Bottled water under fire

Bottled water and newfound caution approaching all things water is the subject of this article from Moises Velasquez-Manoff writing for the Christian Science Monitor. He ties his story to Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project. From the article:

Citing myriad concerns, a group of [Chaffee County] residents has objected vigorously. They worry about impacts to the watershed and to nearby wetlands. They say that climate change, predicted to further dry Colorado and the Southwest, warrants a precautionary approach to all things water-related. And, pointing to fights other communities have had with the company, they say they simply don’t want Nestlé as a neighbor. Nestlé counters that these concerns are overblown. The company says: The amount of water it plans to withdraw is negligible; the project will bring many benefits – economic and otherwise – to the community; and the company, the largest water bottler in North America, is an upstanding corporate citizen…

But many say the greater story – about a growing world population of more than 6.5 billion faced with a limited supply of fresh water – is, in fact, just beginning. Experts not directly involved in the Chaffee County situation point to it as evidence of rising sensitivity to water issues everywhere. They cite a growing number of disagreements between communities and bottled-water firms around the US – in Maine, California, Florida, and Michigan, among other places – as evidence. “There is a growing interest in water as a whole [and] growing scarcity in the Western United States,” says Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute in Oakland, Calif., a nonprofit that does research and policy analysis in the areas of environment and sustainable development. “And when people pay more attention, it sort of makes it harder to do the things [bottled water companies] used to do without any opposition.”

These companies have now become the focus of campaigns against bottled water in general. Organizations like Corporate Accountability International and the Environmental Working Group rail against bottled water for a number of reasons, the environmental impact of plastics among them. (Lauerman points to Nestlé’s new ecoshape bottles, which, he says, use 30 percent less plastic than most.) The groups also argue that consumption of bottled water – paying for something that’s already cheaply available – leads to neglect of municipal water infrastructure, to everyone’s detriment. The US Conference of Mayors has urged cities to stop buying water and has called for an investigation into how much the industry costs taxpayers. (By one estimate, 40 percent of bottled water comes from municipal sources, not springs.)…

But the assumption underlying these laws – that water is in limited supply – is the correct one, says Robert Glennon, author of “Unquenchable: America’s Water Crisis and What to Do About It.” Other states often allow “a limitless number of straws in the glass,” he says. But in Colorado, if you can’t replace it, you can’t take it. “That’s exactly what I think we should do,” he says.

More Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project coverage here and here.

Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project: Commissioners approve final permit

From The Mountain Mail (Jennifer Deneven):

Resolutions had been tabled at the Aug. 19 meeting at which commissioners approved the project, pending county staff developing appropriate language. Commissioners also approved the Chaffee County cost reimbursement fund, into which Nestlé will make payments from which the county can draw to offset costs related to the project. A portion of the project related to an easement along CR 301 was tabled pending commissioners receiving appraisal information. The easement will be included on a regular business agenda for commissioners…

[Chaffee Citizens for Sustainability board member Lee Hart] mentioned 20 standards not met by Nestlé’s initial application and questioned whether county-imposed conditions would ensure Nestlé’s compliance since they use the word “should” instead of “will.” Commissioners charged us with being the watchdogs-we’ll show them what a watchdog is like,” she said.

Here’s Lee Hart’s report from the Salida Citizen. From the article:

Of the dozen or fewer people who testified in favor of Nestle over the course of its public review, almost without exception, all stood to enjoy direct financial benefit from approval of the project. I hope these good, hard-working folks and neighbors understand that the opposition to Nestle was never about them. Like any private property owner in this country, the ranchers can sell their land to whoever they believe gives them a fair price for it. What happens after the sale is no longer the seller’s responsibility. However, when the new landowner proposes to change the existing uses on the land, in particular in this case when the property is deemed to be “an area of state interest,” then the matter must be considered by elected officials during a public process in which the public has a chance to air their concerns about how that new land use designation may impact them, for better or worse.

Over nine months of public hearings, hundreds of citizens passionately voiced their unambiguous opposition to Nestle. This, in the face of a hearing format that seemed biased in favor of giving Nestle every courtesy and consideration while on more than a few occasions showing visible irritation at testimony by local residents. In packed meeting rooms in Buena Vista and Salida, taxpaying voters waited patiently through inhumanely long meetings for their turn to speak out. The commissioners allowed Nestle to run beyond their allotted agenda time by – on some nights – hours, yet when citizens went a few seconds over their 3-minute allotment of time at the microphone, Commission Chair Holman threatened to forcibly remove the speakers. The bias was apparent again today when in the waning moments before they unanimously agreed to approve Nestle, the commissioners haggled over language pertaining to a Nestle-funded community endowment. In refusing the quantify – at all – Nestle’s annual programmatic contributions to the fund, the commissioners left it to Nestle – rather than the community – to define the dollar amount of philanthropic giving that constitutes being a “good neighbor.”

Face to face with a cadre of Nestle lawyers and high-priced experts, campaign promises by Giese and Holman, made less than a year ago, melted away as quickly as butter in August. Holman pledged that on his watch, no more water would leave this valley. How then could he sign a resolution permitting 65 million gallons to be sucked and trucked beyond county lines? Giese famously said that green is the color of the future of this valley. How could Giese possibly interpret as good for green all the warnings thrown up by the county’s own consultants and referral agencies warning that Nestle could have negative impacts to surface water quantity and quality, groundwater quantity, air quality, wetlands and the plants and critters that depend on the riparian habitat.

Public opposition to Nestle boiled down to several key themes: Incontrovertible evidence prior to their arrival in Chaffee County and even during the public hearing process made it hard to believe Nestle could, without very specific legally binding stipulations, be the “good neighbor” they purport to be; the intentionally weak and sugar-coated science Nestle presented during its testimony belies lurking danger to surface and groundwater resources as well as riparian habitat that is bad for the longterm sustainability of the environment, as well as future economic development prospects for the valley. Even the county knows this as implied in the Special Land Use Permit where the county writes “Future development outside the subject parcels may impact the quality or quantity of spring water related to the Project.” It would be naive to think Nestle won’t assign some of its vast resources to block any future housing or commercial development upgradient of its Bighorn and Ruby Mountain springs. It’s hard to imagine any small developer or business person being able to prevail against a fight waged by the world’s largest food and beverage maker.

More Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project coverage here and here.

