Any hope for change in the discourse of the past five years between Nestle bottling plant supporters and detractors in McCloud was quickly dispelled Monday evening at the first McCloud Community Services District board meeting to address the Nestle issue since Nestle ‘stepped out’ of its contract with the district on Aug. 5.
As television and print media looked on, a full house of community members and other interested parties packed Scout Hall as the MCSD board embarked on a two hour long meeting punctuated by two contentious, angry, tearful, and repetitive public comment sessions – both of which focused on Nestle – overshadowing any of the board’s other operations, as the Nestle issue has since 2003.
At stake again is the proposed construction of a Nestle water bottling plant, once slated to be the largest in North America at 1,000,000 square feet, but reduced by 60% in May to 350,000 square feet, which Nestle attributed to, “...supply increases [in other regions], coupled with the rising cost of transportation and fuel, mean that a plant of the size we first proposed in McCloud no longer makes economic sense...” But even the scaled down version of the proposed plant will employ 100 people, according to Nestle, providing much needed jobs and tax revenue to the economically distressed former logging community.
Nestle opponents contend, however, that the Switzerland based multinational will take so much water from the Squaw Valley Creek watershed that it will harm the environment, and that the jobs the proposed plant would create will not pay “living wages,” among other objections.
The anti-Nestle camp received a strong showing of support in July when the California Attorney General sent a letter to Siskiyou County’s Interim Planning Director which called Nestle’s draft environmental impact report on the project, “...fundamentally and basically inadequate.”
Following the ‘stepping out’ of the contract by Nestle in August, in letters to the editor and other public forums, project opponents seemed to celebrate a victory over Nestle, while project supporters voiced disappointment and confusion with the company’s actions.
But Monday night, Nestle’s Natural Resource Manager and point-person in McCloud, Dave Palais, indicated without reservation that Nestle fully intends to build the proposed bottling plant, once a two-to-three year comprehensive environmental impact study is completed, and a new contract negotiated between the company and the MCSD board.
In two points of action regarding Nestle Monday, the MCSD board voted 4-1 to allow the company to simulate “low flow” conditions on the Squaw Valley Creek for 4 to 8 weeks by diverting water into Mud Creek, and 4-1 to table action on correspondence from Nestle until its December meeting, when incoming board member Brian Stewart will replace the outgoing Cathy Young.
In supporting the diversion request from Nestle, the board signaled its intention to allow Nestle to immediately take action to study the effect of its proposed bottling operation on the Squaw Valley Creek as it progresses toward satisfying California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental Policy Act reviews necessary to the permitting of the plant.
If the board had voted against the diversion, which many, including Curtis Knight of Cal Trout, asked that it do during the public comment period, Nestle’s proposed plant – already delayed by two to three more years – would have been stalled by yet another.
The optimal time to study low-flows occurs in the late summer/early fall, Palais countered in his rebuttal to Knight’s and other’s objections. Because the past two years have been particularly dry, doing the low flow study now will allow Nestle to study the Squaw Valley Creek when water levels are at their lowest, thereby answering critics’ concerns over what the estimated 600 gallons per minute consumed by the proposed plant will do to the creek during a drought.
Services District general manager Beth Steele assured the board that she had no operational objections to the diversion, which would see much less water than the 1450 gallons per minute the district itself has diverted in the past in the course of making repairs to its water system. She added, “This diversion is to facilitate information that everyone is looking for.”
When questioned by audience members, Palais conceded that a second diversion will definitely have to be conducted in 2009 in the course of the environmental study, which Nestle has hired North State Resources to conduct “...in coordination with hydrologists and biologists from the University of California Davis and Berkeley.”
In explaining his dissenting vote on the diversion issue, board member Al Schoenstein – who had run for office in support of a water bottling plant – read a parable about a “marriage gone sour” he had written to explain his evolved attitude toward Nestle.
The vote on the motion to table any action regarding Nestle’s correspondence to the board until the newly composed board convenes in December did signal that the board is now exercising patience in regards to its dealings with Nestle.
Though the meeting offered numerous calls for respect and unity, all of which met with loud and near universal applause, the poisonous atmosphere of dissent and anger overwhelmed the attempts at peace-making.
Nearly 80% of the public comments were vigorously critical of Nestle, with accusations also leveled at Beth Steele and the board of backroom deals and bribe-taking. The contentious atmosphere began almost immediately, with board president Tim Dickinson prefacing the meeting by saying, “We have a pretty emotional meeting tonight, as I know you know I’m sure,” closely followed by an audience member shouting out of order, “I have a real problem with him [speaking], he’s not in our district,” as Nestle’s Palais approached the podium. Dickinson responded sternly, “Calm down or you will have to leave.” Later, he repeatedly banged his gavel to restore order in the hall.
But Nestle was not without its supporters at the meeting. After fly-fishing guide Jack Trout again refused to leave the podium as he voiced his lengthy concerns about the bottling plant’s potential to negatively affect the streams where he makes his livelihood, a pro-Nestle supporter quipped, “Some people don’t like that you catch trout.” Kelly Claro said that she spoke for, “...lots of people who are very quiet but do want to see the project come through.”
At the end of the meeting, tensions were somewhat eased as the community refurbishment of the town Fire Hall was recognized and applauded.
Asked after the meeting if he was disappointed that the board had voted to table any action on Nestle’s correspondence until December, Dave Palais said, “In a two year process, a few months of delay is not a setback.”
As announced by Palais during the meeting, Nestle will host a first public forum discussion on the bottling plant Oct. 22 at the McCloud High School.
McCloud, Calif. —
