Unbottle and Protect Chaffee County Water
Stand Together
In opposition to the renewal of the Nestle Waters permit
Update! Nestle is scheduled to present their annual report to commissioners on March 9th. The next official meeting regarding the 1041 permit renewal is March. 16th, 2021. Zoom links for both dates are on the county’s web page www.chaffeecounty.org (in the column on the right).
Watch presentations from the original Oct. 20, 2020 public hearing: https://youtu.be/1bnmg4HcWM (2 hours of Nestle followed by one hour from the opposition).
What is this all about? Over ten years ago, concerned citizens of Chaffee County rallied and put up a fight when Nestle Waters of North America Inc. applied for a water mining permit to build a pipeline and extract up to 65 millions gallons of water annually from Ruby Mountain Springs.
Despite the great public outcry, the county commissioners at that time approved the permit.
Times have changed.
We know even more about climate change, and the effects of single-use plastic waste polluting water, filling landfills, and the difficulties associated with recycling it. We are in extreme drought and Chaffee County’s population has drastically increased over the last decade.
As the Nestle permit is now under continued deliberation, we hope the current commissioners will vote for the citizens’ interests, rather than for the interests of a multinational corporation.
NEW! Sign up for email updates at the link below!
Gallons per Minute
Truckloads of water per day
Million gallons of water per year
What can you do?
- Research Articles past and present, movie clips, documents, and talking points found here.
- Sign up for email updates https://bit.ly/3a99YsF
- Join the Facebook group “Unbottle and Protect Chaffee County Water” and invite your friends.
- Boycott Nestle Brands
- Write an editorial letter to a local publication
Stay Informed–Resources
- Public Hearings
- Movies
- Permit Info
- Articles
- Annual Reports
- Water/Land reports
- Conversation Tips
- Rio Frio Docs
Public Comments 2020
1-Comments up to Sept 29th 2020
Public Meeting minutes 2009
1- March 18th 2009 (20 pages) public comment
2- April 21st 2009 (10 pages) public comment discussion of conditions satisfied or not
3- April 29th 2009 (36 pages) public comments
4- May 5th (34 pages) public comments Q&A
5-May 21st 2009 (23 pages) public comment
Meetings after public comment closed in 2009
6- June 16th 2009 (6 pages) application fees and easement amendment discussion
7- July 1st 2009 (34 pages) application review criteria
8- Aug 5th 2009 (40 pages) draft permit
9- Aug 19th 2009 (2 pages) closed deliberations unanimously approved
10- Sept 23rd 2009 (8 pages) final resolution discussion on endowment contributions and admin funds
Nestle Waters Big and Controversial (2018) 10 minutes
Bottled Life (2013) 1 hour 33 min.
Podcast (15min) about Cascade Locks Oregon vs. Nestle Waters
This Land is Our Land – Nestle in San Bernardino National Forest (4 min 20 seconds) 2015
Citizens against Nestle in Michigan (12 min)
Nestle’s Money Mountain (10 minutes) 2019
A Tale of Two Cities about Nestle in Flint Michigan (12 min 30 sec) 2018
Podcast Plastic Planet: Stopping Big Oil, Big Plastic and Big Misdirection (30 minutes) March 2020
Plastic Wars documentary by Frontline and NPR (1 hour) March 2020
Story of Bottled Water (8 min) 2010
Check out “Rotten” on Netflix, season 2, episode 3 “Troubled Water” (1 hour)
Recent articles/letters regarding Nestle in Chaffee County
Transfer of water to private equity firms stirs opposition in US and Canada (Feb. 17, 2021)
Nestle Waters to Sell North American Water Business (Feb. 17, 2021)
Nestle and the Commissioners Discuss Recycling (Jan. 22, 2021)
County approves economic study (Dec. 23, 2020)
Nestle Saga Continues (Nov. 19, 2020)
County Commissioners re-open public comments (Nov. 6, 2020)
Community has spoken – No Renewal! Letter to the Editor (Oct. 31, 2020)