The Chaffee Citizens for Sustainability are considering four options for Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project

From The Mountain Mail (Jennifer Denevan):

Jay Hake of Hake, Heart and Lintzenich, who advises the organization, said there are four options. One is do nothing, second is a recall, third is a process review and fourth is going to water court. Hake said the first option would accept the project as proposed after changes and conditions were met. All those changes and conditions came from community input, he noted. A recall doesn’t provide much satisfaction, Hake said, because it wouldn’t change anything or stop Nestlé from pumping water. The last two options could become long, expensive legal battles, Hake said – requesting review of the commissioners’ approval of the 1041 permit or going to water court with Nestlé…

A review request must be filed within 30 days of the resolution signing date. Hake said commissioners will host a special meeting at 10 a.m. Sept. 23 in the courthouse to review the staff-written resolution and may approve it then. Review would raise questions about the process. He said the 1041 has been in effect since 1973. The question to ask, is if officials correctly followed the process, he said.

More Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project coverage here and here.

Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project: Chaffee Citizens for Sustainability meeting September 16

From the Ark Valley Voice:

Hello Friends, CCFS has scheduled a meeting to discuss the status of the Nestle Waters project. The date is Wednesday September 16, 7pm at the Salida Community Center (3rd & G St.) At this meeting we will present some background, talk about the current standing of the permit application, discuss the permit resolution, and explore some of the options that the public has to resist the project. If you can be present we encourage and invite your participation.

More Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project coverage here and here.

Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project update

Click here to read Lee Hart’s analysis of last moment tactics from Nestlé Waters before the Chaffee County Commissioners approved the 1041 permit.

Here’s a release from Nestlé Waters via PRNewswire.com:

On August 19, Chaffee County Board of County Commissioners unanimously directed County legal counsel to prepare resolutions of approval for Nestle Waters North America to produce spring water for its Arrowhead Spring Water Brand.

Nestle Waters has been actively engaged in Chaffee County since 2007. In November 2008, the company applied for a Special Land Use Permit (SLUP) and 1041 Permit. The process has included numerous public hearings, extensive community dialogue, thousands of pages of scientific, economic, and ecological and environmental data collection and research. The process is thorough, comprehensive, and involves the review of a number of different independent consultants and agencies with diverse areas of expertise, and the review and approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of County Commissioners.

“Chaffee County is a special place, we appreciate the many community members we’ve had the privilege to meet who have provided valuable advice and helped to shape our project to better fit this community,” said Bruce Lauerman, Nestle Waters North America’s Natural Resource Manager in Colorado. “We have a unique opportunity to protect a natural water resource, preserve beautiful open space, create local jobs and provide additional funds for education and other needs in the local community.”

For nearly two years, Nestle Waters has been working together with local residents, conducting site tours, and reaching out to local agencies and businesses to tailor this project to best fit the needs and desires of Chaffee County citizens. Included as part of its permit application, Nestle Waters voluntarily added a comprehensive community giving effort that will provide: a $500,000 endowment for local education initiatives; a permanent conservation easement to protect Nestle’s 115 acres along the Arkansas River; in-stream fishing access at the Ruby Mountain and Bighorn Spring Sites; multi-million dollar local contracts to Chaffee County construction companies to construct the five-mile pipeline; programmatic annual giving to locally identified needs in the community; opportunities for environmentally-focused field work with local college and high school students; a comprehensive, wildlife-habitat restoration project of the old Ruby Mountain fish hatchery (which will incorporate a number of local agencies and interested groups); and a commitment to hire at least 50% of its truck drivers from the local area.

As part of the conditions of its 1041 and SLUP permits, Nestle Waters will be required to provide a comprehensive land management plan of the spring sites, to include the hatchery restoration, surface water and groundwater monitoring and mitigation plans, protection of bighorn sheep habitat, streambank and wildlife friendly fencing, and other environmental, construction, and land use conditions. Long-term hydrologic monitoring, initiated in 2007 will continue throughout the life of the project.

“We appreciate the efforts made by the County Commissioners, Planning Commission, and Staff during this lengthy and complex permitting process,” said Lauerman. “We look forward to continuing our partnership with this community and working together to benefit the Arkansas River Valley for years to come.”

For more information about Nestle Waters North America’s operations in Colorado, please visit: www.Nestlewatersco.com

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Nestlé Waters Chaffee County project: Commissioners approve 1041 permit

From the Salida Citizen (Lee Hart):

The approval includes 40 conditions, totaling 11 pages and addressing what the commissioners considered some of the most controversial aspects of the proposal, namely water and economics.

However, it was a seemingly minor issue that proved to be the day’s most contentious. Citing private property rights and potential adverse impact to wildlife, Commission Chair Frank Holman adamantly objected to requiring Nestle to provide overland fishing access to the Arkansas River. Commissioner Tim Glenn was just as adamant that the easement was “not overly burdensome” to Nestle and provided very desirable public shoreline fishing access in a county where recreation is such an important part of the economy. Commissioner Dennis Giese was on the fence. In the end, the commissioners agreed to let the local Division of Wildlife determine if and where overland fishing access would be appropriate on the Nestle property.

Nestle had hoped to have the overland fishing access condition deleted from the final list of conditions writing in a memo to county staff that to do so would “unacceptably increase risk to security and spring water quality” and created an “unwarranted and significant business risk” to the company…

Sam Schabacker of the national non-profit Food and Water Watch said Colorado’s battle with Nestle is being closely watched around the country and is considered pivotal to the nationwide fight against the privatization of water. “This is the first battleground in the Rocky Mountain West – the arid West – and CCFS has shown great leadership in this national struggle.” Schabacker said the intelligence and dedication CCFS has shown through the application review process puts the organization in a good position to recalibrate and take the fight to the next level, joining the ranks of citizens in Maine, California, Michigan and Flagstaff, AZ.

More Nestlé Waters Chaffee County project coverage here and here.

Nestlé Waters Chaffee County project: Chaffee County Commissioners approve 1041 permit

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Tracy Harmon):

Nestle will be able to pump a maximum of 200 acre-feet of water annually from one spring source at the 16-acre Ruby Mountain Spring site of Nathrop between Salida and Buena Vista…

The commission on Wednesday finalized a list of nearly 50 conditions that deal with environmental, economic-development and water issues. Nestle will be required to establish a $500,000 endowment to fund science, environmental or Chaffee County school projects, plus establish and perpetually replenish a $200,000 mitigation fund to cover the county’s administrative costs for overseeing the permit condition reviews and other unforeseen expenses. In addition, Nestle will be required to hire local contractors, buy supplies locally and employ at least 50 percent of its truck drivers from Chaffee County. Nestle also has pledged to obtain a conservation easement for the property so it will remain open space and can never be developed.

“One area I really struggle with is the project benefits. Do they outweigh future development of that property or those resources?” Commissioner Tim Glenn said. “The alternatives of what might happen, I can see, will be 2-acre subdivisions with wells and septic tanks. “Is that going to be a benefit to the area? In some regards, yes; in some regards, no,” Glenn said…

“My issue was water and long-term water loss. With augmentation, there is no doubt the water is being replenished in time, place and amount. I believe all the conditions satisfy my concerns; we’ve worked hard for the citizens,” Commissioner Dennis Giese said…

“I am pleased with a unanimous vote for approval with the conditions. We will bring a very good project to Chaffee County that will improve the economy, provide open space preservation and restore the (old private) fish hatchery,” said Bruce Lauerman of Nestle.

