Two temporary PUC members, standing in after three recusals, say the deal with Nestle may benefit Fryeburg Water Co. ratepayers. Critics see a bad precedent for similar deals.
BY EDWARD D. MURPHY STAFF WRITER
emurphy@pressherald.com
The Maine Public Utilities Commission wasn’t swayed by public opposition, approving a long-term contract Thursday that allows privately owned Fryeburg Water Co. to sell water to Nestle Waters, bottler of the Poland Spring label in Maine.
Two temporary PUC commissioners ruled on the matter, saying the contract didn’t violate the “no net harm” standard used for such agreements. The decision overruled the recommendation last month by the PUC staff that the contract be rejected.
A Poland Spring tanker truck rolls through Fryeburg. Maine regulators have approved a contract allowing the Fryeburg Water Co. to sell water to Nestle Waters, which owns Poland Spring.
A Poland Spring tanker truck rolls through Fryeburg. Maine regulators have approved a contract allowing the Fryeburg Water Co. to sell water to Nestle Waters, which owns Poland Spring. 2013 Press Herald File Photo/John Patriquin
For regulators and Nestle Waters, conflict by the gallon
“All in all, this is just a sad day for the people of Fryeburg,” said Nisha Swinton, a statewide organizer for Food & Water Watch, an advocacy group that has worked with residents and opponents of the contract. She said the deal gives up a valuable resource and shortchanges the community.
The temporary commissioners, retired judges Paul Rudman and John Atwood, were appointed by Gov. Paul LePage after the three regular PUC members and the commission’s public advocate recused themselves over potential conflicts of interest.
Rudman and Atwood said the contract could benefit ratepayers of the privately owned utility by providing a steady stream of revenue. Nestle is required to make minimum payments to Fryeburg Water regardless of how much water it draws.
The commissioners also agreed to strike one contract provision that would have barred the water company from selling bulk, untreated water to companies other than Nestle. They did, however, rule that Nestle would have exclusive rights to the water in the well from which it currently draws.
Under the deal, Nestle Waters, a subsidiary of Switzerland’s Nestle SA, the world’s largest food and beverage company, gets control of a key supply of spring water, while Fryeburg Water gets a stable, predictable flow of cash.
Opponents say the deal does not serve the interests of a community reliant on a valuable resource. They said Fryeburg Water is giving up the water for less than it’s worth now – and almost certainly what it will be worth in the future, when population growth and climate change could tax water supplies.
“The community as a whole did not get a fair shake in this,” said Nickie Sekera, a Fryeburg resident who has opposed the contract. She disputed that Nestle was paying a fair price for the water and questioned what she said were Nestle-funded studies that have suggested there is more than enough water for residents and Nestle.
Fryeburg Water has three wells of relatively equal capacity, said Jean Andrews, the company’s vice president.
Nestle will pay Fryeburg Water’s published rates for water, said Mark Dubois, Poland Spring’s natural resource manager, along with a lease payment of $12,000 per month for land around the well and for maintenance and repairs of the well. As with most water utilities, Fryeburg Water’s per-unit rates drop sharply as volumes increase.
The commissioners also approved other changes to the contract that had been urged by the PUC staff, including one that would allow the company to cut off Nestle’s access to the water in case of emergency.
Swinton and Sekera both said opponents are most concerned that the decision will set a precedent for deals between water utilities and bottling companies, paving the way for bottlers to draw more water from more towns. They said they will meet soon to determine whether to appeal the PUC ruling to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
Bruce McGlauflin, a lawyer who represented several of the opponents, said some portions of the ruling could provide grounds for an appeal. He said the late-19th-century legislation that allowed Fryeburg Water to supply the town called for it to provide “a supply of pure water for domestic and other uses” and doesn’t contain any provision for selling water as a commodity.
The PUC staff had cited the legislation in its recommendation to reject the contract. But the commissioners, particularly Atwood, suggested the staff had relied on an overly narrow reading of the legislation crafted for a different time.
McGlauflin, however, said the legislation also referred to providing water to the “village of Fryeburg” and didn’t envision a bottled water company “sticking a straw in the aquifer and hauling it off for use elsewhere.”
Nestle applauded the decision, saying the new contract provides Fryeburg Water with a predictable revenue stream and minimum payments while giving the bottler a reliable source of water for its Poland Spring operations. The company also noted the provision that allows the utility to reduce or cut the supply of water to Poland Spring in case of an emergency.
“We are always second in line to the existing ratepayers,” said Poland Spring’s Dubois. “I think common sense prevailed.”
Dubois said current plans call for the water to continue to be trucked in tankers to the company’s three bottling sites, in Hollis, Poland Spring and Kingfield. He said those three plants are meeting the company’s current demand. If Poland Spring decides a new bottling facility is needed, Fryeburg would likely be considered, but wouldn’t necessarily be chosen, he said.
