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?
 

Posted by JeffSingleton - Tue, Sep 11, 2007, 10:06 A

HOORAY! Boston Globe Editorial supports protecting the Aquifer!!

Tina:

You may well be right but so far I have seen no evidence in this particular case to support your claims.

We do not have a concrete proposal from Nestles; we are not clear on the process for making the decision and what our protections are under state law; we do not know where the actual plant will be so you can not say who will get the economic benefits (my sense is that the plant itself would not be on state land so your claim that Fish and Wildlife would get the benefits is not proven); we don’t know exactly what those benefits are (the fact that someone says that in other places water bottling has not been worth it should be considered but is not very compelling. Why is water bottling any less viable than other economic activities? I can think of a lot worse! ) ; we don’t know whether leasing rights to a certain amount of water means "giving up local control" (or whether we in fact have much "local control" anyway!)

It would be nice if those who have been energized like this would take more time to research and explain these things, not just rely on generalized work by the advocacy community.

I suspect you may well be right, Tina, but it seems to me there are a lot of unanswered questions that should be asked of any economic development proposal, Nestles or no Nestles. And getting your fingernails dirty and answering these questions in specific cases, not just relying on generalized ant-corporate sentiment, is a better way to move the whole discussion of economic development forward. We coud learn a lot from this discussion, and not just about how bad Nestles is which we seem to already know.

And really I do not think there is anything fascist or communist about that, Bill.
 

Posted by Mark1 - Tue, Sep 11, 2007, 8:35 A

HOORAY! Boston Globe Editorial supports protecting the Aquifer!!

HI Tina,

I agree, holding out hope of economic ’benefit’ or quibbling over the number of potential jobs this early in the process is not terribly productive. There is enough objective evidence to confidently support opposition to this proposal. The bottled water industry is going to continue to be justifiably criticized for promoting a largely unnecessary product that has some very unsavory side effects.

Mark1
 

Posted by TinaC - Tue, Sep 11, 2007, 7:48 A

HOORAY! Boston Globe Editorial supports protecting the Aquifer!!

Bill, I ask you not to label or malign others for not sharing your point of view.

Jeff, I appreciate your concern for the economic well-being of everyone in Montague. It’s quite wonderful of you. Unfortunately, trying to latch on to Nestle as our sugar daddy doesn’t seem likely to work. Our society is not going to have an easy, single solution to our many economic troubles. Desperately selling off rights to our water and giving up local control over a resource critical to local citizens, business, recreation and ecosystems -- in the process violating public land protection -- are not good solutions.

Nestle is a powerful, global corporation with a track record of maximizing private, company profits at the expense of the general good. We would be naiive to assume otherwise, and we have testimonials from communities in the U.S. and around the world to warn us.

Furthermore, any money Nestle would pay would likely flow to MAss Fish and Wildlife, not Montague. The fishy smell in this whole thing is how a state agency appears to be preparing to financially benefit from selling off assets that belong to the public.

Finally, Kirt Mayland of Trout Unlimited reports that the financial burdens placed on a town that hosts a Nestle water bottling plant are too high to make the small number of jobs (in the dozens, not hundreds) worth the expenses, troubles and uncertainties.

To stop the rip-off of our local water to line the pockets of Nestle shareholders, we must quickly act. Please write to:

George L. Darey, Chairman / Western Wildlife District
Fax 413-298-3235
Mail c/o Director, MA Division of Fish & Wildlife, One Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough MA 01581

Wayne MacCallum Director wayne.maccallum@state.ma.us
MA Division of Fish & Wildlife, One Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough MA 01581
ph (508)389-6340 fax (508)389-7890

John Creedon, Vice Chairman / Southeast Wildlife District jfcreedon@gmail.com
Michael P. Roche, Secretary / CT Valley Wildlife District mike.roche3@verizon.net
Prof. Joseph S. Larson, Endangered Species Habitat larson@tei.umass.edu, 27 Arnold Road, Pelham, MA 01002
Ernest W. Foster, Jr., Central Wildlife District ewfosterjr@aol.com
Brandi VanRoo, Ph.D. vanroo@frc.mass.edu
Frederic Winthrop, Northeast Wildlife District / Agriculture fredericwinthrop@comcast.net

Sen. Stan Rosenberg-Hampshire & Franklin Cnties
State House, Room 320
Boston, MA 02133 LOCAL
Tel: (617) 722-1532 Tel: (413) 584-1649
Fax: (617) 722-1062 Fax: (413) 582-0113
Sen.StanRosenberg@senate.state.ma.us

Rep. Steve Kulik- Conway, Deerfield , Leverett, Montague,
New Salem, Shutesbury, Sunderland , Wendell, Whately
State House, Room 236
Boston, MA 02133 LOCAL:
Tel: 617-722-2430 413-665-7200
Fax: 617-722-2436 413-665-7101
Rep.StephenKulik@hou.state.ma.us
 

Posted by BillBry - Tue, Sep 11, 2007, 6:56 A

HOORAY! Boston Globe Editorial supports protecting the Aquifer!!

Jeff, how do you plow forward in life ignoring the fraud and corruption in government/corporations while always siding for them? You see, there is no "financial crisis"! All the money is there (1) and fraudulently diverted to the bankers! It’s a tough pill to swallow buddy, but eventually I hope you will come to your senses and support the people in this town and this great nation. Below is the CAFR report for 2006. Inside you will see a full disclosure of the fraud being committed against us. To ignore this, 911 being an inside job (2), regional government created by United Nations (3), your true communist/fascist colors are shining through.

With this being said, I will still, against your will, defend your Right to your individual Liberties!

Bill Bry
My Patriot act is THE BILL OF RIGHTS

(1) http://www.mass.gov/...s/CAFR/CAFR_2006.pdf
(2) http://www.patriotsq...essors.html#Margulis
(3) http://nord.twu.net/acl/agenda21.html
 

Posted by JeffSingleton - Tue, Sep 11, 2007, 5:16 A

HOORAY! Boston Globe Editorial supports protecting the Aquifer!!

For those who did not see the Globe editorial on Nestles and the Aquifer, it is printed below. At the meeting at the Gange a few weeks ago it appeared there was a lot of interest and concern about the issue.

People were going to find out more about the state laws etc governing this issue and the process Nestles has to go through etc. Has this happemed? Is it somewhere on this website? The editorial mentions the state law governing this issue (Article 97). What does the law say and how is it applied?

It would be nice to learn something from this whole process rather than just being subjected to a lot of ideology and anti-corporate rhetoric.

Also at the meeting a few weeks ago I mentioned that the town has financial problems and needs new sources of revenue. After all, that is why communities consider "proposals" like this (I put "proposals" in quotes because actually there has not been one as far as I know). When I mentioned the town’s fiscal problems there was the predictable response that yes this is a concern and we have to find ways to generate revenue without caving in to corporations like Nestles. I agree but so far no one has come forward with a concrete proposal (or even a vague proposal).


Nestle’s Montague plan all wet [What "Plan"? - JS]
September 9, 2007

THE NESTLE COMPANY has its eye on an aquifer under a state wildlife management area in Western Massachusetts as a source for bottled drinking water. The same aquifer is now supplying a state trout hatchery, several private wells, and potentially in the future, parts of the town of Montague. Especially with global warming casting doubt on future precipitation patterns, state officials should keep Nestle’s straw out of this natural resource.

