SALIDA, CO – The biggest land use case in Chaffee County history essentially came to a close today when the Chaffee County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to approve a commercial water harvesting project in this rural river community in the mountains of south central Colorado.
Members of both sides of the debate were reserved in their reaction to the decision granting Nestle Waters North America conditional approval to extract 65 million gallons of springwater annually from an aquifer at the mouth of the renowned Brown’s Canyon stretch of the Arkansas River. The water will be piped four miles to a truck loading station where it will then be transported two hours to Denver for bottling then sold to consumers as Nestle’s Arrowhead brand of bottled water.
The approval includes 40 conditions, totaling 11 pages and addressing what the commissioners considered some of the most controversial aspects of the proposal, namely water and economics.
However, it was a seemingly minor issue that proved to be the day’s most contentious. Citing private property rights and potential adverse impact to wildlife, Commission Chair Frank Holman adamantly objected to requiring Nestle to provide overland fishing access to the Arkansas River. Commissioner Tim Glenn was just as adamant that the easement was “not overly burdensome” to Nestle and provided very desirable public shoreline fishing access in a county where recreation is such an important part of the economy. Commissioner Dennis Giese was on the fence. In the end, the commissioners agreed to let the local Division of Wildlife determine if and where overland fishing access would be appropriate on the Nestle property.
Nestle had hoped to have the overland fishing access condition deleted from the final list of conditions writing in a memo to county staff that to do so would “unacceptably increase risk to security and spring water quality” and created an “unwarranted and significant business risk” to the company.
Chaffee Citizens for Sustainability Chair John Graham said he was surprised by the amount of time the commissioners spent on the fishing easement issue and said it was evidence that the commissioners were “not seeing the forest through the trees.”
During and after the hearing, Glenn was adamant on two points: Nestle’s promise of a permanent conservation easement and that any adverse economic impacts “directly attributable to Nestle” would be paid for out of a dedicated Cost Reimbursement Fund administered by the county and funded by Nestle.
Even after the hearing, Glenn was adamant on the topic of the conservation easement “(Nestle) represented that whey would put a permanent conservation easement on the property whether they get a tax benefit in doing so or not.” Glenn pointed out there are numerous state and federal tax credits and incentives to do so.
While still expressing concerns over whether the benefits of Nestle’s application outweighed the loss of the resource, in the end, Glenn conceded that “perhaps” the standards are met with the conditions imposed which include the Cost Reimbursement Fund, conditions calling for Nestle to show proof of good faith efforts to provide as many construction jobs and at least 50 percent of truck driving jobs to locals, as well as conditions limiting truck traffic so as to not adversely impact tourist visits to the area especially during busy summer holiday weekends.
In statements preceding approval of the project, Giese said his big concern about the project was about impacts to water rights and supply as outlined by the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District, as well as groundwater and wetlands concerns aired by consultants and citizens. County Planning Director Don Reimer pointed out that 14 conditions proposed by county water counsel Jim Culichia were specifically designed to address Giese and the public’s concerns about such potential impacts.
Holman concluded that the county had imposed some “strict conditions” that addressed those areas of the application that were “nonconforming.” He said that if he thought there would have been any loss of water in the valley due to the Nestle project he would not have supported the project. The county mandated conditions of approval are very specific with respect to Nestle’s plan to offset its water harvest with a 10-year lease of a similar quantity of water from Aurora, as well as very detailed specifics about Nestle’s pumping operation, monitoring and reporting.
Shortly before the vote, Holman looked directly at Nestle representatives and said that the county will “rely on the permittee to follow the conditions and we believe you will.” He said the county would also rely on the citizens to help monitor the project and thought that, overall, the project would be a benefit to the county.
Nestle’s Bruce Lauerman said he appreciated the good deliberations by the county and assured the Citizen Nestle would comply with the conditions. “We look forward to being a benefit to the economy, the culture and heritage of the area, providing a level of stewardship to water resources that doesn’t currently exist at that location, and providing funding for the environment and education.” Lauerman said he believes the people of Chaffee County will “come to recognize that Nestle is a great project and a great benefit to Chaffee County” then repeated the oft-heard Nestle refrain, “We’ll be a good neighbor.”
Not everyone at today’s hearing shared Lauerman’s optimism.
