Naughty Nestle?

In Chaffee county, there is a controversy over water use. Nestle is applying for a 10-year extension of a permit to extract and bottle water for sale. However, people have concerns about their environment and economy for the future of their county. Specifically, a group called Unbottle and Protect Chaffee County Water (UPCC)  was formed in opposition to Nestle’s presence. A public hearing happened at the public hall where Nestle and UPCC made their case to the county commissioners. The county commissioners are in charge of determining whether the permit will be renewed or not.

UPCC of Nestle renewing the permit to remove water believes Nestle’s presence should benefit the county’s economy and not damage the environment and those permit requirements weren’t fulfilled. The prior permit obtained by Nestle had provisions that aimed to guarantee economic benefits and sustainable use of resources. One provision was 50% of truck drivers would be county residents. UPCC argued Nestle failed to meet the requirement and obtained relief from the commissioners rather than resolve the issue. Another benefit was Nestle investing money into the community philithropanthicly. Although the initial proceeds were large, later philanthropic efforts were marginal contributions and determined by Nestle which gives Nestle the power to give minimally without punishment. Nestle stated they invested $6 million in improving recycling, but UPCC noted that only thousands stayed within Colorado and the money went towards glass recycling in Denver. So, the nearly 300,000 plastic water bottles brought to Chaffee county is a burden that Nestle produces. Additionally, other water bottle companies are more efficient at supplying bottled water to the county so there is no need for Nestle. Lastly, the property Nestle operates on was verbally agreed on to be turned into a conservation easement to benefit fishermen and conservationists. However, UPCC argues that this easement is still under process, which means Nestle did not fulfill that commitment. Plus, by being turned into an easement the county forgoes potential development and property tax earnings. UPCC believes Nestle has not fulfilled their permit requirements and should not be granted a renewal under these circumstances.

Nestle argues that they are sustainable and not an economical burden on the county. Nestle states that the quantity of plastic used in their water bottles has been halved from 16 grams of plastic to 8-9 grams of plastic. Additionally, they have invested money into recycling efforts, but not within Chaffee county. Also, a hydrology engineer analyzed water flows that would be impacted by Nestle’s wells and water removal and found Nestle has not made an adverse impact on water flows. Nestle is also turning the land they own into a conservation easement to benefit wildlife both on land and water which would benefit fishermen and conservationists for decades to come. A commissioner expressed discontent with Nestle’s philothropanthic efforts over the years. This begs the question if Nestle was doing so to keep good relations with the city so they can ensure a permit renewal and were not being truly philothropanthic. Nestle notes that a goal to ensure economic benefits to Chaffee county was to hire at least 50% of their truck drivers in Chaffee county as residents. Although Nestle has been struggling to maintain that promise they state they communicated this dilemma and maintained efforts to achieve said goal.

Nestle is a large water bottle producer in America and to maintain such a presence they have to move a lot of water. In doing so they drew the attention of the public in Chaffee county where Nestle removes water from. UPCC is concerned that Nestle’s presence has unsustainable use of water, production of plastic, and lack of economic growth will be a burden and not a benefit for the county.