By locating its well close to the spring already supplying the Bitzer Fish Hatchery, Nestle Waters North America could classify its product as "spring water" under Food and Drug Administration rules - unlike the 25 percent of bottled water that actually comes from municipal taps. The company has also suggested it might build a bottling plant nearby, with 60 to 200 jobs. Nestle already produces Poland Spring bottled water in Maine and Deer Park water in Pennsylvania.
As much as the upper Pioneer Valley could use the jobs, the state has to be concerned about the effect the Nestle operation would have on other users of the aquifer and on the 1,500-acre wildlife management area itself. The area is part of the Montague Plains, a rare pine barren on a sandy glacial delta. According to the state Division of Fisheries and Wildlife policy on state-protected land, "Requests for land, land interests, or resources shall not be considered until all reasonable efforts to obtain said amenity from other sources have been exhausted." Article 97 of the state constitution also strictly limits private use of state land.
Nestle will be hard put to prove that it has exhausted "all reasonable efforts" to get spring water from other sources. If it were willing to dispense with the "spring water" cachet, it could easily locate in a Massachusetts Water Resources Authority community that uses the highly drinkable water from the Quabbin Reservoir.
Even if the company offers to pay Fisheries and Wildlife generously for the right to draw the Montague water, the Patrick administration, which is making much of its green credentials, should think twice about encouraging this industry. Not only are plastic bottles made from petrochemicals, but pumping the water, filling the bottles, and then shipping them to retailers consumes energy that emits greenhouse gases. Eighteen tons of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere for every million bottles of water that are produced and shipped to customers. A plastic bottle of water might not look like an SUV, but its carbon footprint does.
So far, the state has only granted Nestle permission to go on hatchery property for initial explorations. Before accommodating Nestle any further, environmental secretary Ian Bowles should send it copies of the relevant state policies, including Article 97. Nestle’s idea should sleep with the fishes.
© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.



More from Boston.com





More:
Globe Editorials / Op-Ed | Globe front page | Boston.com

Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts



Advertisement
 

Posted by MikeNaughton - Sun, Sep 9, 2007, 7:16 P

HOORAY! Boston Globe Editorial supports protecting the Aquifer!!

Interesting that the editorial states, "[Nestle] could easily locate in a Massachusetts Water Resources Authority community that uses the highly drinkable water from the Quabbin Reservoir".

Is there really an extra 150 million gallons a year of water to pull from the Quabbin?
 

Posted by TinaC - Sun, Sep 9, 2007, 6:53 P

HOORAY! Boston Globe Editorial supports protecting the Aquifer!!

Great news!!! The Boston Globe wrote an editorial supporting our call for protection of the Montague aquifer!!!

It’s the top editorial in today’s (Sunday) edition! Go to: http://www.boston.co...ntague_plan_all_wet/

Thanks to Doug Stephens for all his work to make this possible.

And thanks to MA Clean Water Action, Kirt Mayland of Trout Unlimited, Amy Vickers, and Corporate Accountability International for your support.

Tina Clarke
Clean Water Action
413-549-6834
tclarke@cleanwater.org
 

Posted by TinaC - Mon, Sep 3, 2007, 5:43 P

Contacts for poster & for all of you who want to take action!

Hi - Yes, everyone, please do contact me if you have any questions, ideas, want to know what’s going on, and can take a couple of simple actions to help stop the appropriation of the Montague aquifer for private profit. I am Tina Clarke: (413) 549-6834, tclarke@cleanwater.org. Please list my name whenever you want to give a contact person for this work.

Thank you to Joanne for all her work to get some much excellent information out. Thank you, Suzanne, for helping lead some key new organizing.

And THANK YOU to you all who created that FABULOUS poster!! Right on!

Tina
 

Posted by sunshower - Mon, Sep 3, 2007, 3:37 A

Contacts for poster

Suzanne:
Sorry about that. Tina Clarke also wants to be be listed as a contact on the poster.
tclarke@cleanwater.org Joanne
 

Posted by BrooksBend - Sun, Sep 2, 2007, 8:01 P

RE: POSTER

Joanne,

I appreciate the enthusiasm with which you are initiating good actions and sharing great information with the corkboard, however, I would very much like to be asked before I see my name offered as THE contact on the poster.

I suggested a series of educational forums in each village to help educate Montague citizens about the issues and to hear the thoughts of residents in each village. I, and others, will work to bring those about.

I have volunteered to help in other ways too, but I do not want my name to be the only contact listed on the poster. I have neither the time nor the inclination to be a clearinghouse of information.

Perhaps you would like your name to be on the poster. Or perhaps we could refer people to the corkboard. Or perhaps someone else will volunteer. I do not want my name to be the one one it. I hope that is clear.

Again, I appreciate your enthusiasm and good work, and hope this is taken in a good way.

Suzanne
 

Posted by sunshower - Sat, Sep 1, 2007, 10:33 A

RE: POSTER

Thank you to Ruth for the great attention-getting poster!
If you are going to make more copies to put up, you can list Suzanne Webber suzanne@brooksbendfarm.com as contact. She will be organizing the 5-town
initiatives.
 

Posted by mik - Fri, Aug 31, 2007, 11:11 A

RE: Poster

I agree, but we don’t want the wrong contact info on the bottom. Is the person currently listed on the bottom of the poster the best person for everyone to call and express an opinion?
 

Posted by westking1956 - Fri, Aug 31, 2007, 8:55 A

RE: Poster

Ok- still have no idea on the poster-
a couple yes- one no.

This is just an informational poster to get people fired up!
Ruth
 

Posted by sunshower - Fri, Aug 31, 2007, 8:36 A

RE: Notes from 1st Meeting

Mik-to answer your question:

The coordinators decided not to put up notes from the meeting, which I or Tina would be happy to discuss with you. The notes written on the newsprint by Chris were not minutes, but topics and questions. Instead, we thought it more useful to make documents available in the Notes & Minutes that contain most of the information given in the meeting, and answers to many of the questions raised. This allows people to inform themselves and take action by writing letters to MAFW & Legislators. Joanne
 

Posted by sunshower - Fri, Aug 31, 2007, 8:19 A

Clarification & What Nestle has done similar

Dear Mik:

Thanks again for all your competence in handling the many tech needs and personal energy for organizing and thinking. I agree with you 100%, and did not mean "wa"it til the meachine gets going. It’s already going!

I mean I think it is wiser for the core group to be ready--to have a certain amount of structure, as I specified, and as you repeated.

By the way, see this example of what Nestle "Corpse" did in Maine to intrude into water on 500+ acres surrounding a fish hatchery: http://www.sprucespring.com/pdf/LURCpermit.pdf

And for the second time, my last name is Sunshower (as in my user id), not sunshine. However, I much prefer to be addressed by my first name, which is Joanne.

Thank you. Have fun over the weekend!
 

Posted by mik - Fri, Aug 31, 2007, 7:49 A

RE: Poster

Sunshine, I agree that we should have the correct contact info on any posters we put up, but I don’t think we should wait until the Nestle machine has started up. I think we want to show as much opposition as possible as early as possible to show them the hornet’s nest they’d be walking into if they even tried.

