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.”

The Citizen is recapping only the major issues debated by the Chaffee County Board of Commissioners during a special hearing held July 1 to consider Nestle Waters North America proposal to harvest water here for its commercial bottling operations. Additional posts cover economics, wetlands and air quality.

WATER

The lengthiest part of the commissioners’ deliberations on Nestle centered on water, globally considered the new gold for its increasing preciousness in light of population growth and global warming. Specifically at issue last week, was testimony by Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District Manager Terry Scanga expressing concern that Aurora being Nestle’s source of replacement water for its spring water harvesting project could have very “deleterious” effects on the valley, especially in severe drought years.

Commissioner Tim Glenn tried  to explain the gravity of Scanga’s testimony to fellow commissioners who either didn’t seem to understand the intricacies of water law and prior appropriation or simply did not share Glenn’s concerns. Glenn noted it was Scanga’s role to go “to bat for every water right and ag producer” in the valley and that he found Scanga’s testimony “fairly compelling.”

Earlier in the review process, during public testimony Scanga raised Nestle’s hackles by raising concerns about its lease with Aurora. In detail, under heated cross–examination from Nestle representatives and questions from commissioners grappling to understand the issue, Scanga described how and why the Nestle-Aurora lease could harm the valley. Nestle attorneys, who also represent Aurora water, [Thanks to a note from Aurora Water Public Relations Manager Greg Baker who clarified this point: "The attorneys for Nestle are not Aurora’s attorney’s in this venue. We use the same firm (Brownstein Hyatt & Farber) for other needs, but we have not retained any outside counsel to represent our interests in the Nestle lease agreement and terms."] assured the commissioners that the scenario Scanga described would never come to pass. Glenn pointed out that Nestle itself said it could not tell Aurora how to use its water.

“If you have a senior water right (as Aurora does), you can take it unless something in writing says you can’t take it,” Glenn explained to his fellow commissioners. Glenn said he’d feel better if Nestle’s augmentation came from a local entity that would probably care more about protecting local water resources than Aurora. Alternatively, Glenn suggested getting an agreement in writing that Aurora won’t draw down depletions and invoke its ability to exchange in a drought year and will only use water sources outside the Arkansas River Valley to supplement any municipal shortfalls created by the Nestle lease. But Glenn, always the pragmatist, said, “I seriously doubt that could happen.”

Glenn also expressed his struggle with approving a proposal “in blind faith” before a substitute water supply plan from the state engineer’s office or water court decree has been issued. “We generally don’t approve things that aren’t final,” Glenn said of land use and zoning cases in general.

In the end, commission chair Frank Holman directed staff to draft some conditions of approval to address Glenn’s water concerns and added he thought conditions should stipulate that Aurora’s augmentation water come from transmountain, not in-basin, sources.

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.

UAWCD's Terry Scanga (at the podium) and Nestle's Bruce Lauerman square off at the Salida SteamPlant

The grandson of one of the Upper Arkansas River Valley’s first settlers stood his ground today against the new kid in town as Chaffee County takes center stage in a high-profile battle over water in the West.

The first 45 minutes of today’s public hearing on Nestle Waters North America water harvesting project in rural Chaffee County focused on Nestle’s plans to lease water from Aurora to replace the water it extracts from the springs at the mouth of Brown’s Canyon. Nestle plans to pipe the spring water to Johnson Village, four miles away. In Johnson Village, the water would be trucked to Denver for bottling as Nestle’s Arrowhead brand.

For the first time in four months of public hearings, Nestle was obviously on the warpath as first Nestle project manager Bruce Lauerman, then Nestle lawyer Holly Strablizky took aim at Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District Manager Terry Scanga. Scanga, a direct descendent of one of the earliest Italian immigrants who helped settle Chaffee County, wouldn’t blink.

Scanga reiterated and clarified for the County Board of Commissioners his testimony from a week earlier, during which he said Nestle’s plans to lease water from Aurora could have a cumulative effect, especially in a drought year, that could be “very injurious to this basin.”

To illustrate his point, Scanga used the example of the most recent drought year, 2002. In that year, Scanga said flows on the Arkansas River dropped below 200 cubic feet per second (cfs). If the Nestle-Aurora lease were in place during the 2002 drought, and Aurora needed water for its municipal supplies because it depleted its own supply by leasing to Nestle, Scanga explained that under an intergovernmental agreement between Aurora and the UAWCD and Southeast Colorado Water Conservancy District, Aurora would have had the right to take water out of the Arkansas River Basin to quench its municipal thirst.

Under the same drought year scenario, Scanga said the local multi-agency Voluntary Flow Management Program could be endangered since the parties to that agreement (including water management agencies for Aurora, Colorado Springs and Pueblo) are under no obligation to deliver water to the Arkansas during severe drought cycles. The Voluntary Flow program was created to enhance recreational opportunties on the Arkansas River, especially fishing and rafting.

Lauerman called Scanga’s testimony “fuzzy math.”

Buena Vista resident John Cogswell also cross-examined Scanga challenging the veteran water manager’s assertion that the Aurora-Nestle lease would have a significant adverse net affect. “(UAWCD’s) water argument doesn’t hold water,” Cogswell told the Salida Citizen.