Nestlé’s plan stirs contentious fight – The Colorado Sun (Oct. 26, 2020)
Majority of Comments Oppose Nestle Permit Extension (Oct. 23, 2020)
Nestle 1041 Hearings Begin (Oct. 21, 2020)
Chaffee County Stands up to Nestle (Oct. 18, 2020)
The Real Cost of Extending Nestle’s permit (Oct. 14, 2020)
Ark Valley Voice Nestle Series – Part 1
Ark Valley Voice Nestle Series – Part 4
Ecologist says Nestle should consider Climate Change (Sept 28, 2020)
Say No to Nestle – Letter to Ark Valley Voice (Sept 26, 2020)
Notice of Public Hearing for Nestle Waters 1041 Permit Renewal (Sept. 18, 2020)
Nestle Seeks More Time in Chaffee County as Locals Ask to be Unbottled (Sept. 9, 2020)
Leave the Water, Tell Nestle to Leave. Letter to Mountain Mail Editor (Sept. 04, 2020)
Nestle 1041 permit public hearing set for Oct. 20 (Aug 17, 2020)
Conservancy district consultant discusses water law issues (May 19, 2020)
Nestlé opposition raises conflict of interest concerns (May 12, 2020)
Nestle Waters clarifies its Chaffee County 1041 Permit Process (May 8, 2020)
Disappointed in lack of public comment opportunity for Nestle 1041 permit renewal (Apr 29, 2020)
Letter to Colorado Central Magazine Editor – No New Permit for Nestlé (APRIL 4, 2020)
Local residents oppose Nestlé permit extension (April 3, 2020)
County Commissioners may postpone Nestlé hearing (March 31, 2020)
Nestlé submits 2019 report (March 19, 2020)
Letter to the Mountain Mail Editor Criticizes Nestlé Waters (March 11, 2020)
County reports Nestlé has been ‘exceedingly responsive’ (Mar 4, 2020)
Nestlé 1041 Permit: Company meets conditions for community giving, river access (Feb. 25, 2020)
Nestle Water public hearing re-set for April 2020. (Dec 31, 2019)
County sets January hearings for Nestle (Dec 9, 2019)
Nestle Water 1041 permit decision delayed six months (Oct 16, 2019)
Rio Frio Minor Subdivision approved (Sept 26. 2019)
Historic articles/letters regarding Nestle in Chaffee County
Background on the Hagen exception and controversy. (See related reports under land/water tab).
Must our water always flow uphill toward money? High County News (April 2, 2009)
Pressure builds over bottled water – Christian Science Monitor (Oct. 22, 2009)
A new kind of water war springs up – LA Times (April 2, 2009)
Nestle plan sets off water war – Denver Post (March 22, 2009)
Nestle water deal rained down cash on key Chaffee County locals (Aug. 12, 2010)
Nestle to begin draining millions of gallons of Arkansas River water (June 16, 2010)
Nestle OK’d to turn Arkansas River springs into bottled water product (July 27, 2010)
Nestle water plan approved – High Country News (Aug. 24, 2009)
Nestlé begins reclamation project near Ruby Mountain (May 8, 2012)
Dates set for Nestle meetings (Feb 19, 2009)
Nestlé begins reclamation project near Ruby Mountain (May 8, 2012)
Nestle water details outlined by Nestle Rep. (Jun 30, 2008)
Check out all the passionate, inspiring community letters posted in “Salida Citizen” in 2009! (Especially during the public hearings that took place in March and April).
Jan 24 -Feb 16 ; Feb 16 – March 13 ; March 13-March 26 ; March 26 – April 9 ; April 10 – April 22 ; April 22-April 30 ; May 1-May 10 ; May 13-June 9 ; June 9-June 22 ; June 22-July 10 ; July 10-Aug 7 ; Aug 9-Sept 2 ; Sept 4-Oct 1 ; Oct 2 –Oct 16
Articles about Nestle in other communities:
In Florida, Troubled Waters As Nestlé Pushes for More – New York Times (March 9, 2020)
Nestle Waters leaving Canada is a community success (July 2020)
A Town Torn Apart by Nestlé. Business Week. (April 16, 2008)
Nestle continues stealing worlds water during drought (March 20th, 2015)
Nestle Provided Annual Reports
County Staff Reviews of Annual Reports
2010 Annual Report Staff Report R
2011 Annual Report Staff Report R
2012 Annual Report Staff Report R
2013 Annual Report Staff Report R
2014 2015 & 2016 Annual Report Staff Report R
2017 Annual Report Staff Report R
2018 and 2019 Annual Staff reports not provided.