“I don’t believe the commissioners are representing the best interests of Chaffee County,” said longtime resident and staunch Nestle opponent Jim Ruggles. “My main concern is that (Nestle) will dry out the aquifer and that the county will wind up in litigation sooner or later with Nestle. I believe the commissioners fairly ignored their own consultants and favored Nestle’s presentation of the facts.”
While clearly disappointed by the decision for a project he described as “ludicrous,” John Graham, chair of Chaffee Citizens for Sustainability, took some comfort in the belief that his group was responsible for some positives such as removing the Bighorn Springs parcel, which was rife with myriad concerns about wetlands impacts, from the project, as well as the creation of the Cost Reimbursement Fund.
Graham said CCFS will be interested to see whether there will be an upswell of anger or alarm from citizens over the commissioners’ approval of Nestle and that the board would definitely weigh community response as it decides its next course of action.
Sam Schabacker of the national non-profit Food and Water Watch said Colorado’s battle with Nestle is being closely watched around the country and is considered pivotal to the nationwide fight against the privatization of water. “This is the first battleground in the Rocky Mountain West – the arid West – and CCFS has shown great leadership in this national struggle.” Schabacker said the intelligence and dedication CCFS has shown through the application review process puts the organization in a good position to recalibrate and take the fight to the next level, joining the ranks of citizens in Maine, California, Michigan and Flagstaff, AZ.
When are the next elections, we have people in office that don’t speak for the majority…are you sure they aren’t on Nestle’s board. So sad!
Bravo Commissioners!
To quote Lee Hart from the Citizen,” The biggest land use case in Chaffee County history essentially came to a close.” Regardless of which side of the argument you are on there are a number of things we should be proud of:
1. We have a process that deals with these types of issues. The steps that we have gone through as a county will be used as a precedent for future similar situations. We have progressed past that way it was to a new paradigm.
2. Even though this was the biggest land use case in the history of Chaffee County our commissioners sought expert advice and community input and most importantly they were not intimidated by either side. If they needed more time they took it, if they needed more advice they sought it.
3. Ultimately they dealt with the facts they had in front of them and made a decision that they could support. They used their life experiences to come to a unanimous decision. We should take comfort in the fact that the board was unanimous. It seems that they balanced what was real and supportable with what has happened and might happen. Weighing many factors and creating reasonable safeguards to deal with the latter. These are the types of leaders that would earn my vote.
4. The county was able to build into the application numerous benefits well outside of the scope of the project. A fund to offset costs to the county is clearly a natural consequence, however, is fishing access, is the non-profit corporation? Is requiring a good faith effort to hire locally for the drivers and for the construction part of the normal permit process. Probably not but it was worth asking. Considering the impact of road traffic in a reasonable manner shows wisdom.
5. Light has been shed on the importance of water as a resource here in our county and to the larger community of the world.
6. Some of the problems that Nestle has had in the past are out in the open in this county and that will provide a great deal of transparency.
7. Statements made by Mr. Ruggles , “My main concern is that (Nestle) will dry out the aquifer and that the county will wind up in litigation sooner or later with Nestle”, and Mr. Lauerman’s regarding the fishing easement inclusion will “unacceptably increase risk to security and spring water quality” and created an “unwarranted and significant business risk” to the company. Can be summed up as blah, blah, blah! My experience tells me that none of the hyperbolic outcomes shouted by the “doomsayers” or the benign outcomes illustrated in memo form by the “corporate devils” will come to pass. Our real experience will be more subtle, nuanced and real life. Potentially difficult to evaluate.
Ultimately this was not about the evils of water in plastic bottles, baby formula deaths and some of the other distracting issues discussed in the Letters to the Editor. It was about a property owners desire to sell to a customer who saw a significant business opportunity in a county that has a citizenry of varied concerns and an elected body that used an effective process to come to a decision that would allow them the peace of mind to sleep at night and face their constituency on the street or in a coffee shop. Only time will tell if this was the right decision. Hindsight will validate the decision. What we as citizens should ask ourselves, given the same level of information, investigation and understanding what decision would we make. Walk in their shoes!
I applaud the sound process chosen by Commissioners.
Don Jackson, Owner
Salida Super 8
Copied to the Mountain Mail
A business opportunity…that says it all.