As for action options, we need to put that together too. Talking points, and a list of three things people can do, ie; call person A, write person B, email person C, etc.

BTW, the meeting that was held at the Grange last month is going to air on MCTV on Sunday, Sept 2 at 7:30pm. Channel 17 in Gill and Montague. If you don’t get MCTV in your area DVDs can be purchased for $10 (to cover costs and time) from the station. Call (413) 863-9200. Eventually a thumbnail version of the video will be uploaded to this website for those with high speed web access.

Still waiting for the minutes from that meeting. Has Chris emailed them to you and/or Tina? If not... hey Chris, get ’em out!
 

Posted by TinaC - Fri, Aug 31, 2007, 6:21 A

Please contact me if you want to be involved

Hello, Friends -

I hope everyone will take action in whatever ways feel right to you!

If you are interested in helping in any way, please contact me. Good stuff is being planned, and new groups are forming. There are lots of different, terrific options for participating or leading. YOU ARE NEEDED!

Let’s chat and figure out what you would most like to do.

Tina Clarke: tclarke@cleanwater.org, H/W: call anytime 8 a.m.-8 p.m. 413-549-6834

Except today I’m swamped! ;- )

Yours in Water Protection,
Tina
 

Posted by sunshower - Fri, Aug 31, 2007, 6:05 A

RE: Poster

I think we should wait on the poster until we know for sure that Nestle corp is going to pursue this, and until we have agreed contact info we can put on the poster to refer people who want more info, and a menu of actions we can offer people who want to do soomething. Read, Aim, Fire, not Fire, Aim, Ready.

Thank you.
 

Posted by DonOgden - Fri, Aug 31, 2007, 5:33 A

Poster should I amke a bunch?

The poster rocks! I’ll post Leverett, Sunderland and Wendell.
 

Posted by BrooksBend - Fri, Aug 31, 2007, 4:43 A

Mini-comittee meeting

Thanks for the updates on the meeting, Mik. Sounds like very good ideas were generated.

Great poster Ruth! Thanks for putting it together so fast. I like both versions.

A sheet of talking points is a good idea. I’d love to see people start writing letters to the editors and also for there to be a lot of public educating on this. Thanks for the corkboard. It’s an important way to communicate. Could also be a way for Nestle to see our strategies as our plans develop. How about creating affinity groups, or phone trees so we can keep Nestle out of some of our conversation?

Suzanne
 

Posted by BillBry - Wed, Aug 29, 2007, 5:17 P

Aquifer Poster -- should I make a bunch?

That water poster is fine, but it is missing a Nestle paramilitary gunman holding an assault rifle!

-Nestle, the world’s largest food and beverage company, has been sued for complicity in. the murder of a Colombian trade union leader by paramilitary forces....

WHY is our town even considering doing treason with these criminals! What is wrong with people! Why would you invite them in to consider stealing your water and ruining your roads! How do people shut off their critical thinking? Have people never left town and think the world is like Montague Center and everyone is nice? Is common sense outlawed or something!


http://www.google.co...stle%2C+paramilitary

http://www.google.co...rick%2C+paramilitary

Read and defend the Bill Of Rights people, it’s all we got!

If the coroner lists my death as suicide, don’t believe it, I would never want to miss the treason trials on C-SPAN and bounce my grandchild on my knee!

Bill.
 

Posted by mik - Wed, Aug 29, 2007, 2:20 P

Aquifer Poster -- should I make a bunch?

I think Ruth is asking for feedback on the poster. Any comments? Should she print up some copies and post them up around the villages?

http://www.montaguem...quifer-vs-nestle.pdf
 

Posted by mik - Wed, Aug 29, 2007, 2:19 P

Must-See Strong Letter

Eileen,

The letter has been un-published until you give the word that it can be published again.

Mik
 

Posted by EileenS - Wed, Aug 29, 2007, 1:51 P

Must-See Strong Letter

Delete this entire letter immediately from the Corkboard. It has not been received by the Secretary yet and is therefore not a public letter. I will not continue to particpate in this group if our trust continues to be violated. Eileen Simonson Water Supply Citizens Advisory Committee
 

Posted by westking1956 - Wed, Aug 29, 2007, 1:14 P

Poster should I amke a bunch?

hi guys- made the poster (aquifer vs nestle pdf) and would like to print up some and distribute to Leverett, shutesbury, wendell, new salen.
is that ok?
did I tell them to look at the right places?
ruth
 

Posted by sunshower - Wed, Aug 29, 2007, 12:29 P

Must-See Strong Letter

!News Flash!
Very persuasive and strong letter to Secretary Ian Bowles, Executive Office of Energy and Environment from the Massachusetts Water Supply Citizens Advisory Committee posted on the Notes & Minutes section. Outlines compelling reason to deny Nestle even testing.
 

Posted by sunshower - Wed, Aug 29, 2007, 8:08 A

Need for primary documents, etc.

I think the local coordinators need to have certain primary documents: the two or three hydrological studies done on the aquifer that should be available thru the town offices or library. At least 2 were mentioned in the 1st meeting--one done by Northeast Utilities during proposal of nuclear plant, and one done during proposed Boston landfill , plus another rumored to exist, origin unknown.

Every town’s Conservationn Commission should have a copy of the Mass Natural heritage Atlas w USGS topo maps showing priority habitats. Ralph Taylor of the MAFW CT Valley District says the MPA has one of the largest exemplary communities of Pitch Pine and Scrub Oak, one of very few not coastal. Also rare/endangered species-buckmoth and wood turtle.
We need to know the MPA intimately,in order to speak knowledgably.
Dawn (or Donna) from Sunderland, please contact me! 259-1129

Also someone I think should get a parcel map and list from the assessors office to identify potential private landowners vulnerable to Nestle approach.
 

Posted by mik - Mon, Aug 27, 2007, 9:45 P

Mini-comittee meeting

A few friends met at Sally’s house in Montague for blueberry pancakes Sunday morning. After chowing down we found ourselves talking about the meeting that was held at the Grange recently (the video will be posted to this website soon, as will the minutes). Here are some notes from that meeting.

We need to start educating people that live in our region to what may be coming. It’s not a sure thing that Nestle will actually choose our plains as a pumping site, but it’s a distinct possibility and people need to know what’s at stake.

I suggested creating a ten-minute info-video and posting it to YouTube as well as the Montague site, and burning DVDs to send to all local PEG stations in the area. If anyone is interested in helping script it I’m sure MCTV would make itself available for technology and equipment.

Ruth suggested a poster should be made with a big graphic that boils it down: "What happens when your well runs dry?" She has since created the poster and I uploaded it to the Files & Documents area of this group:

http://www.montaguema.net/files.cfm?gpt=34&g=209

Ruth also made a nice little button graphic which I put on the left side of the site to make it easier to find the information.

Joanne suggested that we need talking points in bullet form. Four or five simple things that we can say and write about. We also need an easy list of people to contact to voice our opinion. It was noted that this information is already available in the Notes & Minutes section, posted by Sunshine a week ago or so.

Chris’ husband (sorry, I forget your name) said he’d talk to Frank A at town hall to get the history of the plains development efforts in the past and to get the actual boundaries.