More coverage from The Mountain Mail (Jennifer Denevan):

County staff members were directed to write separate resolutions – one for the 1041 permit and another for the special land use permit. The resolutions will be considered during a future regular business meeting. Some changes were made to the conditions considered by commissioners during the special meeting Wednesday and must be rewritten, but will be included in both resolutions…

Commissioners discussed conditions with which they had issues and determined how they needed to be rewritten. They wanted to ensure wording fits needs and intent. Commissioners requested clarification of the cost reimbursement fund and the fishing access stipulation. The cost reimbursement fund is money Nestlé would put aside for three types of project-related costs including anticipated and unanticipated – such as lawsuits. Commissioners also discussed the fishing access condition. Holman and Tim Glenn disagreed about access being allowed in the Bighorn Springs area. After rewording the condition, commissioners agreed if Colorado Division of Wildlife personnel don’t find it suitable, Nestlé won’t be required to create a river access point.

More coverage here and here.

Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project: Chaffee County Commissioners approve 1041 permit

From The Colorado Springs Gazette (R. Scott Rappold):

But county commissioners voted 3-0 to issue a 1041 land-use permit, with a host of conditions they said will address the concerns…

The company draws water from 50 springs around the country, but this will be the first in Colorado. Nestle says it plans to tap several other springs in the state.

More coverage here and here.

Nestlé Waters Chaffee County project: Commissioner’s meeting recap

From The Mountain Mail (Jennifer Denevan):

Forty-seven conditions on the 1041 permit application filed by Nestlé North American Waters were reviewed by board members Wednesday. Commissioner Tim Glenn said he felt the county has given Nestle plenty of time to review the conditions formed, in part, using public comment and that portion of the process is closed. Board members indicated they wanted to continue movement and review stipulations individually, ensuring they all understand what is meant and the language is what they want. Barbara Green, county 1041 special legal council, said there are different types of conditions – one of which is to hold Nestlé to promises the company has already made.

After discussion Wednesday, commissioners set the next deliberation meeting for 9 a.m. Aug. 19…

The 47 conditions reviewed Wednesday were within categories including general, water and wildlife habitat; access, easements and exception, construction, economy, project water supply, water rights, augmentation, traffic and air quality and mitigation fund. Jim Culichia of Felt, Monson and Culichia, LLC., discussed water rights and supply conditions with commissioners. He drafted those conditions and serves as water counsel to Chaffee County. Some conditions, such as the mitigation fund, were rephrased to reflect what commissioners want to accomplish with the conditions. Green noted having two funds might be a possibility to solve mitigation issues. One fund could be for on-going expenses, she said, and the second would be for unexpected expenses including litigation.

More coverage from The Pueblo Chieftain (Tracy Harmon):

To try to assuage the commission’s fears about impact to the watershed, water attorney Jim Culichia of Colorado Springs drafted 10 of the conditions. The complexity of the task, he said, was making conditions that would be enforceable through Nestle when it is the city of Aurora that plans to lease Nestle the 200 acre-feet of augmentation water annually. “We don’t have any control over what Aurora does, but we do have some control over what Nestle does. They (Aurora) have created a demand they did not have before this lease (with Nestle),” Culichia said. Specifically, Culichia drafted a condition that would require Nestle to temporarily stop pumping if water is in such short supply that Aurora has to use exchange water downstream of Pueblo. The idea, he said, is to have the augmentation water flow through Chaffee County to offset what is being pulled from the Arkansas basin in Chaffee County by Nestle. “We also would require (that) Nestle provide detailed accountings to prove water provided meets the agreement,” Culichia said.

In the event that Nestle continued to pump during lean water times, Culichia said he sought to make the condition enforceable by having a penalty associated with it. “For each acre-foot of water pumped during those times, they would have to give up two additional acre-feet,” Culichia said. For example, if Nestle pumped 10 acre-feet when prohibited, it would therefore be giving up 30 acre-feet of pumping rights, Culichia said.

Conditions also would limit the number of wells at two and limit pumping to 200 gallons per minute or 16.66 acre-feet per month…

In terms of economic impact, commissioners mulled permit conditions that would require local construction jobs be given first to Chaffee County residents or, if not possible, expanded to contractors within 25 miles of the county. The board also is considering requiring Nestle to purchase materials and supplies locally as well as hire no less than 50 percent of its water-truck drivers from Chaffee County.

Other conditions getting fine-tuning Wednesday dealt with limiting truck traffic to one truck per hour between 11 a.m. and 6 p.m. from Memorial Day to Labor Day, fishing access, a conservation easement, groundwater and wetlands monitoring and much more. The commission also directed county staff to revamp a condition dealing with a mitigation fund. The draft condition sets the fund at $50,000 but Chaffee County Commissioner Dennis Giese said he thought that was not enough.

More Nestlé Waters Chaffee County project coverage here and here.

Nestlé Waters Chaffee County project: County commissioners still deliberating permit

Update: Here’s a recap of the meeting from the Ark Valley Voice (Sterling R. Quinton). From the article:

[Nestlé Waters North America] submitted a request to put off a decision by the Commissioners until such time as the contractual conditions for the permit could be “word-smithed” with input from NWNA. To some, such overtures appeared to be the company angling for negotiations. Possibly anticipating such an accusation, NWNA Regional Manager Bruce Lauerman stated that, “We’re not writing these conditions, but we have some suggestions.”

Chaffee Citizens for Sustainability’s John Graham requested that any potential decision be held off until a public-comment period could be held for community input on the contract conditions. Graham suggested that the public and various consulting firms should be able to offer input on conditions of such magnitude. The Commissioners denied both requests.

From The Denver Post (Jason Blevins):

Chaffee County commissioners spent hours Wednesday deliberating a proposal by Nestle Waters to ship Arkansas River Valley spring water to Denver for bottling…The commissioners will take up the Nestle plan again Aug. 19.

More coverage from The Colorado Springs Gazette (R. Scott Rappold):

Since last fall, Chaffee County commissioners have been wrestling with the project and harsh public reaction to it. On Wednesday, they went over a long list of conditions under which they would approve Nestle’s plan. But the board, which held a half-dozen marathon public hearings in the spring and has debated it twice in meetings since, again balked at taking a vote on a land-use plan. Commissioners set Aug. 19 for the next meeting, at which county staff will present refined conditions…

The commissioners denied requests by Nestle to delay the discussion and by opponents to reopen public comment.

