Watch the City Council meeting in its entirety below (it may take a few seconds to load; try refreshing the page if you have trouble).

Business included a discussion about the preparedness of City departments for epidemics (1:20), a proclamation in observance of Arbor Day (4:40), a discussion of water and sewer rate increases and presentation by Jan Schmidt (8:30), discussion of an IGA letter concerning the Highway 50 streetscape (39:50), the City Administrator’s report (47:20), and reports by elected officials, including a discussion of the sufficiency hearing regarding the Occupational Lodging Tax (50:00).

Video provided courtesy of the Salida City Council. Thanks also to Greg and Roxy Amidon.

In what appeared to be a move aimed at countering last week’s testimony by Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District Manager Terry Scanga, Nestle brought Colorado water law heavyweight Steve Sims to town.

Sims served as senior water counsel under former Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar. Named one of the state’s 2009 Super Lawyers, late last year Sims was appointed by Gov. Bill Ritter to the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority. Sims and Nestle lead counsel Holly Strablizky, both of whom hail from Denver-based Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber and Schreck. Last summer, an article in the New York Times named the firm “one of the most powerful legal firms in the West.”

Sims took direct aim at Scanga’s testimony that alleges that because of a prior existing intergovernmental agreement between UAWCD, Southeast Colorado Water Conservancy District and Aurora, Nestlé’s proposed water lease with Aurora could have a “deleterious effect” on water in the Upper Arkansas River Basin, particularly in the event of a severe Stage III drought. State water law requires Nestle to replace the spring water it hopes to harvest in Nathrop with a court-approved augmentation plan.

To that end, in late March, Aurora City Council approved leasing Nestle 200-acre-feet of water annually for approximately $200,000 per year.  The lease has a renewal option for an additional 10 years, at Aurora’s discretion. Aurora also reserves the right to interrupt its supply to Nestle in the event of a severe Stage III drought. In such a scenario, Nestle would be obliged to stop pumping unless it has an additional augmentation source that is not subject to the same drought restrictions.

Sims said that while he appreciates Scanga for “always looking out for the Upper Ark,” he also said it was “very very doubtful” that the Nestle-Aurora lease would change any legal dynamic on the river. Sims said the 200-acre-feet per year Nestle-Aurora lease is a fraction of Aurora’s 52.000-acre-foot portfolio on the Upper Arkansas Basin.  Translating what the Nestle-Aurora water lease means in terms of the standard unit of river flow, Sims said it’s “unlikely a half cfs (cubic feet per second) per day would change anything.”

Commenting on the worst case drought scenario Scanga painted for the county, Sims said “it’s just not going to happen,” especially in light of Aurora’s Prairie Waters project which Sims said will double or triple Aurora’s water portfolio, buffering it against enacting the type of Stage III drought triggers that Scanga warned the county about. Sims is also Aurora’s legal counsel for the $800 million Prairie Waters project.

Scanga, who said he has a lot of respect for Sims, said that if Sims assertion that Aurora’s Prairie Waters project really does mean Aurora doesn’t need any additional water from the Arkansas River basin, he’d like to see as much in a legally binding agreement.

Scanga described two scenarios that would alleviate his concerns about the Nestle-Aurora lease. In one such scenario, Aurora could agree to lease to Nestle only water Aurora spills from its vessels that is does not need for municipal supplies. Alternatively, Aurora could stipulate, in a separate agreement with Chaffee County or the UAWCD, that it won’t lease or purchase any additional water from the Upper Ark in perpetuity. “I’d be OK with it then,” Scanga said.

Scanga said the bottom line is his concern for what happens to the Upper Basin in a drought year. The 1041 application requires the applicant to provide an environmental impact analysis that includes descriptions of the “immediate and long-term impact and net effects that the proposed project would have on the quantity and quality of surface water under both average and worst case conditions.”

During Tueday’s public hearing, Nestle project manager Bruce Lauerman said he was “surprised” Scanga’s testimony had gained so much traction with the count and reiterated his skepticism about the validity of Scanga’s calculations and conclusions.

A report published in the August 2005 edition of the technical journal Pure and Applied Geophysics, seems to add credence to Scanga’s concerns. Scientists, including those from prominent climate science centers, wrote a research paper called, “Drought 2002 in Colorado: An Unprecedented Drought or a Routine Drought.” The abstract from the paper notes that while the impacts of the water shortages that year were “exceptional,” actual precipitation was less than severe over a “good fraction of the state.”

“A likely explanation of this discrepancy,” the authors write, “Is the imbalance between water supply and water demand over time. For a given water supply, water shortages become intensified as water demands increase over time. The sobering conclusion is that Colorado is more vulnerable to drought today than under similar precipitation deficits in the past.”

Sims also sparred with County Planning Director Don Reimer and county water counsel Jim Culichia over these two staff-proposed conditions of approval related to water rights and groundwater:

• Require a re-opening of the 1041 application if Nestle alters its augmentation source
• Prohibit Nestle from buying another water right to add supply to the aquifer

Culichia explained that any change of the augmentation source or supply to the aquifer could create 1041 impacts that are not part of the pending application and thus have not been studied or evaluated. He further explained that “what happens in water court doesn’t necessarily correlate” to 1041 standards. For example, water court does not concern itself with the natural resource, economic and wildlife habitat impacts of a dry up if, for example, Nestle were to purchase agricultural land and dry it up in order to use the associated irrigation water right as a source of augmentation.

