Posted by sunshower - Fri, Sep 5, 2008, 7:08 P

Putting a cap on the bottled water industry

Posted by Galadriel - Fri, Apr 25, 2008, 12:52 P

Nestle & the Wekepeke - deal is rejected

From the Times & Courier of Lancaster & Clinton:

Selectmen reject Nestlé, but want Wekepeke options open
By Michael Ballway
Wed Apr 16, 2008, 04:37 PM EDT

Clinton - Wekepeke water may be good enough to bottle, but selectmen last week worried tapping the backup reservoir would uncork an expensive legal battle.

“I probably don’t think the risk-reward tradeoff is there, due to possible litigation and the amount of money to be had in the deal,” said Selectman Joseph Notaro Jr.

Notaro referred to grassroots opposition to the deal in Sterling, where the reservoirs are located on 560 acres of land owned by Clinton, and recent correspondence from Sterling attorney James Gettens, who said he would mount a legal campaign to have commercial use of groundwater in his town deemed illegal.

Clinton selectmen, some of whom had adamantly defended the board’s decision to pursue a deal with Nestlé Waters North America, unanimously agreed to end discussions with the Swiss foodmaker at their April 9 meeting. Selectmen also voted to ask the town solicitor to investigate Clinton’s rights to the Wekepeke land, surface water and ground water.

Selectman Kevin Haley made the motion to end discussions with Nestlé, but said he didn’t want to stop discussing Wekepeke.

“I’d rather look at different options for the Wekepeke and fixing the dams,” Haley said. “I’d like to see, also, what are our rights to selling the land?”

Clinton acquired the Wekepeke lands in the 1880s, to use as a water supply for the town. State legislation authorized the town to dam spring-fed Wekepeke Brook and pipe the reservoir water through Sterling to Clinton. Following construction of the Wachusett Reservoir, Clinton stopped using Wekepeke water for its municipal supply. Some believe the pipes from Wekepeke were broken when Interstate 190 was built.

Nestlé approached Clinton last year, offering to pump water from the aquifer beneath Wekepeke in exchange for a payment to the town. When Nestlé’s bid was opened last month, however, selectmen were surprised at how low the payment was — about $300,000 per year.

In February 2007, Public Works Superintendent Christopher McGown had estimated it would cost more than $1 million to make state-mandated repairs to the dams at Wekepeke. He said at the time that Clinton might face a property tax or water rate hike if it could not find some other funding source.

Selectman Anthony Fiorentino reminded his colleagues last week of the need to repair the dams.

“We looked into the Wekepeke deal because of the condition of the dams,” Fiorentino said. “The solution we have on the table is somewhat overengineered for that problem.”

When news of Nestlé’s interest was publicized, many of Wekepeke’s neighbors in northern Sterling organized a citizen group to oppose the deal, fearing commercial pumping would hurt wildlife and private wells, in addition to bringing truck traffic to town. Opponents said Clinton and its potential tenants have no right to groundwater, only surface water — the reservoirs held back by the Wekepeke dams.

Selectmen last week said they would seek to clarify that point.
“I believe Clinton has the right to use the land and resources it has in Sterling,” said Notaro. “These are questions that obviously need to be answered. I want to know exactly what can be done with that land.”

(Michael Ballway can be reached at 978-375-8040 or mballway@cnc.com.)
 

Posted by Galadriel - Tue, Mar 18, 2008, 2:17 P

Nestle & the Wekepeke

Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Sterling to meet on Wekepeke controversy

By Jean Laquidara Hill TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF

STERLING— Selectmen are expecting many questions and are preparing answers for tonight’s forum on the use of Wekepeke water.

The forum will be held at 7 p.m. at Chocksett Middle School.

Whether the town of Clinton has the right to sell the water to Nestlé Waters, or to any other private company, is the crux of the matter.


Clinton, which owns Wekepeke reservoirs in Sterling and hundreds of acres around the reservoirs, has issued a request-for-proposals to sell water from the reservoirs to a private, for-profit company.

A legislative act in the late 1800s allowed the acreage and reservoirs to be transferred to Clinton as a water supply for its residents. The Wachusett Reservoir later replaced the Wekepeke as a public water source for Clinton, which has not used the Wekepeke for decades.

Nestlé Waters, a water-bottling operation, has indicated it will submit a proposal to buy Wekepeke water from Clinton and has conducted tests confirming the reservoirs would provide adequate water.

Sterling selectmen have asked Clinton selectmen to meet and discuss the concept, but Clinton selectmen have not agreed to meet yet. They have indicated they would meet with Sterling selectmen after the board receives requests-for-proposals, according to Sterling Selectman Richard A. Sheppard.

Mr. Sheppard said yesterday that the Committee for Informed Citizens, which opposes the selling of Sterling water, has submitted questions about the selectmen’s position and the legality of the proposal.

He said the questions were referred to special counsel Mark Bobrowski of Concord, who specializes in land use issues and will be at the meeting.
 