“We have worked a long time reaching this point where we have these conditions,” said Commissioner Frank Holman, “Even though I believe we need to go through them and ask a number of questions and clarify and perhaps request staff do some more work on them, I, for one, believe we have the input we need.”

Among the 47 conditions are the hiring of local workers, limitations on the number of trucks per day on U.S. Highway 285, requirements for monitoring ground water in the area and stipulations that the city of Aurora, from whom Nestle is buying replacement water, release water upstream from the springs. The wells would have to be shut off in years when extreme drought compels Aurora to lease water from downriver farmers.

More Nestlé Waters Chaffee County project coverage here.

Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project: Climate science and the project

Lee Hart continues her coverage in the Salida Citizen of the Chaffee County Commissioners deliberations over Nestlé Water’s Chaffee County Project 1041 permit.

First up is a long post about the lack of discussion about climate change in the debate over Nestlé’s plans to truck 200 acre-feet or so of water out of basin to Denver for bottling. Read the whole article, here are a couple of excerpts:

Yet here in Chaffee County, conservation and climate change didn’t merit so much as a passing mention as the Board of County Commissioners began deliberations on a multi-decade commercial water harvesting proposal, even as an overwhelming majority of scientific studies anticipate a reduction of total water supply by the mid-21st century is likely to exacerbate competition for over-allocated water resources especially in the fast-growing West. The county’s own consultants, Colorado National Heritage Progam, cautioned commissioners: “In the interest of maintaining the wetland plant communities, any proposed development plan that impacts water resources should take into consideration global climate change.” Yesterday, CNHP ecologist Delia Malone, writing as a private citizen, spoke out on what she called the commissioners’ “short-sightedness” in dismissing climate change from deliberations on the water harvesting project proposed by Nestle Waters North America. Without a trace of ambiguity, a 2008 report by Western Water Assessment asserts, “Climate change will affect Colorado’s use and distribution of water.” The report notes that “changes in long-term precipitation and soil moisture can affect groundwater recharge rates; coupled with demand issues this may mean greater pressure on groundwater resources.”[...]

As inextricably as hyrdrogen is linked to oxygen at water’s most basic level, so too it seems the scientific community believes climate change must be factored into any decision-making that impacts natural resources. “Basically anybody in 2009 who is thinking about water resources, water planning, water supply . . . if they’re not thinking about climate change, they’re missing the mark,” explained scientist John Katzenberger, executive director of the Aspen Global Change Institute. Katzenberger was also a contributor to a 2008 report published by the National Resources Defense Council and the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization entitled, “Hotter and Drier, The West’s Changed Climate.”

Hart and the Salida Citizen are running a letter sent to the Chaffee County Commissioners from Ecologist Delia Malone. From the article:

Regardless of all the good, hard data out there, Malone lamented the commissioners dismissing the role of climate change in their deliberations about Nestle. Indeed, countless scientific books and research papers from all corners of the globe have written about the certainty of impending water shortages due to climate change that is already measurable…“Accessible water is rare and for Chaffee County to just give it away is really short-sighted,” Malone said. “You can’t get it back and when you really need it, it will be too late.”

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Australia: Bundanoon in New South Wales outlaws bottled water

Circle of Blue (Nadya Ivanova):

In the remote picturesque Southern Highlands of Australia, a small town leads by water example. The citizens of Bundanoon in New South Wales voted by a significant majority to ban the use of bottled water, making Bundanoon the first bottled water-free town in the country, The Daily Telegraph reported Wednesday.

Circle of Blue is also pointing to two studies of the bottled water industry. The GAO, “released a report that concluded that FDA consumer safety rules are less strict than the comparable EPA protections required for tap water,” according to Connor Boals writing on the website.

The other group concluded that bottled water is no safer than most municipal supplies and there is no way to know because the EPA rules for water providers do not apply to bottled water.

And then they’re running this article recapping yesterday’s House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee hearing about labels on bottled water.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Nestlé Chaffee County Project: Recap of commissioner’s July 1 meeting

Here’s the next part of Lee Hart’s recap of the July 1 meeting of the Chaffee County Commissioners working meeting for Nestlé’s Chaffee County Project. She writes:

Commissioner Tim Glenn tried to explain the gravity of Scanga’s testimony to fellow commissioners who either didn’t seem to understand the intricacies of water law and prior appropriation or simply did not share Glenn’s concerns. Glenn noted it was Scanga’s role to go “to bat for every water right and ag producer” in the valley and that he found Scanga’s testimony “fairly compelling.”[...]

“If you have a senior water right (as Aurora does), you can take it unless something in writing says you can’t take it,” Glenn explained to his fellow commissioners. Glenn said he’d feel better if Nestle’s augmentation came from a local entity that would probably care more about protecting local water resources than Aurora. Alternatively, Glenn suggested getting an agreement in writing that Aurora won’t draw down depletions and invoke its ability to exchange in a drought year and will only use water sources outside the Arkansas River Valley to supplement any municipal shortfalls created by the Nestle lease. But Glenn, always the pragmatist, said, “I seriously doubt that could happen.”

It’s really pretty simple. Aurora is leasing Twin Lakes water to Nestlé. The Twin Lakes decrees are pretty senior in priority. In times of low water — say, a drought — the river is governed by calls in any given stretch. Calls are made when someone with a decreed water right asks for their water. If current demand in that stretch exceeds the volume of water called for, water is doled out in order of priority, oldest first. So, again in a given stretch, a decreed party might just fall out of priority. This is determined by the decree and ditch company or project rules. Ditch companies generally allocate water equally — so much water per share.

The water that Aurora is leasing to Nestlé is for augmentation. The water will be released from storage at Twin Lakes to the Arkansas mainstem to pay the river for the water that Nestlé plans to pump at Hagen Spring. They’ll always pay this water to the river unless they fall out of priority which has been rare. Remember, Twin Lakes water comes from the rainy side of Colorado. The folks that will be effected in a drought are those junior to Aurora’s Twin Lakes rights.

Nestlé plans to truck 200 acre-feet or so of spring water per year to Denver for bottling.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project: County drawing up stipulations

From The Mountain Mail (Paul Goetz):

After about 3½ hours of discussion among themselves, Chaffee County Commissioners Wednesday directed Barbara Green, county 1041 attorney, and other experts to draft stipulations to satisfy county issues. The commissioners’ meeting chamber was filled to capacity with people wanting to hear the discussion…

To allow time for drafting stipulations, commissioners set a tentative date for continued deliberation at 9 a.m. Aug. 5 if the commissioners receive the documents in time. Bruce Lauerman, Nestlé natural resources manager, asked for a late-July date to avoid more project delay. Green asked for a mid-August date to allow ample time for her to “wordsmith” the conditions. After the meeting, Lauerman told The Mail he appreciates the commissioners’ “thoughtful” deliberation.