The next public hearing on the Nestle application is set for May 21 at 1 p.m., location TBA.

Lingering county staff concerns over Nestle’s compliance with 1041 permit regulations were grouped into eight themes: planning documents, traffic, economic  impacts, wetlands and wildlife, groundwater, water rights, air quality and visual quality. To secure approval for its project, Nestle must get approval from the County Board of Commissioners for a special use permit to build the infrastructure for the project and 1041 regulations designed to mitigate impacts to natural resources.

Nestle has already complied with or agreed to the majority of a lengthy list of conditions of approval suggested by the county Planning Commission, paid staff and contract consultants. Most of Tuesday’s public hearing focused on whether a few, but significant, remaining criteria within the county’s exhaustive 1041 regulations had been satisfied or not. Following is a brief summary of some of the more contentious issues covered during the hearing that started at 1 p.m. and concluded around 11 p.m.

• Legal survey of 15-acre exclusion. During public testimony, local attorney Jay Hake asked why Nestle had not provided a legal survey of the 15-acre parcel that Nestle wants to exclude from the 130-acre Ruby Mountain site. Nestle asked for the exclusion due to a provision in its option to purchase the land that would set aside the 15 acres upon which the  current landowner could build up to two residential homes with subdivision and other applicable approvals form the county. While Nestle has provided a map with the approximate location of the property, the uncertainty of its precise location is a factor in the county’s concern for 10 of the 26 requirements county staff believe Nestle has not satisfied. During lengthy debate, Nestle project manager Bruce Lauerman expressed dismay that he was not previously advised by the county to submit a legal survey for the acreage in question. Resolution: Lauerman agreed to provide a metes and bounds description of the 15-acre exclusion area.

• Bighorn Springs exclusion. Citing a lack of adequate baseline data, County water counsel Jim Culichia said he recommends excluding the Bighorn Springs from the project. Culichia explained that Nestle is required to “demonstrate no impact” but can’t do so because of a lack of baseline data, which Culichia said is a problem that can’t be remedied by simply monitoring after the  start of the project. Pumping will have some impact on the springs, Culichia said. Without adequate baseline data, when changes to the spring do occur, Nestle could argue that the change was natural rather than a result of Nestle operations which would mean Nestle could avoid mitigating the impacts. Resolution: Unresolved.

• Ruby Mountain Springs additional data. Culichia concurred with hydrology consultants Geomega that additional tests would be needed to provide the county with a better idea of the impact to the aquifer under conditions that more closely resemble Nestle’s proposed operational plan. To date, Nestle pump tests have only been performed on one test well while the operational plan indicates two wells will be pumping at the same time. Culichia said Nestle did note it had recently performed a pump test of that well at higher rates but had not shared the data with the county. Importantly, Culichia said the other proposed well that has not undergone tests is closer to the river and the aquifer could, and likely will, react differently when both wells are pumping. Resolution: Unknown at press time.

• Traffic. County staff are concerned that Nestle’s traffic study shows some level of service parameters approaching Department of Transportation rated Level of Service D. Martina Wilkinson, Nestle traffic engineer explained that  her study confirmed findings by the Colorado Department of Transportation found that Nestle’s proposed 25 trucks per day (50 total both ways) will have a negligible impact on traffic on the 12-mile stretch of US 285/24 between Johnson Village and Trout Creek Pass. Wilkinson also explained the intricacies of conducting traffic studies as she responded to questions from the public on two main lines of public inquiry, safety and impacts on tourism. Resolution: Nestle agreed to the proposed staff condition to cooperate with the county to encourage CDOT to make improvements, specifically climbing lanes on Trout Creek Pass. Nestle would not agree that it should financially contribute to such improvements. A request by this writer for Nestle to consider modifying truck schedules to avoid peak summer tourism weekend traffic was declined by Lauerman, who explained he prefers to make decisions on “facts not emotion.”

• Community benefit. Nestle agreed to allow wade-fishing access to the Arkansas River near the project but did not believe providing fishing access across the project land would be in the best interests of wildlife, the wetlands and potentially the spring water quality.

Nestle said that for tax benefit, a permanent conservation easement would have to be voluntary rather than a government-imposed condition of approval; without naming names, Lauerman said he had been in discussion with some area land conservation groups.

Nestle agrees to allow controlled access to the wetlands portion of its property to school groups for educational study of the wetlands and wetland interpretive opportunities.

The county accepted Nestle’s own suggested condition of approval calling for the corporation to provide an initial philanthropic endowment of $500,000 plus $25,000 future annual contributions to support local charities and non-profits. When asked by Chaffee County Citizens for Sustainability co-founder Michele Riggio if  Nestle had anything in writing about such a fund, Lauerman replied that he had been in discussions with a local group that was seeking to work with an organization in Denver to help manage the fund, but said he left next steps to that group and had not heard anything from them recently. He said Nestle would work with that group or another group or an economic development group.

Lauerman said he agreed “in principle” to work with the county to set up a project mitigation costs to cover expenses the county can’t anticipate but might incur as a result of the project.

The public hearing continues May 21 at 1 p.m., location TBA. According to the mandated timeline, the deadline for conclusion of the public hearing is May 15. At the county’s request, Nestle agreed to a timeline extension. Once pubic testimony is closed, the Commissioners have 60 days to deliberate and announce their final decision.

The Pacific Southwest Regional Office of the American Friends Service Committee is canceling our water bottle deliveries from Nestlé-owned Arrowhead Water, and we would like to tell you why.

