(Ian James) More than 100 people posed questions to U.S. Forest Service officials at a meeting Thursday night, raising concerns about a proposal to allow Nestle to keep piping water out of the San Bernardino National Forest for bottling.
Many of those who attended the meeting in San Bernardino called for the Forest Service to shut down Nestle’s operation, saying they fear that drawing millions of gallons from the forest is harming the environment.
“What I would like to see happen is for Nestle to take its straw out of drought-stricken California,” said Angela Barnes, a server from Redlands. She said she came away from the meeting concerned about various aspects of the Forest Service’s proposal, including the reliance on environmental studies paid for by Nestle.
A hydrologist, a biologist and other Forest Service officials took questions from the public while standing next to posters describing the permit renewal process. They explained that while Nestle is funding the environmental studies, the consultants that carry out those studies are vetted by the agency’s team of specialists, who also independently review the findings as part of their own analysis.
The agency is taking up the permit issue more than a year after The Desert Sun revealed in an investigation that Nestle has been drawing water from the national forest using a permit that lists 1988 as the expiration date.
“Nobody’s been watching this for 28 years,” said Tammie Bruyneel, of Riverside. “That’s just obscene,”
She chided the leader of the Forest Service review team, telling him she thinks the agency’s officials are not upholding their responsibility to act as stewards of the water in the national forest.
“It’s a public resource, a natural resource. It’s like air,” Bruyneel said. “And now Nestle is bottling it and selling it – unmonitored.”
The Forest Service is considering whether to grant a permit that would allow Nestle to continue operating its wells and water pipelines in the forest for five years. The company piped 36 million gallons from the mountains near San Bernardino last year for its bottling operation. Nestle sells the water as Arrowhead brand bottled water.
The agency is accepting comments from the public until May 2. The “open house” meeting at the Forest Service office was the one public forum included in that process. Forest Service officials plan to consider written comments as part of their analysis before making a decision on whether to issue the permit.
“We’re thrilled to see such a great turnout to be able to provide information to the public,” said Forest Supervisor Jody Noiron, one of the administrators overseeing the review.
Also in the conference room were representatives of three environmental groups that sued the Forest Service in October. The groups – the Center for Biological Diversity, the Story of Stuff Project and the Courage Campaign Institute – have argued that the government has been violating the law by letting Nestle continue taking water without a valid permit, and that the bottling operation threatens sensitive habitat along Strawberry Creek near San Bernardino.
Federal officials have said Nestle’s current permit remains in effect until they decide on the renewal application.
Under the proposed permit, Nestle would be required to conduct studies on water supplies and habitats in the area. The national forest is home to animals ranging from frogs and salamanders to birds such as willow flycatchers and California spotted owls.
Nestle, based in Vevey, Switzerland, is the world’s largest food and beverage company, and Nestle Waters North America runs five bottling plants in California.
The company, which did not send representatives to the meeting, said in an emailed statement it welcomes the public comment period as a key part of the permit renewal process. Nestle Waters said the source of Arrowhead brand bottled water “has been managed for long-term sustainability for more than 121 years.”
“We are committed to the continued use of effective, science-based management tools to ensure the water and forest are monitored in an environmentally responsible way,” the company said. “We take seriously our responsibility as a water steward in California and only source water that naturally flows to the surface at the Arrowhead Springs.”
The infrastructure at Arrowhead Springs has been authorized under various permits since 1929, according to the Forest Service. The proposed permit would allow the company to keep using 2 water collection tunnels, 10 horizontal wells and water pipelines.
Nestle’s current permit was issued in 1978 to predecessor Arrowhead Puritas Waters, Inc., for the purpose of maintaining its wells and more than 4 miles of pipelines in the forest.
The main water pipeline collects water from wells on the mountainside and runs downhill along Strawberry Creek. The water ends up in a tank and is hauled in tanker trucks to a plant in Ontario, where it is bottled.
The Forest Service does not collect fees for the water. It has been charging Nestle an annual permit fee of $524.
A new fee would only be determined after the agency reaches a decision on whether to grant the permit, said Bob Hawkins, a Forest Service contractor who is leading the team conducting the environmental analysis. The proposed permit would not set a limit on the volume of water that could be extracted.
Some of those at the meeting said they find it disturbing that Nestle has been paying so little.
“We are adding onto this growing wave of public consensus that a corporation like Nestle, which isn’t even an American company, should not have access to our natural resources and shouldn’t pay as low as $524 a year for it,” said Daniel Kelley, a student from the University of California, Riverside, who came to the meeting with several classmates. “We would like to see California public resources really be used by the California public and not be used for profit.”
Many environmentalists have said the use of water should be halted to protect wildlife especially due to the drought. Some critics have suggested stopping Nestle’s operation at least temporarily, perhaps for several years, in order to determine the natural flow of water through Strawberry Canyon and thereby have a basis for comparison.
Hawkins said companies that apply to the Forest Service for “special-use” permits typically must pay for studies that are required under the National Environmental Policy Act. Other applicants such as ski resorts and electric utilities also regularly pay for these sorts of environmental studies.
In this case, he said, consultants hired by Nestle will carry out work such as wildlife surveys and a stream survey.
“We’re asking Nestle to do all the studies. So our part is the analysis,” Hawkins said.
“We’ll provide oversight on their work,” he said. “Nestle’s consultant may give us the basic information, but it’s all going to be vetted through our folks.”
Nestle has said its operation isn’t causing any harm in the forest and the company monitors the environment at the springs it uses. Recently, Nestle Waters has been promoting its stance through an advertising campaign in social media, newspapers and billboards in Southern California, showing photos of the mountains that are the source of Arrowhead bottled water with the slogan “There’s magic in these mountains.”
In one ad, the company states: “We continue to care for the sources that have provided mountain spring water to generations of Californians.”
Nestle says the amount of water it collects in a given year depends on the variable flow of Arrowhead Springs.
In 2014, Nestle reported collecting about 28 million gallons of water from its wells in the national forest. In 2015, that increased to 36 million gallons. The amount grew because more rain fell in the area in 2015, said Jane Lazgin, director of media and corporate communications for Nestle Waters North America. She pointed out that the amount of water collected last year was 29 percent less than the average over the past 10 years.
At Thursday’s meeting, some people said they hope to see Nestle no longer taking water from the San Bernardino Mountains.
“Our freshwater resources are so imperiled that we cannot afford to have a private global corporation take from our public resources,” said Lani Miller, an environmental activist from Palm Springs. She said the water should be left in the forest for the health of the environment, and also for people who live in the area.