Posted by DonOgden - Fri, Feb 29, 2008, 5:12 P

"Coming Battle for the Right to Water"; 3/3/08

Smith College Department of Sociology, the Environmental Science and Policy Program,
Grassroots International, and the Jamaica Plain Forum present:

Renowned international water activist Maude Barlow
who will discuss her new book, "Blue Covenant: The Global Water Crisis and the Coming Battle for the Right to Water"

When:

Monday, March 3, 2008 (Northampton)
4:30 pm

Where:

Seelye Building Room 106
Smith College
Northampton, MA

Author Maude Barlow will sign and discuss Blue Covenant: The Global Water Crisis and the Coming Battle for the Right to Water.

In their international bestseller Blue Gold, Maude Barlow and co-author Tony Clarke exposed how a handful of corporations are gaining ownership and control of the earth’s dwindling water supply, depriving millions of people around the world of access to this most basic of resources and accelerating the onset of a global water crisis. Blue Covenant, the sequel to Blue Gold, describes a powerful response to this trend: the emergence of an international, grassroots-led movement to have water declared a basic human right, something that can’t be bought or sold for profit.

Maude Barlow is the national chairperson of The Council of Canadians, Canada’s largest citizens’ advocacy organization with members and chapters across Canada. Maude Barlow is also the co-founder of the Blue Planet Project which works to stop commodification of the world’s water. She serves on the boards of the International Forum on Globalization and Food and Water Watch and is a councilor with the Hamburg-based World Future Council. In addition to being nominated for the "1000 Women for the Nobel Peace Prize 2005" she is a recipient of the "2005/2006 Lannan Cultural Freedom Fellowship" and the "2005 Right Livelihood Award". She is the best selling author or co-author of 16 books, including Too Close For Comfort: Canada’s Future Within Fortress North America; and Blue Gold: The Fight to Stop Corporate Theft of the World’s Water (with Tony Clarke), now published in 47 countries.


This free event is part of a national tour presented by Food & Water Watch. For more information, contact Erin Greefield at (202) 683-2500, news(at)fwwatch.org.
 

Posted by DonOgden - Thu, Feb 14, 2008, 8:01 A

Nestle eyeing other springs

Can you please let me know each of the [WMass] 14 municipalities on the Nestle PowerPoint presentation?

I can’t really do that since the sites on the Nestle PowerPoint are not named by municipality. All I can tell you is their approximate locations in the state. Also many of the names on the map are illegible (even with a magnifying glass). I’ll do the best I can to decipher them.

Here they are (and their approximate locations). You or others might know exactly where some or all of these are located:

Name of Spring or other water source: Approximate vicinity:

Mill River Spring New Marlborough MA

Berkshire Hatchery Spring New Marlborough MA

Waubeeka Spring Williamstown/New Ashford MA

Sunderland Private Hatchery Spring Sunderland MA

Sunderland Hatchery Spring Sunderland MA

Cronin Hatchery Spring Sunderland MA

_______ Spring Deerfield MA (near the CT River)

Montague Spring Montague (located just to the south of Bitzer Hatchery)

Bitzer Hatchery Spring Montague MA

Cold Spring Bernardston MA

Crystal Spring Orange/Erving/Wendell MA

Hubbardston Spring Hubbardston MA

Potash (sp?) Brook Spring Rutland/Barre MA

Spring Brook Sterling MA

Old Sutton Hatchery , Sutton MA (it’s near Cold Spring Brook, considered to be the best wild trout stream in the Blackstone watershed - and there is already a well in this location operated by the Wilkinsonville Water District).

The map showing these sites was shared at a meeting over [four] months ago. I suspect that Nestle has dropped some sites and added others since then. So there is no way for sure (including asking them directly) where they’re looking. Nestle isn’t the only company in the spring water business, and I wouldn’t be surprised if a competitor isn’t doing some prospecting in Mass. as well.
 

Posted by bugink - Mon, Nov 26, 2007, 5:57 P

What’s tappening?

http://www.tappening.com/
 

Posted by DonOgden - Thu, Nov 8, 2007, 5:45 P

Reminder: Walk the Aquifer Saturday

Saturday, November 10; 1-3pm. Walk the Aquifer: Montague Plains and Blitzer Fish Hatchery. Meet at the parking area on Plains Road off Turners Falls Road. Call (413) 367-2281.
Nestle has allegedly moved on, but the aquifer remains! Check it out.
 

Posted by JeffSingleton - Wed, Oct 17, 2007, 9:22 A

Nestles vs Aquifer? Not!

Mik and GGarrison:

Mik writes: "Just how would Nestle, using state land to bottle aquifer water, be a revenue generator for Montague? "

I was assuming that the bottling plant would be on Montague property, not state land. This would generate property tax revenue. The state would generate revenue for itself by leasing water rights. Of course without a concrete proposal this is all speculation, which is one of my main points.

GGarrison writes. "IMO revenue is only a small part of the [local budget] problem, expenditures are the real issue."

In my opinion, recent history (and the data Frank A and I collected last spring) shows that both inadequate revenues and unsupportable fixed cost increases are the problem. For example for the school district, Chapter 70 school aid increased by only $200,000 last year and has been virtually flat since FY 2001. Capter 70 aid has accounted for 45-50% of school revenues and is simply not adequate by any measure. The other main source of revenue is local property taxes which are essentially capped at approx a 2.5% increase. This amounted to a total proerty tax revenue increase of just over $300,000 for the town operating budget, school assessments, capital projects etc. It really is not in the ballpark even if you reign in your costs.