He also mentioned that there’s a town in Massachusetts that has a local ordinance that makes it illegal to pump water for corporate gain. Someone else noted that election day is coming up and should we get something on the ballot pushing for a similar local ordinance?

Did I forget anything?
 

Posted by lithium - Thu, Aug 23, 2007, 9:27 P

Write Letters to MAFW & Legislators

Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi... err Al Norman; you’re our only hope.
 

Posted by sunshower - Thu, Aug 23, 2007, 2:58 P

Write Letters to MAFW & Legislators

The best way to stop intrusion into the Aquifer is to make our objections and the legal basis for them known broadly to the MAFW, our legislators, and the media. You will find documents in the Notes & Minutes File to help you write your own letter and make the case to your town council or selectboard to write letters to stop intrusive testing of the Montague Plains Aquifer.

The MAFW Land Use Policy is states that:
"The DFW shall oppose any use of abutting or environmentally sensitive properties which would constitute threat or environmental danger to existing biological resources on DFW and Wildlife land, the subject property or surrounding parcels."

Most immediate target date is to send letters & emails prior to their Aug. 30 meeting. Thank You!
 

Posted by sunshower - Thu, Aug 23, 2007, 2:55 P

MAFW Member on initial permission

To All Who Contacted Me About the Proposal to Withdraw Water from the Montague Plains Wildlife Management Area:

I appreciate your inquiry about actions that the Fisheries and Wildlife Board might take relative to the inquiry from the Nestle Corporation.

The Nestle inquiry was made only a day or so prior to the June meeting of the Board. We voted to postpone consideration until the July 31 meeting until we could have a request in writing from Nestle and the opportunity to study the request against long-standing Board policy. Nestle put it’s request in writing and the Board voted on July 31 to allow Nestle to walk the area, to take surface water samples and to take measurements of stream flow with hand-held instruments, on the condition that a MassWildife employee be present at all times and that the Board be given the results of the geologist’s findings.

None of the activities that Nestle requested, which we approved, actually needed our permission, but we appreciated the fact that they asked. The Wildilife Management Area is open to the public and a high school biology class could just as well done this on their own.

However, if Nestle wants to do any intrusive testing, the Board’s actions are governed by Article 97 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution. A copy of the Board’s policy, on land and resource disposition (based on Article 97) is attached for your information.

Joseph S. Larson, Ph.D.
Member, Fisheries and Wildlife Board (Endangered Species)
27 Arnold Road
Pelham, Massachusetts 01002-9757
 

Posted by junkman - Sat, Aug 18, 2007, 2:18 P

Nestle sites in MA

Not long ago I was on a deep sea fishing trip up in Maine. The captain of the boat was drinking water from a bottle marked Poland Springs. As he drank from the bottle he cussed at the name on the label. I had asked him why is he cussing over the water? Afterall it was very hot that day at sea. The captain said that Poland Springs has sucked up every drop of water in the area. He also said the company is using regular tap water and marketing it as spring water. He also said the feds are now regulating the bottled water by trying to put a label on the water stating it is an imposter spring water. He did say that towns were given SOME money but nothing has really changed with any town budgets as far as balancing out. I really don’t think it would be a good idea for the plains to be taken over by a big company trying to sell a vulnerable town something they don’t need.
 

Posted by DeborahA - Sat, Aug 18, 2007, 9:17 A

The aquifer discussion

Involving the broader community:

Stanley Habib makes two valuable suggestions. I will post the Democracy Now information next. Regarding involving the broader community, if you read the long, but I think valuable accounting of the process in Barnstead, NH, you will see how they accomplished this. Very effectively, carefully, thoughtfully. Montague might consider this model.

Deborah Andrew
 

Posted by TupperB - Sat, Aug 18, 2007, 8:39 A

Nestle sites in MA

I sensed at the meeting some differences on this issue. Perhaps they do not need to be resolved, but it may in any case be useful to be conscious of the potential tension between a desire to avoid a water bottling operation drawing from this aquifer and a desire to deny access by such operations to any water in Massachusetts. Are we concerned about our own back yard or about the overriding principles that were raised at the meeting? If it is only a question of our back yard, then the financial benefits may play a larger role in decision making. If it is the larger issues that are driving this effort, then we should be as strongly concerned about private water developments any place, at lease in this state.
 

Posted by stanhabib - Fri, Aug 17, 2007, 5:07 P

The aquifer discussion

The suggestion made with a list of resouce material is good but since many will not read all of the suggested material a few more informational meetings should pehaps be set up. I suspect the more efficient way to self educate is to plan a meeting here and there and further discuss some of the material available. For example the August 1 programming of Democracy Now was devoted to the very issue at hand and we can get a copy of the tape and have a local viewing.

There were many points made at the August 16 meeting. One that received less attention is that it is important to reach others in the community who may have another viewpoint on the matter.One would hope that a set of forums can inform the community at large.

Stanley Habib
 

Posted by DeborahA - Fri, Aug 17, 2007, 9:33 A

Nestle sites in MA

Eileen raises an important issue that was also raised at the meeting last night...that towns work together and support one another on this and other common concerns.

Deborah Andrew
 

Posted by EileenS - Fri, Aug 17, 2007, 8:56 A

Nestle sites in MA

I have seen a very small article about potential sites and the small map was unreadable, but it seems that there is a potential site beyond Westfield, possibly Ludlow and perhaps Sunderland (hatchery there too), two in southern central MA in Blackston Basin, Chelmsford/Tewksbury, Sterling (Clinton owned former water supply land - spring fed reservoir,somewhere near Westborough, and up in the region of Newbury, and finally one in the southern Neponset or Charles Bains perhaps in the sharon or Foxborough area (although the latter two towns are almost out of potable water now!) Eileen S. wscac
 

Posted by DeborahA - Fri, Aug 17, 2007, 7:47 A

You don’t need a weatherman…

Posted by sunshower - Fri, Aug 17, 2007, 6:12 A

You don’t need a weatherman…

Jeff—Are you an experienced woodsman? Or have you ever been out with one? I think what seems like rhetoric to you is people speaking from experience you haven’t had. If you are interested to become familiar with the Nestle Corporation’s track record of benefits vs damages and costs to other communities, visit one of these:
www.polarisinstitute.org/water www.stopcorporateabuse.org http://www.sierraclu...ees/cac/water/links/

For more on the very real and aggressive moves by multi-national corporations to take proprietary possession of water which is now publicly owned and managed:
Sierra website above + http://www.citizen.o...r/activist/index.cfm
http://www.thirstthe...ources.html#articles
By the way, the Jones library currently has 2 copies of “Thirst” on order.

Regarding the need to generate a flourishing local based economy: I think this could be one of the very positive initiatives to be adopted perhaps by a sub-group or offshoot. We do need to invent sustainable for-profit businesses that are locally owned, that both use the natural abundance and human talents we have, and restore/ enhance them.

At the MAFW Board meeting on July 31, one of the topics was the lack of funds and the shunning by the state (agencies and legislators) of the endangered species program.
You know those special license plates with the whale, the throut, and the tern? The MA Environmental Trust has refused to release one penny of that money to MAFW for the protection of wildlife! They are in danger of having to close down that program! So they are under the gun, much like our local economies. Can we both lobby our state govt and come up with some business plans of mutual benefit? Onward.
 

