The Nestle Story I Didn’t Want to Write
By Tom Chandler on May 11, 2007 in Environment, News
I’ve been putting this story off for a couple days, but I can’t any longer. Here it is (from the Mount Shasta Herald):
Without comment, the California Supreme Court declined to review a January 2007 Third Appellate Court decision that reinstated the contract between Nestle and the McCloud Community Services District for Nestle to build a water bottling plant on the outskirts of the town.
The Appellate Court decision overturned a 2005 ruling by Siskiyou County Superior Court judge Roger Kosel who found the contract had violated CEQA in that a CEQA review should have been completed prior to an agreement with Nestle.
The Environmental Impact Process is still underway, and there are significant questions about the draft EIR document. It offers little analysis of the downstream impacts of the water withdrawals (make those “unlimited” groundwater withdrawals), and Nestle’s not making any guarantees.
Hurdles remain for Nestle, but the larger contract barriers no long remain.
It’s a sad day.
Nestle waltzed in and absolutely stole that water. A portion of McCloud’s population is happy to sell its soul to Nestle, but nobody ever thought they’d sell it so cheaply.
Nestle’s made literally billions preying on small, rural communities, sucking up natural resources and promising jobs which never quite appear in the quantities suggested.
I recently spoke to a resident who was at the meeting where the McCloud Services district approved the Nestle contract, and a more bizarre sequence of events would be hard to imagine.
My contact heard about the negotiations with Nestle (there had been little public discussion), but little information was available, and draft versions of the contract weren’t available to the public until as little as 48 hours prior to the meeting.
Even with the short notice, a group of concerned citizens showed up at the meeting with a list of concerns and questions (including my contact). Sadly, their questions were met with incomplete answers, no answers, our even outright refusals to answer.
Questions about the fees for the project (the price paid to McCloud doesn’t rise a penny over the 100 year lease), truck traffic and other impacts on the town weren’t answered.
Most in the audience figured the services council would review the questions and call another meeting in 30 days, but instead — in front of a stunned audience — they simply voted to accept the contract without any further public review.
Which set in motion the series of events that lead us to this day.
Of course, nothing’s truly finished, and the Concerned McCloud Citizens group remained defiant:
Diane Lowe of Concerned McCloud Citizens says the group will not give up it opposition to the plant and said the organization is also moving ahead with the EIR process.
“Nothing has changed for McCloud. The issues involved in selling this excessive amount of spring water for Nestlé’s water mining and distribution center continues within the EIR processes,” Lowe said. “The court has determined this a contingent, ‘tentative agreement’ within a definite time frame, for completion of these processes.”
“We now know that on the night of September 29 2003, when the McCloud Community Services District Board of Directors approved the contract with Nestle, that the board did not have available to them the necessary and fundamental information for the approval of an agreement to sell water to Nestle,” Lowe said.
“After three an a half years, an ever growing number of people, including the new MCSD board of directors in McCloud, are beginning to learn even more the magnitude of effects of this unprecedented, gargantuan and encompassing scheme.”
Who Else is Fighting Nestle?
The battle against Nestle continues to roll on in other locations, most notably Maine, Michigan and Florida.
Questions about bottled water continue to arise, and in many cases — including this story from CNN Money — it appears that bottled water is no longer cool.
And this story from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer outlines the energy and environmental costs of bottled water, capping their story with this memorable line:
Gleick offered a simple way to visualize the average energy cost to make the plastic, process and fill the bottle, transport bottled water to market and then deal with the waste:
“It would be like filling up a quarter of every bottle with oil.”
In Maine, Underground Commenter Jessica is waiting for the Maine Supreme Court’s decision surrounding Nestle’s suit against the people of the small towns of Fryeburg and Denmark, including a rather comical YouTube video of Nestle’s attorney arguing that Nestle’s market share is more important than the locals right to say “no.”
The Future.
This isn’t over. Nestle still has plenty of hurdles to overcome, and the nightmare of the EIR remains.
Still, they stand to benefit so much from McCloud’s beyond-sweetheart deal that they’ll bring to bear whatever resources are needed to preserve it.
As always, more news as it happens.
Technorati Tags: nestle, mccloud, water, bottled water, corporate sleazebags
Kevin | May 11, 2007 | Reply
MSNBC carried a story on the fight today, but I missed it and it is somehow not available online.
