At the April 21 public meeting Chaffee County economic consultant Jean Townsend showed that Nestle’s THK report exaggerated benefits and understated costs. Some benefits claimed were nonexistent. There is no County sales tax on diesel fuel or electric power that would be paid by Nestle. The Coley-Forrest report also warned of funds that would be needed later if a permit is issued to cover monitoring, litigation and liability costs which can be foreseen but not predicted accurately. (Fryeburg, Maine was sued five times by Nestle.)
A Nestle traffic study minimized the impact of truck traffic. Using CDOT data, 50 more combination semi-trucks divided by 380 existing combination semi-trucks/day = 13 % more combination semi-trucks. (per CDOT a round-rip is two trips.) The study did not consider that tanker trucks have greater impact on safety than other combination trucks because their moving cargo makes them more likely to roll over on curves or lose control on icy roads. The study emphasized average road grade of 2.6 %, instead of the 5% hill grade. The study did not consider the additional truck traffic impact when traffic is very heavy on weekends, holidays or during bad weather; it used data for a Tuesday and Wednesday, not weekends.
A valid traffic study must consider the impact of the 50 additional semi-truck tankers on safety, added taxpayer costs for emergency services, lost highway capacity available for future growth and costs of delays and lost tourism due to congestion. As Tim Glenn correctly noted, there is an overlap between traffic, economic and other impacts. Further independent study is needed, at Nestle expense, to answer these questions.
Nestle must meet the burden of proof to satisfy all planning and 1041 requirements. Having their attorney state that they meet the 1041 standards is merely a pressure tactic. As of May 4, the Planning Commission and staff concurred that over twenty 1041 and Land Use/Comprehensive Plan standards were not met. County 1041 Regulations at 2-303 state:
A permit for a proposed project may not be approved unless the applicant satisfactorily demonstrates that the proposal including all mitigation measures proposed by the applicant complies with all of the applicable criteria set forth in these regulations.
Lacking 1041 compliance means denial of the permit — period! Chaffee citizens would be impacted by this project for many years.
Jay Gingrich
Buena Vista
Loading ...
Where is the Environmental Impact Assessment? Not required?
Hmmmm. Time to move into the 21st century with our laws.
If Chaffee County wants economic development, why is it not developing these resources and making the millions of dollars on this water for itself? Chaffee could realise these profits by acquiring the land use permit and water rights to grow their own economy while testing the viability of this plan. What is the point in outsourcing the profits? The current scenario is win-lose for Nestle-Chaffee.
The spirit of the law would be left intact with the water resource being used to benefit the citizens of Colorado, instead of a multinational corporation.