STORYLINE Nestle Water

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

Nestle wants Sac's water

by Suzanne Hurt, published on September 28, 2009 at 11:59 PM

Storyline: Nestle Water RSS Feed

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

Loading images

Sacramento residents are taking first steps into the water justice movement in an effort to stop Swiss company Nestle from bottling and selling city tap water.

About 60 people and one dog packed a tiny Quaker church in a Midtown office suite Monday night to discuss growing concerns over Nestle's plans to open a water-bottling plant in Sacramento and to bottle an estimated 82 million gallons of water from the American River every year.

One of the group's biggest worries is that Nestle's use of the water would not be regulated or limited in any way. While city employee and Nestle's public relations team estimates are tens of millions of gallons apart, the actual amount of water Nestle may bottle each year would be unchecked, according to city staff and activists.

"It's clearly ridiculous to give someone unlimited access to our water in the third year of a drought," said Sacramento resident Evan Tucker. "We could stop it."

The water would be taken directly from the municipal water system. The bottled water would then be trucked to stores and sold to consumers, including those in Sacramento and elsewhere in Northern California.

The group also expressed concerns with the lack of transparency they say has accompanied plans for Nestle's bottled water division, known as Nestle Water, to begin operations at a Florin Fruitridge Industrial Park site early next year. The city has not sought public input or performed an environmental analysis of the plan's expected impact.

"The city and Nestle have tried to keep this a secret," said Tucker, who led the meeting. "We're trying to do what we can to get the word out."

The group, which has organized under the name Save Our Water Sacramento, includes people who have worked for social justice, human and civil rights and the environment. Monday night, they discussed the initial steps they're taking to seek a Sacramento City Council moratorium on beverage bottling plants in Sacramento.

Save Our Water Sacramento and its allies are also working to bring the new movie, "Tapped," to the city, Mt. Shasta and Orland, where another water-bottling fight is raging, in the next few weeks, said Nancy Price of Davis, who has helped community residents fight bottled-water battles in other states as a social and environmental justice issue. Price works with Alliance for Democracy's Water for Life campaign.

Nestle is planning to open a plant in Sacramento after a failed, six-year battle to bottle spring water in McCloud near Mt. Shasta. Nestle had sought to open a plant a few miles from water-bottling plants operated by Coca-Cola and Crystal Geyser, owned by a Japanese pharmaceutical company. That effort failed after Attorney General Jerry Brown threatened to sue Nestle over an inadequate environmental review in the summer of 2008.

Nestle's attempts to build water-bottling plants have been fought from McCloud to Denver and Maine. Residents of Shingletown, a mountain community outside Lassen National Park, are currently fighting a water battle involving an unidentified bottling company they suspect is Nestle, said Dick Rullman, president of Local Water Stays Local.

They've hired San Francisco attorney Rachel Hooper of Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger — the same attorney who successfully fought Nestle in McCloud.

Nestle's stated plans for Sacramento include bottling 20 million gallons of spring water from an unidentified source, Tucker said.

As such an old city, Sacramento has "very, very senior water rights" in California, said Carmichael resident Betsy Weiland, who has worked on other water issues such as protecting the American River.

When asked whether city employees have given Nestle permission to bottle and sell the city's water, Tom Zeidner, a senior development project manager with the Economic Development Department, said, "Nestle's is setting up its plant in an existing building in an area that's zoned industrial or manufacturing. They have satisfied zoning standards. As such, they are going in there and establishing a plant under 'development by right.' "

The area is zoned for industrial use of water, he later added.

The permits they need to install equipment and do work on an existing building are "minor enough" that Nestle doesn't need to go through any other regulatory body, such as the planning commission, Zeidner said.

Nestle has told the city about 250 acre feet — or nearly 82 million gallons — of city-treated American River water would be bottled each year. That represents .02 percent of the city's current water demands, he said, adding the city does not regulate how much water an industrial water customer uses except to impose drought restrictions when needed.

There are no current drought restrictions on industrial users, although there are outdoor irrigation restrictions, he added.

Nestle would pay the industrial rate, said Zeidner, who didn't know what that rate is.

The city determined that the California Environmental Quality act doesn't apply to the project, he said, based on CEQA guidelines, section 15002i, which state:

(i) Discretionary Action. CEQA applies in situations where a governmental agency can use its judgment in deciding whether and how to carry out or approve a project. A project subject to such judgmental controls is called a "discretionary project."

(1) Where the law requires a governmental agency to act on a project in a set way without allowing the agency to use its own judgment, the project is called "ministerial," and CEQA does not apply.

(2) Whether an agency has discretionary or ministerial controls over a project depends on the authority granted by the law providing the controls over the activity. Similar projects may be subject to discretionary controls in one city or county and only ministerial controls in another.

