Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Good News for McCloud, California in Fight Against Nestle

Posted by Tara Lohan, AlterNet at 11:14 AM on May 13, 2008.


Nestle is scaling back their proposal for a new bottling facility ... drastically.
nestle

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Water in your
mailbox!

 

Things are looking better for the town of McCloud, California where Nestle was trying to build a million square foot water bottling facility and was given a 100 year contract to potentially suck the community dry. You can read more about the scenario in our story or by visiting Corporate Accountability International.

An AP story in Business Week reported:

Nestle SA said Monday it is significantly scaling back plans in Northern California to build what would have been the country's largest water bottling plant.

The announcement by Nestle Waters North America comes after years of opposition by environmentalists and a group of residents in the rural town of McCloud.

With soaring fuel and transportation costs, building a 1 million square foot facility at the base of Mount Shasta no longer makes economic sense, said David Palais, Nestle's Northern California natural resource manager.

Nestle signed a contract in 2003 with the McCloud Community Services District to pump up to 521 million gallons of water a year. In exchange, the Swiss food and drink company agreed to pay $250,000 to $350,000 a year to the town of McCloud, about 200 miles north of Sacramento.

Apparently they are now looking to scale down to a 350,000 square feet facility and want 200 million gallons of water a year from three of McCloud's springs.

This looks like good news, but it's still a huge amount of water for town that may have greatly reduced water if snowpack continues to decline in the Shasta area in coming decades. It looks like locals are relieved to a degree but are not entirely comfortable with this new scenario.

Critics of the plant welcomed Nestle's announcement but called on McCloud's five-member services district to negotiate a better contract.

"While it certainly is a smaller plant than it would have been, it nonetheless uses a large amount of water. It's still a major operation," said Severn Williams, a spokesman for the Protect Our Waters Coalition. The coalition represents California Trout, Trout Unlimited and the McCloud Watershed Council, a citizens group.

... Williams also said the coalition wants a contract with a shorter timeframe than McCloud's current 100-year commitment to sell its water exclusively to Nestle.

It looks like all the hard work by community and environmental groups is paying off. Let's hope they keep the pressure on. Perhaps they will be able to send Nestle packing for good.

Digg!

Tagged as: mccloud, nestle, bottled water, water privatization, water

Tara Lohan is a managing editor at AlterNet.


Baghdad Getting Only Half of Needed Water Supplies; Iraq Approves Oil Deal with China
First Saddam-era deal approved; UNICEF blasts Iraqi government for not investing in drinking water.
Post by AlterNet Staff. September 3, 2008.
Communities Rally to Close Coca-Cola Bottling Plant
An official declaration has said that Coke has "overexploited" a town's groundwater.
Post by Tara Lohan. August 26, 2008.
Nestle Cancels Bottled Water Contract in McCloud, Calif.
Looks like David has won over Goliath. At least for now.
Post by Tara Lohan. August 6, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Misleading Conclusion
Posted by: socialpsych on May 14, 2008 4:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"It looks like all the hard work by community and environmental groups is paying off."

That's not why Nestle changed its plans in California. They couldn't care less about community and environmental groups. They changed their plans to best exploit the evolving business climate.

I've written about Nestle on AlterNet numerous times, so please forgive any repetition. I live on a creek in eastern Pennsylvania just downstream from where Nestle withdraws 3 million gallons per week. They bottle the water as Deer Park Spring Water. Over the last 8 years I have seen all of their dirty tricks: destroying aquatic ecosystems without conscience, lying to communities, bribing officials, cheating on water withdrawal records, tresspassing on private property, and on and on. The only thing Nestle is not unscrupulous about is making a buck.

Check out the new book about Nestle's shady bottled water business, Bottlemania, by Elizabeth Royte.

Above all, boycott all Nestle products. You don't need bottled water, and you certainly don't need a Baby Ruth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Misleading Conclusion Posted by: willymack
sustainability
Posted by: toddcory on May 14, 2008 6:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"With soaring fuel and transportation costs, building a 1 million square foot facility at the base of Mount Shasta no longer makes economic sense, said David Palais, Nestle's Northern California natural resource manager."

Duh!

While I have concerns about corporate amerika moving into our local Mount Shasta communities, like so many things that will not survive the end of cheap energy, bottled water is on the top of the list.

Putting water in petroleum bottles and trucking it all over the globe with more petroleum is just not sustainable. As people struggle to pay for depleting fossil fuels to heat their homes, power their vehicles and find affordable food to eat, buying expensive bottled water will simply not happen.

As the days of cheap energy are now in the rear view mirror, bottled water will no longer be anything people will be bothering with.

Todd

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: sustainability Posted by: socialpsych
Gravity sucks
Posted by: MIST on May 14, 2008 10:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The little town of McCloud isn't out of hot water yet with Nestle's corporate bullying. High oil prices won't stop Nestle. People elsewhere are desperate for clean water.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Nestle eventually install pipelines to let McCloud's pure water flow downhill using gravity to major cities in the Bay Area. Politicians can be bribed to let this happen. Nestle won't need 600 truck trips per day or plastic bottles then. McCloud has sufficient elevation for gravity to provide the motive power. That way, this pure water isn't polluted with fish and agricultural chemicals and sewage effluent the way its water otherwise is while flowing in the Sacramento River to those communities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Gravity sucks Posted by: socialpsych
» RE: Gravity sucks Posted by: willymack