News Coverage
Nestlé’ Abandons Wacissa As A Bottled Water
Source; Company Says Spring Won’t Sustain
The Use
LAZARO ALEMAN
ECB Publishing
Monticello New
Senior Staff Writer
Reprinted with permission
Nestlé Water North America (NWNA) has now officially pulled the plug on its controversial water-monitoring project at the head of the Wacissa River, an
activity designed to test the water for possible use in its Madison County
bottling operation.
In a press statement released late Wednesday afternoon, July 27, a company
spokesman said the data derived from its yearlong testing of Allen Spring
indicated that the site failed to meet Nestlé’s criteria.
“After a thorough review of the data, we have determined that while the Wacissa River springs complex continues to produce an abundant 200 million
gallons of water per day or more, Allen Spring is naturally subject to seasonal low flows that do not meet our strict selection criteria for a stable, sustainable water supply,” said Kent Koptiuch, natural resource manager for Nestlé Florida.
Koptiuch emphasized on Thursday morning that solely the scientific data, not political pressure or the grassroots opposition that had coalesced around the project during the last 13 months, accounted for Nestlé’s decision.
“Absolutely not,” Koptiuch said in response to the question of whether the protests of the Friends of the Wacissa and other groups and the Jefferson County Commission’s consideration of an ordinance to bar the project had in any way influenced the company’s decision.
“We made the decision based strictly on the scientific evaluation,” Koptiuch said. “It had nothing to do whatsoever with what was going on politically in Jefferson County. We understand and respect our critics’ point of view. But if the science had shown that the project was worthwhile to pursue, we would have pursued it. ”
Koptiuch said the company at present had no other Jefferson County site under consideration, nor was it likely that the company would explore any other site here. But he would not absolutely rule out such a possibility in the future.
“I can’t definitely say we’ll never come back to Jefferson County,” Koptiuch said, noting that it was one of his primary responsibilities to seek new water-bottling sources within his territory, which extended from Tennessee to Florida. And yes, the company would continue to search for other sites in north Florida, he said.
Regarding the greater Wacissa Basin, Koptiuch said nothing in the data indicated that any of the system’s several other springs met Nestlé’s water quality and quantity parameters. As for Allen Spring, the data showed that it would not sustain the 300,000 to 400,000 gallons per day that the company planned to withdraw, he said.
He said the current drought conditions had aggravated the situation at Allen Spring, but even absent the drought, the spring had exhibited a propensity for being stressed that made it unacceptable for Nestlé’s purpose.
Koptiuch said it was one of his company’s qualifying criteria for a spring that it not dry up.
“If we dry it up, it wouldn’t be spring water,” he said.
Beyond that, it was against state law to harm a spring, he said.
“But even if it wasn’t required by law, it’s against our corporate philosophy to harm a spring,” Koptiuch said. “It’s our philosophy to harvest water in a sustainable way so the springs will last, as they are critical for the health of the environment. For us, a spring is a magic place that we don’t want to harm.”
Whether it was because of their collective efforts or not, opponents of the project were celebrating Nestlé’s decision.
“People are excited by the good news,” Georgia Ackerman, one of the founders of the Friends of the Wacissa, said Thursday morning.
Even so, Ackerman injected a cautionary note into the celebratory mood. She said that in talking with other communities where Nestlé and other bottling operations had tried to set up shop, the lesson learned was that these companies didn’t give up easily.
“They can be very patient and wait for years to return,” Ackerman said.
She said the Friends of the Wacissa and other of the opposition groups would not simply drop the work of the last 13 months. She said these groups would continue to press the Jefferson County Commission for adoption of the aquifer protection ordinance that is currently under consideration.
“We expect the ordinance to show up in the August agenda,” Ackerman said. “We’re hopeful that Jefferson County will continue to look at the long-term protection of the springs and proceed with adoption of the ordinance.”
Nestle out of Wacissa
By Jennifer Portman
Democrat Senior Writer
Tallahassee Democrat
Reproduced with permission
July 27, 2011
Nestlé Waters North America has abandoned its plans to tap the headwaters of the Wacissa River as a potential bottled water source.
7:08 p.m. update
Nestlé Waters North America has abandoned its plans to tap the headwaters of the Wacissa River as a potential bottled water source.
After a year of study, company officials announced Wednesday evening that results from four test wells in the Jefferson County community showed there was not enough water there for a satellite source for its Madison County water bottling plant.
"After a thorough review of the data, we have determined that while the Wacissa River springs complex continues to produce an abundant 200 million gallons of water per day or more, Allen Spring is naturally subject to seasonal low flows that do not meet our strict selection criteria for a stable, sustainable water supply," Nestle's Florida Natural Resource Manager Kent Koptiuch said in written statement.