In discussions at our staff meetings, we came to see that the way in which water resources are becoming privatized is a socially irresponsible practice. Although we have received deliveries from you in 3- and 5-gallon containers, the environmental impact of the fossil-fuel-intensive transportation of your privatized water through a distribution network—and the bottling of much of it into smaller plastic containers—was also seen as socially irresponsible.

A recent article in the Los Angeles Times about citizens in Salida, Colorado trying to prevent your company from tapping an aquifer in their county showed that your company continues to aggressively privatize water resources in communities across the country. Further research on your water practices showed that you even threatened to sue Miami-Dade County for running radio ads promoting its public water supply.

Your company profile at the Responsible Shopper website points to evidence of a number of troubling practices by the Nestlé Corporation as a whole, including:

• complicity in abusive and forced child labor at cocoa farms in West Africa;
• anti-union activities, including unresolved questions about the assassination of labor leader Luciano Enrique Romero Molina, “a unionist who was tortured and murdered by paramilitaries just weeks before he was scheduled to give testimony in Switzerland about labor conditions in Nestlé’s Colombian factory”;
• distribution of tainted products in Colombia, Italy, and China even though your company had knowledge of the problems;
• continuing business dealings in Burma despite that country’s oppressive regime; and
• Nestlé’s corporate history of creating dependency on its infant formula among mothers in developing countries who don’t have adequate access to potable water.

It saddens us to say that, in many ways, your company has served as an egregious example of how corporations can be focused on maximizing private profits while shifting many of the costs onto society. In our small way, we are registering our opposition to this method of doing business by canceling our contract for water delivery from your company.

Regards,
Shan Cretin
Pacific Southwest Regional Director
American Friends Service Committee

During public hearing earlier this week, findings by the county’s economic impact consultant, Jean Townsend of Coley/Forrest differed dramatically from those presented by Nestle consultant THK Associates as the county tries to determine what economic impacts the Nestle project would have.

Nestle hopes to receive county approval for a special use permit and 1041 regulations to pipe spring water from the mouth of Brown’s Canyon in Nathrop to Johnson Village. There, the water would be loaded onto trucks for transport to a Denver bottling plant to become Nestle’s Arrowhead brand of bottled water.

Demonstrating economic benefit is a condition of the 1041 regulations. Townsend found fault with Nestle’s portrayal of those benefits on several significant fronts including the following:

• Though benefits were calculated on a 30-year term, Nestle has not confirmed the duration of its water extraction plan that could be more or less than 30 years.
• Local government property tax revenues are 61 percent less than Nestle estimates
• There will be no sales tax revenue to the county from the sale of diesel fuel to Nestle trucks as well as electric utility use as THK purported. This is an error THK admitted to in subsequent testimony.
• Local government expenditures would be higher than Nestle estimated in part, because the county would have to hire ongoing technical expertise to monitor Nestle pumping operations and any subsequent mitigation
• The Nestle application did not address, quantify or provide for the mitigation of the economic benefits lost due to the permanent removal of spring water other than mentions of educational projects and restoration work to the fish hatchery site on the property.

Townsend suggested the county work with Nestle to establish a mitigation fund specifically earmarked for the project and funded by Nestle that would help prevent against the county incurring negative financial impacts.

THK’s Peter Elzi questioned Townsend’s math with respect to property tax calculations and pipeline valuation. Townsend, bristling, defended her math on property tax calculations and explained that she used state mandated guidelines for assessing the value of the privately owned water pipeline.

Elzi also noted he recently received revised information from Nestle that showed the project more than doubled in cost from $4 million to $8.2 million. Townsend said she would have to take a look at those numbers in order to make any re-calculation of net tax benefit to the county.

During public testimony, comments by the audience also weighed in on both sides of the coin.

Buena Vista realtors Tom Bell and Brett Mitchell disagreed with the prevailing sentiment in the room, saying Nestle would have a positive impact on the local economy. Bell frankly admitted he is a realtor who stands to make money on the project and that he and others who will gain personally from the project will spend their earnings to the benefit of the local economy.

Avid fly-fisherman David Moore, spoke of the “myth of economic benefit” saying Nestle is acting like it’s doing the county a huge favor by “taking our natural resources.” Businesswoman Colleen Kunkel told commissioners that in her review of the Nestle 1041 application, she found “no evidence that Nestle is a sustainable business of value to this (Chaffee) county”

In an impassioned speech that drew applause from the audience, Salida resident Rebecca Owens told commissioners, in part, “Any company that proposes to harvest on those valuable resources (that attract tourists) and move it out of the county for their profit, just so they can market the product as pure Rocky Mountain spring water and sell it to the folks who actually still buy bottled water, is not a good match for Chaffee County.”

A final story from last week’s hearing on the topic of hydrology/wetlands/augmentation will be featured in an upcoming post.

The approximately $120,000 for these improvements will come out of 2B money. The Council and City Staff are well aware that these moneys are at risk due to the local Lodging industries actions to reverse the voters and the City Council’s approval and enactment of the 2b legislation. This Council has consistently expressed that maintaining the subsidy to the pool while letting it deteriorate further is simply not an option. The solution of an Occupational Lodging Tax to enhance the pool and other recreational and cultural assets of the City is reasonable. The Council listened to the Lodgers and reduced the tax from $4.82 to 2.50 per occupied room. No tax is paid when the room is empty. Ultimately, this tax will be to the benefit of residents, tourists and the tourist industry.

