Environmental groups sued the U.S. Forest Service on Tuesday, alleging that the agency has allowed Nestle Waters to draw water from a creek in the San Bernardino Mountains under a permit that expired more than 25 years ago.
The company, owner of the Arrowhead bottled water brand, has drawn millions of gallons from the west fork of Strawberry Creek under a permit it apparently acquired in 2002.
At a time when residents have been asked to cut back water use during the record-setting drought, the diversion for commercial bottling to consumers once again has put Nestle in the cross hairs of the state's water squabbles. The company faces scrutiny over its water withdrawal activities elsewhere in the state.
“We Californians have dramatically reduced our water use over the past year in the face of an historic drought, but Nestle has refused to step up and do its part,” said Michael O'Heaney, executive director of the Story of Stuff Project, a plaintiff in the suit filed in U.S. District Court. “Until the impact of Nestle's operation is properly reviewed, the Forest Service must turn off the spigot.”
The Forest Service has allowed pipeline operators to continue transporting water about four miles, from a series of bore holes and tunnels to a storage tank near California 18, without more stringent review required after the original permit was issued in 1976, the suit alleges.
“Modern scrutiny would never let this kind of stuff happen,” said Eddie Kurtz, executive director of the Courage Campaign Institute, a public policy group that is co-plaintiff in the suit. “Our understanding is there are a lot of permits like these all over the country.”
The groups, along with the Center for Biological Diversity, say the creek branch provides a crucial east-west connection between watersheds in an area inhabited by imperiled species of birds, snakes, fish and frogs. Natural water levels of the branch are hard to determine because of the diversion, but the creek has water year-round, a rarity in the region, the suit alleges.
The legal action comes on the heels of an investigation this year by the Desert Sun. Jody Noiron, supervisor for the San Bernardino National Forest, told the paper afterward that re-issuance of the permit would become a priority for the agency.
Jane Lazgin, spokeswoman for Nestle Waters North America, said the company is operating under a valid permit and cooperating with the forest service.
“The U.S. Forest Service is in the process of reviewing the permit, but we continue to operate with that permit that does remain in full force and effect,” Lazgin said.
Regional Forest Service spokesman John Heil said current policy allows Nestle to continue operations while a review of its request for permit renewal is underway.
Although a review of Nestle's application could take at least 18 months, the agency is considering interim limits during the drought, Heil said.
The agency has a backlog of about 2,500 expired special use permits, of which about 1,200 involve water use, he added.
Protesters picketed and delivered petitions to the company this year demanding that it shut down bottling operations in California.
Nestle has five bottled water plants in California and uses about 705 million gallons of water each year. Nestle said it uses less than 0.008% of California's water supply.
What is strange is that I heard on NPR or one of those shows, that Nestle stated there weren't using an expired permit. I can't find the transcript, though. So don't hold me to it.
I wish the reporting took the time to explain the process because I would think the money would come from issuing the permit. (Kind of like driving with expired tags, if I don't renew my registration the state wouldn't be getting any $.)
I know my parents used to get newsletters in the early 90s accusing the Forest Service of being in bed with the timber industry. I get political pressure on the higher ups, but what's the percentage for the people approving this or turning a blind eye?
The reason I'm focusing more on the Forest Service's role is it seems that we could put more direct pressure on a government agency than a multinational company.
The reason I'm focusing more on the Forest Service's role is it seems that we could put more direct pressure on a government agency than a multinational company.
The public has very little influence on agency decisions. I'm guessing there's no public comment on issuing permits.
Just out of curiosity, how many of you who are boycotting Nestle still purchase any bottled water?
I actually hate Nestle bottled water. It tastes really off. I either drink from the tap or get the filtered water out of my fridge.
You probably already know this, but for those who may not, there are many different labels of Nestle bottled water. Arrowhead*, Aqua Panna, Perrier, Ice Mountain, San Pellegrino, are popular ones sold here in the States, not to mention all the other labels they use around the world.
*using CA water
Eta: I should point out that Nestle is not the only company using CA water, though they're the only one doing so without a permit. Other labels bottled here in CA: Aquafina, Crystal Geyser, Deja Blue, Athena, Niagra and Dasani. The state claims that bottled water only accounts for a small portion of water used, however these companies are not paying any more than any resident - and turning a large profit at CA's expense. That's what adds to my fury.
Just out of curiosity, how many of you who are boycotting Nestle still purchase any bottled water?
I buy three or four bottles every summer. You can only carry so much water, and inevitably I get heat exhaustion and need more fluids than I have with me (usually 32 oz of water, 20oz of Powerade, and nuun tablets to add to water).
I hate the way our apartment tap water tastes, so we have a pitcher filter.
I actually hate Nestle bottled water. It tastes really off. I either drink from the tap or get the filtered water out of my fridge.
You probably already know this, but for those who may not, there are many different labels of Nestle bottled water. Arrowhead*, Aqua Panna, Perrier, Ice Mountain, San Pellegrino, are popular ones sold here in the States, not to mention all the other labels they use around the world.
*using CA water
Eta: I should point out that Nestle is not the only company using CA water, though they're the only one doing so without a permit. Other labels bottled here in CA: Aquafina, Crystal Geyser, Deja Blue, Athena, Niagra and Dasani. The state claims that bottled water only accounts for a small portion of water used, however these companies are not paying any more than any resident - and turning a large profit at CA's expense. That's what adds to my fury.
Add Poland Spring to this. The water comes from Maine, but they're owned by Nestle.