Pump Station
Nestlé Waters
Arrowhead Spring Waters
65.000.000 gl/year
Denver — In rural Chaffee County, Colorado, one of the world‘s largest beverage companies has discovered water it deems fit for a bottle: clean and crisp, with the mountain spring flavor people are willing to pay for. Nestlé — with 12 U.S. brands of bottled water and almost $4.3 billion in North American sales in 2007 — came calling for Arkansas Valley spring water. Nestlé Waters North America (wants to) tap an aquifer feeding a pair of springs near Salida, southwest of Colorado Springs, and draw 65 million gallons of water per year to bottle and sell under its Arrowhead brand.
Not everyone is happy about this. Buena Vista and Salida have birthed a protest movement that has been more noisy than effective. By some estimates, 80 percent of the roughly 17,000 people in Chaffee County are opposed to this diversion of water. Many mountain residents say Nestlé should go bottle someone else‘s water. The conflict is the latest skirmish in an ongoing battle against the bottled water industry, which has enjoyed strong growth over the last decade thanks to the beverage‘s popularity among consumers who eschew tap water and soft drinks.
colorado
chaffee county
ABOUT
deadwater is a bachelor project by Caroline Breidenbach.
It’s an interactive multimedia storytelling about a critical examination of „bottled water“.
Drinking water from plastic bottles is an everyday and self-evident thing for most people. It is consumed without being questioned.
The consumption of bottled water increased explosively in the past 30 years and it is still growing. What seems harmless is actually a business which often comes along with lobbying and corruption as well as neglecting rights for humans and the environment. It’s time to question this trend – a trend arised out of abuse and convenience.
This is a demo version. The conception is that there are lot’s of stories spread over the map.
This version is only published time limited as part of the bachelor thesis at Hochschule Hannover and not for commercial purposes.
CREDITS
Research, concept, design and production by Caroline Breidenbach
Contact info@caroline-breidenbach.de
© Caroline Breidenbach. All rights reserved. January 2017
DATA SOURCES
Intro http://environment.about.com
Map info about bottled water locales: www.bottledwater.org; drought map: www.huffingtonpost.com; infographic: www.fiberwater.com; Beverage Marketing Corporation
Story San Bernardino text: The Desert Sun, The Sun; video:story of stuff project; photo: Jay Calderon; infographic: Nestle Waters North America, www.bottled-water.blogspot.de
Story Chaffee County text: Colorado Independent, Denver Post, LA Times
video & infographic: documentation „Wem gehört das Wasser“
Story Fryeburg text: Portland Press Herald, US Uncut, The Honoluluadvertiser, Stop Nestlé Waters, BDN Maine; video: documentation „bottled life“; photo: John Patriquin, Press Herald; infographic: Beverage Marketing Corporation
denver
buena vista
salida
term vs. profit
for water in chaffee county
term
profit
Journalist
Lee Hart
As mentioned in the video the landowner prof. Hagen declared that he didn‘t see any conflict of interest and the University declared that the committee had a different opinion and this has been the reason of the second expert report.
A few residents suggested the county bottle its own water and keep the benefits at home. Several spoke against adding 25 trucks each day to two-lane U.S. 285 between the county
“A lot of us are concerned about water here, and we are in an era where we have changes happening locally and globally that we’ve never seen before.”
– John Graham
Aurora took up the deal which Nestlé failed to convince at the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District
Since the Hagens were unable to sell Nestlé sufficient water rights for its purposes, Nestlé had to look elsewhere to augment its source. In Colorado, where water supplies fluctuate wildly with the seasons, water-use permits like the one Nestlé secured force holders to include a plan on how they will replace the water they will extract. In this case, Nestlé failed to convince the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District to lease the company water and so it turned to the city of Aurora, 100 miles away. Aurora took up the deal, agreeing to lease the company 65 million gallons of water per year for 10 years, with an optional 10-year renewal. The first year payment is $160,000. The price rise 5 percent a year. Aurora can cut the deal off in any year that it needs the water for its own purposes.
In Chaffee County, Nestlé‘s research led it several years ago to the Ruby Mountain and Bighorn springs, Lauerman said. Because Nestlé is taking water from the aquifer that otherwise would flow into the Arkansas River, Nestlé intends to replenish the river with water purchased from the Denver-area city of Aurora. The plan, Nestlé officials say, leaves more than enough water. Nestlé will extract less than 10% of the average spring flows, and snowmelt and precipitation will recharge the aquifer, Lauerman said.
and Denver. Many wondered what would happen to the Nestlé-tapped aquifer if a drought like the one in 2002 returned. Several residents of this criticals trumpeted the consultant’s review of Nestlé’s research by Colorado State University ecologist Delia Malone. While Nestlé says the report “is not based on scientific evidence,” Malone’s review contradicts the company’s research by suggesting that water withdrawal during a drought could drain the aquifer and nearby wells could run dry. The report repeatedly criticizes the water bottler for not considering warming climate trends when studying wildlife, wetlands and the long-term ecological health of the aquifer, which catches drainage from the Mosquito Range.