 

Suzanne Hurt is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

 

Liked this article? Share it with your friends:

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.RSS Feed

September 29, 2009 | 8:22 AM
Great article, Suzanne. I was at the meeting too, and you did a good job here in accurately describing the events.

I would like to emphasize one of Save Our Water Sacramento's main points. As far as anyone knows, the relationship between Nestle Waters and the City's (our) municipal water supply is not defined. That is, there are no limits set on how much water Nestle can purchase. (Some, like Zeidner, have claimed that Nestle would be subject to drought restrictions like anyone else- But if not now, when?) Save Our Water Sacramento believes this is not wise because the water is itself the end product for Nestle, and they will consequently have an incentive to take as much as they can get.
6 1
REPLY
edited on  September 29, 2009 | 9:10 AM
0.02% is of the supply is totally insignificant. There is hundred times more than that lost through leakage.

http://halmapr.com/news/hwm/water-lost-is-water-wasted-%E2%80%93-working-with-the-water-loss-task-force/
2 3
REPLY
September 30, 2009 | 9:22 AM
We hear the same kind of retoric up hear in Shingletown about the water. It's lost to evaporation, people are using and wasting more water, these things happen and will always happen. The evaporation is part of the natural cycle and will happen until man uses all of the surface water. As far as usage, that recharges our aquifers and the next guy uses it again. When it's taken from the natural flow and put into plastic bottles it's gone. Sure it eventually goes back to the earth, but not where it naturally flowed before.

LOCALWATERSTAYSLOCAL.ORG
1 0
REPLY
October 2, 2009 | 12:42 PM
The figure should be corrected to .2 percent of the city's current water demands. See below for more information.
0 0
REPLY
September 29, 2009 | 3:34 PM
called
Mayor Kevin Johnson: (916) 808-5300
Robert King Fong: 916-808-7004
Kevin McCarty: 916-808-7006 and urged for a "moratorium on beverage bottling plants in Sacramento"
4 0
REPLY
September 29, 2009 | 4:21 PM
The production of plastic water bottles needed to bottle the millions of gallons of water would also have environmental implications.

The Save Our Water website can be viewed at the following link: http://www.saveourwatersacramento.org/

This is the link to the initial press release by Nestle involving its plan for Sacramento: http://www.nestle-watersna.com/pdf/NW_Open_New_Sacramento_Facility_072409.pdf

This is the link to Nestle's Sacramento project site: http://www.nestlewatersca.com/sacramento/

4 0
REPLY
September 29, 2009 | 9:56 PM
Great article. Would the plant bring a meaningful number of jobs to Sacramento?
2 0
REPLY
September 30, 2009 | 8:58 AM
These plants are all automated and practically run themselves. The technical jobs go to Nestle's in house people who are familiar with the equipment and of course the management jobs go to their people also. This leaves the janitorial jobs (Very Few) to be filled by locals. As for truck driving jobs, how many tanker trucks do you see around that are not working?? If you read the articles about bottled water testing they will tell a story that you would not like to hear. There is little to no restrictions on bottled water, there are more on tap water, so if they use the city water that's already treated nothing but profit and the city pays for it.

Dick Rullman, President - "Local water Stays Local" Shingletown, CA "Localwaterstayslocal.org"
2 0
REPLY
September 30, 2009 | 1:12 PM
Great question Anthony. According to Nestle's press release, the plant will initially provide 16 on-site jobs with additional work being provided for contractors, delivery personnel, etc., and that the plant will eventually provide approximately 40 jobs once it is working at full capacity.

In addition to the point 'President1' makes above, someone at the Save Our Water Sacramento meeting pointed out that Nestle is making the claim that this plant will provide 40 jobs for Sacramento. The reality is, of course, that Nestle can't legally make any guarantees as to who will get those jobs. They are posted on the web for anyone who is qualified. "Approximately 40 jobs" doesn't sound to me like something we should be willing to accept in trade for a company to bottle our public water and sell it back to us.
1 0
REPLY
September 30, 2009 | 6:17 AM
Has anyone watched the film FLOW? It will give you an idea of what Nestle can do to your area and the rest of the world
4 0
REPLY
September 30, 2009 | 6:53 AM
YES!!! 'Flow: For the Love of Water' is a VERY good documentary on this subject, both internationally, and is on point with regard to Nestle's deceptive practices, and is a VERY good barometer of what we can expect here in Sacramento...

