Silent since April when a final report by Colorado Natural Heritage Program was issued on the natural resource impacts of Nestle, Malone, who wrote the first draft of the report, said she wrote yesterday’s letter as a private citizen saying “it’s the right thing to say and the right thing to do, even though I’m not sure it will make a difference.”

Earlier this spring controversy erupted over the CNHP report. Between the time Malone issued CNHP’s first draft  and the final report was submitted by her boss David Anderson, Nestle project manager Bruce Lauerman and local property owner Harold Hagan called CNHP discuss the draft. Hagan has an option to sell his land and water rights to Nestle, subject to county approval of Nestle’s project. Hagan is professor emeritus at Colorado State University where he has been a longtime fisheries science professor at the Warner College of Natural Resources Department of Fish, Wildlife and Conservation Biology. CNHP is a non-profit organization and a sponsored program of the same CSU college and department.

Anderson explained in an email at the time, “I emphasize here that the differences between our draft and final reviews are the result of new information that became available, not the result of any communications with other project stakeholders or influence by special interests.  We reviewed the materials we had at our disposal objectively and offered our conclusions based on those alone.”

When asked what prompted her to speak out now, after being tight-lipped about the final CNHP report, Malone said she was hoping the turn of events in Chaffee County would have gone differently and that the commissioners “would have taken a different path.”

Regardless of all the good, hard data out there, Malone lamented the commissioners dismissing the role of climate change in their deliberations about Nestle. Indeed, countless scientific books and research papers from all corners of the globe have written about the certainty of impending water shortages due to climate change that is already measurable. Read this related report in the Citizen.

“Accessible water is rare and for Chaffee County to just give it away is really short-sighted,” Malone said. “You can’t get it back and when you really need it, it will be too late.”

Following is the full text of Malone’s open letter to the citizens of Chaffee County.

An open letter to the Citizens and Residents of Chaffee County,
During the summer of 2008 I had the privilege to live and work in Chaffee County surveying and documenting wetland plant species and natural communities. Chaffee County indeed has a rich and varied landscape with correspondingly diverse and unique natural communities of life. From Chaffee County’s high alpine fens to high desert wetlands, water, and its availability, is the single most important factor in determining wetland versus desert, forest versus scrubland, and abundance versus scarcity. Water is our most precious resource – water makes the difference between lush agricultural fields and dried up crops and blowing soil, and between fish in the river and algal blooms and bacteria that suck life-giving oxygen out of streams.

Even seemingly small amounts of water are essential to life in an otherwise arid landscape – in the West, every drop of water is precious. Nestle Company is clearly aware of just how precious your water is – demonstrated by their willingness to cajole and strong arm their way to taking water from the Ruby Mountain springs. Now I won’t comment here on the environmental devastation wreaked upon the earth and the oceans from the disposable plastic water bottle industry except to say that the effects are heinous and far-reaching, impacting the very base of the food chain that sustains us all.  I will, and have, commented on the sustainability of the proposed withdrawals of water from Ruby Mountain; in essence, I don’t believe that Nestle has shown their proposed drawdowns to be sustainable – I believe they are not.

Yes, the proposed project is impacting only one small spring in all of Chaffee County – however, the fallacy of this sort of thinking is that we discount the concept of cumulative impacts and we ignore the idea that there is an additive and compounding effect each and every time we alter natural systems such as by depleting natural spring flows. Eventually these changes add up, they accumulate, to result in environmental degradation. Now I’m not saying that the proposed Nestle project will result in environmental collapse but I am saying that it will certainly contribute to the degradation of the natural and societal communities in Chaffee County.

At best Nestle has shown contempt for the Chaffee County 1041 regulations – these regulations were established in an effort to maintain the quality of life in the County and are clear with regard to the requirements regarding the sustainability of such projects – independent professional opinions question both the methods and conclusions reached by Nestle.  Nestle has also shown disregard for the science of Climate Change  by brushing it aside with the statement that consideration of Climate Change is not required in the regulations. Long-term sustainability requires us to consider the impact of all of our actions to those around us and to act responsibly – in “The Tragedy of the Commons” every farmer tried to maximize his profits by grazing as many cattle as possible on the publicly owned commons – the tragedy of course is that the pasture was rapidly overgrazed and then no one profited. This Nestle proposal is a bit like that – in their quest for rapid, short-term profit they’ve shown little consideration of impacts to surrounding human and natural communities.

I wish you all the very best in preventing this small but significant tragedy –
Delia Malone, Redstone, Colorado

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.”