Posted by DonOgden - Fri, Aug 17, 2007, 4:44 A

New Aquafer group on MontagueMA.net website

No offense, Jeff, but you seem to be arguing against yourself on this Nestle thing. Your opening paragraph says pretty much what most everyone was saying last night: folks don’t want "water resources drawn down to a dangerous level or hundreds of trucks clogging our roads" and "bottled water industry is a pretty dysfunctional trend in our society". But then you go on to more-or-less refute that sentiment by denying Nestle’s potential plan as privatization (it certainly IS) and by labeling many of your neighbors concerns as "extreme ideological anti-corporate rhetoric".

I’d be the first to admit having an extreme ideological position on this issue (anyone listening to our Enviro Show on WXOJ-LP can attest to that!), but that’s not what I heard last night. I heard our neighbors voicing their many concerns about a mega-corporation coming into their community and extracting critical water resources.

Hopefully, Nestle will decide to go elsewhere with their plans, but until then I think we need to have these discussions and to lay the groundwork for a possible struggle. Having an Aquifer Group on the site would be helpful in that effort.
 

Posted by JeffSingleton - Fri, Aug 17, 2007, 2:24 A

New Aquafer group on MontagueMA.net website

I thought there were a lot of interesting and important points raised last night about the potential use of the aquifer for bottled water.I certainly do not want to see our local water resources drawn down to a dangerous level or hundreds of trucks clogging our roads. I also personally think the whole bottled water industry is a pretty dysfunctional trend in our society (Why are we spending millions to clean up water and then going out and buying bottled water? It’s weird and environmentally unsound)

But so far there is in fact no proposal at all and it is not clear any of this is going to happen. It appears that Nestles or whoever will have to jump through some serious legislative and bureaucratic hoops before they can do anything. There also might be real econmic benefits to the town and region in terms of jobs and tax revenue, And there might be some valuable research on the aquifer.

It seems to me we should at least try to evaluate the costs and benefits with a skeptical but open mind. We should be allowed to evaluate what is going to happen based on a real proposal, not a lot of extreme ideological anti-corporate rhetoric.

But that kind of rhetoric seemed to dominate the discussion last night. There were a lot of statements attacking the "privatization" of water (this is not privatization of water) and using public resources "for profit." (This happens the time: we live in a capitalist country and if there is to be any local economic development there will be profit. How is what Nestle’s producing that different from any other beveage? Iguess if you make beer out of the water it is OK?) There seemed to be an implication that if we let the process move forward or have the debate, nestles will come in and brianwash us or buy off local politicians.

And framing the whole discussion "Aquifer v Nestle" would seem to bias the debate from the very beginning. I guess if a group wants to form against Nestle and wants a spot on this site that’s their right. But let’s not confuse that with an open-minded discussion.
 

Posted by mik - Thu, Aug 16, 2007, 10:30 P

Falling Water Tables

Interesting article on falling water tables

http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/Out/Ote6_2.htm
 

Posted by mik - Thu, Aug 16, 2007, 8:41 P

New Aquafer group on MontagueMA.net website

Ok folks, the "Aquafer vs Nestle" area on the MontagueMA.net website is set up. This is where we’ll be discussing the Nestle proposal to bottle the water from our Aquafer. Look here for updates.

Update: I also just moved 39 corkboard posts from other areas of the website to this area for easier access.
 

Posted by PLipke - Thu, Aug 16, 2007, 7:49 A

Tonight’s meeting re Nestle & our water at Montague Grange hall

Please come to an informational meeting tonight at 7:30 PM at the Montague Grange to share what’s been learned about Nestle Corporation’s exploratory interest in tapping the Montague Plains aquifer to supply a water bottling plant.

Various local officials and citizens will share what they’ve learned about who has a say in any decisions, what the review process might be, the history of Nestle’s bottling efforts elsewhere, etc.

All are welcome.
 

Posted by DonOgden - Wed, Aug 8, 2007, 6:11 A

informative article regarding Nestle Water in Michigan

On Thursday, August 16, at 7:30pm. there will be a meeting at the Montague Grange Hall on Nestle’s potential plan to privatize the Montague Plains aquifer for a water bottling operation. The immanent threat of the corporate privatization of our water is no longer taking place someplace else.
 

Posted by PLipke - Fri, Aug 3, 2007, 6:45 A

informative article regarding Nestle Water in Michigan

To my fellow concerned-about-Nestle citizens,

I need to let you know I cannot be the coordinator/champion on this battle, even though some very kind, complimentary and well-meaning folks are starting to treat me as such.

I’m already WAY over-committed with serious care of 3 aging parents/in-laws, plus resulting legal and financial managements, plus much other "heavy" stuff that simply cannot be set aside.

SOOOoooooooooo, if anyone wants to start a petition drive to get a Town of Montague Bylaw that would prohibit any corporation from profiting from our common future, drawing X/gallons/day water for profit, do legal and political research on the Nestle deal etc, I’ll contribute, throw in ideas, etc, and generally be very supportive of you, and anyone else that takes a sane strategy.

With all good wishes,
Paul Lipke
 

Posted by PLipke - Fri, Aug 3, 2007, 5:51 A

informative article regarding Nestle Water in Michigan

Posted by PaulK - Thu, Aug 2, 2007, 7:35 P

informative article regarding Nestle Water in Michigan

Emilie, do you know what happened at the Fish & Wildlife meeting in Hadley this week? Was Nestles given the go-ahead to continue its investigation of the acquifer beneath the Plains?
 

Posted by emiliehamilton - Thu, Aug 2, 2007, 5:18 P

informative article regarding Nestle Water in Michigan

I am posting this informative article regarding Nestle Water bottling water from pristine water sources in Michigan - because I believe the article may offer some insight into why Nestle is choosing to inquire into the use of the Montague Fish and Wildlife sanctuary here for a bottling facility. Please take time to read the article - and consider attending local meetings to address environmental concerns related to Nestle Water operating such a facility here in Montague. Thank you. Emily
---------------------

http://blog.mlive.co...takes_in_bottle.html

Nestle raises stakes in bottled water battle
Posted by Jeff Alexander January 07, 2007 12:37PM
Chronicle • Ken Stevens


Jay Peasley on his property along the White River near Hesperia. Nestle Waters North America is drilling test wells in the White River watershed for possible water withdrawal.

Jay Peasley lives in the kind of place nature lovers dream about: a house so close to the White River he can hear its gurgling waters from his couch and fish for trout and salmon a stone’s throw from the back door.

The computer programmer thought he had secured a slice of solitude when he bought his riverside house in 1991.

Now he finds himself at odds with the world’s largest water bottling corporation, Nestle Waters, which hopes to use the White River system for an entirely different purpose.

Nestle wants to pump millions of gallons of spring water from a site near the headwaters of the White River, about 20 miles upstream of Peasley’s house, and bottle it at the company’s Ice Mountain bottling plant in Stanwood.

Peasley is among a group of area residents who fear pumping spring water from the headwaters of the White would harm the river, which is the southernmost trout stream in the Lake Michigan basin.

"This is a pristine trout stream. I don’t think any water should be taken out of it," Peasley said.

Nestle officials said the White River has "significant water resources" and that withdrawing millions of gallons of groundwater each year "would be unlikely to cause adverse effects on the environment."