Hi Lee, thank you for your excellent reporting on this issue, and the light you’ve brought to a despicable project. I would like to see a list of businesses, politicians, and cheerleaders that are going to profit from this or who think this was just a good business deal and not detrimental to the future of this county. It IS about water, it IS about conscience of place, it IS about gluttony for profit. It ISN’T the majority.
Thanks, and keep it up.
It was with great disappointment that I learned this morning that the commissioners had unanimously passed approval on the Nestle project to move forward. Not one of our three elected officials had the integrity to take a stand and say that the citizens that elected him had spoken and they were heard. It would have even been a token vote of no since it was 3-0. The facts spoke for themselves. Nestle is not a good steward of the environment and the environment is what drives this county. No matter how you spin this, Nestle is not going to be a “good neighbor”. Extracting water from the Arkansas, trucking it by diesel smoke spewing trucks for 100+ mile and then bottling it in PLASTIC to truck again to stores for sale…….my God, how ludicrous is that. And to have to listen to those that say this sends a message that Chaffee County is business friendly! It is a charade to say that this is an economic benefit to the county. Everything from the added traffic on an already overcrowded road to the “giving away” of the most precious commodity of this valley is a huge disappointment. Having lived in this valley for 15 years I have seen many changes that have almost all been for the good of the valley. This unfortunately is a huge setback for what our valley and the communities of it say to the rest of the county. Oh yes, you can say that if the commissioners had not approved, with Nestle agreeing to meet all of the conditions set forth, that they could have been sued. Sometimes they just have to take the risk to do what is right.
Not that many years ago, the City of Salida Planning Commission was faced with approving the new Wal-Mart project . As the then City Administrator told me, they had no choice but to approve what Wal-Mart proposed or they would have been sued. One needs only look at what other communities that were willing to take a stand got for a Wal-Mart and what Salida got. Now Wal-Mart is out there putting “lipstick on pig”.
Sometimes our elected and appointed officials just need to be willing to take a stand and listen to what the citizens are saying. This time the message was loud and clear-No to Nestle.
The best part was the comment made by Commissioner Holman that he expected the citizens of the county to help monitor the conformance of Nestle with regard to compliance. I think the commissioners can expend their own staff’s time making sure of compliance. The citizen of this county need to move on and make sure we don’t lose another fight like this one was lost. I am afraid this is an issue that will haunt the county for some time to come. Hardly democracy at its finest.
Phil Carey
Sorry… this is beyond comprehension to me.
I was in shock that this could pass unanimously and after months of being reasonable in my research of the matter I did succomb to Frank Holman’s repeated leering accusations of emotional response and had to hurriedly leave the hearing before I had an outburst.
I believe it is hard to walk the tightrope of prediction. When faced with facts of someone’s past repeated abuses is it “doomsday” to say they will continue or is it “being positive” to believe things will change? As Americans are hit over the head with two-by-fours like an economic collapse and proofs of global warming, is it “doomsday” to say we have to change or is it “being positive” to believe things will return to what we have called normal. As Don says, hindsight provides validation.
Personally, I need to sit with this to get the leap of faith required to believe that we are capable of enforcing over forty conditions when we couldn’t say no in the first place and have allowed the elephant into the room. I need to shuck cynicism and get back to a belief in the democratic process after our representatives pass a resolution, albeit with conditions, despite an overwhelming majority of the concerned citizens voiced opposition to the project in general.
I do genuinely respect the hard work, time and effort put into this and I value Don’s assessment of the positive aspects of the process. With my new-found knowledge of the global water issue I look forward to re-attaining “being positive”.
But for now… the outcome of the Nestle deliberations is still beyond my comprehension.
