10-27-2006, 10:01 PM
[font "Poor Richard"][green][size 3]A report from Trout Unlimited [/size][/green][/font] [font "Poor Richard"][green][size 3][
]Nestle Moves Forward[/size][/green][/font]
[font "Poor Richard"][green][size 3]As reported three issues ago (see SKL, Fall 2005), Nestle Waters North America signed a contract with the McCloud Community Services District to bottle the area’s water in an enormous plant the Swiss giant wants to build in the town of McCloud. The original agreement, however, was struck down by a Superior Court judge due to the lack of an Environmental Impact Report. As part of the California Environmental Quality Act, Siskiyou County, as the lead regulatory agency, has recently prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Report) for the proposed water bottling plant. [/size][/green][/font]
[font "Poor Richard"][green][size 3]Intergral to the CEQA process is the opportunity for public comment. Siskiyou County received over 3,000 emails and hundreds of written responses to the project. California Trout and Trout Unlimited jointly prepared comments on the Report. In short, we think the document is extremely deficient in the necessary information needed to adequately determine impacts to such a large project. We are also concerned about contradictory evidence regarding how much water Nestle proposes to use per year over the course of the 100-year agreement.[/size][/green][/font] [font "Poor Richard"][green][size 3]Full Disclosure[/size][/green][/font]
[font "Poor Richard"][green][size 3]Before the project moves forward, it’s crucial that we have all the facts about the size and scope of the project. But the Report still leaves it unclear. It states that “not withstanding any provisions to the contrary in the agreement any groundwater extracted from wells on the proposed site for use by the bottling facility will be included in the 1,600 acre-feet volume limitation.” This would seem to be contrary to the agreement which allows 1,600 feet of spring water a year and allows groundwater pumping, which is qualified in the contract as non-spring water. The Report looks to the Agreement and the Agreement suggests that more water would be used. [/size][/green][/font]
[font "Poor Richard"][green][size 3]The Report also states that the proposed facility “may be used to bottle spring water from other sources”. This implies that the capacity of the plant is greater than 1,600 acre feet, an implication supported by the contract which allows for additional purchases of water above and beyond 1,600 acre-feet. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a clear description of such a project as well as an analysis of reasonably foreseeable impacts. Full capacity must be disclosed.[/size][/green][/font]
[font "Poor Richard"][size 3][green]As described in the Agreement, it appears likely that Nestle intends to utilize unregulated groundwater and truck in bulk water from other springs. The District, therefore, has an obligation to analyze these potential impacts. [/green][/size][/font]
[signature]
]Nestle Moves Forward[/size][/green][/font] [font "Poor Richard"][green][size 3]As reported three issues ago (see SKL, Fall 2005), Nestle Waters North America signed a contract with the McCloud Community Services District to bottle the area’s water in an enormous plant the Swiss giant wants to build in the town of McCloud. The original agreement, however, was struck down by a Superior Court judge due to the lack of an Environmental Impact Report. As part of the California Environmental Quality Act, Siskiyou County, as the lead regulatory agency, has recently prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Report) for the proposed water bottling plant. [/size][/green][/font]
[font "Poor Richard"][green][size 3]Intergral to the CEQA process is the opportunity for public comment. Siskiyou County received over 3,000 emails and hundreds of written responses to the project. California Trout and Trout Unlimited jointly prepared comments on the Report. In short, we think the document is extremely deficient in the necessary information needed to adequately determine impacts to such a large project. We are also concerned about contradictory evidence regarding how much water Nestle proposes to use per year over the course of the 100-year agreement.[/size][/green][/font] [font "Poor Richard"][green][size 3]Full Disclosure[/size][/green][/font]
[font "Poor Richard"][green][size 3]Before the project moves forward, it’s crucial that we have all the facts about the size and scope of the project. But the Report still leaves it unclear. It states that “not withstanding any provisions to the contrary in the agreement any groundwater extracted from wells on the proposed site for use by the bottling facility will be included in the 1,600 acre-feet volume limitation.” This would seem to be contrary to the agreement which allows 1,600 feet of spring water a year and allows groundwater pumping, which is qualified in the contract as non-spring water. The Report looks to the Agreement and the Agreement suggests that more water would be used. [/size][/green][/font]
[font "Poor Richard"][green][size 3]The Report also states that the proposed facility “may be used to bottle spring water from other sources”. This implies that the capacity of the plant is greater than 1,600 acre feet, an implication supported by the contract which allows for additional purchases of water above and beyond 1,600 acre-feet. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a clear description of such a project as well as an analysis of reasonably foreseeable impacts. Full capacity must be disclosed.[/size][/green][/font]
[font "Poor Richard"][size 3][green]As described in the Agreement, it appears likely that Nestle intends to utilize unregulated groundwater and truck in bulk water from other springs. The District, therefore, has an obligation to analyze these potential impacts. [/green][/size][/font]
[signature]