So you do have a big revenue problem. On the other hand, again to take the school budget, increases for so-called "level services budgets" have been around 7% (And we are under pressure from state policy to increase them by even more). Last year this meant a level services budget increase of around $1 million. Even if state aid were more adequate, this would still be unsupportable by the town.

You have a similar problem on the town side, altough not as extreme because of wage differences and big differences in the role of state aid/mandates.

So I would argue as I have many times that this budget crisis is both a revenue and a spending problem. The solution requires a balance of the two. But which factor you put more emphasis on is to some degree a judgement call, partially related to your sense of political/policy realities. One value of a good study is it gives you some consensus numbers as the basis for debating the options.

I would actually like to see you or MikeN on the oversight committee for this. If not, hopefully there will be a draft and public discussion before a final version comes out so you can have input. I would also advocate a place where people can express written opinions, dissents etc.
 

Posted by mik - Tue, Oct 16, 2007, 6:48 P

Nestles vs Aquifer? Not!

Jeff,

Just how would Nestle, using state land to bottle aquifer water, be a revenue generator for Montague?

Are you counting the jobs and the resulting income taxes as income? Or their excise taxes if they live in Montague?

Mik
 

Posted by GGarrison - Tue, Oct 16, 2007, 4:45 P

NestlesvAquifer? Not!

Quoting Jeff:

"I wonder if those activists who have worked to nix this thing will help us find other revenue sources?"

I doubt it. Most NIMBYs, (and for the record I was anti Nestle), do not consider the revenue just the impact on their (environment, lifestyle, resources, cost...fill in the blank).

IMO revenue is only a small part of the problem, expenditures are the real issue. That is why I am very anxious to see the five year plan that is developed with the 10K. I want to see the expected expenditures over five years as they relate to revenues. I think this will be an eye opener...

As far as our water...you should never mess commercially with a resource as valuable as water. The only other resource as valuable is air. And that should not be used for commercial purposes either.
 

Posted by JeffSingleton - Tue, Oct 16, 2007, 11:00 A

Nestles vs Aquifer? Not!

For those who did not see today’s paper, Nestles vs the Aquifer seems like a dead issue for now. The article in the Recorder is posted below. Nestles clearly did not want to try to jump through all the state-level hoops, particularly since there are other options that do not involve the state. Of course Nestles might be able to go to the town directly without involving the state, but I have my doubts that will happen in the near future.

I wonder if those activists who have worked to nix this thing will help us find other revenue sources?

The article:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Law puts stopper in Nestle plans; Company had considered drawing water from Montague Plains

By ARN ALBERTINI Recorder Staff

Published: Tuesday, October 16, 2007

MONTAGUE -- A state law has clogged up Nestle Waters North America’s plans to explore the Montague Plains as a potential source for it’s bottled spring water.

’It was basically a business decision,’ said Brian Flaherty, director of public affairs for Nestle, on Monday afternoon. ’It got more and more complex as we looked into it.’

Nestle draws water off state land in Maine for Poland Springs water, bringing in a revenue stream for the state and it had hoped to work out a similar arrangement with the Massachusetts Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, which owns 1,500 acres of the plains, he said.

But, the state law governing the use of land owned by the state Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, known as Article 97, made the process more complicated, Flaherty said.

A portion of Article 97 reads, ’Natural resource removal from DFW property will not be allowed unless said removal is clearly in the best interest of wildlife and wildlife habitat.’

The idea of drawing off spring water was new territory for the state and it was unclear whether Nestle would be allowed to take spring water from the land without a vote of the state Legislature, Flaherty said. ’It was a little bit more complex than we originally thought it would be.’

When told of Nestle’s plans to scrap its interest in the Montague Plains, Joanne Sunshower, a member of the Montague Alliance to Protect Our Water, a group that organized to raise concerns about Nestle, said, ’Wow, that’s great. I’m thrilled, completely thrilled.’

The Selectboard in Leverett, where Sunshower lives, sent a letter to the state opposing Nestle’s interest.

Although Nestle isn’t interested in the plains, the group will still be meeting because it wants to work to make the public more aware of the bottled water industry’s impact and it wants to strengthen laws that protect public water, she said. Tonight , the Montague Alliance to Protect our Water will host a forum from 7 to 9 p.m. at the Montague Grange.

On Friday, Nestle’s natural resource manager for the northeast region, Thomas Brennan, sent a letter to Wayne F. MacCallum, director of the state’s Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, letting him know Nestle was suspending its investigation of the plains.

’We think this decision was wise,’ said Robert Keough, spokesman for the state’s Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. ’Based on information presented to us, we can’t see a scenario under which this project would proceed on state conservation land.’

Having gotten permission to walk the site and do preliminary testing in July, Nestle was in the very beginning stages of assessing the water quality and volume, Flaherty said. ’Nothing in the testing pushed the decision (to stop the exploration) one way or the other.’

More definitive information would have come forward once Nestle did more long-term monitoring of quality and volume, had it chosen to continue investigating the plains, he said. ’But, we hadn’t gotten that far yet.’