Once again Lee, excellent reporting. The Commissioners, along with Mr. Jackson, appeared to have missed the point when voting in support of Nestle. Whether they were well-meaning (as a way to preserve the land through a conservation easement) or afraid of lawsuits as many people have speculated; if our political leaders don’t embrace responsibility for sustainability (there’s that word) in all of their decisions, than we are lost. The future must embrace new and green opportunities, the world demands it. A corporation with a history of corruption, exploitation and ugly propaganda hardly seems like the neighbors we hoped to attract to Chaffee county. I hope citizens stay motivated in their desire to keep moving toward a sustainable, and prosperous future. Stay involved everyone.
my sincere thanks to ccfs and the salida citizen for their effort to defeat nestles… now i promise to do my part and BOYCOTT nestles and all its subsidiaries…
by the way mr. jackson, litigation isn’t the real thing to fear… drying up the aquafer or even one small spring “up gradient” is!… it’s wonderful that outflow will be monitored and augmented, but with a complex water system above the pumping area, seeps and springs may be effected for miles around… who will be monitoring these?… oh, i guess that would be us…
Just to be clear. I do not understand enough about this situation. I followed it only from a news perspective. I really do not have an opinion for or against the Nestle case. What I support is the process. I doubt it was perfect and I am sure that many things could have been done differently. Some will say too much was done and others too little. In reality those are not material arguments. What is material from my perspective is that there was a significant process. It involved many types of input and participation from concerned citizens and professionals. Sincere contemplation, consideration and feedback from many different avenues.
It is a sound process that ultimately comes up with a decision that I can support. In my earlier post I said,”hindsight will validate this decision”. Which sounds like a voice of support. What I really meant to say was hindsight will validate or invalidate this decision? Meaning from where we sit today we can not determine whether it was right or wrong, only potentially in hindsight will the correct perspective become clearer.
What I wanted to bring to the table was some of the positives and show support for the process that was employed.
In my opinion having our elected officials give careful consideration to a decision in the manner employed by these Commissioners is a bright spot in the government in our valley.
We can all choose to learn from this experience and move forward.
My perspective on this issue extends far beyond Chaffee County’s borders, and once again, what’s striking is how far local (rural) elected officials will bend to accommodate Nestle – even after Nestle’s application was found to be “non-compliant” or outright fiction (as in the case of much of Nestle’s bogus economic analysis).
In this case, it wasn’t the job of the commissioners to bring Nestle’s application into compliance, yet the 11 pages of stipulations seems to have done exactly that.
This kind of effort – especially in the face of the largely vaporish economic benefits to the county – reflect Nestle’s willingness to get their operative into a community long before a community’s citizens wake up to the water grab.
After identifying and courting those amenable to their project, Nestle’s projects enjoy considerable momentum – inertia that seemingly supercedes the reality of the situation.
And thus, this disbelief being expressed by some citizens, who can’t understand why what seems plain to to them ended up being ignored by the commissioners.
As far as Nestle is concerned, the process worked, but that’s because they front-loaded it in their favor.
What’s also true is that Nestle didn’t expect the kind of scrutiny they received, and that the revelation of their flawed (ahem) economic benefits analysis speaks volumes about their approach to rural communities.
With more extraction deals planned in other communities, they will no doubt fall all over themselves to spread a few dollars around the community (I’m sure it’s already happening), hoping to maintain the “good neighbor” fiction.
As was recently proved in Mecosta County, MI – by repeated visits to a court – Nestle does not respect watersheds and is willing to twist or ignore the results of monitoring programs when those results don’t meet their bottom line.
I hope Salida doesn’t end up in the same unhappy place as Fryeburg, Mecosta County, McCloud, and several communities in Florida, Texas, Wisconsin and others.
It’s a shame that 3 people in the county can vote by themselves to cede our water to corporate water interests. I’ve heard of a community in Maine that was able to put the issue to a referendum and they overruled their own county commissioners. their must b a way for the majority of citizens who are against this to fight it somehow. Personally, I think all the deliberations were a smokescreen and Nestle has alot of experience in small communities like this one. This is not a victory for local democracy when 3 people decide the fate of one of our most precious resources. The issue is simple. Water is a public good, it is part of the commons. It should not be privatized for short-term profit. That should have been the line in the sand from the begining.
I was terribly disappointed in this decision, even though it was expected. Nestle’s has a history of being a bad neighbor, not a good neighbor as they claim. Every person I have spoken to in the community during these past months has agreed we should not allow this to happen. I, also, do not and will not buy any product put out by Nestle’s, and, of course, I do not buy ANY brand of bottled water! Water should not be a marketable, profit-making commodity!!! I hope all the locals who felt this was wrong, but did nothing about it, will now write letters to let the Commissioners know how they feel.
