Those which have spoke out in favor of Nestlé’s plan (most of which seem to be biased based on their personal ownership of water rights here) have fallen back on one theme, the rights of property owners to do what they wish with their personal property. This begs another question; how many of these same people would allow their neighbor to start a gravel pit, landfill or scrap yard operation beside their home? I’m guessing they would stop chirping about personal property rights and start talking about how some business just don’t fit in some locations.

We see it in community after community; Nestle operatives sweep into town under the public radar and build relationships with local officials (apparently flattered by the attention).

Once the public wakes up and cries “foul,” the befuddled officials become advocates for Nestle instead of the people who elected them.

You see this painful pattern play out in many places. In fact, several of the folks who negotiated the astonishingly bad original contract between Nestle & McCloud (using a Nestle-recommended lawyer to review the contract for them) still maintain it was a good deal for the community – despite the fact it offloaded almost all the costs and liabilities on the town.

At least in Chaffee County’s case, Nestle’s somewhat predatory tactics became an issue in the process – one they had to quell with their checkbook.

In other rural towns, Nestle’s lawsuits, behind-closed-doors negotiations and other maneuvers never became part of the conversation, so Chaffee County – despite the disappointing outcome – at least represents a step in the right direction.

Good luck to the CCS in their fight. Know that the market may be lending a hand; sales of “premium” spring water bottled water are falling much faster than Nestle’s cheaper “bottled tap” brands, and in fact, that may represent the primary reason Nestle abandoned McCloud.

If Chaffee County’s own elected officials won’t represent their citizens, it’s possible the market may yet do the job for them.