Among sticking points is specific treatment of water rights and drought scenarios that might injure agriculture or deplete storage. Commissioner Tim Glenn said he “struggled” with the efficient use of water and water rights. He said he is worried about a drought scenario such as one included in earlier public testimony by district manager Terry Scanga of the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District. Glenn said there is potential for water storage depletion during a prolonged drought.

Economic loss is another sticking point. Glenn said the Nestlé Ice Mountain Bottling Plant in Michigan has an annual payroll of $16 million. In Chaffee County, Ruby Mountain spring has enough water to run a bottling plant in Denver, but Nestlé has no plans to build a bottling plant in Chaffee County…

Other stipulations to 1041 standards include:

• A time line for wetland restoration former hatchery area and a guarantee of continued well monitoring at the Big Horn Spring site.

• A limit on Nestlé truck traffic on Trout Creek Pass during holidays and peak hours.

• Defining possible uses by the county for mitigation fund money agreed to by Nestlé.

• Improved Arkansas River fishing access at Ruby Mountain spring.

More coverage from the Salida Citizen (Lee Hart):

In a meeting that seemed focused more on how, rather than if, to approve Nestle’s proposal, the three-man board of commissioners spent the bulk of their time today debating proposed conditions of approval for the project that seeks to extract 65 million gallons of spring water from Chaffee County for transport to Denver where it will be bottled and sold under Nestle’s Arrowhead water brand. In the end, the hearing was continued to Aug. 5 to give staff time to draft legally enforceable conditions addressing key concerns commissioners have with the proposal. The draft proposed conditions are scheduled to be presented to the Commissioners on Aug. 3 for consideration at a public hearing two days later. The week of July 27, staff will provide an update on its progress and if it needs more time, the commissioners’ meeting may be pushed back to Aug. 19, the date staff originally proposed but which was objected to by Nestle project manager Bruce Lauerman.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project: Commissioners delay decision on special use permit

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Tracy Harmon):

Commissioners debated everything from water rights to economic impact and traffic and wildlife concerns before deciding they need staff, especially a water attorney, to set out a list of conditions to consider before they can vote on the proposal.

Nestle’s proposes to augment the water it uses by purchasing water from the city of Aurora. And it is that proposal, that drew the biggest amount of concert from at least one of the three com- missioners. “I really struggle on this whole deal,” said Tim Glenn, commissioner. “The general manager (Terry Scanga) of an agency (Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District) charged with protecting the water of not only Chaffee but also Fremont and Custer counties raised a significant concern. “He is going to bat for every water right and every ag producer in the valley and I felt his testimony was compelling along those lines,” Glenn said. Scanga raised concern about the potential harm to the valley should Aurora evoke senior water rights during a drought year and cause problems with ag producers with more junior water rights. Glenn said 200 acre feet is “perhaps not a huge amount of water but when you get the compounded effect in a drought year when there is storage depletion” then the net effect could be as much as a 2,000 acre feet deficit…

Glenn suggested one possible solution could be persuading Nestle to use local entities to augment their water because they would be more sensitive to local ag producers. “I suspect Aurora really doesn’t care about Chaffee County,” Glenn said. Another solution, Glenn said, is to get Aurora to agree not to evoke its ability to use exchange water and cause more damage in a cycle of drought years, but “I seriously doubt that would happen.”

The commission will meet again Aug. 5 to continue deliberating the issue. At that meeting they will have a list of conditions they can impose which will help them with a decision.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Nestle Waters Chaffee County Project: Commissioners will discuss 1041 permit today

From the Colorado Springs Gazette (R. Scott Rappold):

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

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, a hydrogeologist who travels the West, looking for natural springs the company can tap so it can call its product spring water.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, plastic accounts for 16.9 percent of trash in America, up from 2.6 percent in 1970. Yet just 6.8 percent of the plastic made each year is recycled, the lowest of any commodity. About 80 percent of plastic water bottles end up in the trash…

The concern is that new bottles aren’t made from recycled materials, and even those dropped in recycling bins don’t get made into bottles because it is difficult to remake the plastic and not enough are recycled to meet manufacturers’ needs. Most water bottles dropped into recycling bins in Colorado Springs are bundled and sent to China, where they are made into jackets, park benches, plastic lumber and other products. Waste Management sends 375 tons a month of plastic beverage bottles dropped in Colorado recycling bins to China, said company spokeswoman Melissa Kolwaite. And that is actually much better than Colorado used to do in recycling. In a state where 12.5 percent of waste is recycled – less than half the national average of 28.5 percent – things are improving. Last year, single-stream recycling, in which all materials can be dropped in the same bin, came to Colorado Springs. According to a legislative report on recycling, 89.7 percent of the state’s residents have access to curbside recycling, while 7.76 percent have drop-off recycling.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project: Commissioners delay deliberations awaiting $122,890 in fees

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Tracy Harmon):

Chaffee County Attorney Jennifer Davis told the commission that county code indicates that when fees exceed a deposit, the applicant has 10 days to submit certified funds which are the full difference between the deposit and the balance. According to a seven-page spreadsheet obtained by The Pueblo Chieftain, Nestle made $33,320 in deposits and still owes $122,890 of the total $156,210 application fee bill. The spreadsheet, which was submitted to Nestle on May 21, gives a detailed description of the date and types of charges ranging from postage fees to legal ad costs.

It also includes billings for the time county staff have spent working on the proposal and consultant fees. Chaffee County Planning Engineer Don Reimer, for example, spent 640 hours on the proposal through April 30 at a cost of $28,800 to the county. However, Nestle Waters North America representative Bruce Lauerman said, “The spreadsheet was not very clear – this is just poor accounting and I cannot express it any other way.” At his request, county representatives sent another invoice June 2. Lauerman said that invoice also was inadequate. Lauerman said he did not find out until Monday that failure to pay all the expenses incurred by the county could stall a decision. “We would like to pay our bill but this (invoice) will not get past Kentucky (Nestle officials),” Lauerman said. “I don’t think the county followed their own code here.”