Company officials said other businesses in the White River watershed, including farms and golf courses, use more water than Ice Mountain would extract and bottle.

"The ecosystems in the White River watershed don’t care where the water goes. They only care that there is enough water -- do the ecosystems have what they need?" said Gregory Fox, natural resource manager at Nestle’s Ice Mountain bottling plant.

Fox will explain Nestle’s White River proposal at 7 p.m. Wednesday at Monroe Township Hall, 4141 E. Fillmore, White Cloud.

The battle over groundwater in the White River watershed is a high-stakes struggle that transcends the boundaries of this river.

The underground springs that feed the White and dozens of other Michigan trout streams -- including the Pere Marquette, Manistee, Boardman and countless others -- are potential gold mines for water bottlers.

Groundwater is free in Michigan and the state’s new water withdrawal law allows bottled water to be sold outside of the Great Lakes basin provided it is shipped in bottles smaller than 5.7 gallons. Theoretically, a company could load a freighter with thousands of bottles of Michigan water and sell it anywhere in the world. Some water policy experts call such scenarios unrealistic.

But consider this: Clean water is in short supply in much of the world and bottled water is a red-hot commodity in the U.S.

Bottled water consumption in the U.S. increased from 5.1 billion gallons in 2001 to 8.2 billion gallons last year, with sales reaching $10.9 billion in 2006, according to the Beverage Marketing Corp.

If current trends continue, bottled water will surpass soda as the nation’s most popular beverage by 2020, said Michael C. Bellas, chairman and CEO of the Beverage Marketing Corp. "I’ve never seen a phenomenon like bottled water," Bellas was recently quoted as saying.

The soaring popularity of bottled water has economic and environmental implications for Michigan, located in the heart of one of the water-richest regions on the planet. Nestle, for instance, is poised to double its production of Ice Mountain bottled water.

The company, which employs 250 at its Stanwood facility, is considering building a second Ice Mountain bottling plant in Evart or at a site in Indiana.

And when it comes to bottled water, Nestle is the biggest fish in the pond. Based in Switzerland, Nestle is the world’s 53rd biggest corporation and the world’s largest producer of food and bottled water, according to industry data.

Nestle controls about one-third of the global bottled water market, according to industry data. The company produces 75 different types of bottled water at 103 factories in 36 countries, according to company data.

Nestle’s Ice Mountain facility is by far the largest water bottler in Michigan, according to state data. Michigan has 44 licensed water bottlers, but only three pumped more than 1 million gallons of water in 2006.

Its Stanwood plant bottled 226 million gallons of groundwater last year. That dwarfed the 54 million gallons of groundwater bottled by Absopure, Michigan’s second-largest water bottler. The only other firm that bottled more than 1 million gallons of Michigan water last year was Shay, which bottled 1.1 million gallons, according to state data.

Pepsi and Coke buy water from the city of Detroit, purify it and sell it as Aquafina and Dasani, company officials said. Because those companies purchase water from a municipal water supply, they are not required to report the volume of water used.

Some experts said Nestle’s bid to pump spring water from sites near the headwaters of the White and two trout streams that flow into the Muskegon River, near Evart, raises the stakes in Michigan’s bottled water war.

Nestle has never pumped spring water near a Michigan trout stream. The company currently pumps spring water from wells in rural Mecosta County that flow into a warm water stream. Nestle also buys spring water from the city of Evart.

Allowing Nestle to pump water near the White River would make the natural springs that feed all trout streams in Michigan fair game for water bottlers, said Mark Luttenton, a Grand Valley State University biology professor and river expert.

"If the state is willing to compromise our cold-water rivers, particularly systems like the White and Pere Marquette rivers, I don’t see any recourse the state has to prevent the permitting of water wells anywhere else in the state," Luttenton said.

Why is Nestle suddenly scouting for more water near some of Michigan’s most treasured natural resources -- trout streams? The answer lies in Nestle’s thirst for corporate profits and a strategy to establish a Midwest beachhead for its growing bottled water empire.

Nestle is a relative newcomer to the bottled water industry, which has its roots in Europe.

Bottled water has been sold for centuries to the rich and powerful in Europe, who drank spring water while visiting exclusive spas. European immigrants imported the spa and spring water phenomenon to the U.S. in the 1800s, according to water industry officials. Perrier, with its sparkling water and distinctive green bottles, became the first bottled water to achieve mass appeal in the U.S., in the late 1970s.

Sales of bottled water began to escalate in the U.S. in the mid-1990s, fueled by increased marketing and development of cheap and durable plastic bottles. Within a few years, plastic bottles of water were ubiquitous in gas stations, grocery stores and vending machines.

Nestle dove into the bottled water industry in 1992, when it bought Perrier. In the ensuing 14 years, Nestle went on a corporate shopping spree that snapped up 73 other brands of bottled water, including Poland Spring in Maine, Zephyrhills in Florida, Arrowhead in California and Ice Mountain, then based in Pennsylvania.

The company has created only one new brand of bottled water, Nestle Pure Life, in 1998.

Nestle targeted Michigan after its attempt to build a bottled water plant in Wisconsin failed in 2000. The company encountered a fierce controversy in Wisconsin when it tried to tap into spring water wells near a popular trout stream.

As opposition mounted in Wisconsin, former Michigan Gov. John Engler began courting Nestle. The company built a $150 million bottling facility in Stanwood and began producing Ice Mountain bottled water in 2002 despite public opposition, relentless criticism by environmental groups and a lawsuit filed by a citizens group.

The major difference between Nestle’s experiences in Wisconsin and Michigan was where the company sought to sink its wells.

After being chased away from trout streams in Wisconsin, Nestle officials met with officials at the Michigan chapter of Trout Unlimited, an influential anglers group, before selecting a pumping site here. Trout Unlimited warned the company to stay away from hundreds of trout streams, according to Nestle and Trout Unlimited officials.

The result: Nestle opted to pump spring water from beneath The Sanctuary, a private hunt club in Mecosta County. Groundwater beneath the Sanctuary flows into a warm water stream, the Dead Stream, which does not support trout.

Though Nestle initially stayed away from trout streams here, the company never lost its thirst for the cold, clean groundwater that percolates out of the ground and is the very essence of Michigan’s trout streams.

Nestle officials said the company has been studying the possibility of pumping spring water from sites near trout steams in Osceola County since 2001. The company began scouting for water near the headwaters of the White River in 2003, company officials said.

"I think Nestle learned a lesson in Wisconsin, to not go after a trout stream in Michigan right off the bat," said Luttenton, a former officer with Trout Unlimited.

"I think Nestle had a clear strategy," Luttenton said. "They got the state’s attention with jobs and built excess capacity at their plant in Stanwood, anticipating they would be looking for more sources of water down the road. Now they’re targeting trout streams."

Nestle spokeswoman Deb Muchmore said Luttenton’s claim was "generally accurate." Muchmore said Nestle is trying to develop more pumping sites -- near the White River and other trout streams -- so its Ice Mountain bottling operation doesn’t place too much strain on the natural resources at any one site.

But she acknowledged that construction of a second bottled water plant, whether it’s built in Evart or Indiana, would enable the company to double production of Ice Mountain spring water.