Deal sparked strong opposition
Many consider a drop in the bucket the 65 million gallons of water Nestlé has the rights to bottle and sell every year, at least in terms of the impact on the Arkansas River and its aquifers. Others look at it differently. In Salida, the deal has sparked strong opposition from the time it was proposed. Signs cropped up early last year around town as negotiations got underway that read “Stop Nestlé” and “Nest-Leave“. Still, when it came time to issue permits, the three-member Board of County Commissioners was unanimous in approving Nestlé’s plans. In the end, it was probably a combination of fear and Old-West style property rights values that carried the day for Nestlé. Shortly after the last of the land deals surrounding the Nestlé project were completed, John Graham wrote a letter to the local paper. He concludes:
“I think I now understand a little better why a small but influential group of people were pushing so hard for approval of the Nestlé project.”
Commissioner Tim Glenn, the lone Democrat on the board, told a local reporter “Out and out denial of the permit… well you know what would’ve happened… we would have been sued.” Commission Chair Frank Holman, on the other hand, thinks the Nestlé deal is good for the county. “It is a good thing” he said. “The county will get 12 to 15 new full-time truck driver jobs out of this. And those jobs are sorely needed” he said. Holman plays down concerns. He said that most of the
water Nestlé will be draining away would have flowed directly into the Arkansas, so the Aurora augmentation water more than makes up for what will be piped to Johnson Village and poured into trucks. He adds that the deal is now a matter of private property rights. Nestlé now owns the land where the water originates, he said, and the company has leased the augmentation water to replace the water its carting away, so Nestlé is well within its rights. “Nestlé is a good neighbor,” he said. “They are giving us money to help with schools. They are creating a conservation easement on their land. And they are creating river access for fishermen.”
44 conditions needs to meet
Indeed, to help change the anti attidude, Nestlé was working with county residents to start a community foundation. Chaffee County’s permitting process produced a document listing 44 conditions Nestlé had to meet before it was started pumping a drop and that it must continue to meet as pumping continues. Conditions include such things as monitoring the condition of wetlands and groundwater to ensure that the pumping operation does not have a negative effect. It also includes a stipulation that at least half the truck drivers have primary residency in Chaffee County and that Nestlé attempt to hire 100 percent of the drivers from Chaffee County. That was a lure of jobs and tax money, that county officials had not wanted to miss.
Nestlé has spent millions of dollars to move in to neighborhood, more than $4 million for real estate surrounding the operations, around $200,000 a year to lease water from Aurora, which in turn limits residents’ right to water lawns and offers incentives for
“We all tried to impress on the commissioners that Nestlé would agree to the conditions and then ignore them. The oversight issue is very real. Nestlé will probably follow the conditions for a while, but two or three years down the road, who knows?”
– John Graham
low-water use xeriscaping. The company also agreed to pay a lump sum of $500,000 to schools in Buena Vista and Salida and has promised annual contributions as well. Nestlé intends to restore the land around
the springs, including an old fishery, to its natural habitat and preserve 100 acres of land, a plan praised by state wildlife officials.
County Development Director Don Reimer, who today (at the time of the approval) issued the notice to proceed, is tasked with monitoring the operation on an ongoing basis to ensure compliance. John Graham and other members of the group “Chaffee Citizens
for Sustainability“ see it critically: “We all tried to impress on the commissioners that Nestlé would agree to the conditions and then ignore them. The oversight issue is very real. Nestlé will probably follow the conditions for a while, but two or three years down the road, who knows?”, said John Graham.
Nestlé – the bad guy or not?
And “it also seems like an unfair fight when a giant multinational corporation picked as its first target in Colorado, a small rural community of limited financial resources, dearth of technical expertise and glaring voids in regulations at the local and state level to definitively protect it against such commercial water grabs. And there’s no question Nestlé can and still may well overpower this community with its vast
resources in order to win any future argument about any aspect of the project.“ writes the blog Stop Nestle Water.
“Bottled water is an in-your-face example of water privatization and commoditization. It is extremely wasteful and energy intensive, but from an environmental point of view it just isn’t that big a deal.”
