Did they or didn’t they? Has Nestle satisfied all the criteria of the 1041 permit regulations or have they not?
That’s the question the Chaffee County Board of Commissioners will be seeking to answer at the next in a series of public hearings aimed at deciding whether Nestle Waters North America should be given the necessary county permits for a proposed water harvesting project in this rural community in the heart of the Colorado Rockies.
The hearing will begin at 1 p.m., May 5 in the SteamPlant Theater and Event Center on Sackett Street in downtown Salida.
Nestle Waters North America says it has met all the necessary requirements of the 1041 requirements while county Development Director Don Reimer says they have failed to satisfy 20 of the extensive 1041 permit criteria. Of the 20 points, three or four could be satisfied by Nestle if the company confirms specific plans for the location of two residential units on 15 acres within the project area. Click here for a summary of the 20 points of contention.
Criteria of the 1041 regulations were also the primary focus of public comment last week. Recurring themes included the lack of adequate baseline data with respect to the wetlands and groundwater and related fears that Nestle’s plans to pump 200 acre feet of water per year.
Members of the Chaffee County Citizens for Sustainability say a hydrology report submitted as part of Nestle’s application points to the fact that the corporation’s proposed pumping plan would extract spring water equal to double the average combined residential consumptive well use in the entire county.
Nestle counters that spring water is a renewable resource and that its impact on the Arkansas River, an estimated 0.3 cubic feet per second, is negligible. As required by the state, Nestle must offset the withdrawal with a water augmentation plan. The existing spring water is classified for non-consumptive use but by harvesting the water for bottling, Nestle is changing the use from non-consumptive to consumptive use. To do so, Nestle hopes to lease 200-acre feet of fully consumable water from the City of Aurora, subject to approval by the state engineer’s office and divisional water court.
The debate over whether all groundwater is indeed a renewable resource extends far beyond Chaffee County. Countless organizations from the United Nations, to the World Bank, leading scientific professionals and academics are focused on what many fear is a looming global water shortage. Media reports alternatively call water the “new oil,” or “new gold.”
Proponents of bottled water argue water-harvesting projects by bottlers have a negligible impact on the global water portfolio. A study from the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Studies argues ground water withdrawals for bottled water production represent just 0.019 percent of the total freshwater withdrawals in the United States, dwarfed by irrigation for agriculture which claims 65 percent of total ground water withdrawals on a national basis. Ensuing academic arguments point out that despite national statistics, the impacts of groundwater withdrawals vary greatly from site to site.
A seminal book on the topic called “Groundwater: The Water Budget Myth,” maintains that when pumping begins, ground water levels will continue to decline and some water will be “mined,” until a new equilibrium is reached by increasing recharge or decreasing natural discharge or some combination of both.
Nestle project manager Bruce Lauerman has repeatedly maintained that all their scientific data from test pumping points to the fact the aquifer from which the spring water will be drawn is “very prolific,” and that Nestle’s proposed withdrawal amounts to just 2 percent of the annual recharge rate of the aquifer. In public testimony Lauerman has repeatedly said he agrees that ongoing monitoring will be necessary to gauge the impact of its project on the hydrology and wetlands of the area.
Local attorney Daniel Zettler called Nestle’s agreement to monitoring a “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” because Chaffee County doesn’t have the technical expertise or resources to make it’s own assessment of impacts or argue disagreements in court.
Two hydrology experts hired by the county, W.W. Wheeler Associates Inc and Geomega, as well as retired USGS hydrologist Gene Rush and Colorado School of Mines professor emeritus John Emerick maintain that Nestle’s pump tests were not of sufficient duration and not the proper type to adequately provide baseline data and predict future impacts on the groundwater and the wetland ecosystems on the springs sites.
Numerous citizens have echoed the concerns of the experts saying without proper baseline data the extent of Nestle’s impact on groundwater and the wetlands will be arguable.
On a related note, Terry Scanga, manager of the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy, told the county it fears that Nestle’s plan to augment water it removes from the basin with water leased from Aurora could have a “deleterious” impact on the Upper Arkansas River basin, particularly in drought years. Nestle, joined by local attorney John Cogswell, argued vigorously against Scanga, calling the veteran water manager’s conclusions “fuzzy math,” and an argument that “doesn’t hold water.”
Great article Lee.