I'm glad that Council Member McCarty requested information about the origins of this obvious backroom 'deal' with Nestle, especially since we're selling our souls, waterwise, for a mere 15 - 20 jobs at the proposed Nestle plant... This 'deal' has Kevin Johnson's paw prints all over it, and hopefully more rational and less corrupt minds will prevail...
4 0
REPLY
September 30, 2009 | 1:26 PM
Yes, 'bbbbmer,' unfortunately it would appear that the Mayor hasn't given this much thought beyond: "Nestle Waters' desire to do business in Sacramento is more proof that we are on our way to becoming a world-class city." (I am paraphrasing).
0 0
REPLY
September 30, 2009 | 9:06 AM
The question I have is; Why is the authority to make these decisions on our water supplies able to be made by local politicians??? In Orland it's the city manager, in Mccloud it was the city water district, in Shasta county it's the director of public works and the county supervisors, now in Sacramento it's your local water district. We have a state water control board and water resources boards and water rights boards, what do they do??? A few years back the state gave the authority to the locals to allocate OUR water, WHY???
1 0
REPLY
September 30, 2009 | 11:40 AM
I agree, Flow is a great film to get insight into the damage these corporations can do to something so vital.

Gotta love Coke's "free fertilizer" aka toxic waste for India locals.
1 0
REPLY
September 30, 2009 | 12:07 PM
Great article about a disturbing topic.
After reading the article that notes that Nestle's SAYS they will be using less than .02% of Sacramento's water, I checked a memo from Marty Hanneman, Director of the Utilities, to the mayor (9/14/9) that used the figure .2%. That still sounds like a small amount, if it is correct, but this is 10 times the .02% figure or 1/500th of Sacramento's daily water use. In other words, every year and a half, Sacramento's entire day's water use would be used by Nestle's--assuming they limit themselves to what they say they will use.
Whatever the right percentage is, the scrutiny by the city council on this important issue seems to be about.00002%.
1 0
REPLY
September 30, 2009 | 4:23 PM
Bob, you're correct : the 250 acre feet — or nearly 82 million gallons — of city-treated American River water that may be bottled each year represents .2 percent, rather than .02 percent, of the city's current water demands.
0 0
REPLY
September 30, 2009 | 2:31 PM
Thank you so much to these groups who are questioning this. A certain mindset always claims the 'promise' of jobs outranks all else - a very seductive, yet usually empty promise. Stay after your city council members -- they're supposed to be watching out for these things [unless the mayor's 'strong mayor' initiative goes through, of course!].
1 0
REPLY
September 30, 2009 | 2:32 PM
Also, re CEQA - note the letter in today's Bee by the Building and Trades group that wants to weaken CEQA.
0 0
REPLY
October 1, 2009 | 7:11 AM
Boycott Nestle
http://www.breastfeeding.com/advocacy/advocacy_boycott.html
1 0
REPLY
October 1, 2009 | 4:02 PM
Great article Suzanne and Kudos to Save Our Water Sacramento for organizing opposition and bringing attention to this important issue.

I hope it isn't too late to stop Nestles.
0 0
REPLY
edited on  October 1, 2009 | 10:01 PM
Farmers are not getting water to grow crops...but Nestle is so they bottle it?


Our Country is so screwed by moronic politicians.

0 0
REPLY
October 2, 2009 | 1:30 PM
Hello, I simply replied to Ming saying that I had carried out the requested action and called the mayor. when I searched my entries today on Facebook, I saw an OFFENSIVE emblem with a 'see this article for an accurate description of what happened at the meeting. How and who marks anyone's entries on Facebook with offensive. I am new to Facebook and would like to understand how the OFFENSIVE emblem shows up next to my innocent 'yes, I called the Mayor about it.'
0 0
REPLY
October 2, 2009 | 1:33 PM
I also see the same emblem on Mings facebook page as well. What's up?
0 0
REPLY
DL
Author thumbnail
edited on  October 3, 2009 | 2:17 PM
Hi NaturalWonder1! When someone shares a link on Facebook, Facebook will try to find a picture from the page the link came from to show with it (or offer a choice, or you can choose to not use images but if you miss the checkbox you can't change it without removing it). But since there is no picture in the article it looks like Facebook used the "Flag Offensive" image from this page instead as the main picture for Ming's link to the story.

So it looks like what happened was no one on Facebook marked it as "offensive", it's just the way Facebook works, and a bad picture was included. Hope that helps.
0 0
REPLY
Leave a Comment
User icon
Type your comment in the box below Edit your comment in the box below

Type tags into the box below. Use commas to separate your tags.

Please Log in or Sign up

Existing Members

Sign In Progress bar Forgot Password?

New Users Create an Account Here
Progress bar
Verification email has been sent. To validate your account open the link provided in the message.
There was a problem sending your verification email. Please contact support@sacramentopress.com
Progress bar Login background Tag cloud top Tag cloud background Tag cloud bottom Login manager background