– Noah Hall
But what balance could be drawn so far? The blog Stop Nestlé Water writes: “... it’s now clear that Nestlé’s initial promises of economic benefits to Chaffee County were at best smoke and mirrors – and at worst, the kind of outright fabrication that has dogged the company’s projects in the past. A sterling example? Nestlé initially claimed their project would generate $80,000 in property tax revenue. The real number? Less than $17,000 annually. It would add $2.4 million in assessed property value, generating more than $18,000 in property taxes for 2010 and more than $500,000 during the next 30 years. Gone completely is the “economic benefit” whereby Nestlé’s trucks would buy diesel in the county, supporting the area with fuel taxes. As a consultant pointed out, the county doesn’t receive direct fuel tax payments.“
more about tap vs. bottled water
more about Arrowhead Spring Water
25 times a day – 120 miles to Denver
The water runs out of a pipeline near Buena Vista and will splash into an empty 8,000-gallon tanker truck. It will take roughly an hour for the truck to fill, and then another truck will take its place. The water will run 24 hours a day, filling approximately 25 trucks each day, every day. The trucks will drive 120 miles to a Nestlé bottling plant in Denver where the water will be used to fill hundreds and thousands and millions of little plastic Arrowhead Springs water bottles, which will then be trucked to convenience markets, grocery stores, movie theaters, and sports palaces around the West. Each month, Nestlé will fill roughly 40.4 million 16.9 ounce bottles with the water from the area’s Nathrop spring. By the end of a year, 65 million gallons of Arkansas Valley water will have been driven to Denver, bottled, driven somewhere else, and sold.
“We are one of the best things that could happen to these springs” said Lauermann. “Our involvement affords a level of protection that other owners and users of this property could never offer.”
– Nestlé hydrogeolist B. Lauermann
Nestlé has promised to replace all the water it takes from the valley and spend $1 million to restore riverside habitat where a dilapidated fishery sits. It has installed 10 monitoring wells to gauge the health of the underground aquifer that supplies the springs and will monitor wetlands near them. Nestlé hydrogeologist Bruce Lauerman calls the plan a “sustainable, surgical extraction” of water and describes preserving the pristine water supply by taking only a fraction of its flows. “We are one of the best things that could happen to these springs” he said.“ Our involvement affords a level of protection that other owners and users of this property could never offer.” Maybe so, say many local.
“Even small groundwater subsides could dry the water layer during a longer period drought. The proposed water abstractions will impair the natural irrigation, which can damage the entire stability of the damp area.“
– Delia Malone, ecologist, extract of the critical review
How is a contract with Nestlé possible, if the area is manifestly unsuitable to extract water? There is an environmental assessment that has investigated the possible effects of pumping down. In this, the expertise expresses great reservations. But the critical report has never been published. Instead, the review commissioned by the county and funded by Nestlé as part of the county’s permitting process is revised and submitted to the decision committee – earlier concerns
completely vanished – published by the same ecologist who had also written the critical review. Lee Hart, a local reporter, writes a blog and is in contact with Delia Malone – the before mentioned ecologist. She says that she is under heavy pressure – but she remains in her misgivings.
“The only thing that has matched the explosion of bottled water consumption is the backlash against it.”
– Noah Hall
Hall teaches law at Wayne State University and the University of Michigan. He has testified before Congress regarding bottled water and has represented environmental groups in Michigan in litigation against Nestlé. Still, in his view, Nestlé is not really the problem. Neither is bottled water per se. He says that when Nestlé taps into a spring, say on the Arkansas River in Colorado, it is just doing what corporations do — seeking to maximize sales and profits.
If there is a problem with bottled water, and he thinks there is, that problem lies more with the United States Food and Drug Administration than it does with any one company. “If I were making policy,” he says, “I would get rid of the designation of spring water on bottled water labels. It doesn’t inform the consumer and it puts tremendous pressure on small vulnerable springs. It would be better for everyone if bottled water was taken from deep acquifers that are not connected to springs.” Hall, who says he has never purchased a bottle of water in his life, says agriculture poses a far bigger threat to worldwide water supplies than does bottled water. Bottled water is seen as the enemy of the environment because „it is very visible and tangible.“.
A small group is profiting
Unsurprisingly, the deal has already generated significant cash for a small group of locals involved in the controversial enterprise and that before a drop of water was extracted. Early to cash in was Frank McMurry, who back in May 2007 sold Nestlé 111 acres for $860,000, even though the land, known as Big Horn Springs, is not being used by Nestlé. The company had originally planned to bottle some water from this site but environmental concerns ultimately convinced the company to withdraw this site from their permit. The company has made a verbal promise to place a conservation easement on the property. McMurry is a former Chaffee County Commissioner, a member of the committee that OKd the Nestlé deal.