Salida City Clerk Janella Martinez found the Lodger’s Petition for Referendum insufficient. An insufficient petition is one that does not fulfill the criteria stated in Colorado State Statutes regarding petitions. The criteria protect us from a group that might forge signatures, have unwitnessed signers sign a petition, or have people not from the area, or not registered in that area sign a petition (to list just a few of the statutory requirements).

The Lodgers have filed an objection to the City Clerks finding of insufficiency. A hearing was scheduled for April 17 for Colorado Springs’ City Clerk Catherine Young to hear and decide the merits of the Lodger’s objection. Due to the unavailability of Don Jackson and the Lodger’s attorney the hearing has been postponed until May 8th at 9 AM. We will announce the hearing location at another time since Council Chambers will house the Municipal Court on that morning. We will all have to tune in later to find out how 2B fares.

There are a lot of other major projects occurring within the City of Salida this summer. The demolition of the old Hospital is bringing some beautiful details back to view. The demolition crew are finding original arches, transoms and other historic finish work as they remove the layers of past “improvements”. The project will yield a wonderful and more efficient facility to serve the County and City residents.

The Highway 50 Corridor Improvement Project is nearing its 60% planning phase. Everyone that has an interest in the changes to Highway 50 should plan on attending the meeting at the SteamPlant at 6 PM on April 29th. This is a key meeting and possibly the last chance to modify the project’s plans.

We will soon begin the chip seal project to almost one third of the roads within Salida. This project will prolong the life of the roads by approximately 2 to 10 years.

Perhaps the biggest news, and largest expenditure, is the payment to Mr. and Mrs. Vandaveer for the purchase of the Vandaveer property. The city now owns the land and the water. This allows us to entertain proposals for the use and purchase of the Vandaveer property far more easily than before the final payment.

Finally, you can meet with me at Hattie’s Pub the Monday before each City Council meeting from 5:30 to 7:00 PM. I am on KVRH at about 7 AM the Wednesday after each Council meeting and immediately afterwards on KHEN. Remember you can see the Council Meetings on Channel 10 or on DVD available at the Salida Library.

During a Chaffee County Board of County Commissioner’s public hearing earlier this week in Buena Vista, Nestle traffic engineering and transportation planning consultant, Martina Wilkinson, provided detailed data, all pointing to the conclusion that track traffic from the Nestle project will have a minimal impact on the 12-mile corridor of US 285 in Chaffee County from Johnson Village to Trout Creek Pass.

Nestle proposes to truck spring water from Chaffee County to a bottling plant in Denver from which it will be distributed under Nestle’s Arrowhead brand adding two tractor-trailer trucks each hour every day, one eastbound, one westbound.

Factoring in federal and state transportation standards Wilkinson wrote in her official report to the county that “the impact of the proposed project traffic on the corridor is less than two percent on an annualized basis and less than one percent during the peak travel month.  This is considered nominal in traffic analysis standards and per CDOT (Colorado Department of Transportation) warranted no additional study beyond the traffic impact study (TIS) completed and approved by CDOT for the site access.”

Furthermore, Wilkinson’s report notes that even with the addition of Nestle truck traffic, the corridor will function within the two best level of service categories, not require the addition of climbing lanes or additional passing lanes.

For the complete text of Wilkinson’s traffic study, see the Nestle Crib Sheet on the Salida Citzen.

Despite the traffic engineering reports and statistical analysis, several members of the public, including Chaffee County Commissioner Tim Glen, noted that despite the statistics, they had personally experienced close calls with bad traffic accidents along the corridor.

Commissioner Dennis Giese asked if Nestle had looked at alternate transportation corridors to Denver such as US 24 north through Leadville to I-70. Nestle project manager Bruce Lauerman said the US 285 corridor was chosen in response to citizen objections to added truck traffic in Buena Vista or other county roads.

During public testimony at the county commissioner hearing earlier this week in Buena Vista, Dick Scar of Buena Vista was critical of Nestle’s report for focusing strictly on the 12-mile traffic corridor in Chaffee County.

“This project effects everyone from Johnson Village to Denver,” Scar said, noting he personally recently observed “chancy” passes by passenger vehicles following a hay truck on US 285 to Denver.

Others noted the report did not factor in how the combination of winter weather and additional truck traffic would impact safety along the corridor.

Chris Faust, who regularly travels US 285 between Chaffee County and Fairplay in the winter, said the traffic study was inadequate. “There’s been no talk about the costs to business and tourism of a flipped truck on Trout Creek Pass.”

Rebecca Owens of Salida questioned how a 13 percent increase in truck traffic would benefit the recreation and tourist-based economy while Scott Cragle of Buena Vista was concerned that there had been no examination of the pollution impacts from Nestle truck traffic.

Look for additional stories on Nestle economic impact and hyrology/wetlands/water in upcoming posts on the Citizen.

After seven hours of discussion on technical data from a mounting pile of consultant reports and impassioned pubic testimony on Nestle Waters North America proposed water harvesting project, Chaffee County Board of County Commissioners Chairman Frank Holman halted the proceedings. With more than 20 people still interested in commenting on the application, the commissioners agreed to continue public testimony on Wednesday, April 29, starting at 1 p.m. at the Salida SteamPlant Theater and Event Center.

The bulk of yesterday’s hearing before an overflow, standing room only crowd at the cramped American Legion Hall in Buena Vista focused on the two newest consultant reports reviewing the hydrology and economic impacts of Nestle’s plans to harvest water in Nathrop.  Nestle’s plans call for piping spring water from the mouth of Brown’s Canyon to Johnson Village where it will be loaded onto trucks bound for Denver for bottling and distribution under Nestle’s Arrowhead brand.