Tom Chandler | May 11, 2007 | Reply
I found the story summary, but not the broadcast. I know it was slated to air several more times.
Michael M. Chandler | May 12, 2007 | Reply
Two things strike me. I’m sure that someone’s thought of them already, but …….
1. The Hearst family must be concerned about the future of the McCloud River throught their property. They’ve got the resources to help stop this…….
2. There’s a small trout that lives in this basin, and apparently no where else. Is it endangered? I’m talking about the Sheepheaven Creek Redband trout that I believe only exists in Sheephaven Creek. Surely it’ll be impacted. Dr. Behnke told me about it some years back and my memory of the conversation is that’s the only area they’re to be found in.
As I said before, I’m sure these are old ideas, but if not, hope they help.
Michael M. Chandler
South Lake Tahoe
Heddon17 | May 12, 2007 | Reply
That’s a good point Re: The Hearst Family and their property on the McCloud River. I’d sure as hell be concerned.
Anyone who buys bottled water must not realize that they are basically throwing money away because if you have one of those plastic jugs with the water filter (Brita, etc.) that you fill with tap water, that water will be every bit as good as any bottled water and probably even better from a health standpoint.
And the water is absolutely FREE. Yes you do have to buy the filters and replace them every few months but if you reuse old water bottles the cost of refilling them with filtered water each time is probably just a few pennies. Compare that with spending $1.50 or more each time for bottled water.
You also re-use the bottles which keeps them out of landfills. One major problem with bottled water is that a lot of the bottles are not listed as CRV so they end up in landfills.
Brian
Bernard | May 12, 2007 | Reply
There’s a great Kurasawa film called Dersu Uzala where a Russian officer on a surveying assignemnt befriends a mountain man. As the mountain man ages, the officer tries to take him into his household back in the city. One day a man appears at the door with bottles of water (sort of like the milkman) and Dersu, always relying on mothe rnature for everything barks out “What you are selling WATER? You are a baaaaaad man!”.
Tom Chandler | May 12, 2007 | Reply
Michael: I think the Redband you refer to resides above the Nestle plant location. It’s a shame someone couldn’t go shock up a bull trout below the Nestle diversion — a fish thought to be extinct in the drainage since the 1980s…
Brian: So true. I’ve avoided getting into the whole bottled water vs tap water debate because this isn’t an environmental blog (wish I had time to write one), but people should remember that tap water has to meet pretty strict standards, yet bottled water doesn’t.
Here are a couple interesting quotes from an excellent article on the subject:
Jessica | May 13, 2007 | Reply
Just as in McCloud, the process has been hijacked from the people at every level of government. Here are some You Tube links to local meetings where the people are questioning the process and Nestle’s involvement.
The first is a planning board meeting in January where they are discussing a new water ordinance and well head protection area that reflected little input from the general citizenry. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpT_FE7165c
The second it the presentation at town meeting of the ordinance being discussed in January. You will note that the “sponsor” of the bill is the chair of the planning board, and a former lobbyist for the trucking industry who now lives in town. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McqGt5flcS4
Tom Chandler | May 13, 2007 | Reply
Jessica: The loss of citizen control (via one or two key pro-Nestle local citizens) seems to be a recurring feature of Nestle’s dealings with small towns.
Of course, Nestle always puts an operative on the ground long before most residents even become aware what’s going on.
In McCloud’s case, he had the chance to grease a few palms, make sure key members of the Services district were on board, and scoped out the potential competition.
He was also instrumental in helping the company’s lawyers issue subpoenas demanding access to the financial records of anti-Nestle activists in what can only be described as a wholesale attempt at intimidation.
Tom Chandler | May 13, 2007 | Reply
A short segment of the NBC video on the McCloud water wars is available here on the MSNBC Web site (look to the right hand column, click on the McCloud story, and it will load in the media player above the sidebar).
At least I hope it’s only a teaser — otherwise it’s woefully short coverage… 8-)
Jessica | May 13, 2007 | Reply
Thanks for the MSNBC link.. At least SOME media is talking about the struggle.. Maybe not enough discussion, but at least some..
Kevin | May 14, 2007 | Reply
Tom-
Where the finances of groups subpoenaed, or was it the finances of individuals?
Tom Chandler | May 14, 2007 | Reply
They subpoenaed the financial records of individuals in an attempt to find out who might have financially supported which anti-Nestle group.