The prospect of Nestle sinking more wells near trout streams worries environmentalists and some people, like Peasley, who live along the rivers
the company has targeted. "I’ve always expected Nestle to sink more wells in Michigan. When are we going to say, ’Enough is enough?’ " said Terry Swier, director of Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation.

Swier’s group sued Nestle in 2001 in a bid to shut down its Ice Mountain bottling facility. A circuit court judge ruled against Nestle and ordered the company to turn off its wells. An appellate court allowed the company to continue operating and Nestle reached a settlement with MCWC that allowed Nestle’s Ice Mountain facility to pump 218 gallons of groundwater per minute from the Sanctuary site.

In 2005, the MCWC asked the state Supreme Court to overturn the appellate court ruling, claiming a Nestle court victory would open the door to more water bottling operations in Michigan. The Supreme Court is now reviewing whether MCWC has legal standing in its lawsuit against Nestle.

Swier said her group is broke and that Nestle has become "an unstoppable force" in Michigan.

Muchmore said Nestle’s Ice Mountain operations boost Michigan’s economy without harming its environment. She said many other companies in Michigan -- including soft drink firms, juice makers, food producers and golf courses -- use more water each year than Nestle.

Critics contend Nestle is unfairly making money by exploiting a public resource -- water -- and shipping some of that water out of the Great Lakes.

Nestle officials counter that Michigan’s 2006 water withdrawal law defined water as a product that can be bottled and sold anywhere, provided it is shipped in containers smaller than 5.7 gallons.

"I think people are freaked out about bottled water because it is an obvious use of water and because of the size and the international nature of our company," Muchmore said.

Rich Bowman, the former director of Trout Unlimited’s Michigan chapter who worked with Nestle when it came to the state, called the bottled water battle much ado about nothing. "It’s easy to demonize a big foreign company that’s coming here to supposedly steal our water," Bowman said. "There are other, real environmental problems in this state we need to address."
 

Posted by PLipke - Sun, Jul 29, 2007, 10:54 A

Nestle and Montague

Posted by CWR - Sat, Jul 28, 2007, 6:44 A

Not a Good Thing - Radio /Podcast/Activism Info

We had a national activist on our radio show on Valley Free radio talking about how communities are resisting Nestle.
Listen at http://corporatewatc...-water-for-sale.html
See also

Sierra Club on Water Privatization
http://www.sierraclub.org/cac/water/
Alliance for Democracy on Water Privatization
http://www.theallian...ml/eng/2037-AA.shtml
New Hampshire Town Bans Corporate Water Withdrawals
http://www.purewater...rporatewatergrab.htm
 

Posted by DonOgden - Tue, Jul 24, 2007, 5:05 A

Local Water

We’ll be focusing on this issue this evening on The Enviro Show, 6-7pm; 103.3fm, WXOJ-LP, Valley Free Radio. Webstreaming at:
http://www.valleyfre...esources/listen-now/

The Enviro Show blog is at:

http://envirosho.blogspot.com/

your comments welcomed!
 

Posted by PLipke - Mon, Jul 23, 2007, 10:42 A

Local Water

Correction. Nestle’s looking for a Montague source of 150 million gallons per year. -PL
 

Posted by PLipke - Mon, Jul 23, 2007, 10:36 A

Local Water

Posted by mik - Mon, Jul 23, 2007, 7:34 A

Water, water...everywhere?

Don,

Excellent article about the bottled water industry. Everyone in town should read it so they know what we’d be getting into if Nestle got control of our water supply. Here’s that article again: http://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/cms/page1544.cfm

Here’s a page to write a letter to the CEOs of Nestle, Coke and Pepsi:

http://www.stopcorpo...org/campaign/07proxy

Just fill in your name and make sure to include MONTAGUE, MA.
 

Posted by mik - Mon, Jul 23, 2007, 7:13 A

Local Water

100 trucks a day? Yes, that’s a lot of trucks. And they have to get here too, so it’s 200 trucks really, going over our bridges. Will we get a say in which routes they take? Will they take the Avenue A bridge? The Millers Falls bridge? Can the bridges handle the traffic? Can we stand to see truck after truck after truck come empty and leave with our water, while our bridges get pounded and our roads deteriorate? Do you want the trucks going past your house? If they used the Avenue A bridge (most convenient to 91) that would mean an average of a water truck every six minutes, 8 hours a day, turning on to or off of Avenue A from / to Third Street to get to Millers Falls Road... possibly doubling the amount of trucks that already come and go that way.

And how about sucking our aquifer dry to the tune of 500 THOUSAND gallons a day. Can we handle that? What will the effect be on the local ecosystem? The rivers? The wells in the area?
 

Posted by BillBry - Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 3:32 P

Not a Good Thing

Nestle chief rejects the need to `give back’ to communities:

Companies shouldn’t feel obligated to ``give back’’ to the community, because they haven’t taken anything away, the Austrian-born chief of the world’s largest food company told local executives yesterday.

In a stunning broadside to corporate citizenship as Bostonians have come to know it, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe - head of Nestle S.A. - said companies should only pursue charitable endeavors with an underlying intention of making money for investors.

http://blog.mises.org/archives/003307.asp

Montague is so back aswards that the deal will happen. They should lobby for a prison camp so I won’t have to go far when the system eats me up. The US has 25% of th worldwide prison population.
 

Posted by DonOgden - Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 5:58 A

Water, water...everywhere?

And finally:

>>US: Rural communities exploited by Nestlé for your bottled water
Posted: May 30, 2007

By Tara Lohan, AlterNet

Across the country, multinational corporations are targeting hundreds of rural communities to gain control of their most precious resource. By strong-arming small towns with limited economic means, these corporations are part of a growing trend to privatize public water supplies for economic gain in the ballooning bottled water industry.

With sales of over $35 billion worldwide in the bottled water market, corporations are doing whatever it takes to buy up pristine springs in some of our country’s most beautiful places. While the companies reap the profits, the local communities and the environment are paying the price.

One of the biggest and most voracious of the water gobblers is Nestlé, which controls one-third of the U.S. market and sells 70 different brand names -- such as Arrowhead, Calistoga, Deer Park, Perrier, Poland Spring and Ice Mountain -- which it draws from 75 springs located all over the country.........<<

[full text: http://insidethebott...l-your-bottled-water ]

Sooooo, anyone care to start a campaign?
 

Posted by DonOgden - Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 5:48 A

Water, water...everywhere?

Even more relevant:

http://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/cms/page1544.cfm
 

Posted by DonOgden - Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 5:42 A

Water, water...everywhere?

Right Mark1, the issue in Lee was the proposed privatization of the existing waterworks. The issue here is the proposed corporate raid on the public aquifer! Here’s an interesting link:
http://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/cms/page1352.cfm
 

Posted by BillBry - Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 7:13 P

Not a Good Thing

http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm
Article XCVII. Article XLIX of the Amendments to the Constitution is hereby annulled and the following is adopted in place thereof: - The people shall have the right to clean air and water, freedom from excessive and unnecessary noise, and the natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic qualities of their environment; and the protection of the people in their right to the conservation, development and utilization of the agricultural, mineral, forest, water, air and other natural resources is hereby declared to be a public purpose.