A bad sound system and horrible acoustics of the hall added an extra challenge as the audience that reached nearly 200 at its peak, strained to hear testimony from a parade of Nestle and county consultants as well as comments from citizens, the vast majority of whom voiced opposition to Nestle’s plans.

Nestle and county consultants haggled over the finer points of Nestle’s monitoring and mitigation of impacts to wetlands in the project area as well as large discrepancies in calculations on the project’s local economic impact.

Among the most significant public comments yesterday, which was clearly the least understood by the the audience, was delivered by Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District Manager Terry Scanga. Scanga took issue with the proposed augmentation agreement between Nestle and the City of Aurora. The state requires Nestle to replace water it would harvest from the springs in Nathrop. Nestle’s water extraction here cannot proceed without a court-approved water augmentation plan.

Late last month, Aurora City Council approved a 10-year lease of 200-acre feet of water per year to Nestle with an option to renew for another 10 years which would seem to satisfy Nestle’s need for augmentation. Trying to describe in a nutshell technically complicated intergovernmental water agreements, Scanga told the commissioners that Aurora’s lease to Nestle creates a heavier reliance by Aurora on Upper Arkansas River Basin water that would have a “deleterious impact on our basin” and could have a negative impact on a 40-year intergovernmental agreement between Aurora, the UAWCD and the Southeast Colorado Water Conservancy District.

More complete coverage of this and other testimony from yesterday’s public hearing on Nestle will appear in future posts on the Salida Citizen.

Some of the issues cited by Coley/Forrest in the April 16 memorandum to Chaffee County Development Services Director Don Reimer include:

• Property tax revenues from estimated increases in NWNA property valuation are exaggerated, both because TABOR limits the ability of local governments to benefit from increased revenue and because a majority of school district revenues are controlled by the State.
  

  Using Chaffee County as an example, TABOR constrained incremental property tax revenues that the County would receive from the Project are estimated to be about 57 percent lower than if TABOR were not in effect. The combined impact of lower assessed valuation and TABOR limitations results in a 61 percent downward adjustment in property tax revenues received by the County from the Project, relative to the THK estimates.

  For the Buena Vista School District, more than 60% of its property tax revenues (16.111 of 26.690 mills) are controlled by the State under its equalization formula and are not directly available to the District. So, revenues from 16.111 mills should also be excluded from the analysis.

• Whether or not Nestlé trucks purchase diesel fuel in Johnson Village is immaterial, because State law does not allow local governments to collect sales tax revenue on fuel used by vehicles which travel on public highways.
• Sales tax revenue from electricity usage by the project will not be available to Chaffee County because State law provides an exemption for manufacturing firms.

In addition, local government expenses may be understated, the memo suggests, because construction impacts have not been considered and because estimates of on-going impacts are arbitrary.

The report also notes that economic projections haven’t considered spring water as an asset, the loss of which should be factored into the analysis of the 1041 application.

The NWNA Project will trigger a permanent loss of a natural resource, spring water. There are distinct economic and environmental benefits from spring water and a corollary economic opportunity loss with the permanent removal of spring water. This lost economic opportunity has not been addressed, quantified or mitigated in the 1041 Application other than an offer to consider limited fishing access and educational opportunities.

Download the Coley/Forrest economic analysis (PDF).

There is much interest and discussion by local community members about Nestlé Waters’ proposed spring water development near Nathrop. Water is of vital interest in Colorado, and as a large company seeking to operate in rural Chaffee County we expect that people will have important questions and concerns. As the Nestlé Waters project manager in Chaffee County, I’d like to provide more information and clarification in response to questions and statements that have been raised by residents, particularly those who attended the recent public hearings before both the County Planning and Zoning and Board of Commissioners. Please consider the following.

The County Permitting Process
Nestlé Waters requires two permits from the County: (1) a Special Land Use Permit (SLUP) to develop a water supply in an area currently zoned rural or commercial and, (2) a 1041 Permit to identify and mitigate any potential impacts from the proposed project. Nestlé Waters must follow Chaffee County’s specific permitting requirements before any operations can begin. The permitting process is rigorous and includes over two years of data collection and scientific research that is subject to review by Chaffee County staff, other regulatory review agencies, and third party independent professional consultants not affiliated with Nestlé Waters.

Nestlé Waters must and does follow all procedures in accordance with the 1041 and SLUP permitting process. Due to the significant and comprehensive application requirements, Nestlé Waters has requested on several occasions that the County extend the code-specified timelines to provide sufficient time for the County and residents to conduct their thorough review of the application and supporting documents.

If approved, the project will require continual and strict oversight by local, state and federal authorities, including Chaffee County, the Colorado State Engineer’s Office (SEO), the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Nestlé Waters will be subject to annual – and in some cases – monthly or weekly review of water withdrawals, monitoring data and scientific studies by these various authorities in order to continue operating.

Water Resource Protection
Nestlé Waters is making a significant financial investment to safely and sustainably harvest a small fraction of the renewable spring water supply for the long term. Our interest is to carefully manage the springs and associated lands for the future. As such, our project provides an inherent measure of protection and preservation that would not otherwise exist.