Although officials had stressed that they were only in the very early stages of exploration, had Nestle decided on the Montague Plains as a source and built a local bottling plant, that plant would have employed 350 to 400, based on how many people work at other Nestle plants.

Opponents of Nestle had said that tapping into the water below the Montague Plains for bottling raises concerns about corporate control of a natural resource and has the potential to drain water sources for towns in the Pioneer Valley.

Concerns raised by citizens weren’t a factor in the decision not to continue exploring the Montague Plains, Flaherty said.

’Everything we do is out in the open. Concerns among people about how we operate is something we’ve seen in other areas of the country and something we address by being in the open as much as we possibly can.’

’The concerns are a terrific way for us to connect with the community.’

Nestle won’t draw water out of a resource if isn’t sustainable and regulations won’t allow it, he said. ’We certainly will not do something that would negatively impact that spring.’

And Nestle wouldn’t have been in control of the water.

’The control of the water would have never been out of the hands of the DFW,’ said Flaherty. ’We’re basically paying the state for the use of the resource.’

In the Northeast, Nestle Waters North America bottles water under the names Poland Springs, based in Maine, and Deer Park, based in Allentown, Pa.
Although it has suspended plans for Montague Plains, Nestle is still looking all over the Northeast for a new source of spring water. The closest site is in Clinton and Sterling, said Flaherty.

’At any different time we’re looking at a dozen different sites. It’s our goal at some point to find a resource and a community in the Northeast that would support the work we do, which is clean, light manufacturing.’

You can reach Arn Albertini at: aalberti@recorder.com or (413) 772-0261 Ext. 264
 

Posted by sunshower - Tue, Oct 9, 2007, 7:41 A

Oct. 16 Added Feature

Kirt Mayland, Director of the Eastern Water Project for Trout Unlimited will be speaking about the need for stronger legal protection of our water resources, and his experiences with the Nestle corporation in trying to protect an aquifer in New York.
 

Posted by sunshower - Mon, Oct 8, 2007, 9:59 A

October 16 Public Information Meeting @ Grange Hall

7:00-9:00pm The Montague Aquifer is a precious water resource for regional towns, farms, forests, wildlife, and the Bitzer Fish Hatchery. Massachusetts laws and policies should protect the aquifer from corporate intrusion. However, the Nestle corporation is moving to gain access to the cold springs that flow from the aquifer. We are concerned because the actions of the Nestle corporation in other U.S. communities have resulted in multiple levels of pollution, loss of water, and failure to deliver promised economic benefits or environmental protections. At the same time, we do need sustainable businesses that will stimulate long term economic benefits for our residents and towns while protecting our natural resources. Please join us-Everyone is welcome.
More info contact Joanne at 259-1129.
 

Posted by mik - Thu, Oct 4, 2007, 5:48 P

Water Privateers go Hand in Hand with Bottled Water Companies

This article below gives us a context for the appearance of Nestle’s appearance in Mass.: it is part of a larger U.S. plan to privatize public water sources.

The article comes from a Canadian watchdog group (Canada has between 20% and 25% of the world’s fresh water sources....and with global warming, and droughts predicted, the profits in private water sales are expected to soar — so Canadians are way ahead of us in the U.S. in anticipating the water privatizers.....Also see Food and Water Watch http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/ for U.S. national watchdog info. They show us the kinds of “loopholes” to look for in “public-private partnerships” to “manage” public resources that take the public out of the partnership!

“The bottled water and private water services industries are already working together to gain more control of this precious resource through the United Nations CEO Water Mandate an initiative by some of the global water giants, Nestlé, Coca Cola and Suez included. “


Go to Shays 2.org and click on our new “Water Resources” section to read up on the Mass bill that would fast track water privatization in our state (aka public-private partnerships).



October 2007 Newsbytes from the
Polaris Institute http://www.polarisinstitute.org/
Retooling Citizens Movement for Democratic Social Change


Water Privateers go Hand in Hand with Bottled Water Companies

On September 4th 2007, Nestlé Waters North America announced that it will further expand its operations in the United States with a new water bottling plant in Greenwood Indiana. The 215,000 square foot plant will produce approximately one million single serve bottles of water per day and source its water from the public water system.

This means that Nestlé will be adding another plant in the US – Nestlé already bottles tap water in Tennessee - that sources its water from municipal taps. While Pepsi (Aquafina) and Coke (Dasani) are the biggest users or municipal tap water as their primary source for bottling operations, Nestlé, which has until now sourced its water from wells or springs, has signaled a move to take water directly from municipal systems.

Nestlé’s choice of location in Greenwood Indiana is significant because the municipal water system is owned and managed by a huge multinational water services company: Indiana American Water, a subsidiary of German services giant RWE.

While this is may not be the first time a large beverage company has sourced its water from a municipal system owned or managed by a multinational private water services company – 15% of US municipal systems are privately run, 5% in Canada – this is the first time Nestlé has strayed from wells or springs and settled in close to a tap.

Aside from the numerous concerns inherent with the bottled water industry there are a number of disturbing issues that arise when bottled water companies purchase water from a private water company that specializes in taking over public water services from cash strapped municipal governments and then running them on a for-profit basis.

