Groundwater Management and Water Planning with Scientific Uncertainty

The bottled water issue is dwarfed by the magnitude of water quality and quantity issues worldwide —it is a symptom of much greater problems. But it does have the potential for significant localized impacts warranting discussion.

The December 12th congressional hearing illuminated the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) definition of spring water causes bottlers to pump in rural headwaters areas susceptible to impacts from groundwater pumping (there is a one-to-one ratio of groundwater pumping reducing stream flow). The hearing also showed that bottlers and citizens regularly dispute over scientific findings and that either legislation or enforcement is proving inadequate.

Siskiyou County Code Title 3 Chapter 13 Groundwater Management recognizes the need to protect basins from overdraft and excessive extraction for export, while exempting bottled water operations from needing a permit to export water from the county
(see http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/siskiyou/index.htm).

With four bottling plants in operation, Srivastava approved, Nestle in environmental review, and Crystal Geyser planning to expand to be the largest in the world (see http://www.shastabusinesspark.com/development.html), reexamining Siskiyou county’s groundwater management plan is prudent. Otherwise we’ll continue to proceed ignorant of localized or cumulative impacts.

When the plan was amended in September 2001 the consulting attorney suggested amending the bottling export exemption to be limited to a certain quantity, i.e. “…provided that the annual groundwater extraction by the bottling water enterprise does not exceed ___ acre-feet per year,” essentially placing a cap on export without a permit. The language was not incorporated. Thus the bottlers continue to export an unknown amount of water with unknown impacts.

The permitting process in the groundwater management plan is strong, and science based. If I knew that bottlers had collected baseline data and performed rigorous long-term monitoring I’d be at ease that my downstream well wouldn’t be impacted. But to my knowledge this is not the case, or the information isn’t public. Wouldn’t it make sense to require a permit so that the public interest in groundwater is protected?

A memo from Nestle attorneys in the county record on the Nestle project documented their exemption from the county groundwater plan because they intend to export spring water. Thus raised is the need to address the relationship between groundwater and surface water and how it is governed.

This year is the first time in Winnemem Wintu history that Panther Springs went dry. Horse Camp spring went dry. A well on the Nordic Center side of the Ski Park went dry. People are complaining their Christmas trees are dry. Why after only one dry year are we seeing precedent setting impacts that didn’t occur in past multiple dry years? Clearly springs and shallow groundwater are impacted in dry years.

The central tenant of climate change impacts on California’s water supply is uncertainty. Rigorous scientific inquiry including increased monitoring of our water is critical and the questions of governance are especially salient. How will we make decisions about water resource allocation in the face of uncertainty?

Nearly two years ago I wrote regarding the need for comprehensive watershed science to inform the development of a county water plan. We’ve come a long way; resultant from the Nestle/McCloud controversy Mount Shasta’s water resources are now on the National map. Congress understands the need to support United States Geological Survey to map and monitor groundwater resources.

Still, we can’t wait for science to amend the groundwater plan, nor to commence in the development of a county water plan as intended in Sec. 3-13.101 (h) of the groundwater management plan: “The County will undertake as resources permit to develop a County water plan to more specifically address water availability, needs and usages in an attempt to foster prudent water management practices to avoid significant adverse overdraft-related environmental, social and economic impacts”.

We have a remarkable distance yet to travel in our journey to protect our most precious resource, and I hope it will involve all of our county’s diverse interests.

Journey to Our Nation's Capital--Testifying regarding the Environmental Effects of Water Bottling on Rural Communities

How many of us would have guessed that the Nestle/McCloud issue would make it to the Halls of Congress and be heard in our Nation’s Capital? Well, it did. The debate over the impacts of water bottling on groundwater and rural communities hit the national stage on December 12th 2007.

Richard McFarland, board member of the McCloud Watershed Council, his eleven-year-old son Japhy and myself traveled to Washington D.C. for the Domestic Policy Committee of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing, "Assessing the Environmental Risks of the Water Bottling Industry's Extraction of Groundwater."

