Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project: Tanker trucks are moving water out of the Arkansas Valley to Denver
September 16, 2010
From The Chaffee County Times (Kathy Davis):
Trucking the water to Arrowhead Water’s Denver bottling plant began Aug. 17, [Arrowhead Water natural resource manager Bobbi McClead] said…
The spring water for Arrowhead is piped from Ruby Mountain Springs near Nathrop to Nestlé Waters’ truck loading facility. The water line for piping the water and the water line crossing on the Arkansas River were completed in late spring. During the installation of the water line crossing, Nestlé installed and paid for a second line for future use by the Town of Buena Vista…
Nestlé has ongoing projects in Chaffee County. One is the installation of a second well at Ruby Mountain Springs. That well will become the primary well, McClead said.
More Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project coverage here and here.
Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project update September 15
September 11, 2010
From The Chaffee County Times:
Bobbi McClead, natural resource manager of Arrowhead Water, a subsidiary of Nestlé Waters, will provide the Rotary Club of Buena Vista with an update on the status of Nestlé Waters construction at Johnson Village on Wednesday, Sept. 15, at 7:30 a.m. at Eddyline Restaurant, 926 South Main St. in Buena Vista. McClead will report on the completion of the storage and loading facilities as well as the commencement of trucking water from the Arkansas Valley to Denver.
More Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project coverage here and here.
Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project money trail
August 12, 2010
The Colorado Independent’s Scot Kergaard details some of the money trail for Nestlé’s project to move 200 acre-feet or so of water from the Arkansas Basin to the company’s Denver bottled water facility. From the article:
Early to cash in was Frank McMurry, who back in May 2007 sold Nestle 111 acres for $860,000, even though the land, known as Big Horn Springs, is not being used by Nestle. The company had originally planned to bottle some water from this site but environmental concerns ultimately convinced the company to withdraw this site from their permit. The company has made a verbal promise to place a conservation easement on the property.
McMurry is a former Chaffee County Commissioner, a member of the committee that OKd the Nestle deal.
In December 2009, Steve Hansen, owner of Gunsmoke Liquor, sold his store and 1.41 acres in Johnson Village to Nestle for $1,120,000. Nestle tore down the store to build its loading station, where it will fill trucks bound for Denver. Hansen retains the liquor license and is expected to rebuild.
A day after Hansen sold to Nestle, Harold and Mary Hagen hit the jackpot, selling 11 acres to the company for $2,850,000. The former Hagen property is the site of the springs that Nestle is tapping– the Ruby Mountain Spring and onetime Hagen Fish Hatchery. Since the Hagens were unable to sell Nestle sufficient water rights for its purposes, Nestle had to look elsewhere to augment its source…
Aurora took up the deal, agreeing to lease the company 65 million gallons of water per year for 10 years, with an optional 10-year renewal. The first year payment is $160,000. The price will rise 5 percent a year. Aurora can cut the deal off in any year that it needs the water for its own purposes.
More Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project coverage here and here.
Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project gets county notice to proceed to turn on the pumps
July 28, 2010
From the Colorado Independent (Scott Kersgaard):
This evening, Nestle can turn the spigot and begin filling its fleet of twenty-five 8,000 gallon trucks each day. Many consider a drop in the bucket the 65 million gallons of water Nestle has the rights to bottle and sell every year, at least in terms of the impact on the Arkansas River and its aquifers.
Others look at it differently. The deal has riled up local environmentalists who cringe at the very idea of siphoning off the precious cargo to pour into environment-straining plastic bottles and burning up gasoline to ship it throughout the West. John Graham, president of one of the local advocacy groups opposed to Nestle, shakes his head at the very idea. He says water as clean as the water Nestle is bottling is available to almost everyone with a tap for a fraction of the price and with none of the environmental impact of an operation that will log more than 6,000 miles a day at least on the road between Johnson Village and Denver…
Chaffee county’s permitting process produced a document listing 44 conditions Nestle had to meet before it pumped a drop and that it must continue to meet as pumping continues. County Development Director Don Reimer, who today issued the notice to proceed, is tasked with monitoring the operation on an ongoing basis to ensure compliance. Conditions include such things as monitoring the condition of wetlands and groundwater to ensure that the pumping operation does not have a negative effect. It also includes a stipulation that at least half the truck drivers have primary residency in Chaffee County and that Nestle attempt to hire 100 percent of the drivers from Chaffee County.
More Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project coverage here.
Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project: Will Aurora need a change of use from water court to lease water to Nestlé?
