The Citizen is recapping only the major issues debated by the Chaffee County Board of Commissioners during a special hearing held July 1 to consider Nestle Waters North America proposal to harvest water here for its commercial bottling operations. Additional posts cover economics, wetlands and air quality.
WATER
The lengthiest part of the commissioners’ deliberations on Nestle centered on water, globally considered the new gold for its increasing preciousness in light of population growth and global warming. Specifically at issue last week, was testimony by Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District Manager Terry Scanga expressing concern that Aurora being Nestle’s source of replacement water for its spring water harvesting project could have very “deleterious” effects on the valley, especially in severe drought years.
Commissioner Tim Glenn tried to explain the gravity of Scanga’s testimony to fellow commissioners who either didn’t seem to understand the intricacies of water law and prior appropriation or simply did not share Glenn’s concerns. Glenn noted it was Scanga’s role to go “to bat for every water right and ag producer” in the valley and that he found Scanga’s testimony “fairly compelling.”
Earlier in the review process, during public testimony Scanga raised Nestle’s hackles by raising concerns about its lease with Aurora. In detail, under heated cross–examination from Nestle representatives and questions from commissioners grappling to understand the issue, Scanga described how and why the Nestle-Aurora lease could harm the valley. Nestle attorneys, who also represent Aurora water, [Thanks to a note from Aurora Water Public Relations Manager Greg Baker who clarified this point: "The attorneys for Nestle are not Aurora’s attorney’s in this venue. We use the same firm (Brownstein Hyatt & Farber) for other needs, but we have not retained any outside counsel to represent our interests in the Nestle lease agreement and terms."] assured the commissioners that the scenario Scanga described would never come to pass. Glenn pointed out that Nestle itself said it could not tell Aurora how to use its water.
“If you have a senior water right (as Aurora does), you can take it unless something in writing says you can’t take it,” Glenn explained to his fellow commissioners. Glenn said he’d feel better if Nestle’s augmentation came from a local entity that would probably care more about protecting local water resources than Aurora. Alternatively, Glenn suggested getting an agreement in writing that Aurora won’t draw down depletions and invoke its ability to exchange in a drought year and will only use water sources outside the Arkansas River Valley to supplement any municipal shortfalls created by the Nestle lease. But Glenn, always the pragmatist, said, “I seriously doubt that could happen.”
Glenn also expressed his struggle with approving a proposal “in blind faith” before a substitute water supply plan from the state engineer’s office or water court decree has been issued. “We generally don’t approve things that aren’t final,” Glenn said of land use and zoning cases in general.
In the end, commission chair Frank Holman directed staff to draft some conditions of approval to address Glenn’s water concerns and added he thought conditions should stipulate that Aurora’s augmentation water come from transmountain, not in-basin, sources.
Recent Comments