Now that the best outcome (sending Nestle away) has eluded us, thanks to “our”?? Commissioners’ blindness and self-servitude, let’s do all we can to encourage Nestle Waters and all bottled water companies to tank economically before they “follow suit” and sue Chaffee County.
DO NOT BUY BOTTLED WATER NO MATTER WHAT!! If for no other reason, it’s just so passe!!
Hooray for the process! . Take this lesson: the process is only as good as the human dependencies on which it is based. If the humans who work within the process choose not to engage reason–or choose to allow their conclusions to be colored by personal biases–the process only ensures a longer interval between proposal and conclusion. Quality of life, the most attractive and VALUABLE commodity provided by the Arkansas Valley, has been diminished. Vote these traitors to the people out in the next election.
Very well said Mr. Martin…and I for one will do everything I can possibly can to ensure that these 3 commissioners are not re-elected, and that we replace them with people who can think for themselves, and are true to the people they represent.
What a travesty! The majority of voters and residents of Chaffee County have been disregarded by our elected officials to favor a big corporation with big profits to be made over a precious natural resource-water. It is totally ridiculous that this decision was made by four people instead of it going before voters to decide. This decision was not about private property rights; it’s about owning a resource in this valley that fuels our economy and sustains the living quality for humans and wildlife. Nestle, I can assure you, is laughing at the stupidity and the so called “economic benefits” they will be providing to our community. Multi billion dollar corporations can tie up legal battles in court for years without missing a beat; how far will the litagation fund go to enforce violations? Our commissioners have done us all a great disservice; I’m ashamed of their shortsightedness and “selling out” of this valley’s limited and precious water.
The element of this decision that really is the basis of what happened is that this county is still the “good ‘ole boy” society. The fact that one past county commissioner and local rancher, a few real estate brokers and other land owners stood to make a big wad of money selling off property is the crux of it all. All the hoops that the commissioners jumped through were just that. The bottom line in this valley is that these guys scratch each other’s backs. That Holman would deny McMurry is something that would not happen. Glenn, is in the same boat with Holman and that Geiss(?) is uninformed, dense and very “manageable” is apparent. It came down to a bunch of connected real estate brokers and land owners that are in the back pockets of two of the commissioners and they couldn’t say no to these friends. These guys are not representative of the county residents. What do you think would have happened if Mallett had retained his seat? One commissioner could have easily been swayed to the other side.
Glenn would have still have had problems but could have been out voted.
I do not think one word of what all the comments that were made, were even in the mix. They found a way to justify their decision, with all the regulations – they had to do that or be thrown out of town.
Well, now they must live with this decision and future commissioners must be elected that will be watchdogs. This thing will become a big pain in the arse of the county. But maybe now McMurry can buy a new pickup and stop peddling hay to make himself look destitute.
If someone is a large land owner, their basic beliefs are “personal property rights” to the point of “to hell with the rest of us”. Glenn should become a republican. He has the mentality and does not represent his constituents. Ranchers stick with ranchers.
These guys just don’t get the global view, it’s not in their DNA to see beyond their own hayfield. It is in thier DNA to help each other out.
A travesty has happened but I am not in the least surprised.
This was a done deal from the beginning. It’s up to us now to hold them accountable to their decision while they remain in office.
Hopefully we can get some “brains at the reins” in the next election.
It’s about money and mentality. They got one and not the other.
I am so proud as a citizen that there has been such strong feedback on this “incomprehensible” decision, as was stated earlier….but hey, Isai, don’t put all of the ranchers in the same boat. We are 5th generation farmers and ranchers and because of our dependence on water and the issues in Colorado, we are in with the rest of you that are appalled by the commissioners decision. I was from the city and was taught by my husband from day one how precious your water source is for not only our choice of industry but for the impact on a global scale.
If nothing else this issue has brought us ALL together in fighting for something that sustains us. Lets not let this drop.
It’s not about ranchers per se, but about money – the ability to influence others of your ilk … it could be some other group that are tied together by common interests. Most ranchers do value water, but it’s hard to turn down a big bunch of money when your way of life is coming to an end. The Hill Ranch water in Nathrup was sold off years ago and now they have called that water and watch the west side of Hwy 285 turn brown. They did it for the money. Why else would you sell your livelihood out from under yourself? There were just the right people standing to make a bunch that a couple of the commissioners had to take their side and allow them to profit. People who got them elected in the first place. Can you imagine how complicated this gets on the federal level.
