“Buy and dry” should nix current 1041 application

Dear Chaffee County Commissioners,

I am writing to you concerning the Nestle Waters 1041 Application.

2-203 (2) (d) Application Submittal Requirements
Documentation of the applicant’s financial and technical capability to develop and operate the Project, including a description of the applicant’s experience developing and operating similar projects.

I feel the commissioners have the responsibility to look at both positive and negative impacts on communities where Nestle has operated projects. This topic came up at the planning commission meeting on April 14, and the planners felt it was outside their scope to address it. I spoke to the county attorney, Ms Davis, and pointed out the 2-203 regulation. Ms Davis, after reading it, felt that the regulation could allow the commissioners to consider the economic and environmental troubles caused in other communities. If there is a question as to the commissioners’ right to look into Nestle negative impacts, I feel Nestle opened the can of worms with their submittals claiming no negative impacts on the community (see Nestles “financial details” and Nestles “Contact Sheet” submitted to the county on April 1).

I feel it is not only the right, but the responsibility of the commissioners to run a full background check on Nestle and if you do not feel comfortable doing business with a company of questionable character, you should deny the permit.

The commissioners have a copy of All Bottled Up, Nestle’s Pursuit of Community Water by Food and Water Watch.

The report was submitted to Don Reimer on April 14 by Fred Klein. This report documents eight communities, besides Chaffee County, that have experienced negative socioeconomic and environmental impacts due to Nestle coming into their community.

1-102 (2) Purpose and Findings
(e) To protect and enhance the economic strength of the private and governmental sectors of the County:
(g) To ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that growth will pay for itself, and to ensure that the present residents do not have to subsidize new growth and development through increased taxes and /or degradation of their existing quality of life.

Nestle promises to be a good neighbor, but oftentimes, that is only after court action by the community. Can the county afford to monitor the Nestle land use plan and take Nestle to court like others have had to, when they find a negative impact on the spring site?

Furthermore, in the interest of full disclosure, it would not be out of line for the commissioners to pointedly ask Nestle if they are currently engaged in any business pursuits in Chaffee County that would fall outside the scope of the current application, but could affect the approval if those intentions were known. For example, pursuing other land and/or water acquisitions for either augmentation purposes from within the valley, or other site developments. “Buy and Dry” land purchases should negate the terms of this permit, which is to protect agricultural land.

Thank you for your concentrated efforts to fully address this application.

Alan Rule
Howard, CO