Cogswell tried to get Scanga to agree that Nestle’s lease with Aurora would be no more impactful to water in the basin than irrigating 100 acres of agricultural land.

Scanga agreed that while the depletion is the same, the beneficial use of the water is not. A local rancher’s use of the water creates beneficial use within the county while Nestle’s bottled water project creates beneficial use outside the county, Scanga said.

During questioning from Commissioner Tim Glenn, Scanga said the Nestle-Aurora lease  compounds the impact to the Upper basin in ways that would not occur if Nestle secured its leased water from another in-basin entity such as Pueblo Board of Water Works or the joint Salida-UAWCD proposal.

On that last point, longtime resident and local Realtor Karin Adams brought more math to light. The Aurora lease will cost Nestle approximately $200,000 for 200 acre feet of water for each of ten years, with an option to renew for another 10-year term. Aurora’s lease to Nestle could be interrupted in the event of a severe drought. Nestle rejected a joint offer from Salida and the UAWCD that would have cost $500,000 but would have provided an in-basin, uninterruptable supply of water that would have protected Nestle and other water rights users in the event of a drought. Scanga said if Nestle had agreed to the Salida-UAWCD proposal, the UAWCD would have re-invested the money to enhance the county’s water portfolio.

On another point, despite Scanga’s assertion to the contrary, Lauerman told the commissioners unequivocably that UAWCD has expressed interest in participating with Aurora in Aurora’s lease to Nestle.

Even if the Chaffee County commissioners approve Nestle’s Special Land Use Permit, Nestle still has to get water court approval for its augmentation plan. The stage has been set for a battle of the titans in water court. Based on Scanga’s predications, there will likely be at least two if not more objectors to the Nestle-Aurroa lease when it goes before the water court in a process that typically takes at least two years.

Read the UAWCD letter to the County Commissioners.

Therefore, in this context, it should come as no surprise that water is at the crux of the battle between a small rural community trying to hold onto its water and the world’s largest food and beverage manufacturer who would like to extract that water to slake American consumers’ thirst for bottled water.

The latest chapter in the war for water in the West unfolded April 21 in Buena Vista, CO, as consultants sparred and the public weighed in on the ramifications of Nestle Waters North America proposal to harvest water from rural south central Colorado, truck it 2-1/2 hours to Denver to bottle and sell under Nestle’s Arrowhead spring water brand.

Custom raft manufacturer Ron Farris drew loud applause from the overflow capacity audience at the public hearing when he told the Chaffee County Board of Commissioners, “We don’t have enough water to let any more of it leave our county.”

Farris noted Nestle’s proposed water extraction was equivalent to the water used by 700 residential homes and that for a sustainable future, “keeping water in our county is a priority.”

Farris also challenged freshmen Commissioners Dennis Giese and Frank Holman to live up to their stump speeches citing Holman’s campaign pledge this past fall to not let more water flow out of the county on his watch, and quoting Giese from a recent public meeting saying “Green is the color of the future of our county.”

Of primary focus during this most recent hearing on Nestle was the question of wetlands impacts. At issue was whether pump tests conducted by Nestle were of sufficient duration and type to adequately predict the effect of Nestle pumping nearly 200 acre feet of water annually from the spring.

Geomega and another county consultant, W.W. Wheeler and Associates Inc., agreed that Nestle’s pump tests were not of sufficient duration to adequately predict longterm effects.  In particular, Kolm explained Nestle’s pump test measured groundwater impacts but not the impact on the wetlands.

Nestle project manager Bruce Lauerman defended a 72-hour test as sufficient and explained “it is not in Nestle’s interest to have an unsustainable situation.”

Indeed Nestle recently doubled estimated project costs – including well digging and construction of pump houses, a pipeline and loading station construction – from $4 million to $8.2 million.

To protect Nestle’s investment, Lauerman also noted he is on the hunt for other springs in Colorado to help ensure “redundancy in operations”so Nestle has a portfolio of water resources in case the Chaffee County springs get contaminated, become affected by a localized drought, and for occasions when the Chaffee springs operations need to be shut down for maintenance.

The public also pleaded with commissioners to demand more baseline scientific data from Nestle. Among those stressing this point were John Graham, one of the founders of Chaffee County Citizens for Sustainability, a group formed in reaction to the Nestle proposal, Frederick Lee speaking on behalf of Chaffee County Democrats, 30-year Chaffee County resident Jim Ruggles who claimed tests taken after the largest snowfall on record would be an historic anomaly, and retired USGS hydrologist Gene Rush.

Rush said that in his professional opinion, the four-month duration of one of Nestle’s pump tests was “grossly inadequate,” and that it was the wrong pump test to predict the extent of the dewatering zone that Nestle’s pumping operations could create. Rush later told the Citizen his biggest fear is that Nestle’s plans to monitor its pumping operations will only produce after-the-fact data that Nestle will argue in court. “We need to settle these issues up front because there’s a big imbalance between the legal resources of Chaffee County and Nestle,” Rush said noting Chaffee County likely couldn’t afford to get into costly court battles with Nestle.