June 27, 2010
From the Colorado Independent (Scot Kersgaard):
Terry Scanga, general manager of the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District, a key Aurora water partner and one angered by the deal, told the Colorado Independent it’s not clear Aurora has the right to lease water to Nestle. “Water is decreed for specific uses in specific areas. Aurora’s water rights in the Arkansas Basin were decreed for their use in their municipality,” he said…
Greg Baker, manager of public relations for Aurora Water, told the Independent that, in fact, the city is leasing only a small percentage of excess capacity to Nestle and that if a situation arises where Aurora needs the water for its own uses, it can temporarily shut down the Nestle operation. Baker said that Aurora has storage capacity of 155,000 acre-feet of water in various reservoirs, so 200 acre-feet may not matter one way or another to the city.
More Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project coverage here and here.
From the Colorado Independent (Scot Kersgaard):
Not everyone is happy about this. Buena Vista and Salida have birthed a protest movement that has been more noisy than effective. By some estimates, 80 percent of the roughly 17,000 people in Chaffee County are opposed to this diversion of water. Still, when it came time to issue permits, the three-member Board of County Commissioners was unanimous in approving Nestle’s plans. In the end, it was probably a combination of fear and Old-West style property rights values that carried the day for Nestle.
Commissioner Tim Glenn, the lone Democrat on the board, told a local reporter “Out and out denial of the permit… well you know what would’ve happened… we would have been sued.”
Commission Chair Frank Holman, on the other hand, thinks the Nestle deal is good for the county. “It is a good thing,” he said. “The county will get 12 to 15 new full-time truck driver jobs out of this. And those jobs are sorely needed,” he said…
Holman plays down concerns. He said that most of the water Nestle will be draining away would have flowed directly into the Arkansas, so the Aurora augmentation water more than makes up for what will be piped to Johnson Village and poured into trucks. He adds that the deal is now a matter of private property rights. Nestle now owns the land where the water originates, he said, and the company has leased the augmentation water to replace the water its carting away, so Nestle is well within its rights. “Nestle is a good neighbor,” he said. “They are giving us money to help with schools. They are creating a conservation easement on their land. And they are creating river access for fishermen.” Nestle has given $500,000 to two local school districts as an endowment from which the districts can spend the interest or earnings. The company has verbally promised to create a conservation easement on most of the land it has purchased, but no easement has yet been recorded…
Nestle is paying Aurora $160,000 a year for the water. The amount paid increases 5 percent a year for the first 10 years of the lease. After 10 years, Nestle has the option of requesting a second 10-year term. If Aurora agrees, the price will increase 3 percent a year for the final 10 years. Nestle can break the agreement at any time. Aurora can only break the deal if it can demonstrate that it needs the water for its own uses. The Aurora City Council voted 7 to 4 to approve this deal last year.
“The thing that gets me most fired up,” said Graham, “is how illogical it is to take our water, pipe it five miles to a truck plant, send 25 trucks of it to Denver every day, and then put it in plastic bottles. Considering that anyone can just turn a tap in their home and get the same water. It is just absurd.”
More Nestlé Waters North America’s Chaffee County Project coverage here and here.
Roaring Fork Conservancy warns that Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project will include transmountain water
March 24, 2010
Nestlé Waters North America announced last year that they had struck a deal for augmentation water from Aurora via Twin Lakes for the bottled water giant’s Chaffee County Project. Nestlé Waters’ plan is to truck 200 acre-feet or so out of basin to Denver for bottling. The Roaring Fork Conservancy is spreading the word in the valley, according to a report from Scott Condon writing for the Glenwood Springs Post Independent. From the article:
A plan by a subsidiary of Nestlé to bottle water near Buena Vista could have implications for the Roaring Fork and Fryingpan rivers, the Roaring Fork Conservancy warned this week. It also signals that the beverage industry is on the prowl for high mountain spring sites in Colorado’s mountains — another potential threat to limited water supply of the Roaring Fork watershed, said Tim O’Keefe, education director for the Roaring Fork Conservancy, a Basalt-based nonprofit focused on water quality and quantity issues. “We’re trying to use what’s happening in [Buena Vista] to sound the alarm,” O’Keefe said…
Aurora diverts water from Grizzly Reservoir, about 10 miles east of Aspen. That water is piped via the Independence Pass Transmountain Diversion Project to the east side of the Continental Divide, dumped into Lake Creek and stored in Twin Lakes Reservoir. Aurora also diverts water from the upper Fryingpan basin through the Busk-Ivanhoe Project to Turquoise Reservoir, which also feeds Twin Lakes. Numerous documents tied to the Nestlé plan indicate that Twin Lakes is among the sources Aurora can use to sell water to Nestlé to augment the Arkansas River, according to G. Moss Driscoll, an attorney who recently interned with the Roaring Fork Conservancy and helped with the position paper on bottled water. “There’s no doubt it will involve transbasin water,” Driscoll said.
