Category — nestle waters

Chesterfield County, N.C. looks to be on Nestle Waters of North America’s short list for a new water extraction/bottling facility.

From the St. Louis Business Journal:

Nestlé Waters North America Inc. is considering sites in Chesterfield County, N.C., for a spring-water source and bottling facility.

Will they be met by fawning local elected officials, or unhappy residents – concerned about traffic, loss of a local resource, privatization of water, truck traffic, declining property values, etc?

I don’t know, and it’s possible Nestle doesn’t either, though their playbook involves getting someone on the ground long before this kind of announcment is made.

via Nestlé eyes plant sites – St. Louis Business Journal:.

Now that Nestle’s Chaffee County water extraction project has been permitted – despite the opposition of an overwhelming majority of the citizenry – we have to ask: What’s next?

Salida Citizen reporter Lee Hart – who provided detailed coverage of the entire saga – pens a thoughtful opinion piece about what’s next for the community:

Last week, the commissioner voted unanimously to support conditional approval of Nestle’s operations in this county. The permit approval contains 44 conditions totaling 11 pages which County Commissioner Chair Frank Holman said he trusts the world’s largest food and beverage company will abide by, adding that he also calls on local citizens to serve as watchdogs of the project. A final, formal resolution on the project is expected to be reviewed for adoption before Oct. 18.

Nestle assured the Citizen it would abide by the conditions and be a “good neighbor.” Yet nothing about Nestle’s actions throughout the public review process lead me to share in Holman’s naïve optimism and Nestle’s verbal assurances that Nestle will be a good neighbor and happily comply with all 44 conditions of approval of their permit.

At best this project will be an ongoing series of unwieldy hassles for county staff; at worst, a complete environmental disaster.

I sincerely hope the citizens of Chaffee County don’t experience the environmental and legal nightmares visited upon residents of places like Fryeburg (ME), Mecosta County (MI), McCloud (CA) and a bundle of others.

Yet it’s clear that where Nestle goes, lawsuits and environmental damage often follow – as do Nestle’s corporate spinmeisters, who say one thing while the Swiss multinational does another.

Hart alludes to this sad tendency. And offers a glimpse into the future of the county commissioners who campaigned on water issues, then folded like a cheap tent in a hurricane – even after Nestle’s application and analysis were found badly lacking:

From all appearances, only public pressure and opposing county consultant analysis moved Nestle to make major concessions like the removal of the Bighorn Springs parcel and promise of a permanent conservation easements. There are clear indications Nestle spun facts and the truth in its pursuit of county approval, most notably in a tense debate with Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District General Manager Terry Scanga.

But it  also seems like an unfair fight when a giant multinational corporation picked as its first target in Colorado, a small rural community of limited financial resources, dearth of technical expertise and glaring voids in regulations at the local and state level to definitively protect it against such commercial water grabs. And there’s no question Nestle can and still may well overpower this community with its vast resources in order to win any future argument about any aspect of the project.

While the commissioners had the opportunity to reject the proposal, thereby concurring with public and staff testimony that the application did not satisfy all the terms of the 1041 permit process, they chose instead to approve the project with a lengthy list of conditions they felt addressed the public’s concerns and brought the project into 1041 compliance. In so doing they also reneged on campaign assurances and stump speeches about green being the color of the future here and vowing to keep water in the valley.

You can read Hart’s piece in its entirety at Nestle saga moves toward next chapter.

It’s interesting to note that the much comprehensive, critical coverage of the Nestle water extraction project in Chaffee County originated from online local news sites.

In the rare instances that larger media outlets (like the LA Times’ Denver bureau) got involved, they often deferred to Nestle’s corporate spokesman, and offered little in the way of real analysis.

One local Chaffe County news site offering coverage was the Ark Valley Voice (whose masthead includes the famous Joseph Pulitzer quote: “Newspapers should have no friends”).

They published an editorial suggesting the Nestle fight wasn’t over, citing a screening of the new bottled water documentary “Tapped” and a visit from Michigan environmental attorney Jim Olson, who helped fight Nestle to a standstill in Mecosta County.

From the Ark Valley Voice:

The second part of the evening featured a presentation by Jim Olson, the Michigan based attorney who fought Nestlé for nine years with some significant victories. He spoke at Thursday evening’s event thanks to efforts by Nestlé’s formal, local opposition, Chaffee Citizens for Sustainability (CCFS). Olson’s message was simple and optimistic: Nestlé can still be turned back, Chaffee County can do it.

