| 12/26/2008 9:32:00 AM | Email this article • Print this article | Application will cost $33,000
by Christopher Kolomitz
Mail Managing Editor
Chaffee County will charge Nestle Waters North America nearly $33,000 for outside review of the company 1041 application and associated permits regarding proposed water removal for bottling elsewhere.
Nestle submitted the 1041 application in November and county commissioners declared it administratively complete during their Dec. 16 meeting.
Approval sets in motion review and a series of yet-to-be scheduled work sessions and public hearings.
Nestle wants to remove about 200 acre feet of water annually from natural springs near Ruby Mountain.
Water would be piped via an underground line to an 1,800 square foot loading facility in Johnson Village. As many as 25 trucks a day would transport the water to the Denver bottling facility.
The 1041 application is the first submitted to the county since updated rules were adopted in 2003.
It includes information about Nestle plans for ground water, surface water, wildlife, wetlands and traffic in connection with spring water to be trucked from the county.
Because of technical data involved, county personnel will outsource review of the application to at least three separate entities. Nestle will also be billed for county review expenses.
Outside reviewers include a water attorney, wildlife and natural resource experts, economists and hydrologists.
How Nestle will provide augmentation for water removed is yet to be determined. The company earlier approached the City of Salida regarding a lease agreement for excess water credits.
New developments surrounding the agreement with the city may involve leasing augmentation water from the city-owned Tennessee Ditch, rather than excess water credits. Salida acquired about 361 acre feet of water in the ditch in 2004.
Sources indicate Nestle may have approached the City of Aurora and possibly Pueblo Board of Water Works regarding a long-term augmentation lease.
Salida and the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District have presented an augmentation proposal to Nestle, Terry Scanga, district general manager said Tuesday.
Nestle must replace all water removed from the springs at the point of impact, requiring the plan to be flexible, Scanga said.
In an overview provided The Mountain Mail, new details about the project emerged.
Nestle intends to pipe spring water five miles from collection points near CR 300 to a loading facility at Gunsmoke truck stop in Johnson Village.
Earlier reports indicated a loading facility might be constructed beside U.S. 285 north of Nathrop.
Nestle has secured most of its pipeline easements on private land, and Union Pacific property, but needs county approval for the pipeline to extend along CR 301 and near the river crossing.
Nestle officials said to avoid impact to the Arkansas River and view shed, the pipeline would cross beneath the river using directional drilling methods.
A series of pumping tests conducted at the springs by Nestle found no significant impact upon the springs, other water users or the Arkansas River.
Officials said water withdrawals are less than 10 percent of the available spring water even during low flow. Two springs would be used. One produces an average of 1,460 gallons per minute, the other about 290 gpm.
The larger spring feeds an existing private fish hatchery and there are existing structures. Nestle officials plan removal of all structures on the property and restoration of the site to a more natural state.
The company purchased land surrounding the smaller spring and has an option to buy land around the larger spring.
Water to be removed for bottling represents an average flow of less than .3 cfs, Nestle officials said.
Each well house would be about 200 square feet and all buildings would require a county building permit.
Nestle launched a Web site regarding the project at www.nestlewatersco.com. In addition, county officials posted the Nestle application on the county Web site, www.chaffeecounty.org.
Complete paper copies of the Nestle applications are available at the Chaffee County administration offices in Salida and Buena Vista. Copies are also available at Salida Regional Library and Buena Vista library.
|
Reader Comments
Posted: Friday, January 02, 2009
Article comment by:
TC/StopNestleWaters
After coming face-to-face with Nestle Waters in my home town (near Nestle's proposed McCloud water bottling plant), I'd urge Chaffee County residents to use caution. The company is justifiably famous for its rather predatory approach to small rural towns (they've sued the tiny town of Fryeburg, ME five times in an attempt to force a truck loading station into a residentially zoned area).
In this case, it appears the economic benefits to the area will be near zero, yet the county will be dealing with the noise/pollution/safety issues of 50 truck trips per day.
Further, Nestle's "studies" in McCloud were largely non-existent, yet they loudly proclaimed there wouldn't be any impacts to the watershed (a blue-ribbon trout stream responsible for most of the area's considerable tourist economy).
Nestle refused to do any flow monitoring until citizen dissent forced them to do so.
Other examples abound (including the court finding against Nestle mentioned by Mr. Olsen above).
In other words, Nestle is no good corporate neighbor, and you deal with them at your own risk.
Posted: Monday, December 29, 2008
Article comment by:
Jim Olson
Dear Editors:
For a factual history of a Nestle' proposed water extraction and diversion from local community, see the account from beginning to date in Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v Nestle, www.saveMIwater.org. You will see how the facts, including the substantial harm to the headwaters of a stream and lakes affirmed by appellate courts, turned out to be just the opposite of the company's representations. You must demand a more thorough pump test for all possible scenarios, a hear of solid data regarding baseline flows and levels, full disclosure of all computer models and calculations, and find a hydrogeologist, like Dr. Dave Hyndman, Michigan State University, to provide independent review. Further, water is a public resource, subject to common consent of all Colorado citizens, including your community, and should not be bought and sold as a commodity without your consent, a finding of no harm, and then at a fair compensation and royalty, should it even be licensed at all. Bottled water is turning out to be a costly alternative for water services, particularly in a state that has large swings in water supplies and water conflicts.
|
Article Comment Submission Form
|