In December 2009, Steve Hansen, owner of Gunsmoke Liquor, sold his store and 1.41 acres in Johnson Village to Nestlé for $1,120,000. Nestlé tore down the store to build its loading station, where it will fill trucks bound for Denver. Hansen retains the liquor license and is expected to rebuild. A day after Hansen sold to Nestlé, Harold and Mary Hagen hit the jackpot, selling 11 acres to the company for $2,850,000. The former Hagen property is the site of the springs that Nestlé is tapping – the Ruby Mountain Spring and onetime Hagen Fish Hatchery.
Journalist
Lee Hart
John Graham at Nestlé‘s Arrowhead fill station
Chaffee County, meeting with John Graham
Journalist
Lee Hart
John Graham
Journalist
Lee Hart
Arrowhead Water
Arrowhead Water, also known as Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water, is a brand of drinking water that is sold in the western United States, particularly in Arizona, Utah, the Northwest, and in California. Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water takes its name from a natural rock formation in the San Bernardino Mountains shaped like a giant arrowhead. The arrowhead is naturally barren; it is not manicured in any way. Native American legend says the formation was burned into the mountain by the fall of an arrow from Heaven, showing the way to the healing hot springs. Nearby cold springs on Strawberry Creek in the San Bernardino National Forest are the original source and namesake of Arrowhead water.
The first documented reference to Arrowhead springs (Agua Caliente) was in records of priests stationed at Mission San Gabriel Arcángel, around 1820. David Noble Smith was the founder of the first sanitarium facilities at Arrowhead Springs in 1863, which were used to treat patients with tuberculosis and numerous other ailments. By the 1880s, the Arrowhead waters were famous for their supposed curing powers. By the early 20th century, the hot springs were a popular resort for tourism and vacationing.
In 1987, Arrowhead waters joined the Nestlé company, as Nestlé had shown interest in selling drinking water. Soon after, the presence of Arrowhead water bottles in supermarkets across the Western part of the United States grew considerably.
Water sources
Water is sourced from regional area springs Arrowhead Brand Mountain Spring Water sources:
Springs in Southern California:
Southern Pacific Springs, Riverside County, CA
Arrowhead Springs, San Bernardino County, CA
Long Point Ranch Springs, Running Springs, CA
Palomar Mountain Granite Springs (PMGS), Palomar, CA
Deer Canyon Springs, San Bernardino County, CA
Springs in Northern California
Coyote Springs, Inyo County, CA
White Meadow Spring, El Dorado County, CA
Lukens Springs, Placer County, CA
Sopiago Springs, El Dorado County, CA
Sugar Pine Springs, Tuolumne County, CA
Arcadia Springs, Napa County, CA
Springs in Pacific Northwest and Western United States:
Hope Springs, Hope BC Canada Labels found in Washington list a source of the water as Hope Springs.
Ruby Springs, Chaffee County, CO A local water source since 2010 is located in Ruby Mountain Springs.
Tap vs. bottled water
“The biggest enemy is tap water... We‘re not against water – it just has its place. We think it‘s good for irrigation and cooking.“
– Robert S. Morrison, 2000 (PepsiCo‘s North American Beverage)
“When we are done, tap water will be relegated to showers and washing dishes.“
– Susan Wellington, president of the Quaker Oats
Company United States division, 2000
Producing, packaging and transporting a liter of bottled water requires between 1,100 and 2,000 times more energy on average than treating and delivering the same amount of tap water, according to a peer-reviewed energy analysis conducted by the Pacific Institute, a nonprofit research organization based in Oakland, California.
What is really in the bottled water we buy?
We know, or hope, that it is water, but it turns out we rarely know what kind of water it is, or precisely where it comes from, even if it has a famous name or historical association.
Coca-Colas Dasani, PepsiCo‘s Aquafina, and Nestlé‘s Pure Life brands come from dozens of different bottling plants, which treat local municipal waters so they all taste the same. But the bottlers don‘t have to say and they often package their bottle in a way to draw on the cachet of spring water. The consumer might reasonably expect that any bottled water with the name of Glacier would be lovingly collected by hand at the melt face of a pristine wilderness ice field, but no, sorry. “Glacier Mountain Natural Spring Water“ is bottled in New Jersey, “Glacier Mountain Bottled Water“ comes f.e. from Logan, Ohio, southeast Columbus. The last time glaciers were seen in what now New Jersey or Ohio was more than 10,000 years ago. The “Glacier Mountain Natural Spring Water“ Company sells filtered municipal water from vending machines at grocery stores. These kinds of misleading names aren‘t the exception – they seem to be the rule.
