An attitude of caution appears to be the response of local fishing interests towards the proposed Nestlé Waters spring water project near Nathrop, Colorado. While the project as it stands would appear to have little or no impact on both Arkansas River flows and the quality of the fishery, consensus seems to be that there are still too many unknowns for a definitive judgment to be passed.
Responding to a request from Nestlé and Colorado Trout Unlimited for a letter of endorsement of the project to be presented to County officials, board members of the Collegiate Peaks Chapter of Trout Unlimited instead voted to form a committee to further investigate possible impacts the project may have. Trout Unlimited’s stated mission is to “Conserve, protect and restore North America’s coldwater fisheries and their watersheds.” At their monthly board meeting Wednesday, the general consensus was that while there would appear to be little or no direct impact on both stream flows or the fishery itself, there were too many unanswered questions at this stage to take a position one way or the other.
Dave Moore, board member, stated “We simply do not know enough to take any position at this point in time.” Nestle is currently embroiled in several contentious projects of a similar nature, particularly in McCloud, California, and Fryeburg, Maine. “Does TU, and what it stands for, gain from the proposed Nestle project? Is it in our mission and scope to get involved?” Moore asked the board.
Speaking as an outfitter and owner of ArkAnglers Guide Service, Greg Felt remarked that on the surface, there would appear to be little for a fisherman to get concerned about with the project. “The amount of water involved is not a real big deal from a stream flow point of view. Colorado water law requires Nestle to make the river whole by replacing what they remove.” However, he cautioned that while the amount of water is minor, “Everything adds up. No one really knows what goes on underground. All we do know is based on speculative hydrological models.”
One sweetener that Nestlé Waters may be able to bring to the table is the possibility of enhanced fishing access to the river alongside the spring sites. On a recent visit to the site however, Bruce Lauerman, project manager for Nestle, was reluctant to make any promises on this. While part of the Nestle proposal is to remove the existing concrete trout ponds at the old Hagan hatchery and restore the wetland to its natural state, wetlands are by nature very sensitive and fragile ecosystems. His concern was for possible damage that could be done to this area were uncontrolled public access permitted.
So, while it seems that local fishing interests and Nestlé Waters could exist peacefully side by side, the local TU Chapter plans to do more homework before taking a definitive position.
Hayden writes this article as a keen fly fisherman, ex-guide and current member of Trout Unlimited.
Hayden, I am not surprised that TU is taking a measured approach to this project; I would expect little else from such a great group of people.
I have been trying to educate myself on the engineering side of this proposal and concur with Greg that I do not have major concerns about the impacts to the Ark and the Bighorn Springs Aquifer.
I have met with Nestle representatives and Bruce about the possibility of Nestle being able to participate in Chaffee County in a positive manner, supporting projects over the long term. Thus far these discussions have been very positive and I think that at least the staff that I have met, are committed to being good corporate citizens of our valley.
It is not hard to find things on the internet about Nestle’s projects elsewhere or to have a debate about the merits of bottled water. However I am trying to look at this project from a pragmatic, local, perspective and so far I am cautiously optimistic.
Mike
I agree that it would appear that the proposal will have minor effects on the springs and the Ark. There are probably worse kinds of development we could see on the proposed site that would have a greater negative impact on the surrounding area.
If the project does go ahead, I personally would like to see Nestle Waters locked in to an agreement that generated significant ongoing benefits for the county. Nestle waters stands to make huge amounts of money off our precious and limited natural resource, and any payback must reflect that.
I hope TU takes a very hard look at Nestle’s practices elsewhere before giving any approval to this project (I’m pretty stunned the State TU chaper is working with Nestle on this). Nestle often makes noises about contributing to the community, but those promises typically fall flat.
Their conduct in the tiny nearby (to me) town of McCloud has been atrocious; they wanted to pump 1600 acre feet of water per year out of the tributaries of the world-famous McCloud River, yet never conducted a single flow study until forced to by opponents (years after the negotiations begain).
In Mecosta County (MI), their pumping caused damage to a wetlands area and lake, yet they refused to limit their pumping until forced to negotiate after a judge issued an injunction.
They then promptly filed a lawsuit challenging the right of citizens groups to bring suit against their operation in the first place, a move which is entirely in keeping with their tendency to usurp local control of water, roads, zoning, etc.
In Napa, their pumping operation appears to be drying up Napa Creek in the summer, yet Nestle won’t even return the calls of residents.
Their operatives often promise much, but a detailed examination of their past suggests Nestle offers little to rural communities, and is wholly willing to take a fairly predatory stance towards those who don’t give them what they want.