Category — bottled water

Once again, Nestle Waters tried to bypass good public process when it submitted an eight-page memo to Chaffee County’s commissioners… the day prior to their decision.

While the Chaffee Citizens for Sustainability also attempted to add comments to the record, Nestle’s memo apparently contradicts the testimony given by its own (paid) experts during the public testimony – and sheds new light on just how far Nestle’s willing to go in order to subvert the public process.

From another insightful Lee Hart article in the Salida Citizen:

The day before it was granted conditional approval to proceed with its proposed water harvesting project in Chaffee County, Nestle Waters North America submitted an eight-page memo to the Board of County Commissioners asking for reconsideration of draft conditions in several of the most hotly contested aspects of its proposal.

…

Perhaps most significantly, a review of Nestle’s eight-page memo appears to show Nestle directly contradicting earlier testimony by its own legal team aimed at discrediting and downplaying testimony by Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District General Manager Terry Scanga,

Earlier in the public review process, Scanga provided written and oral testimony warning Commissioners that Nestle project depletions could cause an increase in exchanges by Aurora on the Arkansas that could have a “deleterious effect” on the basin. Aurora has signed a 10-year lease with Nestle to provide augmentation water for the project.

In direct counterpoint to Scanga, Nestle water counsel Steve Sims told Commissioners 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.

At the time, 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.

Commenting on the drought scenario Scanga painted for the county, Sims flatly assured the Commissioners “it’s just not going to happen,” especially in light of Aurora’s Prairie Waters project that Sims said will double or triple Aurora’s water portfolio, buffering it against enacting the type of drought triggers Scanga envisioned.

Now three months later, Nestle appears to refute its own earlier testimony. It recaps Scanga’s argument that Aurora will need Nestle lease water to serve its customers in the future and they should not be allowed to replace that water with new Arkansas exchanges. Nestle now agrees that this is a “legitimate concern” that will be mitigated by draft county condition 32a requiring Nestle to suspend pumping project wells if Aurora exercises its right to exchange any Category 2 leased water.

The question you have to ask  yourself is did Nestle know it wasn’t telling the truth when its expert testified originally, or is this an attempt to avoid halts to pumping later (should the Aurora mitigation water become unavailable)?

Nestle Double-Dips on Monitoring, Overland Access

The Nestle memo is also remarkable for its contradictory nature; in a self-congratulatory letter to the editor of the Salida Citizen, Nestle repeatedly pats itself on the back for the mandated extensive wetlands monitoring program and sportsmen’s access to the river through their property.

Yet in their memo, Nestle argues that their monitoring program should be dramatically scaled back, and that the overland sportsmen’s access should not be required.

In other words – and in typical Nestle fashion – they’re arguing against the very programs their PR staff use to promote the project.

In one sense, this is par for Nestle, though familiarity with the tactic doesn’t render it less despicable – or revealing as to the Swiss multinational’s character.

Nestle has repeatedly touted its long-term monitoring program on McCloud’s Squaw Creek as proof of its stewardship – conveniently forgetting there was no monitoring program of any kind in place until it was forced on them by opponents of the McCloud project.

In truth, Nestle only implemented a monitoring program after nullifying their original contract with McCloud – and only after the PR burden of not having a program in place outpaced even Nestle’s PR legions to counter.

Read Ms. Hart’s complete story: Nestle, CCFS sought last-minute concessions from county on six hot topics.

The Crystal Geyser water bottling plant – proposed for Orland, CA – isn’t winning rave reviews from residents.

A big part of the problem is a commonly heard complaint – the process went on behind closed doors for a year before it became public, and opponents allege elected officials aren’t protecting community interests.

Does any of this sound familiar?

From a Rob Parson story in the Orland Press-Register:

Retired Glenn County judge Angus Saint-Evans, another potentially effected landowner, said residents need to educate themselves about the plant and said he had no faith in city officials protecting local interests.

“I think the city has been seduced and we need to know where they’re getting their information,” Saint-Evans said Monday.

