Science, commissioners at odds over climate change in Nestle deliberations

If you're new to the site, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, follow us on Twitter or sign up for our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!

The world’s best scientists agree climate change is real.

This week in Italy, leaders of the world’s most powerful countries are discussing ways to mitigate the effects of climate change.

Last month’s Western Governor’s Association annual meeting focused on developing regional and global strategies for addressing the intertwined issues of energy, climate change and water. AP reporter Mike Stark reported from the opening day of the conference: “Quenching the growing demand for water in the warming West will require a bigger push for conservation, innovative technology and a rethinking of supply and demand, Western governors and water experts said Sunday.”

Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, a California-based environmental think tank told the governors climate change needs to be incorporated into all water management decisions. States can no longer rely on simply building more storage capacity, which can be expensive and “politically challenging,” Gleick said.

“Conservation has to become an ethic in the West,” said Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, adding the region needs to do more to protect the water that’s already available.

Yet here in Chaffee County, conservation and climate change didn’t merit so much as a passing mention as the Board of County Commissioners began deliberations on a multi-decade commercial water harvesting proposal, even as an overwhelming majority of scientific studies anticipate a reduction of total water supply by the mid-21st century is likely to exacerbate competition for over-allocated water resources especially in the fast-growing West. The county’s own consultants, Colorado National Heritage Progam, cautioned commissioners: “In the interest of maintaining the wetland plant communities, any proposed development plan that impacts water resources should take into consideration global climate change.” Yesterday, CNHP ecologist Delia Malone, writing as a private citizen, spoke out on what she called the commissioners’ “short-sightedness” in dismissing climate change from deliberations on the water harvesting project proposed by Nestle Waters North America.

Without a trace of ambiguity, a 2008 report by Western Water Assessment asserts, “Climate change will affect Colorado’s use and distribution of water.” The report notes that “changes in long-term precipitation and soil moisture can affect groundwater recharge rates; coupled with demand issues this may mean greater pressure on groundwater resources.”

“Why are we talking about bottled water in an arid climate?”

That was the very first statement/question posed by Kathleen Miller as the Citizen traveled to Miller’s office at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder to better understand the interplay between climate change and Nestle’s plan to extract 65 million gallons of springwater annually from Chaffee County for bottling and selling as its Arrowhead brand bottled water. Nestle’s official application for permits with the county has a 30-year time horizon but company officials have said they forsee the project lasting 99 years or longer.

Miller, a 23-year veteran of NCAR, is an economist who collaborates in multidisciplinary research on climate impacts, vulnerability and adaptation. Her research focuses on human exploitation of climate-sensitive natural resources, and socioeconomic and institutional factors affecting resource management decision in the context of uncertainty and competing interests.

In a 2005 report aimed at municipal water suppliers, Miller wrote that diminished water resources due to global warming could affect population growth, endangered species and water quality. Miller also wrote that her findings call for “greater institutional flexibility and consideration of climate related risks in both water and land use planning processes,” a growing refrain that ripples throughout the scientific community. One way to enhance water managers’ flexiblity is to limit consumptive projects.

Miller asked what future Chaffee County envisioned for itself and how it intended to allocate water for competing demands such as local agriculture, municipal and recreational needs in the event of an extended drought. While the county’s comprehensive plan, its guiding planning document, is unclear on this point, the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District is taking steps to plan for better balancing the supply and demands on water throughout the basin.

UAWCD manager Terry Scanga explained the United States Geologic Survey, Colorado State University and the federal Bureau of Reclamation are conducting studies and installing guages and remote telemetry to improve the understanding of the relationship between the valley’s surface streams and groundwater and evaluate the potential for subsurface storage. In this way, Scanga explained, the District can better manage and conserve water resources.

As inextricably as hyrdrogen is linked to oxygen at water’s most basic level, so too it seems the scientific community believes climate change must be factored into any decision-making that impacts natural resources.

“Basically anybody in 2009 who is thinking about water resources, water planning, water supply . . . if they’re not thinking about climate change, they’re missing the mark,” explained scientist John Katzenberger, executive director of the Aspen Global Change Institute. Katzenberger was also a contributor to a 2008 report published by the National Resources Defense Council and the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization entitled, “Hotter and Drier, The West’s Changed Climate.”

Nestle argues it will mitigate any impacts from its pumping operations through extensive and ongoing technical monitoring of its project. But county consultants and other critics counter monitoring is meaningless since Nestle has failed to provide baseline data of proper length and type which could allow Nestle to deny it’s role or blame other factors in the event of a dryup of wetlands or negative changes to the natural underground aquifer that is the source of the springwater.

The commissioners’ debate on the degree to which Nestle’s project would could create lost economic opportunities also completely ignored the bigger, longterm picture.  An entire chapter in “Hotter and Drier” paints a more complete picture on how global warming harms business, recreation and tourism through reduced agricultural productivity, declines in fishing and hunting, and, though not applicable in the Nestle case, shorter, less profitable seasons for skiing and winter sports. As evidence, the report points to Colorado’s epic drought of 2002 that caused an estimated $1.1 billion loss in agriculture, fueled the largest wildfires on record, and cost $1.7 billion in lost tourism.

The National Academies’ commission on Geoscience, Environment and Resources issued a more ominous warning. The affirmation that “water for drinking and irrigation is perhaps society’s most limiting natural resource” is repeated several times in a recent groundwater study by the Academies. The report notes that, “Especially in the water-poor Western states, the persistent search for potable water to fuel urban growth has resulted in pressures on water supplies that may not be sustainable.”

In an effort to conserve ever more precious water resources, two Colorado lawmakers are seeking ways to create incentives for consumers to conserve water. Late last month, US Sen. Mark Udall and House Republican Mike Coffman introduced the bipartisan Water Act 2009. Modeled on the Energy Star program, the bill proposes a 30 percent tax credit – with a maximum lifetime cap per entity of $1,500 – on the purchase of household products that have earned the Environmental Protection Agency’s WaterSense label. In his speech introducing the legislation, Udall said, “I used to think that any discussion of adapting to climate change was misguided, that adapting to climate change was giving in to the problem. But I have come to understand that climate change adaptation is simply a recognition of reality. Climate change is real having impacts for all of us across the country. If we do not act now to respond to inevitable changes, we will be doing ourselves and our constituents a disservice.”