Water Education Foundation
This is just one post in the Bottled water Category
Click here to view all posts

Residents of McCloud fight Nestle on proposed water bottling plant

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on November 19, 2007 at 10:52 pm

New Economic Report Released: Potential Impacts Drive Residents to Stand Up to Nestle to Protect Long-Term Economy, Environment

McCloud, CA –A nationwide storm is brewing over Nestlé’s proposed largest-ever US water bottling plant, slated for the pristine Mt. Shasta region of California. The proposed 1,000,000 square-foot plant has emerged as a rallying point for Americans concerned about the growing environmental impact of the water bottling industry. Many expect the plant to damage surrounding ecosystems and hurt the economy. Now, a number of economic factors indicate that Nestlé has been acting in bad faith in its dealings with McCloud. Residents of this small California town are pushing back and urging local decision-makers to reconsider the agreement.

An economics report released today shows that Nestlé is set to severely under-compensate local residents for the value of their pristine mountain spring water. The current contract between the corporation and the local McCloud Community Services District (MCSD) states that Nestlé will pay only $26.40 per acre-foot for McCloud’s spring water, while past studies of water transactions have found average lease rates for water in California in 2004 dollars of approximately $80 per acre-foot. Water values are expected to climb in coming years with projected population growth.

“The proposed Nestlé plant would be the largest water bottling plant in the United States and Nestle has not yet committed to adequate environmental impact studies,” said Brian Stranko, CEO of fishing and water-quality advocacy group California Trout. “It’s just plain irresponsible to agree to build a facility of this size before a full environmental review has been conducted to ensure no harm will be done to the environment.”

Environmental and economic concerns about the potential impacts of the plant on the area are intertwined. The Nestlé project would reduce water flows to the region’s rivers that support fishing and tourism, including McCloud River Falls, Squaw Valley Creek, Soda Springs, Big Springs, Muir Springs and Mud Creek, all of which are an integral part of the region’s future economic potential. The lava tube hydrology of McCloud’s aquifer makes Nestlé’s plan to drill bore holes high risk; such activity could leave t he entire community of McCloud with a loss of wells and springs below any bore hole intake.

A dedicated group of McCloud’s residents and business owners have united under the auspices of the McCloud Watershed Council to pressure decision-makers to reconsider the unfair agreement that tentatively stands between Nestlé and the MCSD. A recent California State appellate court ruling indicates that the MCSD may change the terms of – or even terminate – the contract once California Environmental Quality Act review has been completed.

The new report analyzes the long-term economic impact of the proposed plant in McCloud and shows that the facility is unlikely to create a significant net gain of long-term, permanent jobs for residents. The report was prepared by Eugene, Oregon-based ECONorthwest, a firm with 30 years experience specializing in economic and financial analysis of public policy, on behalf of the McCloud Watershed Council.

The proposed contract between Nestlé and the MCSD creates a number of risks for the people of McCloud and Siskiyou County,” said report author Kristin Lee of ECONorthwest. “We looked to other communities with water bottling plants for examples of the local impacts that could materialize in McCloud. The bottom line is that these plants do not appear to be strong engines for local economic growth. The plants do create some jobs, but from what we can tell, most of these jobs are production positions with relatively low wages. Moreover, much of what makes McCloud appealing to retirees, tourists, and entrepreneurs is likely to be lost through the location of a bottling plant in the area.”

The Nestlé facility would drastically increase traffic on local roads and could have a devastating effect on fishing and other outdoor recreation, all of which would diminish McCloud’s appeal as a tourist destination. Tourism currently accounts for much of the local industry.

“Nestlé has worked hard to create the illusion that McCloud residents are desperate for the economic boost the plant would supposedly provide,” commented Sid Johnson, McCloud Watershed Council board member and long-time McCloud resident. “But they’re not saying anything about what will be lost if the plant comes to town. This is a bad deal for McCloud.”

The report examines Nestlé’s proposed water usage in relation to predicted population growth for California, including in Siskiyou and Shasta Counties, as well as likely changes in precipitation patterns projected by scientists studying global climate change trends. It cautions McCloud against entering a contract that could severely reduce flexibility over water-use decisions for the next 100 years in the face of so much uncertainty regarding water demand and availability in the decades to come.

The full ECONorthwest report is available to the public online at http://www.protectourwaters.org/ECONRpt.pdf. To visit the McCloud Watershed Council website go to http://www.mccloudwatershedcouncil.org/nestle/index.html.

November 19, 2007 · Filed Under Bottled water

Comments

Leave a Reply