“Bottled waters consistent safety and quality is due in part of the extensive FDA requirements, individual state regulations, and industry standards which bottled water must meet. All of these combine to make bottled water one of the safest food products available for human consumption.“
– International Bottled Water Association
“Water bottling is one of the least regulated industries in the US - much less regulated than our public tap water. Scientific studies even show that bottled water is no safer than tap water, an can sometimes be less safe ...“
– Corporate Accountability International
Confused? [...] The problem is that the rules we have are complicated and contradictory, full of loopholes and ambiguity. They vary from country to country or state to state, and they are weakly applied and rarely enforced. This doesn‘t make for consumer confidence about water quality no matter what you choose to drink. And confusion about water quality opens the door to competing and conflicting claims over safety, and worse, to actual contamination and health risks.
Two regulators for water
[There are two different institutions that regulates the water quality. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for tap water, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates bottled water.] The FDA regulates bottled water because it is considered a “food product“ sold in individual containers. Officially, the FDA‘s bottled water standards are supposed to be no less protective of the public health than the EPA‘s regulations for public drinking water. Indeed, while bottled water quality standards are, for the most part, similar to our tap water standards, they are not identical. Some of the differences are minor or inconsequential. Some are potentially significant. And the different regulatory structures and authorities mean that there are ambiguities, differences in standards and practices, and loopholes big enough to encourage (or at least to fail to discourage) “evilly disposed persons.“
A representative example of differences between EPA and FDA standards
Perhaps the most significant and worrisome difference between the EPA and FDA standards for water is the standard for coliform bacteria, especially E.coli and fecal bacteria. Coliforms are bacteria found in human and animal waste, and we do not want them in our drinking water. E.coli is hard to detect – especially a subset of E. coli that can be deadly. As a result, the EPA has a special regulation called the “Total Coliform Rule“ that requires all public water systems to monitor tap water for total coliform.
EPA‘s “Total Coliform Rule“ sets the rules for how often communities water systems (cities, towns, universities, and other communities with their own water systems) must test for coliform. Systems with fewer than 50,000 customers must test 60 times per month, systems serving 2,5 million customers or more must test 420 times per month – dozens of times a day. Small systems serving fewer than 1,000 people must only test quarterly. [...] If any coliforms are detected, the water must then be retested for the more dangerous fecal coliform, E.coli. If fecal coliform are found, the state must be notified by the end of the day and action must be taken to disinfect the tap-water system.
The coliform rules for bottled water are much weaker. Under FDA standards, bottled water must only be tested for general coliforms, and only once a week. [...] When bottled water is recalled, it is often month after the product went out to consumers – too late to actually protect the public.
Most of our tap water is completely safe; most of our bottled water is probably completely safe.
source: documentation "Wem gehört das Wasser"
chaffee county
ABOUT
deadwater is a bachelor project by Caroline Breidenbach.
It’s an interactive multimedia storytelling about a critical examination of „bottled water“.
Drinking water from plastic bottles is an everyday and self-evident thing for most people. It is consumed without being questioned.
The consumption of bottled water increased explosively in the past 30 years and it is still growing. What seems harmless is actually a business which often comes along with lobbying and corruption as well as neglecting rights for humans and the environment. It’s time to question this trend – a trend arised out of abuse and convenience.
This is a demo version. The conception is that there are lot’s of stories spread over the map.
This version is only published time limited as part of the bachelor thesis at Hochschule Hannover and not for commercial purposes.
CREDITS
Research, concept, design and production by Caroline Breidenbach
Contact info@caroline-breidenbach.de
© Caroline Breidenbach. All rights reserved. January 2017
DATA SOURCES
Intro http://environment.about.com
Map info about bottled water locales: www.bottledwater.org; drought map: www.huffingtonpost.com; infographic: www.fiberwater.com; Beverage Marketing Corporation
Story San Bernardino text: The Desert Sun, The Sun; video:story of stuff project; photo: Jay Calderon; infographic: Nestle Waters North America, www.bottled-water.blogspot.de
Story Chaffee County text: Colorado Independent, Denver Post, LA Times
video & infographic: documentation „Wem gehört das Wasser“
Story Fryeburg text: Portland Press Herald, US Uncut, The Honoluluadvertiser, Stop Nestlé Waters, BDN Maine; video: documentation „bottled life“; photo: John Patriquin, Press Herald; infographic: Beverage Marketing Corporation