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project: Chaffee County closes of public comments

Here’s a recap of this week’s Chaffee County Commissioner’s hearing on Nestlé Waters North America proposed Chaffee County Project, from Christopher Kolomitz writing for The Mountain Mail. From the article:

Submission of written comment ended earlier this month and the public’s chance to comment ended Thursday. “I think it’s a violation of the process,” Jay Hake, a Salida lawyer said. “When people haven’t had a chance to review (newly submitted Nestlé documents), I think it’s a serious problem.” He also pointed to new information county officials provide and the lack of public opportunity to comment and review. More criticism was aimed at multiple changes made in the Nestlé project since it was first submitted in November…

Additional arrows were aimed at the company, its testing, officials and the plan. Chip Cutler, a lawyer who lives in Howard, said the Nestlé’ pump testing should have been done at high levels replicating proposed pumping. Howard resident Alan Rule said he feared the burden of monitoring the Nestlé project would fall upon Chaffee County officials, something for which the county may not be prepared. Michele Riggo, member of a Salida sustainability group, asked if Nestlé’s commitment to a $500,000 endowment was in writing…

Daniel Zetler, another local lawyer, said he felt Nestlé tactics have been to offer as little information as possible and “throw bones” to the county when opposition arises. He said Nestlé has misled commissioners about property tax revenue generated by the project and had a goal of draining the local aquifer.

More coverage from The Mountain Mail (Paul Goetz):

Public testimony closed at 11:35 p.m. Thursday and Chaffee County Commissioners set a June 16 date to deliberate whether Nestlé’s 1041 application and special land use permit will be approved. Closing the comment period ended the seventh public meeting held on the issue which began at 1 p.m.

At the meeting Nestlé officials said the Bighorn Spring would be withdrawn from proposed development. Bruce Lauerman, natural resource manager for Nestlé Waters North America, Inc. western division, made the announcement to an audience of more than 150 at the Salida Steam Plant Theater. Lauerman said Nestlé remains committed to the Bighorn site, but water production would be from the Ruby Mountain Spring at about 124 gallons per minute. Lauerman said Nestlé will place both spring sites into a conservation easement. “Easements are not part of getting the permits,” he said, or that would negate the charitable act and spirit of an easement. In addition, Lauerman said Nestlé would allow in-stream fishing access only at both sites. However, “If it becomes problematic, we will reserve the right to shut it down.”

Don Reimer, county engineer and planning director, spoke about outstanding issues. Economic and water issues remained at the forefront of discussion. County economic impact consultant Jean Townsend of Coley Forrest told commissioners additional information provided by Lauerman early in the meeting will cause reduction of the assessed value. She said the assessed property is $6,300 for property tax and $10,500 for school tax. Nestlé consultants THK Associates estimate the county would receive about $375 per year for the highway users tax fund, and would receive $8,200 in property tax…

Commissioner Tim Glenn asked about the strength of the trucking company commitments to hire 50 percent locally. Lauerman said advertisements in the local newspaper were successful. He said if the company was to hire today, they would be able to hire seven local drivers. “Logistics people tell me we need about 15 drivers,” Lauerman said.

Glenn later questioned Jon Hollenbeck of ACA Products about the number of employees and duration they would be working on the project. Hollenbeck said the jobs would be temporary, and 10-12 people would be working…

County water consultant Jim Culichia of Felt, Monson and Culichia, said Nestlé will be subject to the same scrutiny as Coors. Nestlé will file in water court which will take about six months. It will take water court about five years to finish the application. In the interim, Nestlé will be allowed to transport water. Fairchild asked about exporting water outside Colorado before going to water court. She asked if the public trust doctrine mattered. Steve Sims, water attorney for Nestlé said there is no “public trust doctrine in Colorado.” Sims said, “If water court didn’t approve, Nestlé would not be able to pump.”

Several people asked about the cone of depression – whether the well (used to pump water from the spring source) would take water from the river. Lauerman said Nestlé specifically does not want river water, adding, “These springs are buffered, protected sites.”

Nestlé officials have collected data from a downstream weir for the past year, and were agreeable to adding a second weir and drilling a monitoring well if the trench were ever reclaimed to the wetland project. Lauerman was opposed to gathering more data, and said, “We have collected the data. I will strongly object for our project to be postponed while we collect more data.”

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Open University: Bottled Water

The bottled water industry is fairly new to the scene. They’re making a lot of dough but recently a lot of opposition has been bubbling up because of it’s non-sustainable aspects.

Here’s a link to a lecture from iTunes U on the subject. It’s targeted at the UK so you get to have some fun doing quick metric conversions.

I tried to find a YouTube or other video link but I was unsuccessful. It may only work on a Macintosh or possibly a Windows machine running iTunes.

Update: Here’s a link to the video from Thomas Wiradikusuma. He left it in the comments below.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project: Commissioner’s hearing recap

Here’s a recap of last week’s Chaffee County Commissioner’s hearing on Nestlé Waters proposal to move water out of basin. From the post:

In what appeared to be a move aimed at countering last week’s testimony by Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District Manager Terry Scanga, Nestle brought Colorado water law heavyweight Steve Sims to town.

Sims served as senior water counsel under former Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar. Named one of the state’s 2009 Super Lawyers, late last year Sims was appointed by Gov. Bill Ritter to the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority. Sims and Nestle lead counsel Holly Strablizky, both of whom hail from Denver-based Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber and Schreck. Last summer, an article in the New York Times named the firm “one of the most powerful legal firms in the West.”

Sims took direct aim at Scanga’s testimony that alleges that because of a prior existing intergovernmental agreement between UAWCD, Southeast Colorado Water Conservancy District and Aurora, Nestlé’s proposed water lease with Aurora could have a “deleterious effect” on water in the Upper Arkansas River Basin, particularly in the event of a severe Stage III drought. State water law requires Nestle to replace the spring water it hopes to harvest in Nathrop with a court-approved augmentation plan.

To that end, in late March, Aurora City Council approved leasing Nestle 200-acre-feet of water annually for approximately $200,000 per year. The lease has a renewal option for an additional 10 years, at Aurora’s discretion. Aurora also reserves the right to interrupt its supply to Nestle in the event of a severe Stage III drought. In such a scenario, Nestle would be obliged to stop pumping unless it has an additional augmentation source that is not subject to the same drought restrictions.

Sims said that while he appreciates Scanga for “always looking out for the Upper Ark,” he also said it was “very very doubtful” that the Nestle-Aurora lease would change any legal dynamic on the river. Sims said the 200-acre-feet per year Nestle-Aurora lease is a fraction of Aurora’s 52.000-acre-foot portfolio on the Upper Arkansas Basin. Translating what the Nestle-Aurora water lease means in terms of the standard unit of river flow, Sims said it’s “unlikely a half cfs (cubic feet per second) per day would change anything.”