But he also warned that the stakes are high, urging people to remember that, “This is not a dead issue. It’s just been born. Their (the Commissioners) vote gave birth to the issue of beneficial use in Colorado.” Nestlé’s move to Chaffee County, he warned, could set a dangerous and unanticipated precedent.

The precedent Olson refers to is the jurisdiction of the North American Free Trade Agreement or NAFTA. Olson indicated that supporters of Nestlé might consider that NAFTA currently holds no power over Colorado’s Public Water systems. But, with the slow creep of water from a publicly held right to a privately held commodity, Chaffee County’s children could someday compete with Canada and Mexico for access at the kitchen faucet.

County Commissioners who ran for election based on keeping water in the Valley along with speeches regarding green as the color of the future, may have reneged on their promises in more ways than they understand. That’s because once water is privatized, it is very difficult to fend off international intervention.

Olson encouraged folks, however, not to get bogged down with what has passed, but rather to look forward to what can be done. He reminded the large SteamPlant crowd that the Commissioners’ approval is only one minor gateway on the path to Nestlé’s pumping operations. For example, Nestlé still needs to get past State water engineers and have its plans approved by the State Water Court, which can be a lengthy process.

While the word “recall” was heard in association with the current Commissioners, the focus was largely on defeating Nestlé rather than punishing elected officials. In that vein, Olson says there is plenty to do, including:

1. Funds must be raised to combat the bottler in the Water Court.

2. Local opposition must get vocal and energized. Olson reminded people that this campaign is not to be short lived. Nestlé is not defeated overnight, but in the long run.

3. Records should be scoured via the Freedom of Information act in order to examine every interaction Nestlé has with public officials.

4. Send letters to the governor and legislators and let them know that Colorado wants to keep its water public.

5. Join forces with CCFS to help create a long-range plan to combat not only the current erroneous use of Colorado’s water, but also any future incursions. You can donate time, money, or any other skill you have.

Olson also reminded everyone with a stake in the future of the area’s water resources that, “You in Colorado have a chance to draw the line on beneficial water use and use your constitution to say that water is for the people.”

He concluded, “You can define this popularly. It’s the public that has to say, ‘this water is ours and this use of it is wrong.’”

You can read the rest of this opinion piece here: EDITORIAL: Nestlé Fight Is Not Finished | Ark Valley Voice.

“Good corporate citizen” Nestle never passes up an opportunity to spin its “good neighbor” message to the world, but according t0 a memo obtained by the UK Scotsman, Nestle’s part of a campaign attempting to vilify the quality of tap water.

The Scotsman obtained a 3-page memo written by a PR firm working for the Natural Hydration Council (the UK’s bottled water industry trade group that’s the equivalent of North America’s IBWA).

Nestle is a leading player in the group, and we’ll let the Scotsman’s reporter lay out the ugly details:

AIDES working for bottled water producers are planning to use scare tactics to protect falling sales in Scotland by attacking the quality of tap water supplied to consumers.

The tactics are outlined in a memorandum drawn up by a public relations company employed by the industry to be used in case “the media turns hostile to our cause”.

It suggests using data on contamination of public water supplies with potentially-harmful bugs, such as E Coli and cryptosporidium, to highlight the merits of drinking bottled water. Sales of bottled water have fallen nationally over the last year because of the effects of the recession on disposable incomes.

The memo, obtained by Scotland on Sunday, was written by a London PR company working for the Natural Hydration Council, an industry lobby group funded by three major bottled water companies. They include Nestlé, which markets Vittel and Perrier; Danone, which produces Volvic and Evian; and Perthshire-based Highland Spring.

The Scotsman quoted several passages in the memo which clearly indicate the PR firms plan to attack the quality of bottled water should media coverage turn “hostile” – but later the writer of the memo contradicts what he wrote.

It was sent to an Edinburgh-based communications company, 3X1 – which is paid by the industry to lobby on its behalf – to be deployed on the same day as the annual publication of Scotland’s Drinking Water Quality Regulator, last Thursday.

The regulator’s report concluded that the quality of Scottish drinking water remains “extremely high” with 99.75 per cent of supplies meeting safety standards. It adds that two tap samples in Scotland contained E Coli in 2008, an improvement on 2007 when five failures were recorded.

[ed: emphasis mine] This prompted Julie McGarvey, of 3X1 to write to her colleague James Laird, at Epicurus Communications in London: “Clock the E Coli data. Good to keep up our sleeve.”

