One issue capturing a lot of attention in our fair valley at the moment is the proposal by Nestle Waters to drill wells to tap into some underground springs on the Arkansas River, and truck the water to a bottling plant in Denver. Nestle has been working towards this end for several years, purchasing land conducting hydrological studies and canvassing local opinion to find the best way to undertake the project while ruffling the minimum of feathers.
On the surface, it would seem the proposal is relatively benign, with a minimum net impact on Chaffee County’s water resources. Nestle are at pains to point out that the amount of water they will be removing from the river flow equates to 0.3 cfs. [ cubic feet per second ]. To put this in perspective, even at low flows, the Arkansas River flows at around 250 cfs. Furthermore, Colorado water law is built around the premise of ‘non injury.’ That means that any removal or diversion of water from a stream can have no negative impact on downstream users. Consequently, Nestle must replace the 0.3 cfs with water augmented from elsewhere, to ensure there will be no net loss to the river flow. The project will be low impact visually, with the water being piped underground five miles from the well sites to Johnson Village, where it will be trucked to Denver. Furthermore, one of the extraction sites is at an old trout hatchery along the banks of the Arkansas. Nestle intends to remove the old concrete trout ponds, and return the land to its natural wetland state. Currently, Nestle trucks spring water to its Denver bottling plant from California, so the proposed operation will save them some five million road miles per year, thereby significantly reducing their carbon footprint.
Opponents point out that there are several very good reasons, both local and global, to oppose the project. On the global front is the whole issue of the privatization of global water supplies. Less than eight percent of the world’s fresh water is potable, and each year sees more and more coming into the ownership of multinational corporations, and many fear seeing water as becoming the oil of the 21st century. Added to this are the environmental impacts of the production , consumption and disposal of the 1,733,333 12 ounce plastic bottles per day that the springs will produce for Nestle. Then there is the question of whether it is wise , given the long term projections for the West’s water supplies, for communities such as ours to be selling any water at all for corporate betterment.
Nestle is currently involved in several other contentious projects, noticeably in McCloud, California, Fryeburg, Maine and Ice Mountain, Michigan. Currently Nestle owns the rights to approximately 50 freshwater springs throughout North America, and as our insatiable, and often unjustifiable thirst for bottled water continues, so too will the demand for the rights to more and more of our fresh water sources. Once an agreement is in place, it will be very hard to overturn. Once a tree is cut down, it cannot be raised. It would seem that the citizens and officials of Chaffee County should proceed with caution.