I hope bottled water becomes such a negative thing that stores decide not to stock it. I don’t buy it and never will. What a stupid concept to begin with.
God bless you and your ranching heritage. I hope no one offers you a few million to give it up. It certainly is a hard choice to make. I didn’t at all want to offend stewards of the land but was trying to show that if some other kind of persons were on that board it may have gone differently and for completely different reasons. it should have been a moral issue not a monetary one.
Nestle Waters will eventually come to town with full pockets, ready to distribute money “benevolently,” all the while believing this gesture will bring them good will in Chaffee County.
We’ve all gotten along without Nestle’s blood money thus far. Will it be easy to turn down gifts from the controversial corporation in a downturned economy? I think not. But when Nestle begins passing out hundred dollar bills, for Chaffee County non-profits to “just say ‘no thanks,’” would make a significant statement.
And for God’s sake, don’t drink the bottled water they will undoubtedly leave on many of those doorsteps.
Flagstaff, AZ had the courage to reject Nestle out of hand as not a good fit, without dragging their citizens through a pitched battle. The decision made by our current Commissioners would have looked very differently with the previous Commission and Nestle bided their time until conditions were right for this. Even though Mssrs. Holman, Glenn and Giese took the time and spent money to make their consideration look reasonable, the Commissioners have severely misread the sentiments of the electorate. They will be held accountable at next election time and I predict that ALL will be replaced by those who listen to their electors. The initial approval has a term limit as well.
Hats of to all of CCFS, led by John and Ann Graham, who for months, did their best to protect our interests. The war is not over; the battle has just gotten started. Watch out Nestle – you have only begun to see what we can do. Every tedious mile that I spend sitting behind your tankers each week on 285 will be duly noted. Before the inevitable carnage begins as caused by your trucks, may I suggest that you learn to pull over at every safe opportunity and let people pass safely?
Well, Don. I am a land owner in the Salida area, and a home owner in Buena Vista. Until I can move back, I can only visit, but I will be sure to avoid your Super 8. So short sighted to give our scarce and precious water to a notorious Swiss company who has a bad record with so many other places. Not to mention all the plastic bottles choking the world, and the fossil fuel to move and bottle the stuff. Hooray for that.
I am very pleased with the Commisioners decision! I am sick of liberal activism that strangles the free market. This county needs jobs, and this will provide jobs. The commissioners were elected by the people — but it isn’t necessary for them to bend to every liberal poll that slants the issues and claims that a majority of residents here don’t want Nestle here. Bull Hockey. I maintain that a more reserved, silent MAJORITY actually support the project and Nestle’s right to operate in a free market society. As for protecting water…is there actually a way to “waste” water. If you spill it, it evaporates; if you water grass, it grows GREEN, and then evaporates; if you bottle it, someone drinks it — then pees it into a sewage system, which then gets cleaned and recycled back into the ecosystem…in fact, it’s all part of the ecosystem.
You’re right about the ecosystem, but sorry, I’m not in the category of liberal acitivist. I was a republican until that party went south…so now you might call me “independent”… far from liberal, unless that means “you think for yourself”.
I do not support the removal of ANY of the water from our valley…I don’t care if it is Nestle or any other bottled water company. (We won’t go in to the pollution factor) . Trucking it to Denver so it can be peed out there, in your words, does not put it back where it came from. So your ecosystem comment is what did you call it…slanted. I hope for all our sake you are not apart of the majority. We will see.
I have always been under the impression that the usage of water in Colorado is strictly managed and regulated . If this is a correct statement , then how can such a large amount of water be taken from the ground ? Does the ownership of the land give someone the right to withdraw as much water as they want . ?
My observations are: 1) for the most part, water usage in Colorado is strictly managed and regulated. 2) to date, Nestle has NOT been given approval to take water from the aquifer. That approval must come from the State Engineer (on a short term basis) and from State Water Court (on a long term basis). If people do not support the idea of taking the water from the aquifer, then they have the right and obligation to make themselves heard by both the State engineer and the Water Court. 3) ownership of the land does NOT give someone the right to withdraw as much water as they want. Ownership of land and ownership of water rights are two entirely different things.