Category — Poland Spring

A recurring theme among those fighting Nestle’s water extraction is a non-responsive local media and elected officials who act is if the desires of citizens are something to be ignored.

This has become immediately apparent in the case of Shapleigh, where citizens voted to enact a moratorium and to create a water-extraction ordinance. Unfortunately, Shapleigh’s Board of Selectman immediately turned to a consultant to write the ordinance – one referred to them by Nestle.

The resulting ordinance was predictably tilted towards extraction, and Protect Our Water and Wildlife Resources, Inc. (POWWR) is trying to force a recalcitrant Board of Selectmen to heed citizen desires for an ordinance that protects water, not simply lays down rules for its extraction by Nestle. Here’s an excerpt:

Why have Shapleigh officials not been responsive to citizen input? And to what extent can that behavior be attributed to influence by Nestle? Those are questions that strike at the heart of the democratic process, and the public deserves clear answers to them.

Sound familiar? Read the rest of their press release here:

***************
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DATE: January 27, 2009

FROM: Protect Our Water and Wildlife Resources, Inc. (POWWR)

RE: Ordinances governing large-scale water extraction in Shapleigh, Maine

POWWR OPTS TO LEND UNEQUIVOCAL BACKING TO RIGHTS-BASED ORDINANCE: AN OPEN LETTER TO SHAPLEIGH SELECTMEN

BACKGROUND: Control of large-scale water-extraction is at issue in Shapleigh today solely because the Swiss-based industrial food giant Nestle, doing business in Maine through the company called Poland Spring, is proposing massive water extraction for commercial profit in both Shapleigh and neighboring Newfield. Such extraction would be unprecedented for these small towns, and Nestle’s unremitting pressure to effect it represents the latest phase in what is emerging as a world-wide battle for control of the planet’s supply of fresh water. How citizens and their governments respond at this level and this time is therefore a matter of the highest importance.

UPDATE: In a move designed to make their position crystal-clear, POWWR members voted unanimously last week to reject an invitation from Shapleigh selectmen to discuss their opposing views on local control of large-scale water extraction.

The reasoning behind POWWR’s decision last week includes the following facts:

By its very nature, the large-scale water-extraction ordinance drawn up this fall by the Shapleigh Planning Board to be placed before voters in March does not give voters the option of saying an unqualified NO to large-scale water extraction; it merely sets terms for regulating the extraction. In fact, current interpretation of state and federal laws means that NO such regulatory ordinance, no matter how strict, can deny drillers the right to extract once applicants have met all terms of regulation.

POWWR offers voters an alternative: an ordinance whose legal authority is seen as grounded in the U.S. Constitution’s assurance that individuals and the towns through which they express their collective wills have a basic right to self-governance. Such an ordinance*, termed “Constitutional,” or “rights-based,” in other words, DOES give voters the option of saying NO.

* Termed “Shapleigh Water Rights and Local Self-Government” in its application here, that ordinance will herein after be referred to as “the rights-based ordinance.”

Shapleigh voters have, in effect, said NO to Nestle multiple times already: first, in their response to a petition calling for a vote to impose an immediate moratorium on discussion of large-scale, corporate-funded and profit-motivated water extraction; next, in five public hearings ultimately held on the matter — hearings in which the turnout was exceptionally large and the prevailing sentiment almost uniformly critical of the proposed extraction; and, finally, in the voting on September 20, in which the lopsidedness of opinion could no longer be called into question: it ran not only 204 to 38 in favor of the moratorium, but 191 to 51 against further test drilling.

Moreover, in the time since the vote, citizens’ eagerness to sign petitions to (a) request the opportunity to vote on the rights-based (vs the regulatory) ordinance, and (b) set in motion, once selectmen denied that request, a process to force the voting opportunity, strikes POWWR as further evidence of Shapleigh citizens’ wish to say NO.

POWWR therefore believes that its support for a rights-based ordinance clearly reflects the will of the people.

POWWR continues to contend that the regulatory ordinance being proposed by the town is weak, even as judged by regulatory-ordinance standards only. That ordinance lacks specificity — most significantly, on the critical matters of water-extraction rates, hours of operation, and traffic patterns — and, dependent as it is upon other passages in the town’s bylaws, it lacks the unitary simplicity and strength of a stand-alone document.

But POWWR and others have already pointed out those weaknesses. In response, they’ve been ignored. Frustrated and rebuffed, POWWR sought a way to be heard, and that search led it to the discovery of the rights-based ordinance.

