Powered by Twitter Tools.

Powered by Twitter Tools.

And by every measure, the MCWC won.

It appears that Nestle was ultimately forced to do the right thing by the citizens group, yet – true to form – they’re suggesting this is proof they’re a watershed friendly company.

Well, maybe when they’re forced to be by the courts.

First, the story from the Detroit Free Press:

Decade-long bottled water dispute settled | Freep.com | Detroit Free Press

The makers of Ice Mountain bottled water and a group of environmentalists who waged a decade-long fight to block or cap the company’s withdrawal of groundwater in northwest lower Michigan announced a final legal agreement today.

Under the agreement Nestle Waters North America can pump an average of 218 gallons per minute (about 313,000 gallons a day), with restrictions on spring and summer withdrawals deemed most threatening to the Dead Stream and Thompson Lake near Mecosta.

It was reached on the eve of what was expected to be a weeklong court hearing on requested modifications of an earlier, temporary agreement.

Terry Swier, president of Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation, called the resolution a “major victory” for defenders of the resource, affirming limits first placed on Nestle by a Mecosta County judge in 2003.

For those not familiar with the whole wretched story, Nestle initially pumped 400 cfs from the source in question, and refused to modify that pumping regime – even after it became clear to all involved that too much water was being withdrawn, and the watershed was suffering.

In fact, Nestle was wholly unresponsive until a judge threatened Nestle with an injunction. In the face of the loss of all the water, Nestle finally did negotiate a lower withdrawal, and astonishingly, later created a video (in response to the movie FLOW) which touted the watershed-friendly nature of their current regime – without noting that they were forced to pump at that level.

In the face of yet another court battle, Nestle – probably aware how much their predatory stance in Mecosta was being perceived in other rural towns (where their free ride was over) – negotiated the flow regime the MCWC felt was needed to protect the watershed (218 cfs, reductions at other times of the year).

Congratulations are due to the MCWC, who fought Nestle’s irresponsible pumping behavior for ten years (at the cost of nearly $1 million) and finally won.

I fully expect Nestle to hold this sordid episode up as a shining example of their concern for the health of watersheds, but it simply won’t fly; they were forced to reduce pumping in Mecosta, and performed absolutely zero watershed flow monitoring in McCloud until (again) they were forced to.

nestle, nestle waters of north america, mecosta county, michigan citizens for water conservation

Powered by Twitter Tools.

Powered by Twitter Tools.

Regular StopNestleWaters.org service will resume once I’m back.

Stay healthy,

TC

Powered by Twitter Tools.

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

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

This from the Salida Citizen’s Lee Hart:

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

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

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

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

The Pueblo Chieftan had this to say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stipulations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Powered by Twitter Tools.