1. Operating on land of state-wide interest requires a 1041 permit
Chaffee County commissioners can choose to deny Nestle Waters’ permit if they don’t find that the “benefits accruing county and citizens outweigh loss of resources or losses of opportunity to develop resources.” [1041 regulations 3-303 (1)(k)(vi)]
The permit could also be denied if they don’t find that “the need for the project can be substantiated.” Is Nestle’s operation beneficial or needed? [1041 regulations 3-303 (1)(a)]
2. Nestle’s “philanthropy” is mandatory
Nestle’s community giving is a condition of their permit to mitigate the company’s impacts. How much does it cost to silence opposition from local organizations? Compared to the profits this multi-billion-dollar company makes from the water extracted here, is the approximately $270k given to area schools over the span of a decade nearly enough?
3. Plastic Pollution issues have increased locally and globally
According to their annual reports, Nestle has contributed 292,596 plastic water bottles to the community since their permit was approved in 2009. Plastic pollution and global awareness of the issue has drastically increased over that ten-year term. Although Nestle requests another 10-year 1041 permit, such long terms are not necessary. Now days the county is subsidizing community recycling efforts. Should Nestle’s donations of single-use plastic water bottles still be considered an asset, rather than an impact?
4. Non-Compliance and conflicts of interest
As part of the original permit agreement, Nestle offered to put their land (located next to what is now Browns Canyon National Monument) into a permanent conservation easement “concurrent with construction of the project.” Over ten years have passed, and yet Nestle still has not done this. The company did, however, trade off the most valuable property, maximizing river frontage for the soon-to-be built Rio Frio Minor subdivision. A Nestle-paid consultant, who simultaneously served on the Chaffee County planning commission for 9 years, voted to approve the minor subdivision in Sept. 2019, before resigning from the county position this year.
Should an offer by Nestle to now put a conservation easement on their land, which surrounds the subdivision, still be considered fulfillment of their original agreement – despite the land swap? Nestle is floating a proposal to have Colorado Parks and Wildlife manage the land under a conservation easement if their permit is renewed. Is this seemingly philanthropic offer actually out of necessity because Nestle has not been in compliance with their land management plans (i.e. noxious weed management and grazing requirements)?
5. Sustainability and climate change
Nestle is currently allowed up to 200 gallons of water per minute, 65 million gallons per year, and up to 25 trucks per day. They have been taking less than half of that, so we can expect that impacts on the aquifer and traffic will more than double when they take the maximum amounts. Why wasn’t increased production or climate change factored into a Nestle-provided report which determined their operation here “sustainable?”
Fortunately, Colorado water law requires Nestle to augment the water they extract. But does the replacement water, which comes from reservoirs and is released into the Arkansas River, mitigate all that is lost from the aquifer where Nestle’s wells are located? And although the replacement water is deemed drinkable, is it the same quality as the “spring water” that Nestle sucks and trucks out of the Upper Arkansas River Valley?
6. Lack of transparency
Nestle, a Swiss company with a global reputation of humanitarian and environmental abuses, self-monitors and self-reports with little review by Chaffee County professionals. And Nestle has requested to do even less monitoring (technical revision #12).
Nestle spells out in their request for renewal that they wish to quickly renew their permit as-is and will request revisions later (when not under the scrutiny of a public hearing).
Why isn’t a vetted third-party (one not of Nestle’s choosing but paid for by Nestle) providing oversight?
7. Lack of local employment
Nestle failed to meet the permit requirement to hire at least 50% percent of their truck drivers from Chaffee County, despite relocating some drivers here. The company employed only 5 in 2019. The county expected far more local residents could be hired and those economic benefits were a factor when approving Nestle’s permit in 2009. How will the difference between the economic benefit that was expected and the economic reality be recovered?
Back to point #1, Do benefits accruing county and citizens outweigh the losses? Is Nestle’s operation needed here?
Nestle-Jacobson Boundary Line Adjustment
Jim Aragon (CPW) letter of support of boundary line adjustment
Jim Wilson Letter of support of boundary line adjustment
Karen Dils Letter of support of boundary line adjustment
Trout Unlimited Letter of support of Boundary Line Adjustment