POWWR advocacy of the rights-based ordinance thus represents a major step forward, since adoption of it would obviate the need for a regulatory ordinance. (Drillers who are not allowed in in the first place don’t need their drilling regulated.) That being the case, POWWR now views its participation in continued discussion about ways to strengthen the regulatory ordinance as contradictory and counter-productive to its current primary goal. Such discussion would also represent POWWR’s betrayal of all those who have supported POWWR in its efforts to find a way to speak a resounding NO.

Why have Shapleigh officials not been responsive to citizen input? And to what extent can that behavior be attributed to influence by Nestle? Those are questions that strike at the heart of the democratic process, and the public deserves clear answers to them.

Town officials’ serious consideration of the rights-based ordinance would go far to reassure Shapleigh citizens that their elected figures are responsive to their constituencies and are above reproach; their support of the regulatory ordinance, and especially of one that is markedly weak, only fuels growing suspicions of base pandering.

POWWR members have come to none of these conclusions lightly or without studied consideration. Most especially do they realize that the current weight of legal opinion opposes rights-based ordinances, so that the battle for change can be expected to be long and hard. That opposition, however, only exposes the extent to which our laws, before they’re improved upon, often actually subvert justice.

Here, democracy demanded will keep the very water under our feet from being declared a commodity available for the taking by a giant, for-profit, multi-national company. It will give voice to an aquifer unable to defend itself, and to all those of us that are dependent on it – people, plants, animals, and the ecosystems of which we are all a part. And it will make us proud as we say, “If we do not have a democracy where we live, where on earth DO we have it?”

###

I received this via email – the story of Maine residents suffering an often-ignored impact of Nestle/Poland Spring’s water bottling plants, and the indifference of Nestle/Poland Spring’s representative.

That impact? Truck traffic. Lots of it. But I’ll let them tell their story:

****************************

I am writing to express our concern regarding more trucks and traffic generated by Poland Springs. We have read with interest the articles regarding the legal battle that Western Maine Residents for Rural Living is fighting against more Poland Springs activity.

Almost all the publicity that we have seen is focused on Fryeburg and its immediate surrounding area. My husband and I live on Rte. 11, Steep Falls, Cumberland County.

When Poland Springs tanker trucks are using this route to the Hollis bottling plant, we have trucks passing at least every half hour, 24 hours a day. In the summer, when I assume water demand is greater, we have at least one truck pass by every 15 minutes, occasionally every 5 or 6 minutes, 24 hours a day.

Our little stretch of road is Main Street in the village of Steep Falls, with a speed limit of 25 mph. Most houses are over 100 years old and are no more than 15 to 20 feet from the narrow road bed. We have no sidewalks. If two trucks cross the bridge in opposite directions it gives them 12″ of clearance on either side.

Often they will air brake to a stop, because two vehicles of that size cannot cross the bridge at the same time with that little clearance. Frequently there are crews out repairing the bridge that was built in 1936.

This has been an ongoing problem for us and our neighbors, as well as our neighbors on Rte. 113. I have had several meetings and phone conversations with Mark Dubois who makes many promises, but rarely delivers.

After three plus years of calling, and tracking the speed of the trucks with our own calibrated speed gun, we have finally gotten most of the Poland Springs trucks to travel at the speed limit, at least when they think someone may be watching. At night, the speed increases.

We are terrified that if Nestle wins this battle, we will have even more truck traffic rattling our houses, cracking our foundations and ceilings and causing a danger to any pedestrian on our street.

We wanted to say that the traffic problem is quite widespread beyond the Fryeburg area, and that other communities are unhappy with the truck traffic as it is now and, of course, the possibility of even more commercial truck traffic on our very narrow rural roads.

If we can be of any help in your battle against the Nestle Corporation increasing its hold on our small towns and lifestyles, please let us know.

Sincerely,
Janet and Michael Blanck

The ongoing controversy around water extraction in the Kennebunk, ME area continues – this time driven by competing legislation, and a promise from Nestle/Poland Spring that they won’t “bully” their way into the water (a promise their representative promptly breaks when he minimizes Nestle foes).

From the Sanford-Springvale Register:

Although temperatures have rarely been warm enough to thaw it, water remains a hot topic in the New Year in York County.

Specifically, questions on how to regulate commercial water extraction are the basis of a bill submitted by freshman legislator Ed Legg D-Kennebunk, and the subject of a workshop scheduled for Wednesday, Jan. 28, by Shapleigh selectmen to consider creating a town ordinance.