Extensive and detailed hydrogeologic and environmental studies have been completed to evaluate the water supply and associated ecosystems. As a hydrogeologist with over 25 years of experience, I am confident that the proposed water withdrawal of 0.3 cubic feet per second (three tenths of a CFS) will have no measurable impact on the Arkansas River or any area water wells, even under low flow conditions. (A claim supported by the County review consultant W.W. Wheeler discussed later.)

When drought or seasonal dry spells occur and less water is available, Nestlé Waters will adjust its water withdrawals to protect the environment and other water users. An intricate network of monitoring wells, flumes, weirs and water-quality instruments has been installed to effectively manage water resources safely for the long term. This data will be available to the public through published reports. Enforcement oversight is provided by the SEO.

Augmentation Water
In compliance with Colorado water law, our water withdrawals will be fully augmented, replacing each and every drop of water. Nestlé Waters has entered into an agreement with the City of Aurora, which will provide upstream releases to the Arkansas River from Twin Lakes Reservoir. These releases must be approved and will be regulated by the State Engineers Office (SEO) and timed to coincide with our withdrawals, which will also be overseen by the SEO. This augmentation plan is simple in its application to our project and very reliable since our requirement represents a minute fraction of Aurora’s existing storage on the Arkansas River. However, in the unlikely event that Aurora were to cease providing augmentation water, such as in a Stage 3 drought, our project would be required by the SEO to suspend water withdrawal until the SEO approved a new plan to augment that is equally protective of the river.

Third Party Review
As part of the 1041 permitting process, Nestlé Waters was required to supply over 1,000 pages of scientific documentation, including ecological, biological, and hydrogeological information as well as economic studies and traffic information to the County for independent review. The County selected (and Nestlé Waters was required to fund) independent, third-party consultants to review various components of the 1041 application.

W.W. Wheeler and Associates, on behalf of the County, provided a detailed review of the Nestlé Waters hydrogeologic information. Wheeler’s professional hydrogeologists, essentially support, with some minor exceptions, the conclusions reached by Nestlé Waters’ (referred to below as “NWNA”) scientific studies. The Wheeler review concludes,

“This amount of diversion would not be discernable to water users along the river… If NWNA provides full replacement of its depletions, as planned,…at Twin Lakes under the Aurora lease, there would be no net depletions to the surface flow of the Arkansas River in Chaffee County (p.2)… We are not aware of any potential for groundwater impacts that would extend across to the west side of the Arkansas River (p. 4)…We are not aware of any impacts to existing well users on the east side of the river (p.8). In our opinion, there is no significant water quality impact associated with this project (p.6).…we do not anticipate that this project will ever cause drastic changes to the streamflow or groundwater, even in the event of severe climate change (p.7)…We are unsure whether NWNA will be able to achieve a reliable 200 acre-feet per year of longterm yield, but this would be one of the business risks for NWNA .(p.8)

The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) acts as a review agency for the County in the permitting process, and serves the important regulatory role of managing any potential impacts to wildlife and habitat during project construction and operation. At least four CDOW biologists with diverse expertise in fisheries, wetlands, and wildlife reviewed the Nestlé Waters applications. The CDOW has advised the County in writing and testimony before the Board of Commissioners that our proposed project is not expected to negatively impact wildlife or wildlife habitat, but may in reality be of significant benefit to wildlife habitat. Nestlé Waters has drafted wetlands, grazing, and Bighorn Sheep protection plans for the CDOW and is working closely with their experts to develop a holistic land management plan consistent with CDOW objectives of protecting wildlife and wildlife habitat.

The County also contracted an independent ecology consultant through the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) to review the Nestlé application with respect to potential ecological impacts. The County has made public two DRAFT versions of the CNHP report. I believe the author of the report draws some unsubstantiated conclusions about the potential environmental harm our project could cause. Of particular concern are:

• The DRAFT CNHP conclusions regarding surface and groundwater are not substantiated in any way by the review of W.W. Wheeler (the County-retained hydrogeologic experts).
• The DRAFT CNHP conclusions regarding impacts to wildlife and habitat are not substantiated by the very credible report and testimony of the Colorado Division of Wildlife multidiscipline biologists.
• The DRAFT CNHP reports were not reviewed or endorsed by the CSU Department of Fish and Wildlife Biology, with which CNHP is affiliated.
• It is my understanding the DRAFT CNHP reports were not reviewed or approved by CNHP management.

I have been advised this last week by the CNHP Director that he is concerned the DRAFT reports have been widely circulated, and that the CNHP will be closely reviewing and finalizing their report by April 6. Nestlé places great value in, and makes considerable investments and decisions based on, sound science. We look forward to a more objective and scientific analysis by the CNHP in their FINAL report.

Traffic
Based on community feedback, Nestlé Waters has committed to construct a 5-mile buried pipeline from the springs to a truck loading station to be located at the existing truck stop in Johnson Village, with direct access to US 24/285. This will keep trucks off County roads, minimize traffic concerns, and protect open space and viewsheds.

Nestlé Waters has conducted a traffic study which indicates the Johnson Village location is an ideal place for trucks to exit and enter the state highway. CDOT has issued an access permit and indicated that all CDOT concerns have been addressed.

Our proposed withdrawal of 200 acre-feet annually equates to a maximum of 25 trucks per day. Never more than that, sometimes less. This equates to a maximum of about one truck an hour. At the truck stop, US 24/285 has a service rating of “A” now and for the foreseeable future, including trucks from our project. This means that trucks will be able to easily and safely access the highway with no significant impact to other traffic. Our trucks represent an increase in existing traffic of less than 1%.