“We’re critical of the city because we don’t know what they’ve done.”Overton echoed those sentiments in a telephone interview Tuesday.

“This project went on behind closed doors for more than a year before we got wind of it in June,” Overton said. “I’m sorry, but I just don’t see anything good about this project.”

Opponents plan to attend upcoming City Council and technical advisory committee meetings to voice their opposition.

“Glenn County survives on farming, this is all we have,” Overton said, “and every drop of water is precious and we don’t want to give it away for nothing.”

via Locals brewin’ for a water fight | plant, water, county – Local News – Orland Press Register.

Bad public process follows Nestle around like a shadow, and Sacramento seems to not be an exception.

In what a cynic would suggest is an all-out attempt to avoid the kind of citizen opposition that has dogged every Nestle bottling plant or extraction project as of late, they trying to fast-track their Sacramento water bottling plant, and getting city staff to help them.

This eye-opening piece from the IndyBay site raises a whole raft of questions about Nestle’s intentions, source of its spring water, and the utter lack of controls imposed on the bottler – and asks some questions that Sacramento’s city staff don’t seem to want to answer:

Since this initial publicity, Nestle and the city of Sacramento have worked hard to quietly fast-track this project so Nestle can open its south Sacramento bottling plant in the next few months.

City staff consider this project “non-discretionary,” which means if all goes as planned, there will be no public comment, no city council vote and no environmental impact report.

Down the Drain

Nestle claims that their Sacramento plant will be a “micro-bottling plant,” bottling only 50 million gallons of water. According to Nestle, approximately 30 million gallons will come from Sacramento’s municipal water system and 20 million will be trucked to the plant from nearby “private springs.”

City staff have refused to answer questions about the springs and Nestle has provided no information about their location, other than telling the Sacramento News and Review that they are in the Sierra Nevada foothills.

A search of water extraction permits issued by the State of California over the last two years reveals nothing. The only clues come from other communities struggling to keep from being robbed of their water.

In July of 2008 Attorney General Jerry Brown delivered a near fatal blow to Nestle’s plans for their massive bottling plant in the small mountain town of McCloud California. That same month, developer Lawrence Adams filed an application to increase the amount of water he could extract from a parcel of land he owns in Shingletown, California.

Adams was granted permission to increase the amount he pumps from 26,000 gallons a day to 288,000 gallons a day. Despite requests from Shingletown residents, Adams has refused to disclose who he plans to sell the water to.

This foothill town, looted for water in the same month that Nestle’s McCloud deal crumbled, is the only site we can locate that could possibly be Nestle’s mysterious private spring.

If Nestle is Lawrence Adams’ secret customer, then quite possibly the fate of this town’s water depends on whether or not the Sacramento bottling plant is built.

The tactics Nestle is using in Sacramento are a noticeable departure from the methods they have used in other towns from whom they hoped to profit. Unlike many of their past endeavors – where Nestle negotiates backroom deals for access to inordinate amounts of water – in Sacramento there is no agreement to provide a specified amount of water. In fact, there is no agreement at all.

If everything goes as planned, Nestle just hooks up to our water system and pumps as much as they want. The only limit on the amount of water Nestle pumps, as I was told by one staff member at the Economic Development Department, is the size of their pipes.

The three bottling plants already in Sacramento are among the city’s top 20 water users. All three have increased the amount of water they pump in the last two years, one as much as 54 percent. Why would Nestle be any different?

Nestle has fought for the last 6 years, without success, to establish a bottling plant in the town of McCloud, California. While rumors abound that Nestle is abandoning their plans for McCloud, the company has indicated that it all depends on what happens in Sacramento.

Before bowing to pressure from the public, courts and the Attorney General, Nestle planned to pump 520 million gallons of spring water a year and unlimited groundwater from the aquifers of McCloud. If Nestle pumps 520 million gallons of water in Sacramento that would make them the city’s number one water user pumping over 200 million gallons more than the runner-up, the Sacramento Power Authority.

