There are several issues with this memo that require some response – including the shocking fact that it even includes a hearty “Nestle’s OK” from Mecosta County, where Nestle lost two court cases over the damage they were doing to a Mecosta watershed.

Nestle finally agreed to halve their pumping in Mecosta only after the judge lost his patience and issued an injunction, and Nestle’s response to losing the suit was to challenge the right of Michigan’s citizens to protect their environment.

How does that translate to a good corporate neighbor? It’s not an issue that’s addressed in the memo – and a shocking omission that truly casts the responses into doubt.

I’d love to make a couple other points.

1. Only six towns responded, only one of which is commonly cited among those as having problems with Nestle. That’s odd. Was the list of towns to contact originally provided to Black Diamond by Nestle’s representative?

2. Every town responding hosted a water bottling plant, so at least jobs were in play – which is not the case in Chaffee County. Would the respondents have felt as positive if there were no jobs, only extractions and truck traffic?

3. In many cases, Nestle’s “support” for the community was limited to offering “free” bottled water, which means the company bottled the town’s own water and then handed it back to residents, which somehow doesn’t strike me as the support residents of Chaffee County are looking for.

4. Were towns like Fryeburg (ME), Guelph (Canada), McCloud (CA), Napa (CA) and others even contacted?

In truth, this memorandum is largely irrelevant; the communities where Nestle has repeatedly used extreme legal measures to intimidate opponents and accomplish their business goals aren’t represented.

Those wishing to read four stories of people in communities adversely affected by Nestle should spend a minute reading this article, which – in the community’s own words – offers a much different picture of Nestle’s activities..