Chairman Dennis J. Kucinich, (D-OH) explained while there are many crucial issues of public interest regarding bottled water that the hearing would focus on the environmental issues presented when water bottling plants extract groundwater and spring water from water sources in rural areas.

Ranking Member Darrell E. Issa (R-CA) made opening statements putting bottled water in context of the more pressing issue; providing safe affordable drinking water, ensuring sustainable aquifers and guaranteeing healthy water for all.

Congresswoman Diane E. Watson (D-CA) acknowledged the magnitude of water problems including water pollution, climate change impacts on water supply, and the use of “ancient” waters with irreversible impacts.

While the bottling industry is not a large user of water, where water is sourced makes a big difference. Bottling plants that utilize municipal water supplies do not have the same impacts as bottlers using spring water, or groundwater adjacent to springs.

In his testimony Professor Noah D. Hall of Wayne State University Law School explained the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) definition of spring water encourages the pumping of ground and spring water in sensitive areas. FDA requires spring water to be collected directly from a spring or through a bore hole tapping the underground formation feeding the spring.

(No wonder, Dannon (now Coca Cola) ceased negotiations to purchase Mount Shasta City’s spring water soon after the court ruling that formed the FDA definition and chose instead to pump groundwater directly from their property above Big Springs at Mount Shasta City Park.)

Some 60% to 75 % of bottled water comes from headwaters regions. These are ecologically sensitive areas such that exporting even small amounts of this water can cause impacts such as increased temperatures and reduced stream flows.

In his testimony Professor David W. Hyndman’s, Department of Geological Sciences, Michigan State University, put it very succinctly—it is a one to one relationship; each gallon you pump from the ground takes a gallon away from surface flow in the stream.

Congressman Christopher Shays (R-CT) observed that we have a national market for susceptible resources.

Heidi Paul, Nestle Waters North America VP of Corporate Affairs clearly stated in response to a committee question that her company would cut back on water use if there were harms to the watershed.

Richard McFarland’s specific request for increased support of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the need for more and better data found consensus from the other witnesses. Everyone agreed that the USGS needs increased funding for hydrological science because the scientific information they produce is the foundation for decision-making.

Professor Hyndman stressed that not only must existing networks of gauges and stations be maintained but groundwater needs to be mapped and monitored, its connection to surface water understood and new mapping approaches that take into account climate change and land use change must also be integrated.

A curious exchange highlighted the need for independent science (and who would be more appropriate than USGS):

Chairman Kucinich showed a picture of Dead Stream in Michigan (stream adjacent to Nestle wells serving its Stanwood Michigan Plant) during a low flow period—its banks extensive mud flats. Ms. Heidi Paul explained that this was from natural causes—like beaver dams and natural sediment coming back from historic dredging activity—their science showing their pumping did not cause it. Ms. Terry Swier, President of Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation agreed it could be beavers but she didn’t think so. In the second panel Professor Hyndman stated clearly—it wasn’t beaver that caused it.

The committee plans to hold another hearing in the next few months. I’m crossing my fingers for USGS support for a Mount Shasta headwaters assessment.

McCloud Watershed Council Economic Report and Stakeholder Engagement

Whew, the Nestle/McCloud story really keeps me on my toes. I hope you’re ready for this. On Monday the 19th of November McCloud Watershed Council released the ECONorthwest economic report—and the next day in the Redding Record Searchlight, instead of a headline I may have expected, something like: “New Report shows McCloud Gets a Bad Deal”, the headline is “Reports Offer Opposing Outlooks for McCloud.” Pretty amazing how Nestle, hmm, I mean, Siskiyou County Economic Development Council just happened to have Chico Center for Economic Development revise a 2005 economic report for release on the same day.

Well, contrary to how both the Searchlight and Mount Shasta Herald framed the issue as “Opposing Reports”—the reports are quite complementary. Both reports acknowledge that the Nestle plant could bring jobs as well as adverse economic impacts. I recommend taking the time to read them both. Keep in mind that while both reports are independent, the Chico report is limited in that it relies solely on numbers provided by Nestle and only looks at benefits of the project. The reports are available on the Economic page of www.protectourwaters.org.