And why not? Once they are connected no one can control how much water they pump. They have a ten year lease with an option to extend on their warehouse space at 8670 Younger Creek Drive.

The plant will supposedly be 214,000 square feet, but it is within a 548,000 square foot warehouse see diagram below. This is considerably bigger than the size of their proposed McCloud plant and presumably would make it easier for them to expand if they increased production.

You can read the entire article here: Nestle on the Prowl – Poised to Steal Sacramento’s Water : Indybay.

That Nestle is unwilling to disclose any substantive information about the sources of its Sacramento water doesn’t surprise; the Swiss multinational has consistently only revealed (or studied, or monitored, or even considered) those things it’s been forced to consider (or study, or monitor…).

Given the number of PR disasters Nestle Waters has found itself embroiled in as of late, their desire to fast track this plant – and post some kind of victory – is clear.

In response to Nestle/Poland Spring’s interest in water extraction projects in Wells, Maine, a new advocacy group has formed (which won’t make Nestle/Poland Spring very happy).

We wish the members of Protect Wells Water good luck in their fight – which currently involves a fight over a relatively Nestle-friendly water extraction ordinance.

The battle for Wells’ water has been a contentious one, and right now, this group is fighting a battle against the significant resources of Nestle. Nestle’s willingness to spend and mislead voters resulted in the voting down of a rights-based ordinance, and now PWW is fighting an extraction ordinance whose significant shortcomings are detailed here.

I registered for their email list; anyone with a few spare minutes might want to read about their plight on their Web site.

Now that Chaffee County’s commissioners have approved Nestle Waters of North America’s water extraction deal – even in the face of numerous questions about the project’s economic benefits to the area – citizen outrage seems to be building.

For example, the reader comments beneath the Salida Citizen’s story are overwhelmingly negative; people want to know why their elected commissioners ignored so many questions and seemingly bent over backwards to permit the Nestle project – even as they said Nestle’s application didn’t make the grade.

And yes, there have been numerous suggestions of a recall.

Simply put, citizens apparently know what the commissioners were unwilling to admit; Nestle’s water extraction project isn’t going to benefit the area, and Nestle’s abysmal record in other rural areas

A few excerpts:

The Commissioners, along with Mr. Jackson, appeared to have missed the point when voting in support of Nestle. Whether they were well-meaning (as a way to preserve the land through a conservation easement) or afraid of lawsuits as many people have speculated; if our political leaders don’t embrace responsibility for sustainability (there’s that word) in all of their decisions, than we are lost. The future must embrace new and green opportunities, the world demands it. A corporation with a history of corruption, exploitation and ugly propaganda hardly seems like the neighbors we hoped to attract to Chaffee county.

And…

The questions from citizens just keep rolling in, and – with several more water extraction projects on the line in Colorado – expect Nestle to throw a few dollars at the community to quiet opposition.

Despite overwhelming citizen opposition; despite the county commissioners’s admission that Nestle’s application was lacking; despite the numerous flaws in Nestle’s “analysis” exposed by independent consultants; and despite the utter absence of real baseline water data (Nestle’s pumping tests lasted only three days), Chaffee County (CO) approved Nestle’s 65 million gallons a year water extraction project 3-0.

From the Salida Citizen online news site (which has provided excellent coverage of the entire process):

SALIDA, CO – The biggest land use case in Chaffee County history essentially came to a close today when the Chaffee County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to approve a commercial water harvesting project in this rural river community in the mountains of south central Colorado.nestle

Members of both sides of the debate were reserved in their reaction to the decision granting Nestle Waters North America conditional approval to extract 65 million gallons of springwater annually from an aquifer at the mouth of the renowned Brown’s Canyon stretch of the Arkansas River. The water will be piped four miles to a truck loading station where it will then be transported two hours to Denver for bottling then sold to consumers as Nestle’s Arrowhead brand of bottled water.

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.

Make no mistake – Nestle prevailed in this case not because their permit met the letter of the law or because of the economic benefits to the area (there simply aren’t many).

