Consultants, public at odds with Nestle in wrangle over wetlands

Epic droughts, harnessing water for agriculture, energy and municipal needs, as well as modern-day court battles over water rights have framed some of the epic sagas of mankind, especially when it comes to the history of the American West.

Therefore, in this context, it should come as no surprise that water is at the crux of the battle between a small rural community trying to hold onto its water and the world’s largest food and beverage manufacturer who would like to extract that water to slake American consumers’ thirst for bottled water.

The latest chapter in the war for water in the West unfolded April 21 in Buena Vista, CO, as consultants sparred and the public weighed in on the ramifications of Nestle Waters North America proposal to harvest water from rural south central Colorado, truck it 2-1/2 hours to Denver to bottle and sell under Nestle’s Arrowhead spring water brand.

Custom raft manufacturer Ron Farris drew loud applause from the overflow capacity audience at the public hearing when he told the Chaffee County Board of Commissioners, “We don’t have enough water to let any more of it leave our county.”

Farris noted Nestle’s proposed water extraction was equivalent to the water used by 700 residential homes and that for a sustainable future, “keeping water in our county is a priority.”

Farris also challenged freshmen Commissioners Dennis Giese and Frank Holman to live up to their stump speeches citing Holman’s campaign pledge this past fall to not let more water flow out of the county on his watch, and quoting Giese from a recent public meeting saying “Green is the color of the future of our county.”

Of primary focus during this most recent hearing on Nestle was the question of wetlands impacts. At issue was whether pump tests conducted by Nestle were of sufficient duration and type to adequately predict the effect of Nestle pumping nearly 200 acre feet of water annually from the spring.

Geomega and another county consultant, W.W. Wheeler and Associates Inc., agreed that Nestle’s pump tests were not of sufficient duration to adequately predict longterm effects.  In particular, Kolm explained Nestle’s pump test measured groundwater impacts but not the impact on the wetlands.

Nestle project manager Bruce Lauerman defended a 72-hour test as sufficient and explained “it is not in Nestle’s interest to have an unsustainable situation.”

Indeed Nestle recently doubled estimated project costs – including well digging and construction of pump houses, a pipeline and loading station construction – from $4 million to $8.2 million.

To protect Nestle’s investment, Lauerman also noted he is on the hunt for other springs in Colorado to help ensure “redundancy in operations”so Nestle has a portfolio of water resources in case the Chaffee County springs get contaminated, become affected by a localized drought, and for occasions when the Chaffee springs operations need to be shut down for maintenance.

The public also pleaded with commissioners to demand more baseline scientific data from Nestle. Among those stressing this point were John Graham, one of the founders of Chaffee County Citizens for Sustainability, a group formed in reaction to the Nestle proposal, Frederick Lee speaking on behalf of Chaffee County Democrats, 30-year Chaffee County resident Jim Ruggles who claimed tests taken after the largest snowfall on record would be an historic anomaly, and retired USGS hydrologist Gene Rush.

Rush said that in his professional opinion, the four-month duration of one of Nestle’s pump tests was “grossly inadequate,” and that it was the wrong pump test to predict the extent of the dewatering zone that Nestle’s pumping operations could create. Rush later told the Citizen his biggest fear is that Nestle’s plans to monitor its pumping operations will only produce after-the-fact data that Nestle will argue in court. “We need to settle these issues up front because there’s a big imbalance between the legal resources of Chaffee County and Nestle,” Rush said noting Chaffee County likely couldn’t afford to get into costly court battles with Nestle.

Rush’s fears are not entirely unfounded, since public records show Nestle has engaged in protracted legal battles over its water projects in rural Fryeburg, ME and Mecosta County, Michigan.

Addressing another flank of the battle over water, Terry Scanga, speaking on behalf of the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District, took issue with Nestle’s plan to replace the spring water it takes from the Upper Arkansas River Basin with water leased from the City of Aurora. Nestle recently received Aurora City Council approval for a 10-year lease of 200-acre feet of water with an option for another 10 years. Aurora retained its right to interrupt the supply in the event of a severe drought.

Scanga explained that an intergovernmental agreement between Aurora and the UAWCD and the Southeast Colorado Water Conservancy District is “intended to compel Aurora to maximize the use of its water supplies to meet demands of it citizens and thereby reduce reliance upon Arkansas River Basin water.”

Scanga contends that in a drought year, which historically happens every five to seven years, Nestle’s lease from Aurora would effectively deplete Aurora’s ability to meet its municipal needs triggering a water lease from the Upper Arkansas Basin at a time when the Basin would be “most vulnerable to the deleterious impacts of drought.”

The next public hearing on Nestle will be today, April 29 starting at 1 p.m. The hearing will recess at 5 and resume at 6 p.m.