Legg would like consumer-owned water utilities to host public hearings and get voter approval to sell water commercially. His bill was introduced in response to the proposed agreement made last summer by the Kennebunk, Kennebunkport and Wells Water District to allow Poland Spring Water Company to extract as much as 432,000 gallons of water a day for bottling.

In Shapleigh, the workshop expected to be attended by selectmen Ruth Ham, Michael Perro and Bill Hayes; town attorney Ron Bourque and hydrogeologist John Tewhey; and five members of Protecting Our Water and Wildlife Resources POWWR will try to find compromise for two competing ordinances for commercial water extraction.

At the end of the article, Nestle’s representative does what Nestle representatives can’t seem to help doing – attempt to cast foes in an unfavorable light by minimizing their numbers and labeling opposition as “noise.”

Should the water be to the company’s liking, Brennan said it would not “bully its way into town,” but added the noise of the opposition to Poland Spring’s presence was not indicative of the number of company foes.

“I don’t think it is a lot of people, but they are very vocal and active,” Brennan said.

With locals from both sides of the issue trying to meet and settle their differences, snarky behavior from a Swiss-based multinational doesn’t seem like the most helpful thing.

Nestle’s treatment of rural communities won’t qualify them for any “good neighbor” awards anytime soon – a sad fact chronicled in a new Food & Water Watch report on water extraction activities in North America.

From their site:

Food & Water Watch’s report, “All Bottled Up: Nestlé’s Pursuit of Community Water,” reveals the loss  communities experience when a plant shows up in a small town.

Consider that…

Bottled water is overpriced, it’s no purer or safer than tap water, Nestlé is profiting off of communities and their precious resource — groundwater, and water bottles end up — by the millions — as worthless trash.

Did you know that…

Nestle takes the groundwater for next to nothing and makes extraordinary profits from the community’s loss? Communities are taking on the food giant — AND WINNING. Empty Nestlé bottles are piling up in landfills? Communities are getting smart about Nestlé and passing legislation to stop harmful water extraction from their towns?

Food & Water Watch and activists favor the efforts of policymakers to…

Develop comprehensive groundwater protection and conservation laws and regulation, require labels about the sources of bottled water and contaminants, adress environmental harm from producing bottled water and disposal of empty bottles, and assist residents and communities in protecting their groundwater from Nestlé.

Read more at: All Bottled Up: Nestlé’s Pursuit of Community Water — Food & Water Watch.

The folks of Fryeburg aren’t enamored of the idea of a 24/7 truck loading station in a residentially zoned area, but when Nestle Waters of North America is involved, local control over water, streets and lifestyle dies not with a bang, but with a lawsuit.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47_e3VWKJgc[/youtube]

As is often the case, the argument ultimately doesn’t revolve around what’s right or reasonable (I’m suggesting a 24/7 truck loading station in a residential area – running 50 trucks per day – isn’t a particularly reasonable land use).

Instead, it revolves around interpretation of of ambiguous passages of the law – a practice similar to divining the future via goat entrails.

What’s clear is Nestle’s “good corporate neighbor” PR spin is a facade; a truck loading station returns little to the town of Fryeburg save a small bump in property taxes. Yet the downside is clear; Fryeburg “enjoys” trucks rumbling along at all hours of the day or night, diesel fumes, the noise, etc.

Nestle knows this, and it’s treating Fryeburg in the same manner it treats other small, rural towns who don’t roll over and play dead – they release the legal hounds, who are better funded than their citizen counterparts.

No matter how the decision goes in Fryeburg, the real lesson has already been learned.

From the No Drumlins blog comes more controversy about the Wekepeke watershed – which Nestle/Poland Springs coveted, which in turn fired off a verbal war between the Clinton and Sterling selectmen.

Will Nestle/Poland Spring’s project rise up again?

It’s bad enough that some of the leadership in Clinton see the Wekepeke Reservoir and aquifer as nothing more than a money maker. But the Sterling Selectmen have been little better in voicing their opposition to Clinton’s plan. Long after Clinton rejected Nestle’s initial bid the Sterling selectmen finally decided that yeah, well, maybe selling the water wasn’t such a great idea so we’ll oppose it.

Opposing the plan when it was still a going question would have been the responsible thing to do, but Sterling’s selectmen dragged their feet to see what Sterling could get out of the deal, only to finally oppose it after a decision had been made and after months of near-unanimous opposition from those in town who voiced an opinion.

You can read the whole interesting post here: No Drumlins: Wekepeke: Here we go again.