Instead, Nestle rolled quietly into town and recruited key political figures to their cause – long before citizens were even aware a project was planned.

It’s a recurring theme for the Swiss multinational – one that allows them to pull off projects even in the face of overwhelming citizen opposition.

In this case, the County Commissioners bent over backwards to accommodate the multinational – even after it was revealed (by the county’s own independently hired consultants) that Nestle’s economic analysis was wrong (or intentionally biased); its baseline environmental data was absent; and its record elsewhere was awful.

Instead of kicking Nestle’s water extraction project to the curb, the commissioners sat down and created 40 conditions (11 pages of them) Nestle would have to meet before approving Nestle’s permit.

Commissioner Frank Holman – a stanch Nestle project supporter from the start – lead the Nestle charge (this from the Salida Citizen’s story):

“Holman concluded that the county had imposed some “strict conditions” that addressed those areas of the application that were “nonconforming.”

Astonishingly, Holman later seemingly laid the burden of monitoring the project on Nestle and the county’s citizens – apparently not recognizing that’s his job:

Shortly before the vote, Holman looked directly at Nestle representatives and said that the county will “rely on the permittee to follow the conditions and we believe you will.” He said the county would also rely on the citizens to help monitor the project and thought that, overall, the project would be a benefit to the county.

It’s hard to imagine Chaffee County’s citizens feeling comforted by a statement that odd – especially after they’d made their opposition to the Nestle project heard in public meeting after meeting.

Early Warning

In this case, it wasn’t the job of the commissioners to bring Nestle’s application into compliance, yet the 11 pages of stipulations seems to have done exactly that.

This is how it happens; Nestle’s on-the-ground operative shows up early, identifying and courting those amenable to their project. After that’s done, Nestle’s projects enjoy considerable momentum, even after revelations of wrongdoing elsewhere appear.

As far as Nestle is concerned, the process worked, but that’s because they front-loaded it in their favor.

What’s also true is that Nestle didn’t expect to face this kind of citizen opposition, and – with several other water extraction projects looming in other parts of the state – couldn’t afford to lose this fight.

That’s why rolled out the big guns at a couple of meetings, bringing in high-dollar attorneys and water “experts” to bolster their case.

Ultimately, those high-dollar experts were needed after an economist and ecologist – independently hired by the county to review Nestle’s application – revealed significant problems with Nestle’s application.

Then there was the sudden scramble to “support the community” with a $500,000 endowment. Originally, Nestle’s “support” for the community wasn’t going to extend beyond free bottled water for high school events, but after citizen opposition arose, Nestle’s checkbook appeared quickly (and often).

The Errors (Always Favorable to Nestle) Accumulate

In one instance, Nestle suggested a gas tax benefit would accrue to the county, yet the independent economist pointed out there was no county gas tax. In another instance, Nestle overestimated the property tax benefit to the county by 61%.

An independent ecologist suggested that Nestle’s baseline data on the springs and accompanying wetlands was so lacking that they could never be held accountable for damage due to pumping; they could blithely assert their pumping wasn’t the cause, and just keep going.

This is precisely what happened in Mecosta County (MI) – and it took a citizen’s group lawsuit (to the tune of $1 million over six years) to force Nestle to behave.

Clearly, the county commissioners were afraid that would happen here; opponents of the project successfully forced the commissioners to add a stipulation to the permit which created a mitigation fund designed to compensate the county for expenses related to this project – including legal expenses stemming from lawsuits.

It’s an astonishing condition to attach to a project – and a sign that Nestle’s predatory history in rural towns is finally starting to catch up to it.

In fact, Nestle opponent Jim Ruggles focused on Nestle’s willingness to use legal means to protect its pumping operations:

“I don’t believe the commissioners are representing the best interests of Chaffee County,” said longtime resident and staunch Nestle opponent Jim Ruggles. “My main concern is that (Nestle) will dry out the aquifer and that the county will wind up in litigation sooner or later with Nestle. I believe the commissioners fairly ignored their own consultants and favored Nestle’s presentation of the facts.”

