GARNA opposes Nestlé water extraction

Dear Commissioners,

The Greater Arkansas River Nature Association (GARNA), a local non-profit membership-based organization, has been following the proposed Nestle project. We previously submitted a letter of concern to Don Reimer, Chaffee County Engineer and Development Services Director for the Planning Commission Meeting held on March 4, 2009 for the purpose of reviewing the Nestle Special Land Use Permit and 1041 Application. Since that time, extensive additional information has been publicly circulated from the County’s consultants hired to review the Nestle applications. In light of these reports and serious discrepancies in the findings, the GARNA Board of Directors has voted to rescind the letter dated March 3, 2009. We now have grave concerns and are here this evening to state our opposition to the project.

Our opposition is based within the context of GARNA’s vision to be an effective agent for resource conservation and our mission to promote awareness of and to develop appreciation for the natural, cultural and historical resources of the Greater Arkansas River Area.

GARNA’s concerns center on the Nestle project impact on Chapter 1, Section 102 Purpose and Findings of the County 1041 Permit Guidelines and Regulations – stated as follows: Item (d) “to protect the beauty of the landscape and the rural character of the County, to enhance recreational opportunities for residents and visitors, to preserve important archeological and historic sites and significant wildlife habitat, to protect air and water quality, and to conserve soil, water and forestry resources.”

Addressing the water resources of our arid mountain ecosystem, we recognize water as our most valuable and precious resource. Without adequate water sources, our other valuable natural resources – wetlands, flora and fauna, wildlife, bird and riparian habitats cannot thrive. Excerpts taken from consultant W.W. Wheeler and Associates, Inc. Water Resources Engineers report dated February 27, 2009 are of significant concern:

To the extent that the spring discharges may be reduced or eliminated as a result of NWNA’s operations, there could be changes in the size and nature of the wetlands at the Ruby Mountain and Bighorn sites….

In our opinion, the pumping tests were not of sufficient duration to make an accurate prediction of the long-term impact on spring discharge.

Upon interruption or expiration of the Aurora lease…some other water rights source would obviously be needed. Depending on the water source to be used, there could begin to be significant impacts in Chaffee County at that time.

Chapter 9, Section 103 Findings of the County 1041 Permit Guidelines and Regulations states that the Board of County Commissioners finds that:

• Item (4) “Viable topsoil, a permanent water supply, diverse plant communities, shelter, cover, maintaining riparian systems, wetlands, floodplains, breeding and production areas and migration corridors are fundamental to the maintenance of significant wildlife habitat.”
• Item (11) “These regulations are necessary for the protection of the natural resources and environment of the County and the State of Colorado and the health, welfare and safety of the people of the County.”

A few excerpts from the county consultant Delia Malone, ecologist, Colorado Natural Heritage Program illustrate that the 1041 regulations have not been met and in most likelihood cannot be met considering the variability and vulnerability of our ecosystem and unknown future impacts on this fragile environment. Ms. Malone’s report states:

In my opinion test pumping data indicates that there is the potential for substantial dewatering of the aquifer with a commensurate reduction in spring/seep flows in an extended drought and/or reduced recharge scenario…In such a dewatering scenario impacts to wetland vegetation and habitat would likely be negative and significant.

Drawdowns that exacerbate already low-flow environmental conditions may stress the community and its inhabitants beyond the capacity for recovery and survivability.

The watershed that supplies the streams and aquifer is relatively small and in the Site area the aquifer is relatively shallow. Additionally, the watershed’s geologic characteristics result in rapid runoff and reduced storage in surface soils. In my assessment these factors indicate that the stream and associated wetland and riparian systems are less resilient to environmental changes and less able to moderate perturbations….

The Nestle project is a very complex and far-reaching project that would not only affect the sustainability of the ecosystem of the specific project Site but of the greater Arkansas River area as a whole. We urge the Commissioners to review ALL of the reports with an unbiased eye and a long-term vision. If Nestle’s application is incomplete, or fails to meet ALL applicable guidelines regarding the impact to vital natural resources with indisputable scientific evidence, the permit should be denied. The health and welfare of Chaffee County is at stake – residents, wildlife, and natural environment alike. The decision made by the Chaffee County Board of County Commissioners is of utmost importance to the unseen and uncertain future ahead.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely and on behalf of the GARNA Board of Directors,
Ann Graham, Board Member

Note: This letter was dated March 18, 2009.