Category — nestle waters

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.

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’.

Nestle/Poland Spring aren’t having it all their way in Maine – they were run out of Shapleigh and Newfield by a citizen uprising, and just removed the test wells they drilled without the knowledgege of the local citizenry:

After an extended grassroots campaign, Nestlé is finally removing 23 bottled water test wells from a wildlife management area in Shapleigh and Newfield, ME.

Shelly Gobielle and her neighbors first discovered the wells a year and a half ago, three years after Nestlé’s under-the-radar installation. Upon realizing that Shapleigh was likely one of the next site for Nestlé’s water extraction for its Poland Spring brand bottled water, residents approached town officials with their concerns about what bottling would do to the local ecosystem. Their words fell on deaf ears, as Nestlé had already lobbied for and secured the support of the Shapleigh town officials.

The only option was for residents to take matters into their own hands, forming the group Protect Our Water and Wildlife Resources (POWWR). Members hit the streets and went door to door educating the public and signing enough petitions to call a town meeting, held four months ago.

Residents in both Shapleigh and the neighboring town of Newfield passed ordinances that asserted the right of townspeople to control their own water and to prohibit commercial water extraction, a reality that can at last be assured.

Secret negotiations are a standard part of the Nestle approach – time and time again, they’ve quietly negotiated deals with officials they approached quietly well in advance. McCloud, the Sterling/Clinton mess, Shapleigh & Newfield… the list goes on.

Bye Nestle. I don’t think the town’s going to miss you or your legal bludgeon.

via Maine Community Rebuffs Nestlé Over Water Rights | The Water Conservation Source.

Cosmo Garvin of the Sacramento News & Review has been monitoring the Nestle water bottling issue in McCloud, and – given the company’s track record elsewhere – didn’t exactly extend the welcome mat to the news that Nestle’s building a water bottling plant in Sacramento.

Here are a few choice breaks from his article:

And what an international company it is!

Nestlé has a track record of pissing people off wherever it chooses to stick its great big water-sucking straw. For years the company was involved in a nasty fight 230 miles north of here, in McCloud, Calif., where residents worried the company would suck their aquifer dry for a fraction of a cent per gallon. And Nestlé has been heavily criticized for privatizing water supplies in the developing world.

…

What do we get? Forty jobs and $14 million invested in the new plant. And why wouldn’t Nestlé think Sacramento is desirable? After all, they’re going to buy our tap water for cheap and sell it back to us in plastic bottles for 1,000 times what they paid for it. Why wouldn’t they love us?

The company is going to bottle about 150 acre-feet of water every year at its south Sac “microfactory.” If you’re not sure how much an acre-foot is, imagine a high-school football field in Natomas, under a foot of water. Some of that water will be trucked in from springs in the Sierra foothills, to be bottled and sold under the Arrowhead brand. But most of it, about 90 acre-feet, or 30 million gallons, will be bottled and sold under Nestlé’s Pure Life brand.

Nestlé will pay the city’s industrial rates for water: $.9854 for every 748 gallons, according to Kemp. Down at the local Safeway, a 24-pack of half-liter bottles of their water-flavored water fetches $3.99. That works out to about $38 million paid by consumers for about $37,000 worth of tap water, with some packaging, shipping and press releases thrown in.

Nestle is encountering stiff opposition in almost every new water bottling and extraction venue it’s in right now (witness the unexpectedly fierce opposition they encountered in Chaffee County, which discovered Nestle was offering up wholly misleading economic analysis alongside its permit).

Are they now due for a beating in Sacramento? Does this signal a retrenchment from the company regarding its rural bottling activities?

via SN&R > Columns > Bites > Something in the water > 07.30.09.

We knew that Nestle Waters of North America’s just-announced water bottling plant in Sacramento, CA, might have an impact on their long-delayed McCloud bottling plant.

From the Mount Shasta Herald:

“In four to six weeks, we will let McCloud know if we will continue with our McCloud plans,” company representative Dave Palais said Monday night, noting that a recent article incorrectly stated that the company would be dropping its McCloud proposal.

Speaking during Monday night’s McCloud Community Services District meeting, Palais told the board that the company would be looking closely at how the Sacramento facility would impact their regional market and ultimately affect their plans to pursue a McCloud water bottling facility. He cited numerous issues as factors that will be explored, including the current lackluster economy and transportation costs.

The timing is more than interesting – announcing they’d be “looking closely” at the effect their own plant will have on another proposed plant seems… well, dumb.

One would assume a mutlinational the size of Nestle would have already have considered the impacts of another plant (I believe the same project manager was responsible for both).