With more extraction deals planned in other communities, Nestle will no doubt fall all over themselves to spread a few dollars around Chaffee County (I’m sure it’s already happening), hoping to bolster their “good neighbor” image.

Still, even as Nestle’s project gets underway, the multinational has to be wondering what bus almost hit them.

They wandered into a sleepy rural town and expected to truck the are’as water back to Denver without so much as a peep of protest.

Instead, they found themselves squeaking by – even as the factual errors and flaws in their incomplete 1041 permit application were exposed.

Nestle’s willingness to put an operative on the ground in a town long before projects become public has paid off again, yet next time, they may not be so lucky:

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.

Read the draft conditions of approval here.
Read the cost mitigations fund report here.

Nestle dangles jobs everywhere it goes, though we’ve long questioned the veracity of their job claims.

Now we don’t have to; Nestle’s bottled water division’s sales fell a startling 3% (according to the WSJ, it’s the second straight period of decline).

From the WSJ:

Nestle SA, the world’s largest food and beverage group, reported on Wednesday a 3% drop in its first-half profit as it missed sales forecasts and trimmed its outlook, according to MarketWatch.

The company’s weakest segment? Its water division, which is responsible for about 10% of the company’s total sales, and includes brands such as Perrier and San Pellegrino. Sales contracted about 3% in the division, the second straight period of decline.

I don’t yet have numbers for Nestle’s North American bottled water division, but the trend is clear.

And while Nestle still largely maintains the contraction is due entirely to the economy and not environmental concerns, I’d suggest that’s more wishful thinking than reality.

So those jobs again: How safe are they really?

Jim Olson is the environmental attorney who represented the Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation in their six-year battle against a damaging Nestle Waters of North America water extraction operation.

This story has more twists and turns than a mountain road, but there’s a reason Nestle would like to pretend this story didn’t happen – or worse, whitewashes the incident with corporate videos misrepresenting the basic facts of the case.

Here’s one factoid many will find interesting – despite all their posturing to the contrary, Nestle lost in Mecosta County, and lost big – despite bringing an inordinant amount of legal fire power to bear.

What’s worse, the whole ugly episode puts the sword to Nestle’s contention that they’re deeply concerned about the watersheds they tap.

If they were, they wouldn’t have fought the MCWC for six years, only to end up where the MCWC wanted them to begin with.

To get a sense for what happened, here’s an excerpt from Jim Olson’s Op-Ed piece, which you really should read in its entirety – and then save it for use next time a Nestle representative starts making noises like an environmentalist:

What happened in the Michigan Citizens for Water versus Nestle case that put an end to Michigan’s longest water battle, and what does it mean for the future of Michigan’s water?

In 2000, after being turned down in Wisconsin, food giant Nestle moved into Michigan to generate support for high-capacity water wells for its Ice Mountain bottled water brand at the headwaters of the Little Muskegon River. Nestle representatives claimed the company’s studies demonstrated that pumping 400 gallons per minute (gpm) — 210 million gallons a year — would not harm the wetlands, stream and lakes.

A group of Big Rapids-area citizens formed Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation (MCWC) and began asking questions; they also asked Nestle to release its expert reports to the public. MCWC’s experts advised that pumping would reduce the flow of the stream 28 percent and the level of two lakes by as much as 6 inches, a substantial loss for the critical headwater stretch of this diverse riverine system.

Then MCWC’s experts discovered that Nestle’s computer model was flawed: It included a “boundary” — a fixed assumption that the headwater lake and stream had an infinite amount of water. Incredibly, the model would never show impact. Over citizen protests, scientific evidence and legal arguments calling for a rejection of the proposal, the state issued a permit in 2001. MCWC had no choice but to file a lawsuit to uncover the truth and stop a private takeover of Michigan’s water.