Essentially, after winning the lawsuit (the first time) that set aside the Nestle contract, the group sued Nestle to recover court costs, which Nestle didn’t much like.
They retaliated by trying to gain access to the personal financial records of individuals, ostensibly to expose the ties between organizations, but the true intent was to simply intimidate those individuals and any others who might decide to oppose Nestle.
Nice, humane touch from a multinational with the legal firepower of a mid-sized country…
Kevin | May 14, 2007 | Reply
Wow. The utter lack of ethics is shocking, but I suppose it shouldn’t be when we consider the source.
Jessica | May 14, 2007 | Reply
“utter lack of ethics”…. In Maine, Nestle requested a ruling from the Attorney General to have “blockers” at the polls in 2004 in opposition to the citizen’s referendum initiative. More information can be found at http://www.waterdividendtrust.com. Not only did Nestle get their way, they requested to be next to those volunteers who were at the polls collecting signatures. One volunteer who had taken her son to the polls (as he was home schooled, and she though it would be a good civics lesson), left the polls in tears as a result of Nestle’s Poland Spring employees intimidation. It was not a pretty site…
Oh, and did I mention, that was the first time blockers were allowed at the polls in the almost 100 year history of citizen referendums in Maine???
Aaron | May 17, 2007 | Reply
Hey, want to see what happens at the local level in western Maine? Check out the videos on You Tube directed by defendourwater, http://www.youtube.com/defendourwater. It seems more videos are being loaded by the day about the water situation there, not just the one you referenced in the above posting.
Tom Chandler | May 17, 2007 | Reply
I’m very frustrated over the whole Nestle thing right now — especially after the local Economic Development Director wrote a fawning, “Let’s praise Nestle” letter to the paper.
As if giving away McCloud’s water (and the safety of the children on its streets who will be facing all that truck traffic) for a pittance is somehow a good thing.
It’s good for Nestle, but not so much for McCloud.
It’s interesting how Nestle continues to frame all this in a “if you’re not with us, you’re against economic development and jobs” argument in the public eye, but steadfastly try to maintain their right to take all the water they can consume on the legal front.
Corporate economic development isn’t automatically an evil thing, but in many cases their terms are so rapacious (the McCloud deal is horrifyingly bad) and their ability to litigate/buy influence/initimdate any opposition into the ground is truly awe inspiring.
Terry Ruiz | May 28, 2007 | Reply
McCloud I hope you are viewing this comments. When will some people learn. WAKE UP PEOPLE. Corporations NEVER do anything to benefit the people. Only themselves. Profits and make themselves look concerning people with feelings. You better think again. They throw you a few bread crumbs and give them a speach on how great and wonderful things will be and how they are going to benefit. When you have honest concerns about how things are going to change and be impacted they NEVER give you a straight answer. They dance around the questions. Look at the big oil companies. They are making billions of dollars in profit and this is not a combination of companies, it is one company. CEO’s pockets are bulging. All they have to do is say, because of the weather, holiday, summer vacations they are having to raise prices but after those periods have passed do you ever see the prices go down? Always an excuse and no one ever really objects. Months ago the companyies said they were hoping to get the price of gas to a minimum of 4.75/gal. and guess what, it will happen. Result? More people on welfare and foodstamps so they can afford the gas or they will quite their jobs altogether to qualify for assistance. Well McCloud, I hope you pull every little stop you can think of to make Nestles pay for what they want and pay on your terms not theirs. They have the money to pay for it and if they want it they will pay. And yes they will use every tactic they can but I hope ya’ll dig your heals in and make them pay based on your terms. BUSINESS IS BUSINESS. They are not trying to be your best friend. Remember you have what they want not the other way around. Look at the health, environmental, waste, damage, long term effects that they can bring to your town and don’t give up. It really makes me made when I hear of large company’s coming in and telling you a bunch of trash making things look wonderful and cheating people. It just burns me up. The money I heard them offering each year is like a slap in the face to a person’s intelligence compared to what the profits the company IS going to make. Why don’t they just hand you a penny and tell you and your next generations to live off that for the next hundred years. Stick to your guns. Remember your terms or nothing. They are not the only company out there that would like what Nestles wants. I think this needs to be publized more. Ya’ll need to push other media to air this situation.