or to help the Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation get into the courtroom, click here.

via David v. Goliath: Help Michigan Citizens Protect Their Water from Nestle’s Bottling Operations | Water | AlterNet.

(BTW – small, rural towns thinking of working with Nestle probably should copy and save Ms. Swier’s letter below – if the food & beverage giant doesn’t get its way, you’ll be looking at sending one of these out on your own behalf.)

For those unfamiliar with Nestle’s water bottling presence in Mecosta County, MI, I’ll post a nutshell version of the whole sordid tale below Terry Swier’s letter, but for those with a sense of justice and a couple dollars in their pocket, here’s Ms. Swier’s letter, which details the organization’s current legal challenges against Nestle:

MCWC’s funding has dropped way down this past year and I know other organizations are facing the same difficulties. We need an emergency action alert for funding this hearing. MCWC is finding itself falling farther behind in being able to pay legal fees and expert costs.

To help defray costs, MCWC’s lawyers and experts will be staying at Gary’s and my house for the hearing and will be arriving on the 5th. Roseanne Sapp has offered to bring a meal one night and that is much appreciated. I would like to ask if others would like to do the same, either breakfast foods, evening snacks, or help with a dinner. Please email me tswier@centurytel.net if you can help.

As you know, MCWC is in the longest running bottled water battle with Nestle anywhere, having started in December 2000 and gone through trial, appeals, and remand injunction proceedings for almost 9 years now.  MCWC and its 2000 members funded this by bake sales, raffles, garage sales, and an occasional grant. We have raised over $1 million for expert witness fees, attorney fees, and costs over the first 8 years. This has been an extraordinary effort.  The firm of Olson, Bzdok and Howard has charged fees that are 3/4 of normal and contributed or waived an additional $100,000 in fees over these years.

MCWC is now faced with another lengthy hearing on issues it has won.  MCWC’s experts are prepared to show the Court that new facts since the injunction was entered into in January 2006, facts that will demonstrate why the injunction should be modified to better protect the stream from early May to October in the drier years  MCWC’s experts are also prepared to rebut Nestle’s claims that it should be able to pump 50 gpm or 30% more when in fact it should pump less.  The injunction limits have generally protected the stream, except in the drier years such as 2007.

However, we are facing not only an astounding loss and debt from all of this, but another $60,000 in expenses to contest Nestle from now through the end of the hearing this Summer.   MCWC needs help, and fast, to keep going. Please send your donations to MCWC – P.O. Box 1 – Mecosta, MI 49332.

I have 414 emails of MCWC members that I am sending this plea to. Please help me get the word out and send it on to your family, friends, and anyone you know who might be able to help MCWC.

Thank you.

Terry Swier
Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation
President

I hope some of StopNestleWater.org’s readers will help out.

The Condensed Version of the Nestle’s Mecosta County Story

Here are the bare facts: Nestle Waters of North America received a permit to pump water and build a bottling plant from a friendly state resource manager (who now speaks on their behalf).

A citizen’s group – concerned about apparent damage to the watershed (a lake, stream and two wetlands) – eventually challenged Nestle’s pumping regime in court. Nestle still refused to reduce their water intake (one lakeside landowner says the company offered to extend his dock, which no longer reached the water), and the judge actually visited the areas in question before deciding in favor of the MCWC.

It’s instructive to note that Nestle only negotiated a lower pumping rate after the judge lost his patience and threatened an injunction which would have halted all pumping. Nestle’s pumping rate is about half the originally permitted rate, and the company has since found two more sources (controversial), and the factory seems to be running at full tilt.

Still, after losing their day in court, Nestle turned around and filed a lawsuit which challenged the right of citizens to bring environmental lawsuits in Michigan, and won that suit (in front of a very conservative Michigan Supreme Court, the makeup of which has changed slightly).

It’s as good an example of any of Nestle’s approach, which involves throwing multiple legal resources at issues until they find a legal loophole the can drive one of their tanker trucks through (ala Fryeburg).

Today, the MCWC wants further protections for the watershed in dry years while Nestle Waters of North America wants the right to actually increase pumping levels.

Help out if you can:

MCWC
P.O. Box 1
Mecosta, MI 49332

Want to donate online? The MCWC site allows you to contribute via PayPal.