In late 2003, Mecosta County Judge Lawrence Root, after a 19-day trial, found that the proposed extraction would cause substantial harm at any rate of pumping, violate long-standing water law principles and impair the water resources, contrary to environmental laws. As a result, Judge Root issued a permanent injunction ordering Nestle to stop all pumping. For a brief moment, a David organization, by then 2,000 members, stopped a Goliath corporation from confiscating Michigan’s water.

via Traverse City Record-Eagle – Article: Op-Ed: Michigan water wars continue.

The International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) is the bottled water industry’s trade organization, and while we frankly expect the same from them we expect from Nestle (a willingness to do things others might find unethical), we were frankly shocked when they signed on former Tobacco Institute spokesperson Tom Lauria.

A tobacco industry spokesperson seemed like an odd choice for an industry intent on selling the health benefits of its products, but then again, bottled water’s facing real opposition, and it appears thatthat doubt has – once again – become the product.

Sadly, we’ve already seen the IBWA’s willingness to do what’s expedient. When the Huffington Post rain a Lisa Kaas Boyle article outlining the sales downturns suffered by an “increasingly desperate” bottled water industry, Lauria posted a long comment (2nd page of comments, scroll down) that was a perfect recitation of the industry talking points.

Yet Mr. Lauria utterly failed to identify himself as a paid spokesperson for the IBWA, nor – as of now – did he disclose his IBWA affiliation in his Huffington Post profile.

Amusingly, one respondent to his comment said flat out: “Sorry but you sound like a shill for the bottled water corporations.”

Bingo.

It’s called stealth marketing, and most marketers find it distasteful, if not downright unethical. I’d feign outrage, but frankly, this is pretty much what I’ve come to expect.

Once again, Nestle Waters of North America’s plan to extract 65 million gallons of water from Chaffee County (CO) springs has hit another snag, a decision being delayed again until August 19.

Typically, Nestle sought to move the discussion from the public arena to a private one, though the County Commissioners denied Nestle’s request to discuss project stipulations with staff instead of hearing them exposed to the public in the meeting.

From the Colorado Springs Gazette:

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 company wants to withdraw 65 million gallons of spring water a year for its Arrowhead brand of bottled water. Many residents view it as a water grab and say it could deplete area water supplies with no economic benefit to the community.

Much of the Front Range’s water, including Colorado Springs’ Otero Pump Station and Homestake pipeline, passes through Chaffee County, either in pipelines or in the Arkansas River, and the project has touched a nerve.

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

The project – which Nestle surely thought was a slam-dunk in formerly Nestle-friendly Colorado – has been besieged by unexpectedly vigorous opposition from residents.

The realization that the county stood to gain almost nothing of long-term value from the project has galvanized opponents – and the fact that Nestle’s permits included economic “benefits” information that was shown to be false by an independent economist and ecologists hired by the county.

Nestle – which plans to tap other springs in Colorado – is undoubtedly worried about the precedent this project sets – both in terms bad publicity and setting a standard for opposition no matter where they go.

via Still no vote on Nestle bid to tap Chaffee County water | tap, bid, vote – Top Stories – Colorado Springs Gazette, CO.

It’s been a little busy lately (and in a month or two, it’s going to get even busier), but we’ve got a lot of Nestle-related news popping in Maine, so I thought I’d create a quick digest post with the things that have come across my desk.

The Movie “Tapped” Premiers

The long-awaited “Tapped” movie – by the same people who produced “Who Killed the Electric Car?” – premiered in Maine. We’ve shown the trailer before, but if you missed here it is (complete with a kickbutt soundtrack):

Tapped takes a hard look at the bottled water industry, focusing on Nestle’s legal bludgeoning of Fryeburg, Maine – and the mess they made of the tiny rural town.

Tapped also ties the bottled water industry to the plastics industry, and while those unfortunate folks in the movie suffering from the effects of plastics manufacturing wouldn’t suddenly enjoy a respite if all bottled water was eliminated, it’s important to recognize the upstream impacts of consumption.

You can visit the .

See a short review at the Grist (online magazine).

You can read an interview with Tapped’s director here.

You can see a list of theaters showing Tapped here (or reserve your own copy of the DVD).