Laird wrote back that he had already written a memo, based on an analysis of reports by the Drinking Water Inspectorate in England, that had “observations” that might be useful “should the media turn hostile towards our cause.”

He adds that the report offers “potential sound-bite notes that could be used for NHC un-attributable media briefings.” “Unattributable briefings” is lobby group shorthand for information passed to journalists on condition they do not name their source.

After reading the last paragraph above, now read the astonishing denial by the consultant who wrote the quoted memo:

Asked whether the examples of problems in the public water supply would be communicated to journalists, he replied: “Absolutely not. The NHC supports the consumption of all water, whether bottled or tap. There is no intent, desire or mandate to criticise tap water on behalf of the NHC.”

One word leaps to mind.

Sleazy.

Earlier, we chronicled the attacks launched on tap water quality by none other than Nestle Waters CEO Kim Jeffries and another UK bottler.

And even journalist and author Elizabeth Royte thinks its time to end the charade:

The bottled water industry continues to claim it competes not with tap water but with high-calorie and other processed drinks. The argument is getting a little tired.

And yes, one reason industries form trade groups like the Natural Hydration Council or North America’s International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) is so water bottlers don’t have to get their hands dirty.

They simply pay others to do their dirty work for them.

We’ve noted in the past that the bottled water industry – facing tough economic conditions and opposition on environmental grounds – will increasingly turn to FUD tactics (Fearn, Uncertainty, Doubt) to drive sales.

In this case, the evidence fell into the right hands, but how much of this kind of thing is currently being planned behind closed doors elsewhere?

Why else would the IBWA hire former Tobacco Institute spokesperson Tom Lauria?

In the light of stories like this, it’s clear.

The real “product” of the Tobacco Institute was “doubt” – an ongoing effort to undermine good science detailing the hazards of smoking, confusing consumers and providing cover for the industry.

Expect to see more “doubt” sown by the bottled water industry about the quality of the water that comes out of your tap.

And when you do, recognize it for what it is.

via Bottled water firms turn to scare tactics – Scotsman.com News.

This is rich stuff – a satirical commercial which neatly encapsulates the lunacy of Nestle/Poland Spring’s approach to natural resources.

If only they could charge us for the air we breathe…

Peter Gleick is an expert on water issues, and in his San Francisco Chronicle blog, he offers reasoned, intelligent, adult commentary about things like water rights, water conservation, and yes, the bottled water industry.

In this case, he takes aim at tactics of the IBWA (the bottled water industry trade association) for creating and publicizing irrelevant statistics:

In recent years, there has been growing public opposition to the construction of large spring water bottling plants in small rural communities in Maine, Michigan, California, Colorado and elsewhere because of fear, and some direct physical evidence, that such large plants adversely affect local groundwater levels, flowing springs and local wetlands.

In response, the bottled water industry, led by the International Bottled Water Association, launched a campaign (including testimony to state and federal legislators) arguing that there was no problem because “ground water withdrawals for bottled water production represent only 0.019 percent of the total fresh ground water withdrawals in the U.S.”

Ah, here rears the ugly head of the denominator problem. This number is probably very close to true. It is also completely irrelevant and misleading.

The proper denominator should not be total U.S. groundwater withdrawals, it should be some measure of local groundwater availability, or use, or yield — a much smaller denominator. In this case, a bottled water withdrawal may be a very significant fraction of local groundwater. But by choosing a big denominator, the industry was attempting to disguise a problem.

You can read the entirety of Peter Gleick’s post here: Peter Gleick: The Denominator Problem; Misleading Use of Water Numbers | Circle of Blue | WaterNews.

Frankly, we’re not surprised that the IBWA would rely on misinformation; despite the industry’s warm, fuzzy exterior, we’ve seen several instances where the association has attacked the quality of tap water – the classic attempt to create doubt about what comes out your tap.

It’s largely rubbish, but it’s par for the course for the IBWA – an employee of which was called out on this blog for posting industry talking points on the Huffington Post without identifying himself as an industry schill.

That was former Tobacco Institute spokesperson Tom Lauria (who pops up in the comments section below the post and levels on amusing charge after another), and if you wonder why the IBWA hired Mr. Lauria, it’s because – with their bottom line under attack by the recession and the bottled water backlash – creating doubt about the quality of tap water remains their only hope of sustaining an unsustainable, largely pointless product.

Need we point out that Nestle Waters of North America – the leading water bottler worldwide – is the big dog in the IBWA? And that Nestle CEO Kim Jeffries has been quoted as saying that municipal water supplies “go down a lot”?

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.

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?