A right is protected from the majority ruling. As of now the Water deal should be dead! In the North American Union jobs will not pay well. Imported workers will come, just like farming. Everything I’ve ever posted on this board is verifiable in triplicate! When ALL government is lawless, I mean ALL, I turn to my Constitutions for answers and how to be lawful myself. If that makes me an extremist than I’m proud of it! If we all defended our rights we would not be tricked out of them!


Google Search Deval Patrick and Nestle. It isn’t good.
 

Posted by Mark1 - Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 5:56 P

Water, water...everywhere?

Don,

That seems a little bit different in that the company was proposing to privatize water and sewer, not harvest water, bottle it and ship it elsewhere. But it is still good to see that local control over local resources won that battle.

Mark1
 

Posted by DonOgden - Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 2:18 P

Water, water...everywhere?

Yes, Lee, MA went thru this with Veolia. Here’s a link:

http://www.citizen.o...er/us/municipal/lee/

I don’t know the answers to your other questions, but i’d like to find out as well
 

Posted by Mark1 - Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 12:29 P

Not a Good Thing

Surfmanet,

Thanks for that excellent information!

Mark1
 

Posted by EmilyM - Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 12:09 P

Water, water...everywhere?

Does anyone know of other communities that have or are in a similar situation? I’m curious as to how it was handled - and the aftermath (impact on community; water resources etc.)

I think any large multinational ownership of a common resource particularly water - is disturbing and Mass Wildlife, in particular, should be aware of the precious nature of our natural resources.

I’m curious, should the state and Mass Wildlife (or whomever has the power to make such decisions decide to sell off our resource,) can anyone explain to me how the aquifer below the plains is related (or not?) to the aquifer that supplies Turners, and how withdrawing water from below the plains may or may not impact both that aquifer, and the shallower Montague Center well, even if indirectly? I believe that major withdrawl from Turners water supply can impact the MC well, even though we’re basically on surface water (about 8 ft deep,) I think.

Thanks.
 

Posted by DonOgden - Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 11:43 A

Water, water...everywhere?

We at The Enviro Show on WXOJ-LP, Valley Free Radio are definately interested in keeping an eye on it! Have any Montague residents called for a public meeting on this lame proposition? I’m assuming the vast majority of residents aren’t all that happy about yet another instance of corporate privatization of public land and resources, no?

We’d like to hear some voices of dissent on our radio show. Drop us a note at: enviroshow@valleyfreeradio.org
 

Posted by surfmanet - Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 7:42 A

Not a Good Thing

Short reply to Mark1 asking "what the process is and when (or if) community input is part of it"

Nestle is right now talking with the MassWildlife to obtain permission to enter onto the Montague Plains Wildlife Management Area to perform a site investigation. This investigation would culminate in a long term pumping test well to "stress the aquifer" and see how it reacts in order to determine its long term sustainable yield.

The MassWildlife Board meetings are open to the public. see: http://www.mass.gov/...s/board_meetings.htm. Their next meeting is July 31 and I’d expect Nestle’ to be there.

MassWildlife must act in accordance with EOEA Article 97 Land Disposition Policy. see: http://www.mass.gov/.../article97policy.htm

Article 97 requires a 2/3 vote of both branches of the legislature to dispose of state conservation land. This puts this entire project into the political arena. Everyone is entitled to provide input to their state senators and representatives.

This project would also need to go through the MassDEP Source Approval Process and would likely trigger a review under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). Public input is part of the MEPA review and is the appropriate place for concerns regarding environmental impacts to ground & surface water, habitat, air quality and town infrastructure, etc ... (There could be a substantial increase in truck traffic with this plant)

This project would also require a special permit by the Montague Zoning Board of Appeals to allow a use that is externally similar in appearance to a public utility in an Industrial Zone. Its unclear whether the initial investigations (borings, test wells, etc... ) would require the ZBA special permit or if it would only come into play once they propose to actually construct the wellheads. Public input at ZBA hearings in encouraged.

In another post someone asked if Nestle’ is reading this. I would wager they are. In attendance at yesterday’s meeting was Paul J. Scapicchio, Senior Vice President of Government Relations for ML Strategies. see: http://www.mlstrategies.com/ If I were the PR man for a new project like this I would assign someone to learn everything I could about Montague.
 

Posted by Mark1 - Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 7:22 A

Not a Good Thing

Agreed. Today’s article was pie-in-the-sky and the Select Board’s response was short sighted and lacking. Not that they may have any control over it anyway, as it is likely to be a state decision, not ours. We need to keep an eye on this and figure out what the process is and when (or if) community input is part of it. If this gets pitched - like it was in the paper - as an economic development ’benefit’ and a ’clean’ industry, then it will be difficult to protect our right to our water.

Mark1
 

Posted by dpeter - Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 6:38 A

Not a Good Thing

I hope people take this water thing seriously. I certainly don’t want a multinational - especially one like Nestle (boycott boycott - remeber?) - buying up what is probably one of the town’s major natural resource. With climate change and global uncertainty, who knows if & when we might need this water source. Plus we are hearing more & more about the negative environmental impacts of bottled water. Plus the ’hundreds of jobs’ is self serving PR and nothing more.
In my paranoid moments I also think the US is going to become a second world country as China and India etc. become economic powers & that our natural resources will increasing be under ’colonization’ threat (Payback is a bitch).
Yeah - keep out Nestle or whoever.
 

Posted by RiverCulture - Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 4:20 A

Water, water...everywhere?

Catch the Spirit. VERY funny! I laughed out loud for that one. I think the herb thing is a little far fetched and i was just brainstorm rambling. The crystal ball thing is a little hokey and McPsychic. Seriously, we should brainstorm about this idea more.
 

Posted by PaulK - Wed, Jul 18, 2007, 8:09 P

Water, water...everywhere?

Funny, Karen also said glass bottles, but she didn’t come up with round. We’d have to keep distribution local as shipping would get expensive with round, glass bottles. But I like your thinking. Not sure I go for the magic herbs-in-the-bottle idea. But, maybe, after we’ve launched the non-flavored version we can expand the line. But I think whatever we add should be invisible, like the so-called vitamins they put in bottled water now. Maybe we can add protoplasm from real, live (as in dead) ghosts.

Pleasant Springs: the healthy water for all of your active lives.

Pleasant Springs: for body AND soul.

Pleasant Springs: catch the spirit!
 

Posted by neener - Wed, Jul 18, 2007, 7:08 P

Water, water...everywhere?

why not print a fortune under the lid like a fortune cookie???
(now that would be the ideal job, writing the fortune blurbs for the lake pleasant spiritual water association.)
call it "happy medium water" or something.
 

Posted by RiverCulture - Wed, Jul 18, 2007, 5:18 P

Water, water...everywhere?

Ok Paul, Lets bottle it in glass shaped like a crystal ball. High end fancy water. No words on the bottle. Maybe a logo on the cap. Oh and maybe a few herbs floating around that can be read after the liquid has been consumed. We can have a website where people can submit pictures of their empty bottles and we can provide commentary on what the herb residue placement means.
 

Posted by kutter - Wed, Jul 18, 2007, 3:16 P

Water, water...everywhere?

They may very well have tried, but Mik has been real good about keeping the spammers at bay.
 

Posted by PaulK - Wed, Jul 18, 2007, 2:59 P

Water, water...everywhere?

Mik, have the guys from Nestle logged on here yet? Think they’re reading our corkboard?