You can also join their Facebook page here.

Nestle Forced to Remove Test Wells From Wildlife Preserve Near Shapleigh, Newfield

This one’s sweet; Nestle drilled 23 test wells in a State Wildlife area without any public notice, though you could say the public “noticed” once word got out.

The residents of Shapleigh and Newfield reacted quickly, passing a moratorium on water extraction, then passing rights-based ordinances that prohibited extraction. From the Kennebunk Post site:

Winn-Wentworth, who said she discovered the wells after people told her about heavy machinery taken into the wildlife preserve, said “we are not going anywhere until this is over.”

When the state and Poland Spring did not reach an agreement, the bottling company approached Shapleigh selectmen about using town land to draw from the aquifer, which also flows under the Vernon Walker preserve.

In September 2008, Shapleigh voters passed a moratorium on drilling for wells and commercial water extraction.

Gobeille, Winn-Wentworth, Hennessey and others are members of the group formed to prevent extraction at the site. In the year since the group formed, membership numbers have been fluid, but Gobeille estimated at least 20 people were active members.

Dubois said the moratorium, not ordinances passed in Newfield and Shapleigh in March, was a signal the company should look elsewhere for water.

There’s even a video of the removal:

Note the final sentence in the printed excerpt above – the bit where Nestle operative Dubois tries to suggest the whole thing wasn’t a big deal.

This is standard operating procedure: Nestle continues to assert that its recent reversals nationwide are due to the economy and a lack of information, and not the result the activists.

Here’s a wake up call for you, Nestle: bottled water is suddenly the ugly kid who has to have the pork chop tied around its neck just to get the dogs to play with it.

Poland Spring Exporting Maine Water in Tankers

This isn’t exactly news as much as it is an unpleasant reality for Poland Spring, who have repeatedly touted the jobs they provide in Maine (and repeatedly held those jobs hostage when they haven’t gotten what they wanted).

Water activists created a video documenting Maine’s water leaving the state, bound for bottling plants elsewhere – suggesting that Poland Spring isn’t the down home Maine company with 100+ years of history Nestle keeps telling us it is, but simply an interchangeable “brand” that parcels resources in the most profitable way.

From the SOH2O page:

What do Mainers get when our water is trucked out of state in bulk? Money for the water…think again! We do get wear and tear on our highways and roads which costs taxpayers dearly and air pollution which fills the air.

The video’s right here, though you’ll want to visit the SOH2O site anyway to read all the latest water news.

Nestle Waters, baby, can you feel the love?

No?!

I’m not surprised. After a series of rabbit punches to the multinational’s nether regions in places as diverse as Mecosta County, Shapleigh, Enumclaw and a few others, Nestle’s just been sent packing by Flagstaff’s mayor with a line that should be printed on every plastic water bottle in this country:

“This kind of business is dead on arrival,” Presler said. “It doesn’t pass the common sense test.”

Ouch.

Here’s more from the azcentral blog:

Flagstaff Mayor Sara Presler said the city won’t sell water to Nestle, despite the promise of a little cash and as many as 50 jobs. According to the story in the Arizona Daily Sun, the mayor:

…said the proposal wasn’t a good fit for the community for a number of reasons, including long-term water sustainability and the use of plastic bottles.

“It is important that we have a clear and adequate water supply,” she said. “We need water for our citizens and that’s our priority.”

Nestle wanted to buy about 55 million gallons of water to bottle. The Sun notes that Flagstaff residents use the same amount every five or six days, so the issue wasn’t just quantity.

Presler said the decision was simple to make, noting the city is currently working on a number of projects that will assure that the city has long-term sustainable water supply.

Nestle. We’re friends. We’ve been friends for a long time. We can talk, right?

I’m thinking it’s time you got yourself into something with a future. You know, something with legs. And I think – unlike the famous line from the famous line – that “thing” isn’t in plastics.

via azcentral.com blogs – Waterblogged: Nestle plan to bottle Flag’s water ‘unsustainable’.