[Aurora] intends to use water purchased from Lake County ranches and the Columbine Ditch to feed the Arkansas River directly and fulfill its augmentation contract. Water from Twin Lakes is listed as a possible source for augmentation, but is unlikely to be used, Baker said. Even if it is, very little comes from the upper Fryingpan and Roaring Fork drainages. The vast majority of Aurora’s water diverted from the mountains comes from Homestake Reservoir, another source that leads to Twin Lakes. In a strict accounting sense, some Roaring Fork water could be used to augment the Arkansas River, Baker said, but it would be a rare occasion and a small amount.
The Roaring Fork Conservancy counters that Nestlé’s bottling scheme is just another way, however small, that the Roaring Fork watershed is being tapped. “The two springs Nestlé is proposing to draw water from are fed directly by the Arkansas River, the flows of which are bolstered by transmountain diversions from the Roaring Fork Watershed,” the conservancy’s paper said. “On average each year, 37 percent of the runoff in the Upper Roaring Fork Subwatershed and 41 percent of the runoff in the Upper Fryingpan Subwatershed is diverted to the Arkansas River Basin.”
The conservancy is sponsoring the screening of a film called “Tapped” to educate people about the broader issues surrounding bottled water. The documentary is a “behind-the-scenes look into the unregulated and unseen world” of an industry that is trying to turn water into a commodity. It’s from the producers of “Who Killed the Electric Car” and “I.O.U.S.A.” The movie will be shown at 7 p.m. on March 31 at the Wheeler Opera House in Aspen and at 7 p.m. on April 6 at the Church at Carbondale. Tickets are $9.
More Roaring Fork watershed coverage here.
Buena Vista: Board of Trustees approves Nestlé’s offer to share the company’s Arkansas River pipeline crossing
March 8, 2010
From The Chaffee County Times (Kathy Davis):
Town engineer Rachel Friedman will work with Nestlé during the construction. After the water pipeline is completed, Nestlé will convey the pipeline to the town. The agreement with Chaffee County grants an easement on its property on the Arkansas River. Also approved was an agreement with Paul and Rohnda Moltz for an easement on their property underneath the river. As of this meeting, the town had not heard from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding an application for a permit for the construction of a pipeline under the river.
According to Friedman, the town’s water master plan documents the need for additional water for future annexations anticipated within the town’s three-mile planning area, including Johnson Village.
More Nestlé Waters North America Chaffee County Project coverage here and here.
Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project: County Planning Commission embraces changes to permit to allow trenching instead of boring to cross the Arkansas River
February 24, 2010
From The Mountain Mail (Sue Price):
The recommendation by Chaffee County Planning Commissioners to amend the special land use permit application includes installation of two pipelines in the trench – one for the company and one in partnership with the Town of Buena Vista…
Nestlé earlier received approval to drill a directional bore under the river, but elected to revise plans for an open cut to accommodate a request made in January by Buena Vista officials who want to install an additional pipeline for future use by the town. The Nestlé company agreed to install a 16-inch pipeline for Buena Vista, at no cost to the town, while they install their 6-inch pipeline within a 16-inch casing. The construction site is south of the U.S. 24 bridge across the river at Johnson Village between CRs 301 and 312. Don Reimer, Chaffee County planner, said his staff personnel considered 15 criteria including noise and geologic and wildfire hazards, before announcing they were agreeable to amending the special use permit. Holly Strablizky, land use counsel for Nestlé, said, “To minimize impact, we thought it was a good thing to team with Buena Vista as long as we can complete the work by March 15 as stipulated by the Colorado Division of Wildlife. “If county commissioners don’t approve the amendment or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers cannot issue the permit in time, we will go back to our original plan.”[...]
Bobbi McClead, natural resource officer with Nestlé, explained new technology would employ an aqua barrier cofferdam – inflatable plastic structures – in the river to dewater a portion of the stream at a time to allow trenching. Pipelines will be placed 8 feet beneath the river bed. “The plan uses the best available technology in construction to prevent erosion, sedimentation in the river and is protective of wildlife and wildlife habitat during construction,” McClead said. When construction is completed, Nestlé will revegetate the disturbed area with native plants and seed-mixes to leave the area “in original or better” condition, she said.
More Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project coverage here and here.
Bottled water under fire
October 23, 2009
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
September 24, 2009
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
September 23, 2009
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
September 13, 2009
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
August 24, 2009
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
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
August 20, 2009
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.
Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project: Chaffee County Commissioners approve 1041 permit
August 19, 2009
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
Nestlé Waters Chaffee County Project: Commissioners delay decision on special use permit
July 2, 2009
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.
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.