The private water company in this case, Indiana American Water, manages water delivery in twenty one Indiana counties for 272,000 customers. Nestlé’s new plant will be located in Johnson County where Indiana American Water provides service to an area encompassing the cities of Greenwood and Franklin, as well as portions of Clark, Needham, Pleasant and White River townships. The company also sells water to municipally owned systems in New Whiteland and Whiteland.

Undermining confidence in public water systems – a competitor in common

Nestlé already plays a central role in undermining the public’s confidence in public utilities by convincing people to drink bottled water through advertising campaigns. Cultivating consumers’ willingness to pay more for a litre of bottled water than they pay for gasoline can help set the stage for public acceptance of privatized water services.

The two industries, after all, share the same competitor – municipal managed tap water systems. When confidence in tap water is diminished through multibillion dollar advertising campaigns and the dependence of bottled water is grows, the likelihood of taxpayers advocating for municipally managed and delivered tap water will disappear. Funding for municipal water systems will decrease and local governments will eventually be forced to privatize when water infrastructure begins to crumble.

This is when the private water services industry can move in and take over municipal systems, placing control of a precious resource in the hands of a few corporations. Bottled water companies occupy an important role in the dangerous play of privatization of public water services.

Rates

Private water services companies have a long track record of taking over struggling municipal systems and then raising rates.
Customers in Johnson County have endured numerous rate hikes by Indiana American Water over the years. Most recently in April 2007, the Indiana American Water filed a request with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission to raise its residential water rates in Johnson County by 18.1 percent. The company said the rate hike, which would amount to about a $4.93 increase per month, would pay for infrastructure investments and increased operating costs. The Commission eventually settled with the company, allowing for a 9.9 percent rate hike.

Due to its track record of rate hikes Indiana American Water has met with resistance in some communities in the County. In 2002, for example, Indiana American Water tried to purchase Whiteland’s water utility. Town Council members turned the company down voting 4-1 not to sell the water utility saying that under Indiana American Water, water rates would have risen by $6 a month.

Nestlé now will be buying its water from Indiana American Water at what will likely be a greatly reduced rate compared to what residential customers pay for their monthly water bill. Regular customers may well be in the position of subsidizing Nestlé’s reduced rate.

In addition, the rate Nestlé will pay for its water from Indiana American Water might never become public due to the fact that this will be a transaction between two corporations that are beholden to shareholders and not regulatory authorities.

This situation may leave Indiana American customers in the community to watch while Nestlé, with revenues of $80.78 billion in 2006, takes water from the community for what is likely a nominal fee and then sell it at thousands of times the price.

Disclosure of water takings

For the same reasons it will be difficult to monitor Nestlé’s water rates, it will be hard for the public to tell how much water the company will be using for its bottling operation. While it will be possible to roughly estimate how much water Nestlé takes by tracking the size of the plant, the number of trucks leaving the plant etc., the level of public scrutiny needed to calculate the environmental impact of the operation will be diminished because both players are powerful corporations.

Great Lakes Compact Loophole

A major environmental issue arising from the proposed plant is its location in the Great Lakes basin and the large amount of water that will be diverted out of the region as bottled water.

The Great Lakes St. Lawrence River basin is ostensibly protected from large water diversions by an agreement signed by the Governors of the eight Great Lakes states along with the Premiers of Ontario and Quebec. Despite the intentions of the agreement a loophole persists that will allow bottled water companies to divert large amounts of water away from the region in little plastic bottles.
Signed in 2005, The Great Lakes St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact sets out how the State governments will manage and protect the Basin. One of the ways the Compact will do this is to control large diversions of water from the region.

In the section dealing with water diversion the compact declares that ‘future diversions and consumptive uses of basin water resources have the potential to significantly impact the environment, economy and welfare of the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River region.”

This strongly worded declaration is later contradicted when the Compact allows the diversion for consumptive use of water provided it is shipped in containers no larger than 5.7 gallons (21.5 litres).

This loophole will help facilitate bulk water transfers out of the Great Lakes Basins in trucks laden with bottled water. The only difference between this and a tanker truck of water are the thousands and thousand of little plastic bottles.

Exporting millions of litres of water from the basin is made possible by this loophole, a loophole that serves the interest of Nestlé and Indiana American Water.

CEO Water Mandate

The bottled water and private water services industries are already working together to gain more control of this precious resource through the United Nations CEO Water Mandate an initiative by some of the global water giants, Nestlé, Coca Cola and Suez included.

The Mandate, a non-binding voluntary agreement between corporations organized through the United Nations Global Compact, pushes for corporate control of water governance structures at all levels of government, civil society and in local communities.

Alarming example

Much like the CEO Water Mandate, Nestlé’s proposed plant in Johnson County represents an alarming example of how private water services corporations and bottled water multinationals are joining ranks to push for greater control and commodification of water resources.