Since the close of public testimony on May 21, the commissioners have been wading through a sea of technical documents, hundreds of hours of, at times, acrimonious public testimony and their own land use regulations as they try to determine whether to give the thumbs up or down to Nestle.

The commissioners’ challenging task is made more daunting since the proposal has been modified so many times with written and oral conditions suggested by both Nestle and county staff and consultants that the proposal currently before the commissioners bears little resemblance to the one originally submitted Nov. 3.

We think there are at least three key issues upon which the commissioners can and should vote no on Nestle.

• Chaffee County doesn’t need bottled water. The first test of a 1041 application is the applicant’s ability to demonstrate need. Chaffee County doesn’t need bottled water . . . yet. The only people who need Chaffee County spring water are Nestle shareholders. Extracting water here will save Nestle money by dramatically reducing transportation expenses. Instead of trucking water from California, it’s just two hours – in good weather and light traffic – between the truck loading station in Johnson Village and the Denver bottling plant. The irony is that Chaffee County could develop a thirst for bottled water in the future if Nestle and it’s augmentation arrangement with the City of Aurora create shortages, especially during times of severe drought, as Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District Manager Terry Scanga warns.

• The proposal does not take into account development pressures on the county. The county’s 1041 regulations state that one of the considerations for 1041 designation is “the intensity of current and foreseeable development pressure in the county.” While development pressure has gotten little attention during the Nestle application review process here, the issue is a growing concern statewide and regionally. The state demographer’s office predicts that by 2035, the population here will approach 30,000 (29,515) or 73.7 percent more than today according to US Census Bureau estimates the county’s 2008 population at 16,985. In fact, a 2008 report prepared for the Western Governor’s Association finds “population growth is continuing at an unprecedented rate throughout the West” with ramifications for cities, rural communities and agricultural areas. For this reason and others, one of the many recommendations in the report, entitled “Water Needs and Strategies for a Sustainable Future: Next Steps,” is that water planning and land use planning be better integrated. In 2000, the county’s own comprehensive plan recommended the county work with the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District to create a valley-wide water supply policy but at this time, no such policy exists.

• Project impacts as they relate to climate change impacts on water have not been adequately addressed. The commissioners may reject Nestle’s proposal “if there is not sufficient information concerning any material feature of the proposed project.”

A growing body of scientific evidence has state and federal elected officials racing to find ways to ensure water quantity and quality is sufficient to sustain the future in the arid American West. A 2008 study for the Colorado Water Conservation Board notes increasing temperatures are affecting the state’s water resources. The report points out changes in long-term precipitation and soil moisture can affect groundwater recharge rates; “coupled with demand issues this may mean greater pressures on groundwater resources.”

Just yesterday, at the annual conference of western governors, Colorado’s Bill Ritter said the region needs to do more to protect the water that’s already available. According to an Associated Press story from the conference, Peter Gleick, president of environmental think tank Pacific Institute, said water is connected to the major controversies of the West including urbanization, natural resources and energy development. Gleick also said that climate change – which will alter precipitation and the time of mountain snowmelt – needs to be incorporated into all water management decisions.

Ecologist Delia Malone of Colorado Natural Heritage Program came under fire for recommending exactly such consideration in her review for the county of potential natural resources impacts from the Nestle project. Nestle vehemently objected to numerous findings in Malone’s first draft report in which she devoted a section to climate change including this statement: “Climate trends will alter stream flows and aquifer recharge rendering (Nestle) predictions about pumping sustainability unsupported and inconclusive.”

Nestle consultants argued that “given the current state of knowledge, it seems tenuous and illogical to base project approvals on climatalogical conditions (with considerable uncertainty) to occur many years in the future.”

But Malone, whose draft report had referenced scientific opinions included reference to climate change predictions for Colorado from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fired back saying, “given the current state of knowledge regarding the impact of climate change on water resources in the West, I strongly recommend erring on the side of caution by conserving the water resources that are predicted to be impacted by our changing climate.”

Given the volume of concern over reports pointing to the certainty that climate change will impact to water resources here and throughout the West, we agree with Malone that the county should err on the side of caution.

Nestle has not conclusively demonstrated that benefits accruing to the county from its operations will “outweigh the losses of any natural, agricultural and recreational resources with the county or losses of opportunities to develop such resources,” a basic tenet of the 1041 regulations. Therefore, we urge the commissioners to live up to their campaign promises and other public pronouncements about keeping water in the valley and that green, as in sustainability, is the future for the county, and say no to Nestle.