Unbottle and Protect Chaffee County Water
Stand Together
In opposition to the renewal of the Nestle Waters permit
Click to Rally with us!
Watch the March 18th Rally on YouTube
Unbottle and Protect Chaffee County gave a final presentation and commissioners heard final public comment at the meeting on June 1st, 2021. See the video here: https://chaffeecoco.civicclerk.com/Web/Player.aspx?id=451&key=-1&mod=-1&mk=-1&nov=0
(starting about 4:22:30 followed by Q&A and public comments).
You can 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.
Commissioners voted 2 to 1 to approve a permit for Blue Triton. Thanks to Keith Baker for his dissenting vote.
Our work is unfinished and we will persist as a watchdog organization.
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 2021
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)
BlueTriton’s 2021 extension permit
Applicable 1041 regulations (9-303 page 9)
Applicable 1041 regulations (3-303 page 43)
Request for 1041 permit renewal
Chaffee County Staff report Oct 2020
Nestle lawyer’s letter against staff findings of standards not being met (2020)
Chaffee County Summary of Compliance 2020
Technical revision 12 (not yet approved)
Recent articles/letters regarding Nestle in Chaffee County
Company Bottling Water In Chaffee County Met With Strong Opposition – CBS4 Denver (July 21, 2020)
Permit approved on a two to one vote (July 7, 2021)
Final public comments heard (June 2, 2021)
The Problem with Nestle – Colorado Central Magazine (June 2021)
Proclamation to deny Nestle Permit (May 10, 2021)
Hearing addresses Nestlé changes; Commissioners hear public comments (May 6, 2021)
Commissioners to discuss Nestle name change to BlueTriton at April 20 meeting (April 14, 2021)
Online Rally opposing Nestle (March 19, 2021)
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)
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
2020 Annual Report (w our notes)
County Staff Reviews of Annual Reports
2010 Annual Report Staff Report Review
2011 Annual Report Staff Report Review
2012 Annual Report Staff Report Review
2013 Annual Report Staff Report Review
2014 2015 & 2016 Annual Report Staff Report Review
2017 Annual Report Staff Report Review
2018 and 2019 staff reviews of annual reports not done!
2019 Staff report regarding extension request
2009-2019 Staff review of ten-year permit compliance
Nestle’s rebuttal of staff review of ten-year permit compliance
2020 staff review of annual report not done!
Presentation of Nestle’s (BlueTriton Brands) Economic Analysis
Harvey Economics (County’s) economic analysis
Presentation of Harvey Economics analysis
2009 economic analysis and reviews
2020 County hydrology consultant (Wheeler) Report based on Nestle-provided data
2020 Nestle-provided sustainability report – notice footnote
Final 2009 ecology report after Prof. Hagen influence
Draft 2009 ecology report before Prof. Hagen influence
Conservation Easement Baseline report (missing exhibit e)
No Ruby Mountain Springs monitoring report for 2020
2019 Ruby Mountain Spring Monitoring Report
2018 Ruby Mountain Springs Monitoring Report
2017 Ruby Mountain Springs Monitoring Report
2016 Ruby Mountain Springs Monitoring Report
2015 Ruby Mountain Springs Monitoring Report (see pages 56-98)
2014 Ruby Mountain Springs Monitoring Report
2013 Ruby Mountain Springs Monitoring Report
No Ruby Mountain Springs monitoring report for 2009-2012
Bighorn Springs Land Mgmt Plan:
2010 Big Horn Springs Monitoring Report
2011 Big Horn Springs Monitoring report (see pages 167-194)
2012 Big Horn Springs Monitoring Report (see pages 163-192)
2013 Big Horn Springs Monitoring Report
2014 Big Horn Springs Monitoring Report
2015 Big Horn Springs Monitoring Report
2016 Big Horn Springs Monitoring Report
2017 Big Horn Springs Monitoring Report
2018 Big Horn Springs Monitoring Report
2019 Big Horn Springs Monitoring Report
No Big Horn Springs monitoring report for 2020
2010 Grazing Management Plan (see letter on page 32-33)
2012 Grazing Management Plan (see pages 27-54)
2013 Grazing Management Plan (see pages 29-47)
2014 Grazing Management Plan (see pages 32-50)
2015 Grazing Management Plan (see pages 30-50)
2016 Grazing Management Plan (see pages 30-54)
2017 Grazing Management Plan (see pages 28-40)
2018 Grazing Management Plan (see pages 25-52)
2019 Grazing Management Plan (see pages 23-53)
2020 Grazing Management Plan (see letters on page 23 and page 58)
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?”
Colorado water law requires Nestle to augment the water they extract. But does the “replacement” water, which comes from the drought-stricken Colorado River watershed, that 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).
For this extension request, the county has hired a hydrologist to review Nestle-provided data and an economist, but not an ecologist. The company recently sold to private equity companies and will be operating under a new name – Blue Triton.
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?