There are at least 12 springs that make up the Wacissa River springs complex. Nestle's test wells were at Allen Spring on private property owned by the Boland family.
Nestle spokesman Ryan Duffy added: "Ultimately, science is what made the decision."
Members of Friends of the Wacissa, a grassroots group of area residents and outdoor enthusiasts who opposed Nestle's plans, were thrilled.
"We are elated by this news," said Georgia Ackerman, one of the group's founders.
Duffy said the company has no plans to explore other sites in the county, but will continue to look at options throughout north Florida.
"We have a number of possible sites we will consider, but nothing formal," he said. "There is nothing even close to starting a test well."
While the imminent threat to the Wacissa is over for now, Ackerman said her group will continue to be vigilant and continue its public awareness campaign.
"Florida will continue to deal with with commercial water extractors," she said. "We have to preserve our natural resources for the people of Florida. The Friends of the Wacissa are just getting warmed up."
First update
Nestle Waters North America, which had prospective plans to tap the headwaters of the Wacissa River for its Madison County bottling plant, will not use that as a source, according to a statement from Jose L. Gonzalez, vice president of governmental affairs of Associated Industries of Florida.
“For more than a year, Nestle Waters North America has invested significant time and resources into a careful scientific evaluation of a spring source along the Wacissa River to support the operation of its Madison County manufacturing facility,” Gonzalez said in a news release. “After a thorough review of the data collected from the potential source, the science concluded this particular spring was not viable for the company’s use.”
A grassroots group, Friends of the Wacissa, had opposed any water-bottling plans.
Did you know that the bottled water has less stringent safety oversight than tap water?
Read the GAO Report Titled "BOTTLED WATER, FDA Safety and Consumer Protections Are Often Less Stringent Than Comparable EPA Protections for Tap Water" Link to the Report hereOn December 14th, the Tiger Bay Club featured a discussion between Andy Opel, Communications Professor from FSU and Kent Koptiuch from Nestle Waters North America - listen to a replay of the discussion here: Tiger Bay Club - Nestle Water
Water Advisory Issued for District
A Phase I Water Shortage Advisory was issued by the Suwannee River Water Management District governing board Dec. 14 and will remain in effect until further notice. Water Advisory
Finding unity on the river
Residents join forces to protect their treasured Wacissa
When Hathi, the wild elephant, who lives for a hundred years and more, saw a long, lean blue ridge of rock show dry in the very centre of the stream, he knew that he was looking at the Peace Rock, and then and there he lifted up his trunk and proclaimed the Water Truce, as his father before him had proclaimed it fifty years ago. The deer, wild pig, and buffalo took up the cry hoarsely; and Chil, the Kite, flew in great circles far and wide, whistling and shrieking the warning.
By the Law of the Jungle it is death to kill at the drinking-places when once the Water Truce has been declared. The reason of this is that drinking comes before eating.
— Rudyard Kipling, “The Jungle Book”
Much like the Water Truce declared in “The Jungle Book,” there is a commercial on television that shows animals in idealistic pairings. A lion and a zebra drink side-by-side at the same watering hole; meerkats ride on the back of a crocodile. This utopian view is an unrealistic portrait given the predatory nature of some of these animals. But the real world is strange, and occasionally, like in “The Jungle Book,” a Water Truce is necessary.
Recently I saw unusual pairings at the Wacissa River. People who usually would not have much in common mingled and talked a common theme. They all want to preserve and protect the ancient Wacissa River.
There was a young girl in a PETA T-shirt, hanging around helping at the gigantic hot dog cooker. A number of participants sported shirts, buttons or pins that identified them as serious environmentalists. They stood comfortably by a gas-guzzling tru ck displaying a sticker that said “Stop Global Whining.” Quiet canoes that gently glided through the duck weed rode next to roaring air boats.
The hundred-or-so people were all polite about their differences. They were all a family, firmly committed to the river, almost a Wacissa Woodstock.
As the afternoon went on, the themes of conversations of these odd pairings became consistent.
People have strong memories and long family attachments to the river. There is frequent mention of generational fishing expeditions and fall hunting to literally feed Wacissa families.
Tonya Brumbley Walker says her relative John Brumbley “died on the Wacissa fishing to feed his family. A tree fell on him and killed him.” Locals know each turn of the river, each fishing spot, and where deer come to graze. Locals habitually take what they need from the river to feed themselves.
There was historic use of the river as a commercial highway. The Slave Canal was dug to allow products to pass from the Aucilla River to the Wacissa and eventually to the ports on the Gulf of Mexico.
After the Civil War, the river became outdated as a transportation route and returned to its old job of feeding and nurturing the people who came to its waters.
There had never been mention of any modern commercial use of the Wacissa River until the Nestle proposal.
