Category — chaffee county

It sounds as if the Chaffee County 1041 Permit meeting – originally expected to be smooth sailing for Nestle Waters of North America – turned into a near-death experience for the company and its consultants.

The two words they didn’t want to hear? “Not Satisfied.”

The potential negative impacts on wetlands and the local economy were the focus of several items listed as “not satisfied” on the Nestlé Waters North America 1041 application by Chaffee County Engineer Don Reimer during the public hearing Tuesday in Buena Vista.

Two big areas of concern arose.

First came the consultant’s pointed doubts about Nestle’s claims of no environmental impacts to the wetlands and aquifer:

Ken Kohm, Ph.D., and Paul K.M. Van der Heijde of Geomega, a Boulder-based environmental consultant company working for the county, gave feedback of their review of Nestlé’s proposed groundwater and wetland development plan.

Kohm and Van der Hejide expressed concerns about the site. The individual wetland structure and function were not identified by Nestlé, they said.

There isn’t a history of the hydrology, Kohm said, so it’s difficult to fully understand what the impacts might be if previous patterns are unknown.

Both consultants said correct monitoring is needed to get better data and recommended a complete monitoring and mitigation plan.

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

Then another consultant largely debunked Nestle’s claims of economic benefits to Chaffee County:

She said she felt Nestlé overestimated revenues the county would receive, suggesting the amount would be 61 percent less than estimated by Nestlé due to Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights constraints.

Townsend also said there were miscalculations regarding how the project is beneficial in terms of diesel fuel purchased, adding that there isn’t a local sales tax on diesel,.

Townsend also feels the costs to the county were underestimated and said the real question is “What is the net fiscal impact?” She suggested the creation of a mitigation fund from which the county could pull money to offset costs.

It gets worse for Nestle, and highlights the kind of fast-and-loose-with-the-facts “studies” used by Nestle in other areas (including Florida, where Nestle’s promise of 300 jobs fell flat in the face of their delivery of half that number).

Apparently there really are lies, damned lies, and Nestle’s claims.

Nestle Waters of North America’s hotly contested water extraction project in Chaffee County (CO) bears all the indications of being the first of many, and in fact, Nestle’s operative admits Nestle will soon be looking for additional spring sites around the state.

This perceptive letter in the SalidaCitizen.com site asks the simple question: Why us?

Why did Nestle come to Chaffee County first? I think it was not just for the water. I think Nestle wanted a small rural community with very limited resources to address their first 1041 permit application in the state.

Nestle’s stated intentions are to satisfy their market in the Rocky Mountain region. Bruce Lauerman, at the Board of Commissioners meeting in Buena Vista last Tuesday April 21, spoke of looking for additional spring sites throughout the state, with the help of the State’s Engineer’s Office. By setting a precedent with this first application approval, it will make it more difficult to deny the next permit in the next county.

I feel this is just the beginning of NWNA’s extended efforts to develop industrial water extraction projects statewide. This project has been presented as small and benign. NWNA is a subsidiary of the Nestle Corporation, a foreign company.

Swiss owned, it has been engaged in monopolization of water resources globally. I am concerned about the long term implications of Nestle engaging in “Buy and Dry” land purchases and/or other spring site developments, when it is yet to be established if the State of Colorado has capacity to support industrial extraction of water for profit.

This is the first project of its kind in Colorado, and a responsible approach would be to place a moratorium on projects of this kind until the issue can be studied, and determined if this type of enterprise is appropriate for our state. In this case, the concept is being hurried, without asking or answering important questions.

Via the Salida Citizen online news site, we discovered the reception “enjoyed” by Nestle at the Chaffee County Commissioners meeting wasn’t as friendly as they could have hoped.

After seven hours of discussion on technical data from a mounting pile of consultant reports and impassioned pubic testimony on Nestle Waters North America proposed water harvesting project, Chaffee County Board of County Commissioners Chairman Frank Holman halted the proceedings. With more than 20 people still interested in commenting on the application, the commissioners agreed to continue public testimony on Wednesday, April 29, starting at 1 p.m. at the Salida SteamPlant Theater and Event Center.