Bottled Water Related Articles



[US] Bottled Water from the Rainforest
October 2, 2007
BusinessWeek

[Canada] CUPE Ontario calls on voters to elect a government that will stop wholesale sell-offs of water, other services to private companies
30 September 2007
Canadian Union of Public Employees

[US, California] Source of water would be clear under new law
September 27, 2007
Los Angeles Times

[US, California] Santa Clara Valley Water District joins wave, promotes use of tap water over bottled
September 27, 2007
San Jose Mercury News

[UK] Bottled water and the madness of crowds
September 25, 2007
Financial Times

[China] Drinking bottled water has environmental price tag
September 16, 2007
South China Morning Post

[Korea] Bottled Water Sales Sparkle
September 9, 2007
Korea Times

[Canada] Election delaying Nestlé decision: activists
September 6, 2007
Guelph Mercury

[US, Indiana] Nestlé’s thirst for growth
September 5, 2007
Indianapolis Star

[US, New York] Nestle faces fight for aquifer for bottled water
September 5, 2007
McClatchy-Tribune Regional News

[Switzerland] Nestle splashes out on Swiss water firm Henniez
September 4, 2007
Reuters

[China] Nestle eyes bottled water buys in China, exec says
September 4, 2007
Reuters

[Australia] Bottled water ‘a waste’
September 1, 2007
Townsville Bulletin

[US] Unbottled thirst
August 31, 2007
Chicago Tribune

[Japan] The market for bottled water is shaping up to be one of the biggest areas of growth in the beverage industry, sparking a price war among the major players
August 21, 2007
The International Herald Tribune

[US] Tap into helping the environment: say goodbye to bottled water
August 20, 2007
The Virginian-Pilot & The Ledger-Star
VP - The Virginian-Pilot

[US] Bottled water awash in a sea of controversy
August 20, 2007
USA Today

[Australia] For every five litres of bottled water you drink, you consume one litre of crude oil. Still thirsty?
August 19, 2007
Sunday Age

[US] Keeping Cool, Clear Tap Water
August 18, 2007
The New York Times

[US] Daley: Tax on bottled water good for budget, environment
August 15, 2007
Chicago Sun-Times

[US] The new public enemy #1: bottled water
August 15, 2007
Agence France Presse

[Latin America] Past Mistakes Haunt Coca-Cola Water Business In Latin America
August 14, 2007
Dow Jones International News

[India] Coke to uncork humane face via ’Drops of Joy’
August 3, 2007
The Economic Times

[Canada] Nestlé one step closer to securing secondary well
August 2, 2007
Guelph Mercury

[US] IBWA Launches Major Media Advertising Campaign; Setting the Record Straight
August 2, 2007
International Bottled Water Association Press Release

[India] Spotlight - All eyes on water market as Indian rumour-mill turns
August 2, 2007
Just-Drinks

[US] In Praise of Tap Water
August 1, 2007
The New York Times

[China] Kick the bottled water habit for a clean city
August 1, 2007
Shanghai Daily
Feel free to distribute or cite this material on the condition the Polaris Institute is appropriately credited.
Encourage friends and family to subscribe to NewsBytes, check out http://www.insidethebottle.org - monthly bytes exposing what’s inside the bottle.
Got a comment? - Let us know what’s on your mind at richard@polarisinstitute.org
_______________________________________________
Water-warriors mailing list
Water-warriors@fwwatch.org
http://lists.fwwatch...tinfo/water-warriors
 

Posted by mhobbes - Fri, Sep 21, 2007, 6:48 A

Catley-Carlson on global water crisis

Margaret Catley-Carlson, chair of the Global Water Partnership, spoke with WFCR’s Kari Njiiri Sept. 20 on the increasing stress on the world’s water supply. She was in the Pioneer Valley to give a talk at Smith and was hosted by Smith’s Project on Women and Social Change, and the local chapter of the Sierra Club. To listen to the interview visit WFCR’s Web site and http://www.publicbro...e&ARTICLE_ID=1151504
 

Posted by sunshower - Sun, Sep 16, 2007, 4:37 P

See Notes & Minutes by clicking Above

For Jeff and anyone else who wants to read documents pertinent to the laws and policies which should prevent any agency from giving Nestle permission to do 18-24 months of testing, let alone set up shop:

Click on the Notes & Minutes page above. Most documents there were posted the week after the Aug. 16th meeting for people to use. Read Article 97, the MAFW policy, the letters full of analysis from Water Supply Citizen’s Advisory Committee and the Town of Leverett. More points can be found in the Sample letter Paul Lipke sent to the MAFW Board, and theTalking Points, on which Doug Stephens, Chair of the Montague Planning Board based his verbal testimony aty the August MAFW Board meeting.

Then I encourage anyone who feels concerned to use the Contact Lists for our legislators and the MAFW Board to let them know by letter or personal contact
that we expect them to abide by he law and the policy, and refuse to allow any further access to Nestle.

If you want to learn more about Nestle in other communities, simply go to my first posting possibly the third one actually posted the day after the Aug 16 meeting for websites of groups who have that information.

Some of us have been working many hours in our already full lives to get this information here, while networking like crazy to get all the info about who gives what permissions, and start networking with people in influential positions to stop Nestle as early as possible, and protect our rights as citizens, ourwater resources, and the endangered speices habitiat on the aquifer land.

Thanks for all the good work you and others do to keep our town going.
Hope you can help in any way large or small!
 

Posted by sunshower - Sun, Sep 16, 2007, 4:26 P

Boston Globe Sept 16, 2007 Nestle letter

Hoping some Montague residents feel moved to send our own responses.
We don’t think they have any right to contemplate tapping into the spring, or pumping out enough water to "simulate drought conditions". That’s what Mr. Brennan’s hydrogeologist said they would be doing if allowed!

