Commissioners Open the Door, Nestlé Steps In
By Lee Hart
The biggest land use case in Chaffee County history essentially came to a close today when the Chaffee County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to approve a commercial water harvesting project in this rural river community in the mountains of south central Colorado.
Members of both sides of the debate were reserved in their reaction to the decision granting Nestle Waters North America conditional approval to extract 65 million gallons of springwater annually from an aquifer at the mouth of the renowned Brown’s Canyon stretch of the Arkansas River. The water will be piped four miles to a truck loading station where it will then be transported two hours to Denver for bottling then sold to consumers as Nestle’s Arrowhead brand of bottled water.
The approval includes 40 conditions, totaling 11 pages and addressing what the commissioners considered some of the most controversial aspects of the proposal, namely water and economics.
However, it was a seemingly minor issue that proved to be the day’s most contentious. Citing private property rights and potential adverse impact to wildlife, Commission Chair Frank Holman adamantly objected to requiring Nestle to provide overland fishing access to the Arkansas River. Commissioner Tim Glenn was just as adamant that the easement was “not overly burdensome” to Nestle and provided very desirable public shoreline fishing access in a county where recreation is such an important part of the economy. Commissioner Dennis Giese was on the fence. In the end, the commissioners agreed to let the local Division of Wildlife determine if and where overland fishing access would be appropriate on the Nestle property.
Nestle had hoped to have the overland fishing access condition deleted from the final list of conditions writing in a memo to county staff that to do so would “unacceptably increase risk to security and spring water quality” and created an “unwarranted and significant business risk” to the company.
Chaffee Citizens for Sustainability Chair John Graham said he was surprised by the amount of time the commissioners spent on the fishing easement issue and said it was evidence that the commissioners were “not seeing the forest through the trees.”
During and after the hearing, Glenn was adamant on two points: Nestle’s promise of a permanent conservation easement and that any adverse economic impacts “directly attributable to Nestle” would be paid for out of a dedicated Cost Reimbursement Fund administered by the county and funded by Nestle.
Even after the hearing, Glenn was adamant on the topic of the conservation easement “(Nestle) represented that they would put a permanent conservation easement on the property whether they get a tax benefit in doing so or not.” Glenn pointed out there are numerous state and federal tax credits and incentives to do so.
While still expressing concerns over whether the benefits of Nestle’s application outweighed the loss of the resource, in the end, Glenn conceded that “perhaps” the standards are met with the conditions imposed which include the Cost Reimbursement Fund, conditions calling for Nestle to show proof of good faith efforts to provide as many construction jobs and at least 50 percent of truck driving jobs to locals, as well as conditions limiting truck traffic so as to not adversely impact tourist visits to the area especially during busy summer holiday weekends.
In statements preceding approval of the project, Giese said his big concern about the project was about impacts to water rights and supply as outlined by the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District, as well as groundwater and wetlands concerns aired by consultants and citizens. County Planning Director Don Reimer pointed out that 14 conditions proposed by county water counsel Jim Culichia were specifically designed to address Giese and the public’s concerns about such potential impacts.
Holman concluded that the county had imposed some “strict conditions” that addressed those areas of the application that were “nonconforming.” He said that if he thought there would have been any loss of water in the valley due to the Nestle project he would not have supported the project. The county mandated conditions of approval are very specific with respect to Nestle’s plan to offset its water harvest with a 10-year lease of a similar quantity of water from Aurora, as well as very detailed specifics about Nestle’s pumping operation, monitoring and reporting.
Shortly before the vote, Holman looked directly at Nestle representatives and said that the county will “rely on the permittee to follow the conditions and we believe you will.” He said the county would rely on the citizens to help monitor the project and thought that, overall, the project would be a benefit to the county.
Nestle’s Bruce Lauerman said he appreciated the good deliberations by the county and assured the Citizen Nestle would comply with the conditions. “We look forward to being a benefit to the economy, the culture and heritage of the area, providing a level of stewardship to water resources that doesn’t currently exist at that location, and providing funding for the environment and education.” Lauerman said he believes the people of Chaffee County will “come to recognize that Nestle is a great project and a great benefit to Chaffee County” then repeated the oft-heard Nestle refrain, “We’ll be a good neighbor.”
Not everyone at today’s hearing shared that view. “I don’t believe the commissioners are representing the best interests of Chaffee County,” said longtime resident and staunch Nestle opponent Jim Ruggles. “My main concern is that (Nestle) will dry out the aquifer and that the county will wind up in litigation sooner or later with Nestle. I believe the commissioners fairly ignored their own consultants and favored Nestle’s presentation of the facts.”
While clearly disappointed by the decision for a project he described as “ludicrous,” John Graham, chair of Chaffee Citizens for Sustainability, took some comfort in the belief that his group was responsible for some positives such as removing the Bighorn Springs parcel, which was rife with concerns about wetlands impacts, from the project, as well as the creation of the Cost Reimbursement Fund.
Graham said CCFS will be interested to see whether there will be an upswell of anger or alarm over the commissioner’s approval of Nestle and that the board would definitely gauge community response before deciding its next course of action.
Sam Schabacker of the national non-profit Food and Water said Colorado’s battle with Nestle is being closely watched around the country and is considered pivotal to the nationwide fight against the privatization of water. “This is the first battleground in the Rocky Mountain West – the arid West – and CCFS has shown great leadership in this national struggle.” Schabacker said the intelligence and dedication CCFS has shown puts the organization in a good position to recalibrate and take the fight to the next level, joining the ranks of citizens in Maine, California, Michigan and Flagstaff, AZ.
I dont like it, but we all need to wise up. The water belongs to neither you nor I! Furthermore, it doesnt belong to the county. IT BELONGS TO AURORA. Maybe instead of all the half baked ideas this county has thrown into silly projects over the years should have been used to buy up water rights. I for one would rather have something to drink than the damn steamplant.
There was once a law that said people could own human beings. Individuals such as yourself proclaimed that, “The Law Is The Law.” Just because it’s a law doesn’t make it right.