The bulk of yesterday’s hearing before an overflow, standing room only crowd at the cramped American Legion Hall in Buena Vista focused on the two newest consultant reports reviewing the hydrology and economic impacts of Nestle’s plans to harvest water in Nathrop. Nestle’s plans call for piping spring water from the mouth of Brown’s Canyon to Johnson Village where it will be loaded onto trucks bound for Denver for bottling and distribution under Nestle’s Arrowhead brand.

A bad sound system and horrible acoustics of the hall added an extra challenge as the audience that reached nearly 200 at its peak, strained to hear testimony from a parade of Nestle and county consultants as well as comments from citizens, the vast majority of whom voiced opposition to Nestle’s plans.

This is just an excerpt; the whole story is definitely worth a read, and interestingly – and despite repeated statements from Nestle suggesting there will be no negative environmental impacts from their projects – several new consultant reports and citizens groups disagree.

Will the citizens of Chaffee County – despite a late start – still pull this one out? Stay tuned.

nestle, nestle waters of north america, chaffee county, salida, water extraction

This recently appeared in Chaffee County’s Salida Citizen, and addresses Nestle’s (now dubious) claims of economic benefits to Chaffee County:

A new economic analysis of the Nestlé 1041 application from Jean Townsend of Denver-based Coley/Forrest is highly critical of proposed benefits to the County from the Nestlé Waters project, and goes so far as to suggest that project revenues may not even cover County expenses.

The report cites several instances where Nestle’s claims of economic benefit to the county simply don’t apply:

Property tax revenues from estimated increases in NWNA property valuation are exaggerated, both because TABOR limits the ability of local governments to benefit from increased revenue and because a majority of school district revenues are controlled by the State.

Whether or not Nestlé trucks purchase diesel fuel in Johnson Village is immaterial, because State law does not allow local governments to collect sales tax revenue on fuel used by vehicles which travel on public highways.

Sales tax revenue from electricity usage by the project will not be available to Chaffee County because State law provides an exemption for manufacturing firms.

In addition, local government expenses may be understated, the memo suggests, because construction impacts have not been considered and because estimates of on-going impacts are arbitrary.

Nestle’s ability to externalize costs is legendary; has this Chaffee County-commissioned economic report caught them with their hand in the cookie jar?

nestle, nestle waters of north america, chaffee county, salida, water extraction

Nestle’s water extraction project in Chaffee County (CO) seemed headed for an easy permitting process – a process that’s now under threat of derailment at the hands of fast-growing local opposition.

Nestle’s problem? Despite the spin and public “outreach” (basically in-person PR tours of the site), they can’t offer residents a compelling benefit to offset the truck traffic, noise, and potential loss of local control to a Swiss-based multinational.

What do you when that happens? Nestle – brazenly – whips out its checkbook, promising a payoff to everyone willing to play ball. Is sprinkling a little “H2O-la” around the community Nestle’s latest adaptation to growing public opposition?

In the midst of an oddly stream-of-consciousness report about Nestle’s 1041 permitting process in the Mountain Mail newspaper, this little gem emerged:

The application does not meet economic diversity and economic development standards, planners said.

Bruce Lauerman, Nestlé natural resources manager, announced a $500,000 endowment would be established and used for grants to local non-profits who facilitate the values of the Nestlé project [emphasis added].

An ad will be placed in The Mountain Mail within the next week which will search for local truck drivers to work with Nestlé’s contracted trucking company, Lauerman said. The company plans to research whether or not it can draw 50 percent of its drivers from Chaffee County.

Ted Richardson, planning commission chair, said “the information we have does not indicate a clear benefit, but that may change.”

Is it just me, or has Nestle – which earlier promised to “support the community” by doing nothing more than donating bottled water to nearby schools – decided its project needs a little checkbook-based boosterism to the tune of a half-million dollars?

And what of the oddly worded statement suggesting money would go to “local non-profits who facilitate the values of the Nestlé project?”

Finally, notice the weasel words surrounding Nestle’s “committment” to hiring local “plans to research whether or not it can…”

In other communities, Nestle has repeatedly said it won’t guarantee local hiring for any jobs (in McCloud they suggested that was illegal), but now they’re promising to “research” the possibility here?