Nestle’s plans still in the study phase

YOUR SEPT. 9 editorial "Nestle’s Montague plan all wet," regarding Nestle Waters North America’s evaluation of spring water sources in Montague, argues that Massachusetts should be concerned about the impact on the aquifer and its local users. We agree.
The health of an aquifer is paramount, and learning the science is the most important piece of homework we do. As of now, we have merely been granted permission to collect samples to test water quality. Complete testing and analysis, which typically last 18 to 24 months, have not yet occurred, making it premature for the Globe - or us - to take an informed position.
We at Nestle strive to reduce our environmental footprint. Our new half liter bottle design has the least plastic content of any bottle of its size on the market. And we support programs to recycle more plastic food and beverage containers, whether they contain ketchup, peanut butter, or water.
We would be pleased to establish an economically and environmentally sustainable business in the Montague area. But right now, this is a potential source that needs study. We plan to do so openly, sharing our data and keeping all informed.

THOMAS BRENNAN
Natural resource manager
Nestle Waters North America
Hollis, Maine
 

Posted by TinaC - Sun, Sep 16, 2007, 4:09 P

Radio interview Friday, 9-21 with co-author of Thirst, 91.1 FM

September 21 on the weekly radio show, Writer’s Voice: A Forum-on-the-Air on Local/Corporate Control of Our Water
Nestle Corporation is considering building a new bottling plant somewhere in Massachusetts. It could be sited on the Montague Plains and draw its water from that aquifer.

We spend the hour live with Alan Snitow, co-author of THIRST: Fighting the Corporate Theft of Our Water . Snitow produced the film documentary, Thirst, which was aired by PBS.
And we want YOU to call into 413-545-3691 with your questions and comments! Join host Francesca Rheannon and your fellow citizens to literally "air" your concerns, thoughts and questions about who should control our water!

The show airs live on Friday, September 21 at 4:30 PM on WMUA 91.1FM and will be re-broadcast locally on September 27 at 8 AM on Valley Free Radio 103.3.
 

Posted by stanhabib - Sun, Sep 16, 2007, 1:53 P

Globe letter Sunday Sept 16

Just a note in case any of you have missed it, there is a letter in the Sunday, September 16 issue of The Globe, authored by a representative of The Nestle Company. Today’s letter speaks to the earlier editorial in The Globe in which the Globe took a position regarding the aquifer in Montague.

Stanley Habib
Montague
 

Posted by JeffSingleton - Wed, Sep 12, 2007, 10:07 A

HOORAY! Boston Globe Editorial supports protecting the Aquifer!!

Tina writes:

"In these threads are answers to many of your questions, but I sense, from conversations with you, that you don’t want to see the harms that will be caused and might be caused by Nestle building a water bottling plant. "

I have no idea why you are making that last statement. Personally I do not think having Nestle take water from the aquifer is probably a good idea. But I would like to see a concrete proposal from Nestles and do a cost-benefit analysis of the pros and cons. (Including the experiences of other communities!) We do this on other issues - reactivation of the landfill, buying the Strathmore building, financing the CSO (Combined Sewer Overflow) project. The town looked at specific proposals, weighed the pros and cons, made a decision. We didn’t need some complicated process imported from Europe (No offense Deborah).

What’s the problem with this issue? Why should it be any different?

If the problem is that the local community (Montague and neighboring towns) will not in fact be able to have this debate because we have no power, then you should make that case by explaining the process more clearly. I and other citizens should not have to work our way through 30 scattered MontagueMA corkboard posts to try to figure it out. Why not produce a clear, user-friendly description of the laws, process, local rights etc. Also explain the question marks, which there seem to be a lot of. Based on the meeting I attended at the Grange, I thought this would happen.

There are places on this site where it could be posted (See my "wrecking ball" article on school finance on the right) It could also be published in the Montague Reporter. Again, wading through scattered corkboard posts just doesn’t work.

I know this is a lot of work but activists clearly think this is an important issue so it would seem to be worth it. You might be able to work with the town planner and even get state officials to help get it done. I would do it but quite honestly as a member of the local Fin Com I spend a huge amount of time on buget issues. Many people SEEM to be interested in this and are attending a lot of meetings. We need some sort of division of labor if all of this volunteer work is to get done.
 

Posted by TinaC - Wed, Sep 12, 2007, 9:33 A

HOORAY! Boston Globe Editorial supports protecting the Aquifer!!

Hi, Jeff -
Actually, there is a lot of evidence and information to warrant strong opposition to Nestle. In addition to the testimonials of communities in the U.S. and around the world, I specifically mentioned the experience of Trout Unlimited in New York State.

Nestle has indicated interest in the industrial park in Turners, and would want to build a pumping station on public land to "convey" the water to their plant.

The process of decision-making is that first Fish and Wildlife must give approval for testing. As others have described, this violates their own policies of protecting conservation land that they are to manage, not explore ways to exploit.

In these threads are answers to many of your questions, but I sense, from conversations with you, that you don’t want to see the harms that will be caused and might be caused by Nestle building a water bottling plant.