Suddenly, this tiny community is aroused.
Resident April Reagan says, “I am so tickled this has brought the community together.”
Reagan’s husband was born in Wacissa, and since her marriage 15 years ago, she has been on the river, too. Roland Brumbley, a 65 year resident.
expresses a laundry list of objections to Nestle’s taking water from the Wacissa. Lowered water levels could jeopardize archaeological and historic sites.
There may be an impact on the many local residents who still use well water. Sinkholes have opened up in periods of drought and could do so near the drilling site.
An army of trucks traveling inadequate local roads would spoil the rural nature of the community. The water quality and quantity could be adversely affected.
And the unique flora and fauna could be uprooted. These are the shared reasons why Nestle should not be permitted to mine waters from the river. A larger question for Jefferson County is why this taking should be allowed at all.
Jefferson County will gain no jobs. Nestles has a similar operation in Washington County. Tax records indicate that Washington County collects $8,613.59 a year from Nestle for this taking.
On Monday, the local legislative delegation met in Jefferson County, and the people allied to protect the river were there in force. Their oftrepeated position is that Nestle is a foreign company that should not be allowed to take natural resources for profit. The river is a resource that belongs to all Floridians.
State Sens. Charlie Dean and Bill Montford agreed. State Reps. Leonard Bembry and Michelle Rehwinkel Vasalinda joined the clamor. Montford said, “North Florida is unique. We need to do what we have to do to protect it.” Vasalinda said: “You have my pledge that I will work as hard as I can.” Bembry gave the strongest statement: “We’re not going to let anyone sell our natural resources for profit. I plan to be active and protective of the Wacissa.”
Resident Kim Gilmore speaks for multitudes when she says, “This would change the character of the community.” This is a community where a handshake is a good as a signature, and a man’s word is his bond. The Nestle Co.
has told Wacissans that it will not drill if the residents are against it. Of that promise, Roland Brumbley says, “If the Nestle Board of Directors are people of integrity and they are honorable, they will back out now and go somewhere else.”
The old-timers, the newcomers, the environmentalists, locals and an assortment of unlikely allies from at least three neighboring counties have put aside all impediments to accomplish one goal: “Say no Nestle water.” A local Water Truce is in effect at the tiny burg of Wacissa. The broadbased support for this effort looks strong and committed. Nestle has a fight on its hands.
Report Finds Groundwater Declining In Parts Of Region
River Rally Aims To Raise Awareness Of Nestlé Water
October 30th WCTV Coverage - Say No to Nestle Water
Nestlé Waters Submits Well Completion Report
The contractor for Nestlé Waters has now submitted to the Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD) the well completion report for its several drillings on the Wacissa River.
But as SRWMD water use specialist John Kruse explained it to the News on Friday, Oct. 29, the report is very standard and preliminary, and represents no more than what the district routinely requires of every drilling, even for residential wells.
Kruse said the Nestlé Waters' report contained only technical data relating to the drillings, such as their locations, depths, types of soil encountered, and such. The report had nothing whatsoever to do with water quantity or quality, he said.
The latter information would be part of the permit application, and the district had yet to receive an application from Nestlé Waters, Kruse said.
"They're just prospecting," he said of the current efforts on the Wacissa. "They're in the discovery phase, simply collecting data to see if the project is even feasible."
Kruse said a great many factors determined whether a particular site was considered viable for bottling purposes, including the water quality and quantity, the logistics of drawing and transporting the water, land-use issues, comprehensive plan considerations, and other factors.
"A lot of pieces of the puzzle have to come together in a particular location to make it viable," Kruse said. "For example, the quality may be there but not the quantity, or vice versa."
Once the SRWMD received an application, it was his group's responsibility to analyze the scientific data and make a determination whether the project was viable or not, he said. That determination would then be forwarded to the SRWMD governing board in the form of a recommendation for approval or denial of the permit, he said.
Basically, if the application met the conditions of the rules, his group had little choice but to recommend approval, if often with conditions, Kruse said. But the governing board ultimately decided the issue, based on considerations that didn't necessarily enter into the technical evaluation, such as the gauge of public sentiment about a project and the project's perceived benefit to the public.
Kruse said historically, the district received a bottling water application about every two or three years. He cited one in Gilchrist County in 2007 that had been approved but never developed. And currently, the district was reviewing another, he said.
Kruse said it took about 18 months on average for the permitting process, from the time an application was submitted until the time it was approved or denied. Accounting in great part for the lengthiness of the process, he said, was the fact that many times applications lacked specificity, which triggered requests from his agency for additional information.
He offered metaphorically that applications were generally submitted in broad strokes, and it was up to his group's responsibility to bring it down to the individual brush hairs, in terms of the details.