Commenting on the worst case drought scenario Scanga painted for the county, Sims said “it’s just not going to happen,” especially in light of Aurora’s Prairie Waters project which Sims said will double or triple Aurora’s water portfolio, buffering it against enacting the type of Stage III drought triggers that Scanga warned the county about. Sims is also Aurora’s legal counsel for the $800 million Prairie Waters project.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project: More county commissioner’s hearings

Here’s a recap of this week’s meeting of the Chaffee County Board of Commissioners regarding Nestlé Waters North America’s Chaffee County Project, from Joe Stone writing for The Mountain Mail):

The fifth marathon hearing regarding permit requests from Nestlé Waters recessed at 11 p.m. Tuesday with participants setting 1 p.m. May 21 for continuation in a location to be determined…

After future hearings are officially closed, commissioners will have 60 days to reach a decision regarding issuance of the Nestlé permits…

Consultants for Nestlé and Chaffee County attended the meeting and addressed eight areas of concern regarding the special land use and 1041 permit applications: economic impacts, groundwater impacts, water rights, wetland impacts, traffic concerns, air quality impacts, visual impacts and planning document consistencies. Analysis provided Tuesday by THK Associates of Aurora clarified economic impacts of the project, indicating several benefits to the county, including $2.3 million in total wages for project labor and $4.8 million for materials. The only items contracted outside the county would be specialized work, such as directional drilling to route a pipeline under the Arkansas River. It would add $2.4 million in assessed property value, generating more than $18,000 in property taxes for 2010 and more than $500,000 during the next 30 years. THK analysis projected annual tax payments of more than $8,000 for Chaffee County Fire Protection District, $5,000 for Northern Chaffee County Library District, $2,500 for Salida Hospital District and about $1,000 for Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District. In addition to a $500,000 community endowment, Nestlé committed to an annual giving program and reimbursement of extraordinary county expenditures not covered by tax payments.

Representing Nestlé, Steve Sims, former senior water counsel for the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, clarified questions associated with Nestlé’ proposed lease of Aurora water for augmentation. Sims stressed the Aurora water would come from the Colorado River Basin and would be augmented upstream from the Nestlé project site. A plan proposed by Salida and Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District would have relied upon augmenting water downstream from the site, creating in-stream flow issues and other concerns. Sims reported, “Aurora’s water portfolio includes 52,000 acre-feet and will increase to 100,000 acre-feet in 2010 when their Prairie Waters project comes online.” Given the small percentage of Aurora water leased by Nestlé, Sims said drought-year worries are unfounded and emphasized the plan would be strictly controlled by Colorado Water Court. Sims noted Chaffee County agricultural rights are senior to the Aurora rights and could not be affected by the augmentation plan.

Martina Wilkinson explained the Nestlé traffic study in detail indicating uphill truck traffic isn’t associated with wrecks between Johnson Village and Trout Creek Pass summit. In fact, she said, wildlife and excessive downhill speed create most crashes in the corridor.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Nestlé Chaffee County Project: Opposition update

Here’s an update on the opposition to Nestlé Waters North America’s Chaffee County Project, from R. Scott Rappold writing for the Colorado Springs Gazette. From the article

Tempers have flared and barbs have been traded at three marathon public hearings as county officials wrestle over whether to issue a land-use permit to Nestle Waters North America. The company owns the land and water rights near Nathrop and says it is investing $15 million in its effort to withdraw 65 million gallons a year. It has an agreement with Aurora for that city to release 200 acre-feet a year from an upper reservoir to compensate for the water Nestle would remove from the Arkansas basin.

At the heart of the debate is whether a community benefits when a company takes water from its springs to sell on grocery store shelves. Some communities have fought such efforts – with mixed results – and the conflict in Salida could presage fights elsewhere in Colorado. Nestle has plans to tap springs in three or four more locations in the state. “I think they could buy and dry our valley,” said Vicki Klein, a board member of Chaffee Citizens for Sustainability, a group formed to fight the project. “Two hundred acre-feet might not be a huge amount initially, but where they can go from there is frightening…

Nestle says it will draw 10 percent of the springs’ flow, and the impact to the Arkansas River “will not be measurable, even in low-flow conditions.” The company touts the benefits to the county: temporary construction jobs for the pipeline and related facilities; increased tax revenue for the county; removal of a dilapidated trout hatchery along the Arkansas; and preservation of the area as open space…

At a hearing Wednesday, Terry Scanga, manager of the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District, said it could be “very injurious” to the Arkansas basin. Aurora doesn’t take all the water it owns from the mountains, and in a drought that city could draw more to make up for what it releases for Nestle, he said. “I think it’s kind of ironic that an out-of-basin entity would be leasing water to another entity who will be taking it out of the basin,” Scanga said…

It was many newcomers – retirees and others – who want to see the mountain splendor preserved, versus old-timers who say the county needs economic development…

Some of its legal difficulties with host communities, usually small, rural towns, include: a four-year legal battle with Fryeburg, Maine, to build a pumping station; a lawsuit by citizens in McCloud, Calif., who oppose a plan by the company to tap springs and build a bottling plant; and a public outcry in Enumclaw, Wash, about proposed wells and a bottling plant that led Nestle to abandon the plan…

Nestle’s Lauerman said the opposition “has very little to do with the specifics of the project itself, the viability of the project…It’s more people with a distrust for corporations, people who are anti-growth no matter what the project is. It’s people who have a philosophical bent against bottled water,” he said.

Jeanine Zeman, spokeswoman for the opposition group, admits she doesn’t like bottled water. She also believes Nestle has a poor record of working with communities where it sinks wells. With the arguments impassioned on both sides, county commissioners are in no rush to make a decision. The hearing resumes Tuesday.

More coverage from Joe Stone writing for The Mountain Mail:

The public hearing conducted by Chaffee County commissioners will continue at 1 p.m. Tuesday in the Salida Steam Plant Theater regarding two separate permit applications by Nestlé Waters. County consultants and staff members will discuss the extent to which new information from Nestlé satisfies 1041 permit application criteria. Commissioners will continue to hear public comments, but only regarding new information and unresolved 1041 permit requirements. Written comments must be received by noon Monday for consideration at the meeting Tuesday, county officials said…

The 1041 permit process requires county commissioners to approve or deny the permit by May 15 unless the applicant requests an extension, Don Reimer, county development director said…

Lauerman’s points included:

• Nestlé modified the project to address local concerns.

• Shallow nature of the wells will eliminate possibility of over-pumping the aquifer.

• The 50,000-acre aquifer recharge area indicates a sustainable source for water harvest.

• Nestlé’s annual 200-acre-foot extraction represents 2 percent of annual aquifer recharge and 1.5 percent of water available in the aquifer.

• In addition to a $500,000 local trust fund, Nestlé would provide educational opportunities and annual contributions of $25,000 to $30,000 to local organizations and events.

• Nestlé has invested more than $2 million in the project and would be investing $15 million in Chaffee County. The investment will take years to recoup at the 6-7 percent company operating profit.

• The project would provide protection for the environment that other types of development cannot offer.

• By collecting water in Chaffee County and bottling it in Denver, the company would reduce trucking by 5 million miles a year.

• A 72-hour pumping test in January revealed no effects to the water table beyond 200 yards.