Rush’s fears are not entirely unfounded, since public records show Nestle has engaged in protracted legal battles over its water projects in rural Fryeburg, ME and Mecosta County, Michigan.

Addressing another flank of the battle over water, Terry Scanga, speaking on behalf of the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District, took issue with Nestle’s plan to replace the spring water it takes from the Upper Arkansas River Basin with water leased from the City of Aurora. Nestle recently received Aurora City Council approval for a 10-year lease of 200-acre feet of water with an option for another 10 years. Aurora retained its right to interrupt the supply in the event of a severe drought.

Scanga explained that an intergovernmental agreement between Aurora and the UAWCD and the Southeast Colorado Water Conservancy District is “intended to compel Aurora to maximize the use of its water supplies to meet demands of it citizens and thereby reduce reliance upon Arkansas River Basin water.”

Scanga contends that in a drought year, which historically happens every five to seven years, Nestle’s lease from Aurora would effectively deplete Aurora’s ability to meet its municipal needs triggering a water lease from the Upper Arkansas Basin at a time when the Basin would be “most vulnerable to the deleterious impacts of drought.”

The next public hearing on Nestle will be today, April 29 starting at 1 p.m. The hearing will recess at 5 and resume at 6 p.m.

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.

Pat Alderton who is both a UAWCD Board member and Administrator for the Town of Poncha Springs distilled what seemed to be a viewpoint shared by all those present at today’s meeting: “The whole valley will lose if we don’t all work together on this.”

Nestlé Waters has purchased and optioned ranchland near Nathrop, and is proposing to develop Ruby Mountain and Bighorn springs to supply a new bottling facility in Denver.

Nestlé proposes sustainable pumping of up to 200 acre-feet of ground water annually, or approximately 0.3 cubic feet per second (cfs). Scientific and hydrogeologic studies found the average natural spring flow to be about 4 cfs.

Nestlé is exploring options to comply with the state requirement to augment water extracted from the springs. Nestlé has discussed augmentation options with UAWCD and water leasing options with Salida in its quest to fulfill its state-mandated obligation.

In opening statements at today’s meeting, Interim Salida City Manager Mike Copp told the UAWCD that Salida has excess water rights that it views as assets and would like to do something beneficial with those assets.

[vimeo]http://vimeo.com/1622737[/vimeo]

Leasing water to Nestlé represents a potentially lucrative financial opportunity for the city. And while the water district may or may not also benefit financially, board member Greg Felt explained that working jointly with Salida on the Nestle project offers UAWCD an opportunity to more efficiently and effectively manage the water to the benefit of Salida, with potential added benefit for Poncha Springs.

UAWCD Manager Terry Scanga explained that UAWCD is in a position to work with Salida to make its excess water more marketable to Nestle, or potentially other interested parties in the future.

Yet if Nestlé can’t secure the necessary water from the city and/or the water district, Scanga said the UAWCD board fears Nestlé could pursue other sources for augmentation, such as buying and drying up a ranch.

“If we can do this proactively, we can maintain control and optimize management of the water resource,” Scanga explained.

[vimeo]http://vimeo.com/1622756[/vimeo]

Meanwhile, Nestlé must also apply to Chaffee County for a special use permit that includes review of its compliance with 1041 regulations designed to mitigate environmental impacts from the project.

The next step in the tentative accord will be for both entities to consider formalizing a working relationship to address Nestlé’s water needs at their next regularly scheduled public meetings. The next Salida City Council meeting is September 2. The full UAWCD board next meets on September 11.

Copp suggested that representatives from the City and UAWCD schedule a joint meeting with Nestlé soon after September 11.

Folks from both sides of the table seemed in agreement that the Nestlé project could be a catalyst for how the city and the water district can work together on broader, long-term water issues affecting the Upper Arkansas River Valley.

The meeting will be held at 1 p.m. in the boardroom of the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District Headquarters at 339 E. US Highway 50. The meeting is open to the public.

Nestle proposes sustainable pumping of up to 200 acre-feet of ground water annually, or approximately 0.3 cubic feet per second (cfs). Scientific and hyrdogeologic studies found the  average measured natural spring flow is about 4 cfs. Nestlé is exploring options to comply with the state requirement to augment water extracted from the spring. UAWCD and the City of Salida are two options Nestle is exploring as it seeks to secure the state-mandated augmentation.

Since early 2007, Nestlé Waters has been conducting intensive scientific studies of these two spring sites to evaluate the local hydrogeologic system and associated ecology. This summer, Nestle representative Bruce Lauerman has been providing site tours to community leaders – civic, media, and elected officials – to familiarize them with the project.

Concurrently, Lauerman said Nestle is preparing the necessary documents for application to the county for the required special use permit and 1041 requirements. 1041 Regulations are intended to allow for public input and to require mitigation for any impacts which may result from the establishment of new communities, siting of municipal water and wastewater facilities, siting and selection of airports and highway systems, and protection of significant wildlife habitat. The Nestle project would require a 1041 review.

For more comprehensive information, download Nestle’s Chaffee County Spring Water Fact Sheet.