Frankly, we disagree. It’s terrible that a huge majority of Nestle’s plastic bottles end up on our lands and waterways, but the Chaffee County project was more than a referendum on bottled water. From the Gazette: Local debate spotlights fact: 80% of water’s packaging isn’t recycled:

A water fight is on in Chaffee County, one that shows how far the esteem of bottled water has fallen.

Nestle Waters North America wants to withdraw 65 million gallons of spring water a year for its Arrowhead brand of bottled water from springs near the Arkansas River, a few miles south of Buena Vista. Some in Chaffee County see it as a water grab with no benefit to the community, and hundreds packed several long and contentious public hearings held by the county this spring on Nestle’s 1041 land-use permit request. Foes worry the plan could deplete water supplies and increase truck traffic.

County commissioners will discuss, and possibly vote on, the permit today.

StopNestleWaters participated in the Chaffee County debate, and I’d suggest it was about far more than water supplies and truck traffic.

The county would enjoy almost no real economic benefit from the project (a fact that Nestle initially tried to hide using grossly inflated economic forecasts), and Nestle’s own reputation as something of a predator in small towns clearly came into play.

Nestle, of course, ignores that which it doesn’t want to hear:

A Nestle official says foes’ complaints are with bottled water as a whole.

“Most of it has nothing to do with the 1041 or the science. It’s their opinions about the end use of the water,” said Bruce Lauerman, Nestle’s natural-resources manager…

Wrong.

It’s also about Nestle – a multinational that small communities are increasingly realizing they can’t trust.

It’s a common tactic for Nestle to paint their foes as hysterical, emotional types who are being misled by the big, bad anti-water conspiracy, but the citizens in Chaffee County were treated to an eyeful of reasons why the Nestle project wasn’t a good fit:

• The lack of economic benefit to Chaffee County, which Nestle’s desperate “promise” of a community endowment did little to assuage
• Nestle’s distressing actions elsewhere, where it’s placed its own bottom line far above the needs of the community or watershed
• Nestle’s willingness to wholly ignore impacts like climate change on the watershed
• Nestle’s willingness to resort to legal means to bludgeon opponents – essentially bankrupting its opponents

And for a long list of reasons why the Nestle project should be denied by the commissioners (almost all of which are well within the scope of the 1041 process), read this thoughtful piece by the Salida Citizen’s Lee Hart.

In other words, given the lack of economic benefits to the area and a Pikes Peak-sized list of reasons Nestle’s extraction project could hurt the area, why exactly would anyone say yes?

chaffee county, salida citizen, lee hart, nestle, nestle waters of north america, bottled water

Powered by Twitter Tools.

They don’t seem to want anyone to know about it.

From the Chico Enterprise Record:Bottled water company proposes to build plant in Orland

ORLAND — A bottled water company is looking to build a bottled water facility in Orland and pump groundwater, and is working its way through the permit process.

A hydrologist working as a consultant for the company gave a presentation to the Glenn County Water Advisory Committee earlier this month and submitted an application to the city of Orland June 17, said Nancy Sailsbery, director of community services for the city.

She said the item will come up at the Glenn County Water Technical Advisory Committee meeting July 15.

While a consultant has met publicly with local leaders, the actual name of the company seeking to build the bottled water company has not been disclosed.

The application is under the name PLP Limited Liability Company (LLC), out of Mammoth Lakes, in care of Triad/Holmes Associates. Triad/Holmes is a civil engineering and land survey firm in Mammoth Lakes.

The environmental consulting firm working on the project is Malcom Prinie Inc. of Emeryville.

Sailsbery said the total water proposed to be bottled would be 160 acre-feet a year, which is about the equivalent of the water needs of 50-60 acres of orchard crops.

We don’t know what company is behind this, but they’ve certainly learned their lesson from Nestle Waters of North America (for the record, I doubt this is Nestle).

Their project people have been working local government for some time before the project becomes too public (bottling plants are suddenly encountering opposition everywhere – even formerly “safe” regions), though the veil of secrecy surrounding this project is beyond the pale.

Exactly how does this kind of secrecy server the public process?

orland, water bottling plant, bottled water, orland ca, glenn county water bottling plant