Do we interpret Nestle’s operative’s statement (““In four to six weeks, we will let McCloud know if we will continue with our McCloud plans,”) as “we’re giving you a few weeks to come crawling to us with the deal we want, or we’re leaving”?

Perhaps.

Nestle has used exactly these negotiating tactics with other small towns in other places.

Another subcontext is worth exploring. First Nestle’s bottled water market is shrinking as outlined in this Huffington Post article by Lisa Boyle.

(Amusing note about the HuffPo story – IBWA spokesman Tom Lauria pops up in the comments section (page 2), mouths the bottled water industry line, but never discloses the fact that he’s being paid to shill. Nice work from the man who fronted the Tobacco Institute for nearly a decade.)

Nestle maintains the market will return when the economy does, but that’s guesswork at best, and if it doesn’t, what happens to all the jobs Nestle has promised to rural towns?

Are those towns – many already suffering from the loss of mill/timber jobs – about to experience a second “hard landing” when an industry leaves?

Perhaps it’s time that small communities started focusing on sustainable economic growth solutions instead of looking to heartless corporations in declining to solve their problems.

via Nestlé says it’s reconsidering pursuit of McCloud facility – Mount Shasta, CA – Mount Shasta Herald.

Nestle Waters’ star-crossed McCloud bottling proposal continues to simmer, yet the water bottling giant isn’t standing still – they just announced a new water bottling plant in Sacramento.

via Nestle Waters to build bottling plant in Sacramento:

Nestle Waters North America announced today it plans to build a water bottling plant in a warehouse at the Florin Fruitridge Industrial Park in South Sacramento.

The $14 million plant is scheduled to begin operations early next year and will employ 40 people. It will bottle water for the Nestle Pure Life and Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water brands, a news release states.

The plant will be supplied with piped water from the city of Sacramento, as well as water trucked from several private springs in Northern California, a spokeswoman said. It will initially bottle as much as 50 million gallons a year, primarily for distribution in Northern California.

Nestle’s gotta be celebrating this one – every other new Nestle Waters bottling project is facing a mortifying amount of opposition (even in Cascade Locks), yet this deal was apparently done in just a few months.

Not only is Nestle planning to bottle its Pure Life municipal water product in Sacramento, but it’s also trucking in water from “private” springs and bottling its Arrowhead brand.

The “spring water” brands are typically bottled in their rural bottling plants – which incidentally are the same plants receiving the most unfavorable attention.

And yes, we wonder what this will mean to their McCloud project, which may just have grown redundant – especially with Cascade Locks on the drawing board.

With questions looming about the effects of climate change on local water supplies, you’d think Chaffee County’s Commissioners would give climate change more than a cursory glance during Nestle’s water extraction project permitting process – especially given the arid nature of Colorado’s climate.

Sadly, that didn’t happen (from the Salida Citizen: Science, commissioners at odds over climate change in Nestle deliberations):

“Conservation has to become an ethic in the West,” said Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, adding the region needs to do more to protect the water that’s already available.

Yet here in Chaffee County, conservation and climate change didn’t merit so much as a passing mention as the Board of County Commissioners began deliberations on a multi-decade commercial water harvesting proposal, even as an overwhelming majority of scientific studies anticipate a reduction of total water supply by the mid-21st century is likely to exacerbate competition for over-allocated water resources especially in the fast-growing West. The county’s own consultants, Colorado National Heritage Progam, cautioned commissioners: “In the interest of maintaining the wetland plant communities, any proposed development plan that impacts water resources should take into consideration global climate change.” Yesterday, CNHP ecologist Delia Malone, writing as a private citizen, spoke out on what she called the commissioners’ “short-sightedness” in dismissing climate change from deliberations on the water harvesting project proposed by Nestle Waters North America.

Two long-term questions need to be answered by every small, rural community facing a Nestle project.

First, with bottled water on the environmental hot seat – and the bottled water market in Europe and USA actually declining – what kind of future does Nestle’s plant really have?

And second – given Nestle’s unwillingness to compromise its pumping rates even when faced with evidence of the damage it’s doing (and its unwillingness to conduct long-term studies or generate useful baseline data) – what kind of legal fund will your town need to establish to protect the aquifer?

Be prepared for an avalanche of corporate spin from this one: Nestle has settled their nearly decade-long legal dispute with the Michigan Citiznes for Water Conservation (MCWC) in Mecosta County, MI.

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

The Chaffee County Commissioners recently debated the fate of Nestle Waters of North America’s proposed water extraction project there, yet didn’t arrive at a decision.

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 first afternoon of deliberations on Nestle’s proposed water extraction project seemed to produce little headway, though quotes in the Colorado Springs Gazette suggest the commissioners are split 2-1 on the issue (perhaps leaning towards acceptance).

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.