Nestle Waters/Poland Spring continued their campaign against the tiny Maine town of Fryeburg, arguing the town had no right to block the permitting of a 24/7 truck loading station in a residentially zoned area.

While the outcome of the arguments won’t be known for some time, the effects of Nestle’s suit (and four appeals) are already being felt; Fryeburg’s plight has been cited by many who contend Nestle isn’t the good corporate neighbor they suggest they are – especially when it comes to usurping local control of planning and water decisions.

This story via the iStockAnalyst:

Anderson, an attorney for the group Western Maine Residents for Rural Living, said the Planning Board made a mistake when it granted the approval in 2005.

Anderson said the proposed pumping station clearly does not conform to the comprehensive plan for that section of town, which calls for low-impact uses such as in-home businesses.

“This is a 24-hour-a-day, 365-day-a-year trucking operation,” Anderson said. “The company was trying to fit a round peg into a square hole.”

Our best to the citizens of Fryeburg.

In another look back at 2008, the Sterling News also led their wrap-up with a Nestle Waters/Poland Spring story – this one about the very contentious Wekepeke aquifer.

On the water front, much of the year was devoted to the Wekepeke Aquifer, and an effort by Nestle Waters to use the resource for bottled water. Clinton officials signed an agreement in June to resist Nestle’s advances, but Sterling officials did not immediately sign on.

A local group, the Committee for Informed Citizens, implored the Selectmen to make a similar stand and close off the aquifer to Nestle. Finally, in October, the Selectmen released a statement taking a stand against commercial use of the water.

“The purchase and re-sale of water of the Wekepeke aquifer by any private company, such as Nestle Waters, should not be encouraged or permitted,” the Selectmen said in the Oct. 1 statement. “The sale of public water from the Wekepeke aquifer does not represent sound public policy nor is it in the spirit or intent of the original and subsequent enabling legislation.”

This was classic Nestle/Poland Spring; the deal was halfway to finished before the citizenry found out, and only a strong response got it tabled – especially after questions about the saleability of the water were raised.

Maine’s Seacoast online looks at the top stories of 2008, and not surprisingly, Nestle Water, Poland Spring and thei related water issues led the list:

When word got out this summer that the Kennebunk Kennebunkport Wells Water District was thinking of selling up to 432,000 gallons of water a day to Nestle/Poland Springs, the reaction was immediate and largely negative.

Opponents organized themselves into a group called Save Our Water, held rallies and meetings, and soon garnered the attention of the national media. They called upon the water district trustees to vote the sale down, and argued that the KKWWD would be giving away the community’s precious natural resources.

Water issues elsewhere in Maine were also mentionedt:

At the November election in Wells, voters approved a question that called for a temporary moratorium on large scale water extraction, to give the town sufficient time to create a permanent ordinance dealing with the subject. The question resulted from a citizen’s initiative. In Ogunquit, voters approved a question favoring a prohibition on the sale of water by KKWWD for resale as bottled water. That question also resulted from a citizen’s petition.

It’s tempting to classify the Kennebunk mess as yet another case of Nestle/Poland Spring trying to quietly spirit away a lot of water – and getting nabbed in the process by the citizenry – but despite a great deal of protest, the issue isn’t yet settled:

Some, though, think the time may be coming soon for the water discussion to begin in Kennebunk again.

“I don’t think the issue is dead,” said Kennebunk Town Manager Barry Tibbetts. “More public discourse needs to happen.”

vLet’s hope the public is included in any discussion – and that Nestle/Poland Spring don’t unfairly influence that discussion with their big-dollar PR firms, misleading advertising, and nasty habit of spreading just enough dollars around small rural towns to factionalize the community.

Nestle Waters of North America’s ongoing lawsuit against Fryeburg – the small Maine community that doesn’t want Nestle to build a 24/7 truck loading station in a residential area – opens its next saga on Tuesday, January 13.

After filing a lawsuit and four subsequent appeals, Nestle’s never prevailed against the town, but clearly that hasn’t stopped them from trying, and on Tuesday, the case returns to the Maine Supreme Court.

It’s an example of Nestle’s heavy-handed legal approach to small rural towns – one that belies their frequent protestations that they’re good corporate neighbors (via the Water in the News blog):

Jan. 13 (Portland, ME) Nestle Waters v. Fryeburg

Maine Supreme Judicial Court
142 Federal Street, Portland, ME
Oral Argument Schedule
Tuesday, January 13, 2009, 3:00 pm
Nestle Waters North America v. Town of Fryeburg et al. (Oxf-08-419)
Maine Supreme Judicial Court – Clerk’s Office

Matthew Pollack, Esq., Clerk (207) 822-4146
Sally A. Enoch, Esq., Staff Attorney (207) 822-4266

Nestle’s profit motive here must be sizable; not only have they incurred a lot of legal expenses (this is their second trip to the Maine Supreme Court on this issue), they’ve also created the bottled water equivalent of the Alamo – a very real warning to other small rural towns about the risks of involving yourself with the world’s largest food & beverage company.