Nestlé Waters North America’s Corporate Reputation
Having been employed by Nestlé Waters as a hydrogeologist for over 11 years, I have toured all of our spring sites across the country and personally managed more than a dozen. All of these sites continue to be protected and beautiful with productive springs, many after decades of operation. In addition, because of our stewardship we enjoy good relationships with the vast majority of communities where we operate.

In the United States, Nestlé Waters employs about 8,400 Americans, operates more than 25 bottling facilities and manages about 60 spring sites. Our company consists of real people, with families, in real communities, and we take very seriously our role in those communities to operate sustainably and to provide meaningful, positive benefits. While we are not perfect – nor do we claim to be – what is sometimes negatively portrayed on the internet about our company does not represent both sides of the story. I encourage local residents to contact other community leaders, neighbors or regulators or visit our website if they are looking for further information and comments about our operations in other communities around the United States.

Benefits to Chaffee County
Nestlé Waters makes it a priority to contribute in helpful and tangible ways to the communities in which we operate and often to the surrounding region. We look to our local communities to help determine how our contributions can best make a difference. We have been, and are currently, actively looking for ways to contribute meaningfully to Chaffee County above and beyond the benefits that our project inherently creates, such as:

• Restoration: A substantial, collaborative restoration project at the Ruby Mountain Spring Site, including the complete naturalization of the existing trout hatchery along the Arkansas River. This project is a condition of the 1041 Permit.
• Open space: Protection of over 100 acres of land within the river corridor, providing significant benefit to the area wildlife and the tourism industry, as well as providing educational opportunities for Colorado Mountain College and local students.
• Financial benefits: A modest but positive net financial benefit in Chaffee County in the form of increased property and utility taxes upwards of $80,000 annually with essentially no required County services or costs.
• Philanthropic donations: We are engaged in ongoing discussions with local
  citizen representatives to provide a significant endowment with future annual
  programmatic contributions that would initiate a locally controlled non-profit
  foundation dedicated to projects and activities focused on community
  sustainability.
• Water education: Funds to broaden Project W.E.T. (Water Education for
  Teachers) initiatives in Chaffee County. Project W.E.T. is an independent water education curriculum supported nationally by Nestlé Waters and implemented in many of our spring communities across the country.
• Local recognition: Local labeling for spring water from Chaffee County. We are willing to customize the labels on bottled spring water from Chaffee County to educate consumers on the health benefits of water, commitment to quality and environmental efforts as they relate to the Arkansas River Headwaters.

In addition to local benefits, Nestlé Waters considers serving in times of emergency as one of its most important roles. We donate millions of bottles of water each year to the American Red Cross and Americares for disaster relief. In 2007, when the Alamosa, CO water supply was contaminated by salmonella, Nestlé Waters immediately sent 4 semi-truck loads of bottled water to help. Time and time again, Nestlé Waters makes concerted efforts to provide clean drinking water when local supplies are interrupted.

Our experience in Chaffee County has been one of open-mindedness. Residents have allowed for our active outreach and community engagement so we could provide information and listen to feedback, and that effort continues today. Over the past year I have personally toured the spring sites with more than 150 local residents, representing a wide variety of interest groups. I have made presentations to more than 200 people through such groups as the Rotary, The League of Women Voters, Trout Unlimited, and the Optimists. From these visits, we better understand what is important to local residents, and have significantly modified our project to better fit in Chaffee County.

In order to obtain and maintain the 1041 and SLUP permits we are required to meet and operate within an extensive set of criteria. We hope we have an opportunity to demonstrate our good work in Chaffee County long-term, as we have done in many other communities.

As always, I can be reached through our website, or by calling (406) 449-6659. I am available to answer further questions or provide site tours to those who are interested in learning more or offering suggestions.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Bruce Lauerman, R.G., CHG
Natural Resources Manager
Nestlé Waters North America

Note: You may also download this letter as a PDF.

The Greater Arkansas River Nature Association (GARNA), a local non-profit membership-based organization, has been following the proposed Nestle project. We previously submitted a letter of concern to Don Reimer, Chaffee County Engineer and Development Services Director for the Planning Commission Meeting held on March 4, 2009 for the purpose of reviewing the Nestle Special Land Use Permit and 1041 Application. Since that time, extensive additional information has been publicly circulated from the County’s consultants hired to review the Nestle applications. In light of these reports and serious discrepancies in the findings, the GARNA Board of Directors has voted to rescind the letter dated March 3, 2009. We now have grave concerns and are here this evening to state our opposition to the project.

Our opposition is based within the context of GARNA’s vision to be an effective agent for resource conservation and our mission to promote awareness of and to develop appreciation for the natural, cultural and historical resources of the Greater Arkansas River Area.

GARNA’s concerns center on the Nestle project impact on Chapter 1, Section 102 Purpose and Findings of the County 1041 Permit Guidelines and Regulations – stated as follows: Item (d) “to protect the beauty of the landscape and the rural character of the County, to enhance recreational opportunities for residents and visitors, to preserve important archeological and historic sites and significant wildlife habitat, to protect air and water quality, and to conserve soil, water and forestry resources.”

Addressing the water resources of our arid mountain ecosystem, we recognize water as our most valuable and precious resource. Without adequate water sources, our other valuable natural resources – wetlands, flora and fauna, wildlife, bird and riparian habitats cannot thrive. Excerpts taken from consultant W.W. Wheeler and Associates, Inc. Water Resources Engineers report dated February 27, 2009 are of significant concern:

To the extent that the spring discharges may be reduced or eliminated as a result of NWNA’s operations, there could be changes in the size and nature of the wetlands at the Ruby Mountain and Bighorn sites….