• Colorado Department of Transportation found no significant traffic concerns when issuing an access permit on U.S. 24/285 at Johnson Village.

• Colorado Division of Wildlife found no significant adverse impacts.

• Colorado Trout Unlimited expressed no concerns.

Here are some comments offered up by John Emerick, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of the Colorado School of Mines, Division of Environmental Science and Engineering at Wednesday’s public meeting, from the Salida Citizen.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project: Commissioners hear more testimony

Here’s a recap of today’s proceedings with the Chaffee County Commissioners, from Lee Hart writing for the Salida Citizen. From the post:

For the first time in four months of public hearings, Nestle was obviously on the warpath as first Nestle project manager Bruce Lauerman, then Nestle lawyer Holly Strablizky took aim at Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District Manager Terry Scanga…

Lauerman called Scanga’s testimony “fuzzy math.”

Buena Vista resident John Cogswell also cross-examined Scanga challenging the veteran water manager’s assertion that the Aurora-Nestle lease would have a significant adverse net affect. “(UAWCD’s) water argument doesn’t hold water,” Cogswell told the Salida Citizen.

Cogswell tried to get Scanga to agree that Nestle’s lease with Aurora would be no more impactful to water in the basin than irrigating 100 acres of agricultural land. Scanga agreed that while the depletion is the same, the beneficial use of the water is not. A local rancher’s use of the water creates beneficial use within the county while Nestle’s bottled water project creates beneficial use outside the county, Scanga said.

During questioning from Commissioner Tim Glenn, Scanga said the Nestle-Aurora lease compounds the impact to the Upper basin in ways that would not occur if Nestle secured its leased water from another in-basin entity such as Pueblo Board of Water Works or the joint Salida-UAWCD proposal.

On that last point, longtime resident and local Realtor Karin Adams brought more math to light. The Aurora lease will cost Nestle approximately $200,000 for 200 acre feet of water for each of ten years, with an option to renew for another 10-year term. Aurora’s lease to Nestle could be interrupted in the event of a severe drought. Nestle rejected a joint offer from Salida and the UAWCD that would have cost $500,000 but would have provided an in-basin, uninterruptable supply of water that would have protected Nestle and other water rights users in the event of a drought. Scanga said if Nestle had agreed to the Salida-UAWCD proposal, the UAWCD would have re-invested the money to enhance the county’s water portfolio.

On another point, despite Scanga’s assertion to the contrary, Lauerman told the commissioners unequivocably that UAWCD has expressed interest in participating with Aurora in Aurora’s lease to Nestle.

Even if the Chaffee County commissioners approve Nestle’s Special Land Use Permit, Nestle still has to get water court approval for its augmentation plan. The stage has been set for a battle of the titans in water court. Based on Scanga’s predications, there will likely be at least two if not more objectors to the Nestle-Aurroa lease when it goes before the water court in a process that typically takes at least two years.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project: Commissioners hearing continued to April 29

From the Chaffee County website. “The Board of Commissioners continued the April 21st hearing to April 29, 2009, to be held at the Salida Steam Plant, 220 W Sackett starting at 1:00 p.m. This hearing will be for public comment only beginning at 1:00 p.m. A break will be taken from 5:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m.”

Thanks to the Salida Citizen for the link.

The Salida Citizen is also running a piece from Linda Erickson with recommendations from representatives of the Sierra Club. From the post:

Suggestions from Steve Glazer and the Sierra Club:

- postpone any decision until a new hydrology study has been completed;
- that report should contain an inventory of all wetlands that could be impacted by the pumping or pipeline construction, a monitoring plan to reveal any changes impacting the wetlands, and most importantly–a mitigation plan to remediate identified impacts;
- set up a strategy to deal with potential injury to any other water users (that would be better than having to go to water court to address that potential injury);
- and require financial surety to pay for any impacts from the development and operation of the project.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project: Commissioners continue hearing to April 29

From The Mountain Mail (Jennifer Denevan):

A final decision on the fate of Nestlé Waters North America’s special land use permit and 1041 application is on hold after Chaffee County Commissioners continued a special meeting until 1 p.m. April 29 at the Salida Steam Plant. During the Tuesday meeting in Buena Vista, which lasted a little more than seven hours in a standing room only American Legion Hall, commissioners heard comments from more than 20 people. Many more people were prepared to comment before commissioners decided to continue the meeting. Tuesday’s meeting was the third time residents had the chance to weigh in on the issue, and county officials said they have received more than 160 written comments.

More coverage from Jennifer Denevan writing for The Mountain Mail:

Consultants for the county and Nestlé each explained their stances on the application after Reimer gave his report. Ken Kohm, Ph.D., and Paul K.M. Van der Heijde of Geomega, a Boulder-based environmental consultant company working for the county, gave feedback of their review of Nestlé’s proposed groundwater and wetland development plan. Kohm and Van der Hejide expressed concerns about the site. The individual wetland structure and function were not identified by Nestlé, they said. There isn’t a history of the hydrology, Kohm said, so it’s difficult to fully understand what the impacts might be if previous patterns are unknown. Both consultants said correct monitoring is needed to get better data and recommended a complete monitoring and mitigation plan.

Bruce Lauerman, Nestlé natural resource manager, said he felt the testing done by Nestlé was sufficient, but he did agree with the consultants about having a monitoring plan.

Jean Coley Townsend of Coley/Forrest Inc., explained her concerns about the proposed positive economic impacts. She said she felt Nestlé overestimated revenues the county would receive, suggesting the amount would be 61 percent less than estimated by Nestlé due to Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights constraints. Townsend also said there were miscalculations regarding how the project is beneficial in terms of diesel fuel purchased, adding that there isn’t a local sales tax on diesel,. Townsend also feels the costs to the county were underestimated and said the real question is “What is the net fiscal impact?” She suggested the creation of a mitigation fund from which the county could pull money to offset costs.

Peter Elzi of THK Associates said the estimated costs of the project are now about $8.2 million instead of $4 million, which translates into more money into the county. He said he didn’t understand where the 61 percent reduction due to TABOR was coming from, and Townsend did not provide the basis for that number. Elzi admitted there was an error in calculating the income from diesel fuel but pointed to the Highway User Fund, through which $0.205 per gallon is given back to the county. Elzi said if Townsend was willing to show how she came up with her numbers, he’d review his information to determine what errors might exist and work to reconcile the differences…

Terry Scanga of the water conservancy district arrived late to give a copy of the letter as evidence. He said the district has concerns about the permit because of how Nestlé plans to augment the water. Nestlé would get the water from the city of Aurora, who in turn has an agreement with the district to lease water in a drought year, he said. Aurora may currently have plenty of water to lease, but that “savings account” is being drained, which would mean greater demand on the Arkansas Basin in a drought year.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.