The long and tortured history behind the Fryeburg mess is covered in Elizabeth Royte’s excellent Bottlemania book, though you’ll have to fill in the more recent events right here on the Internet.

It’s not a pretty picture; at one point Nestle’s lawyers argued their right to grow market share superceded the town’s right to say no:

Like the citizens of Fryeburg – especially those who don’t adore the idea of trucks driving through residentially zoned areas all day and night – we anxiously await the outcome.

The Water in the News blog mentioned a citizen’s protest I wish I’d seen – anti-Nestle Waters of North America activists in Maine dumped bags of empty plastic water bottles in front of Nestle/Poland Spring’s law firm (Pierce Atwood).

On Friday, November 14, 2008, Maine youth teamed with Native Forest Network and Defending Water for Life to protest a Portland law firm for its role in the commodification of Maine’s groundwater.

People from across Maine brought trash bags full of empty plastic water bottles to Pierce Atwood to demonstrate the physical ramifications of the corporate bottling industry for Maine’s landfills.

The Portland-based law firm represents both Nestlé Waters North America and the Nature Conservancy in their water acquisition projects throughout Maine.

Now the law firm – a fixture in the lawsuit-plagued town of Fryeburg – can also “enjoy” what town landfills all over Maine experience on a daily basis – piles of plastic waste generated delivering something that flows into almost every house.

nestle, nestle waters of north america, poland spring, maine, pierce atwood, bottled water

Powered by ScribeFire.

It’s rare when a Nestle Waters of North America spokesperson speaks in a public forum where their conclusions can be questioned, but Nestle/Poland Spring operative Mark Dubois posted several comments to this Maine blog – including one where Nestle’s spin plays out in all its glory.

He positions Poland Spring as a Maine company (it’s been a Nestle “brand” since the company was purchased by Nestle), and mischaracterizes opposition to the Fryeburg loading station thusly:

Any suggestion that Fryeburg has repeatedly said no to a truck loading station ignores the fact that the planning board approved our application in 2005 after a lengthy process and thoroughly written decision after numerous public hearings. The appeal of that decision by
a small number of opponents in town is what has triggered the series of appeals since that time. The matter is now pending in the Maine Law Court and everyone is hoping that the Court’s decision will put this matter to rest.

My response to Nestle’s spin?

First, the original permit was issued in a way that suggests poor public process (which follows Nestle around like a shadow). It was written by one person on the planning commission – the same person who later secretly advised Nestle what was happening in the town via email – a relationship Nestle/Poland Spring (wasn’t it you, sir?) denied even
existed before a reporter produced the emails.

The original appeal was hardly the work of a “small number of opponents” (the same characterization used by Nestle elsewhere to minimize opposition). Those opponents “won” that appeal because a truck loading station doesn’t belong in a residentially zoned area, and further, that victory didn’t somehow “trigger” a string of appeals – Nestle/Poland Springs filed a lawsuit and four subsequent appeals (the fourth is being heard right now).

And yes, Nestle has lost every one.

If anyone wishes to see YouTube video of Nestle/Poland Spring’s lawyers arguing before the Maine Supreme Court that their right to grow market share superceded the town’s right of local control, then simply go here.

Finally, Mr. Dubois, as for your statement that: “The matter is now pending in the Maine Law Court and everyone is hoping that the Court’s decision will put this matter to rest.”

This could have been put to rest a long time ago if Nestle hadn’t tried bully the town of Fryeburg through legal means, and yet you act as if your multinational corporation somehow has no choice in the matter.

This could all end right now, Mr. Dubois – if only Nestle/Poland Spring would drop its lawsuit. Nobody’s forcing your multinational to continue its lawsuit, and what’s clear is that Nestle is willing to use extraordinary legal means to deny Fryeburg the right to say “no” to a truck loading station in residentially zoned areas.

If anyone has anything to add to Mr. Dubois’ perspective, feel free to visit Seavey’s blog, read the string of comments, and leave one of your own (respectful) comment.

nestle, nestle water, nestle waters of north america, poland spring, maine, fryeburg

Powered by ScribeFire.