In our opinion, the pumping tests were not of sufficient duration to make an accurate prediction of the long-term impact on spring discharge.

Upon interruption or expiration of the Aurora lease…some other water rights source would obviously be needed. Depending on the water source to be used, there could begin to be significant impacts in Chaffee County at that time.

Chapter 9, Section 103 Findings of the County 1041 Permit Guidelines and Regulations states that the Board of County Commissioners finds that:

• Item (4) “Viable topsoil, a permanent water supply, diverse plant communities, shelter, cover, maintaining riparian systems, wetlands, floodplains, breeding and production areas and migration corridors are fundamental to the maintenance of significant wildlife habitat.”
• Item (11) “These regulations are necessary for the protection of the natural resources and environment of the County and the State of Colorado and the health, welfare and safety of the people of the County.”

A few excerpts from the county consultant Delia Malone, ecologist, Colorado Natural Heritage Program illustrate that the 1041 regulations have not been met and in most likelihood cannot be met considering the variability and vulnerability of our ecosystem and unknown future impacts on this fragile environment. Ms. Malone’s report states:

In my opinion test pumping data indicates that there is the potential for substantial dewatering of the aquifer with a commensurate reduction in spring/seep flows in an extended drought and/or reduced recharge scenario…In such a dewatering scenario impacts to wetland vegetation and habitat would likely be negative and significant.

Drawdowns that exacerbate already low-flow environmental conditions may stress the community and its inhabitants beyond the capacity for recovery and survivability.

The watershed that supplies the streams and aquifer is relatively small and in the Site area the aquifer is relatively shallow. Additionally, the watershed’s geologic characteristics result in rapid runoff and reduced storage in surface soils. In my assessment these factors indicate that the stream and associated wetland and riparian systems are less resilient to environmental changes and less able to moderate perturbations….

The Nestle project is a very complex and far-reaching project that would not only affect the sustainability of the ecosystem of the specific project Site but of the greater Arkansas River area as a whole. We urge the Commissioners to review ALL of the reports with an unbiased eye and a long-term vision. If Nestle’s application is incomplete, or fails to meet ALL applicable guidelines regarding the impact to vital natural resources with indisputable scientific evidence, the permit should be denied. The health and welfare of Chaffee County is at stake – residents, wildlife, and natural environment alike. The decision made by the Chaffee County Board of County Commissioners is of utmost importance to the unseen and uncertain future ahead.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely and on behalf of the GARNA Board of Directors,
Ann Graham, Board Member

Note: This letter was dated March 18, 2009.

The questions being asked by Chaffee County citizens about the impacts and sustainability of the Nestle pumping project clearly need to be answered.

Weighing the somewhat sparse economic benefits of the Nestle pumping project against the environmental, noise, pollution and safety impacts is vital. Yet what’s missing is a discussion of the nature of doing business with Nestle itself, and what it means to invite the world’s largest food & beverage multinational into your community.

The news, sadly, isn’t all that good.

The recent triumph of Nestle’s legal team in Fryeburg (ME) underscores the dangers of dealing with a company armed with almost unlimited legal resources. There, a group of citizens appealed a planning commission approval of a 24/7 truck loading station in an area zoned “rural residential.”

The original permit was overturned on citizen appeal, but Nestle – not content with the outcome – filed a lawsuit (which they lost) and four subsequent appeals (they lost all but the last). Their high-powered legal team finally found the loophole they wanted, and won.

In Mecosta County (MI), a citizen’s group sued Nestle (and won) over the obvious damage being done to a wetlands by Nestle’s pumping (damage which Nestle’s original data should have predicted). Stung by the loss and unable to win in court, Nestle only reduced pumping after a judge issued an injunction, and then filed a lawsuit challenging the rights of Michigan citizens to file environmental lawsuits to begin with.

In McCloud (CA), opponents of Nestle’s proposed water bottling plant won a lawsuit challenging the original contract, but found themselves staring down the barrel of a Nestle-generated subpoena which granted the company access to their private financial records.

That was quashed by the court, but the message had been sent to opponents, and the town of McCloud – like so many others – has been plagued by a painful factionalism of its residents ever since (a trait shared in many towns).

In Florida, Nestle heavily lobbied state officials to allow them to pump 3x the recommended amount of water from a drought-stricken spring, overruling the opinions of local water agency people concerned for the area’s water table.

Other examples abound, but the tendency is clear; despite heavy doses of “good corporate neighbor” spin, local control often disappears when Nestle arrives.

When questioned about their issues in other rural towns, Nestle’s representatives generally offer a non-responsive “we’re doing fine in many places.”

What’s fine for Nestle isn’t necessarily fine for rural communities who’d like to retain local control over their roads, water, lifestyle and economic choices.

What happens when Nestle decides to tap another water source in the county, and the county’s residents decide the impacts of the additional truck traffic aren’t wanted? Will Nestle quietly accept a no?

Evidence suggests they won’t.

Chaffee County’s residents clearly have many questions to ponder – one of which remains the legal risks of involving themselves with a multinational that has never hesitated to use extraordinary legal means to get what it wants in other rural areas.

Tom Chandler
Mount Shasta, CA (near McCloud, CA)

Tom Chandler is the editor of Stop Nestlé Waters.