Like so many of Nestle’s promises (ask the state of Florida how it ended up with half the jobs it was promised by Nestle), this one will likely be washed away once Chaffee County’s water starts enriching Nestle’s bottom line.

chaffee county, salida, nestle waters, nestle, water extraction, water bottling, H2O-la?

It’s corporate spin day in Salida, Colorado, where Nestle’s traditionally heavy-handed approach to local media was played out in a long, unchallenged, extremely friendly interview with a local paper.

Rather than bore you with the details (read it yourself here), I’ll jump right to one favorite bit of rhetoric from Nestle Operative Bruce Lauerman:

Another public question was on Nestlé’s alleged bad relations in other communities. Lauerman said that it was “unfair to characterize Nestlé” by looking at two to three communities out of dozens around the country.

People need to dig deeper than the rhetoric that was showcased, he said. A list of contacts was given to BOCC, he said. The decision makers can have one-on-one contact, he said.

It’s always frustrating to witness the reception afforded to Nestle’s by an often uncritical local media. Given our lack of fulltime PR personnel, activists must often resort to simple activities like Letters to the Editor, and my response to the newspaper is below:

Editor:

In a recent Chaffe County Times article, Nestle representative Bruce Lauermann said it was “unfair to characterize Nestlé” by looking at two to three communities out of dozens around the country, and that people needed to “dig deeper than the rhetoric.”

I couldn’t agree more.

To refresh Mr. Lauermann’s memory, I’d like to point out Nestle’s in trouble with far more than 2-3 small rural communities around the country. A few highlights?

They just sued the tiny town of Fryeburg (ME) five times – losing the first four suits but finally finding the legal loophole they needed to force the town to permit a 24/7 truck loading station in a residentially zoned area.

In Mecosta County (MI), Nestle’s pumping damaged a wetlands, and Nestle refused to do anything about it until a citizens group filed suit – and won. Under threat of an injunction, Nestle finally halved its pumping, then immediately filed a suit challenging the right of Michigan citizens to bring the lawsuit in the first place.

In McCloud (CA), citizens who challenged Nestle’s negotiated-behind-closed-doors contract with the city’s Services District found themselves on the receiving end of a Nestle subpoena seeking access to their private financial records – an attempt to intimidate opposition through legal means.

I could go on and on (and I do on the StopNestleWaters.org Web site, where I also cover Nestle’s legal difficulties in Shapleigh (ME), Wells (ME), Newfield (ME), Guelph (Canada), Napa (CA), Kennebunk (ME), Florida, Mecan Springs (WI), and many others) but suffice it to say Nestle is not a multinational corporation that plays well with small towns when it doesn’t get what it wants.

What happens if Salida is stricken by a drought? Nestle’s already proven its reluctance to stop pumping once the profits are flowing (see Mecosta County above). What happens when Nestle wants to tap yet another source, and Salida decides it doesn’t want the noise or pollution of more truck traffic? (Hint: ask Fryeburg)

Is adaptive management in place to protect wells and wetlands? Are you willing to face the wrath of Nestle’s considerable legal department?

Are you really sure you want a Swiss multinational tapping your water when water issues are hampering agriculture and growth all over the state?

I agree with Lauerman in one instance: It’s important to look beyond Nestle’s rhetoric and (usually) empty promises of community support (free water for the school?).

Nestle’s have proven themselves a poor corporate neighbor in many other small rural communities.

Tom Chandler
StopNestleWaters.org

Nestle’s continued whitewashing of the benefits provided in return for the loss of local control over resources, traffic, zoning and others requires a lot of vigilance – often from unpaid volunteers.

Today’s thought? Send a letter to your editor today.

nestle, nestle waters of north america, bottled water, salida, chaffee county, colorado, water extraction

The Internet remains a growing media channel by which under-funded, parttime activists can challenge the might of Nestle Water’s in their own community.

Today, we welcome Nestle in Chaffee County to the fold.

As we noted in our most-recent newsletter, citizen opposition to Nestle’s water extraction proposal in Chaffee County (CO) has materialized out of nowhere as of late, and Nestle’s formerly safe haven of Colorado no longer seems to peaceful.

We’ve added them to the blog feeds in our right sidebar, so check back often.

chaffee county, nestle, nestle waters of north america, salida, water extraction, nestle in chaffee county blog