I spent several years working as a financial counselor to try to help people deal with debt and inadequate income, so I am very acutely aware of the economic troubles facing many members of our community. I came to the conclusion that we need many approaches and solutions, and that part of why so many folks are in economic trouble is that we focus on finding income -- a magic money solution that will rescue everyone from pain and trouble. It just doesn’t exist, and focusing on finding the single magic solution just takes away from creating the 100 solutions that will help our community. Economic development that protects the overall community well-being usually comes in lots of small improvements and initiatives, not a gift horse.

Realizing this keeps us from turning Nestle into a fantasy hope. Instead, we think carefully about selling a huge quantity of our water and giving up our local control over one of the most precious resources that sustains us, when so much evidence urges caution.

Let’s have some community forums and get into the details of all this. I think that once you see the evidence, you’ll see why so many of us are not about to put at risk our local biological support system (water, food, healthy environment, etc.) in exchange for a flashy set of promises dangled by a powerful economic profit-making entity that wants to extract our water.

Tina
 

Posted by DeborahA - Wed, Sep 12, 2007, 9:00 A

HOORAY! Boston Globe Editorial supports protecting the Aquifer!!

Dear Jeff,

Again, I think it is wise to question as you have been, and I agree that from the
questioning about Nestle, all can learn a great deal that might be useful in other
situations. I am attaching some articles from the research I was able to do. I
appears so far that no community has, in the long run benefited from involvement
with a bottle water company. It is extremely challenging to create a sustainable
and viable economy that serves all the members of a community well, does no harm
to the environment or general quality of life. Yet, I am an advocate of making
every effort to attain those goals. I believe I recommended in an earlier email,
a symposium that is happening in Northampton on September 30th. Frances Moore Lappe
is the key note speaker. I also believe I mentioned Michael Garjian, a local person,
entrepeneur - generous, intelligent, and constantly finding new ways to contribute
to small business upstarts, etc. He is on a panel and I believe giving a talk.
I will attach the flyer. So, because of the number of documents, it will be two
emails, I think.

Hope these are useful in bringing us closer to having substantive answers to the
good questions that must be raised and discussed.

I would also point you toward something called Sociocracy. It is one of the most
elegant decision-making and organizing tools I have found. It is widely used in
the Netherlands. I will send a third email with some information. This is a model
that Montague might want to consider using as it goes through this challenging process.

Please note the article about Barnstead, NH - they went through this process, learned
a lot, and ultimately defeated Nestle. This, of course, does not answer the need
for jobs and income, etc. For that, I suggest the 30th conference and Michael Garjian.

(Unfortunately, I don’t think this format allows me to attach the articles, which I sent to you directly. If they can be posted, I would be most grateful as I think they might be useful to the group)

With all good wishes,

Deborah Andrew
 

Posted by junkman - Tue, Sep 11, 2007, 2:49 P

HOORAY! Boston Globe Editorial supports protecting the Aquifer!!

With the Plains being close to or part of the airport maybe there are rock piles or some sort of striped lizardz or box turtles that lives in the Plains. Reading this board is like watching the weather...Alot of hype! At any rate say a BIG NO! to Nestle!!!!!!
 

Posted by EileenS - Tue, Sep 11, 2007, 1:23 P

correction

Sorry all! Jay Billings was incorrectly names "Skillings". It is Jay Billings of Northeast Geoscience. Eileen
 

Posted by EileenS - Tue, Sep 11, 2007, 12:59 P

Nestle at WSCAC meeting

Today, 9/11, representative Thomas Brennan water manager of of Poland Springs for Nestle North American Waters, Ralph Child, attorney from Mintz Levin, Boston, and Jay Skillings of Northeast Geoscience, Clinton, hydrogeologist on the Clinton/Sterling spring exploration for Nestle attended our committee meeting. Members of the CorkBoard group, if I may use that identifier, Amy Vickers and Joanne Sunshower also attended as well as Tom Miner and Whitty Sanford - Tom is a WSCAC committee member. Nestle made their pitch inclduing expressing concern about the problems of waste and water bottles but said their competition is not municipal water but rather "soda pop." A civil question and answeer period followed. The members and friends asked very good questions and Nestle was very guarded because they are at a beginning pump test at Clinton/Sterling and said they were probably not ready for any action by the Fish and Wildlife Board very soon and had not yet received back results of water tests at the Bitzer Hatchery.

Present at meeting also was Kathleen Baskin of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (to listen) and Russ Cohen of Riverways (Dept. of F and G) who made a strong statement about the inportance of springs (which are usually headwaters) to habitat values. Many legal questions remain open and Child could not add much on them at this time - can Nestle truck water from Sterling to the Framingham bottling plant without an Interbasin Transfer Act approval? Won’’t Nestle need a full Environmental Impact Report - probably is Child’s answer - and doesn’t Article 97 of the state consitution apply - maybe, he thought.

Our WSCAC committee hoped to get the Secretary to stop the process from proceeding any further at this time. The WSCAC chairs letter has received wide circulation. The Sec. does not seem likely to act pre-emptively, but local action remains important. A news article recently came out describing the concerns of the residents of Sterling where the Town of Clinton water source at issue is actually located. They want to know what benefit they might derive if any other than many truck trips?