Comments on: 3-0, County approves Nestle

By: John Graham

John Graham — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:39:04 +0000

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.

By: Joseph Thomas

Joseph Thomas — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:44:32 +0000

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 . ?

By: Anne E Vohs

Anne E Vohs — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:58:28 +0000

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.

By: Lee Robinson

Lee Robinson — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 16:48:41 +0000

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.

By: MJ Cavallo

MJ Cavallo — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:26:43 +0000

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.

By: Merrell Bergin

Merrell Bergin — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 06:02:06 +0000

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?

By: Lum Pennington

Lum Pennington — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 11:50:15 +0000

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.

By: Isai James

Isai James — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 00:07:29 +0000

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.

By: Anne E Vohs

Anne E Vohs — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 18:57:28 +0000

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.

By: Isai James

Isai James — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 17:30:28 +0000

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.

By: Deborah Bowes

Deborah Bowes — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 15:21:37 +0000

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.

By: rebecca owens

rebecca owens — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:38:55 +0000

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.