Even after reading all the information, we still have the significant challenge of making decisions in the light of uncertainty and important risks to assess. I say we, because it remains my greatest hope that the Nestle/McCloud situation will initiate difficult dialogue that has the potential to bring the community back together.

This includes community decision-making. Recently I met with four graduate students from Presidio School of Management. They were using the Nestle/McCloud issue to examine the issue of stakeholder engagement—what does it mean? What does it look like? Well certainly not how it happened in McCloud (because it didn’t happen at all). In their interview with Dave Palais Nestlé’s representative in McCloud, he responded that Nestle has always been available to the community. This is true. For quite some time Dave had office hours in McCloud. Nestle also maintains a website about the project. I hope the graduate students, future leaders in business and corporate responsibility, will critically consider the difference between being available, and actually listening to marginalized voices, and taking action regarding concerns.

What would a stakeholder engagement look like in McCloud? Well for starters, the entire community needs to be involved, because it is their future. December 3rd the McCloud Watershed Council held a public meeting sharing the finding of the economic report. Considering it was the first snowstorm of the year they had a great turnout. Hopefully the meeting was the beginning of an honest dialogue based on facts. The Council plans on facilitating a public meeting in late January/early February that brings authors of both economic reports to McCloud. I’ll report on that as the details get firmed up.

P.S. Another interesting note is that Siskiyou County staff denied the authors of the ECONorthwest economic report to present on the Board of Supervisors agenda. We’re talking about important future trends in economic development but because Nestle is in the title the County dropped it like a hot potato. Ouch.

Our Blog Launch

Welcome to the world premiere Protect Our Waters blog. We are thrilled to launch our blog, website www.protectourwaters.org and introduce the elements of a great story: A beautiful pristine mountain setting with clear spring waters; The world’s most infamous corporate villain and an unsuspecting rural town recovering from the fall of the timber industry. Yes, we’re talking about the Nestle-McCloud controversy.

My name is Meadow Barr. I’ve been watching the story unfold from the beginning. Budding political ecologist as I am, I’ll be your narrator.

Nestlé’s story: Picture a giant Nestle Bunny dressed in a surprisingly casual get up—cowboy boots and jeans. This heroic character is “Father Nestle” come to replace “Mother McCloud” and rescue the dying mill town, build the world’s largest water bottling plant and take care of all McCloud’s people.

McCloud’s story: Some would paint the picture that the savvy outsider split the community clean in two—black and white—pro-Nestle, anti-Nestle. There are those holding strong to their posts on opposite sides of the spectrogram; on the one side outraged by the lack of political process—how a few made such a far-reaching, binding decision for everyone—adhering to a “No Nestle No Way” position. On the other side nostalgic for the time when the company town took care of everyone “the sound of the mill and trucks were music to my ears because people were employed and our schools were full” standing in full support of the Nestle proposal as the only alternative.

The Nestle Corporations’ proposal to build the world’s largest bottling plant in the tiny town of McCloud on Mount Shasta’s southeastern slopes ignited a roaring controversy. The heat of which galvanized a coalition intent on initiating needed dialogue about our most precious resource.

But stories aren’t black and white. Shades of gray add to their complexity, and the Nestle-McCloud story is rich with halftone. And fortunately so, because if everyone were clumped up on their side, we may as well pack up and go home—end of story: stalemate.

The climax of the story is still to come, and a happy ending is possible: there is hope for unity in McCloud and opportunity for a prosperous future. The hard work of bringing a divided community together to talk about what it really wants lies in the hands of those tired of heated arguments based on fear and uncertainty; those seeking an open dialogue with facts. We are at a critical juncture in the story, a release of a new economic report that shows the Nestle project could hurt McCloud’s developing economic base.

Can the town come together to have a real conversation and reconsider the contract with Nestle? Tune in after Thanksgiving for the next installment of this suspenseful blog.