Pending a possible court appeal, the new contract will supersede an agreement between the water company and Nestle Waters signed in 1997. The new contract runs for 25 years with renewals that could stretch its term to 45 years.
The case was unusual because of the withdrawal of all three regular commissioners and the public advocate from the case. Two of the commissioners recused themselves because they had worked on Nestle matters in their previous work for law firms, and the third, an engineer, had worked for the company.
A law passed earlier this year gives the governor the power to appoint temporary commissioners in cases where there aren’t enough commissioners to form a quorum.
***************************************
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Nestlé decides it does want Wekepeke water
Nestlé decides it does want Wekepeke water
Tests show source is underground
By Karen Nugent TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
CLINTON — If all goes according to plans, Nestlé Waters North America could be bottling spring water from the Wekepeke aquifer in Sterling by this time next year.
A summary of hydrogeological test results from a 200-acre section of the 600-acre aquifer, which is owned by Clinton, was presented to the selectmen last night. Jay Billings of Northeast Geoscience, a hydrogeologist working for Nestlé, said a 15-day pump test done in September shows the water is, in fact, from underground springs.
He said the water chemistry demonstrated good quality and the water level is stable; however, the yield was lower than expected.
“It’s about 60 percent of what we hoped to get,” Mr. Billings said.
Nevertheless, Thomas J. Brennan, Nestlé’s natural resource manager, said after the meeting that the lesser amount of water still justifies the project. He said the company generally likes to own its land and would like to buy the Wekepeke property. Company officials were scheduled to go into closed session with selectmen later last night.
Nestlé representatives and their lawyer, James M. Burgoyne of Lancaster, asked for a memorandum of understanding, which the selectmen agreed to.
Mr. Burgoyne said Nestlé needs to get two permits from the state Department of Environmental Protection for a new water source and water management. Also, a Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act review is needed, along with permits from Sterling and possibly the state Highway Department.
Town meeting approval from Clinton voters would also be required for a land sale or lease agreement with Nestlé. If approved at the spring annual town meeting, he said, the operation could be running by late 2008.
Mr. Burgoyne stressed that a pending conservation restriction agreement with the state would not be affected, and that public access for passive recreation would be maintained.
Mr. Billings said construction would involve a pumping station, bringing electrical power to the area, and installing underground water mains. Lights and a fence would likely be added for security, he said.
Sterling officials and residents have expressed concerns about Nestlé’s production affecting private wells nearby and wildlife habitat. A Sterling official was at the meeting, and spoke to Mr. Burgoyne privately.
Mr. Billings said DEP required a longer testing period than usual. He said stream flow was measured for 15 days — more than twice the usual — and found to have good flow between Spring Basin, which would be the main source, and a flow-through underground lake near it.
Town Solicitor Dennis P. Sargent recommended that any work on the project go through the public bidding laws.
The Wekepeke consists of five reservoirs, which were used as Clinton’s public water supply from 1883 to 1964, although their use began to be phased out in the 1920s after the Wachusett Reservoir was built.
Because of that public use, Mr. Billings said, there are lots of records and documentation of water quality and output, which was about 1.2 million gallons a day.
“Back in the day, it was always clear, cool water, consistently,” he said.
A summary of hydrogeological test results from a 200-acre section of the 600-acre aquifer, which is owned by Clinton, was presented to the selectmen last night. Jay Billings of Northeast Geoscience, a hydrogeologist working for Nestlé, said a 15-day pump test done in September shows the water is, in fact, from underground springs.
He said the water chemistry demonstrated good quality and the water level is stable; however, the yield was lower than expected.
“It’s about 60 percent of what we hoped to get,” Mr. Billings said.
Nevertheless, Thomas J. Brennan, Nestlé’s natural resource manager, said after the meeting that the lesser amount of water still justifies the project. He said the company generally likes to own its land and would like to buy the Wekepeke property. Company officials were scheduled to go into closed session with selectmen later last night.
Nestlé representatives and their lawyer, James M. Burgoyne of Lancaster, asked for a memorandum of understanding, which the selectmen agreed to.
Mr. Burgoyne said Nestlé needs to get two permits from the state Department of Environmental Protection for a new water source and water management. Also, a Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act review is needed, along with permits from Sterling and possibly the state Highway Department.
Town meeting approval from Clinton voters would also be required for a land sale or lease agreement with Nestlé. If approved at the spring annual town meeting, he said, the operation could be running by late 2008.
Mr. Burgoyne stressed that a pending conservation restriction agreement with the state would not be affected, and that public access for passive recreation would be maintained.
Mr. Billings said construction would involve a pumping station, bringing electrical power to the area, and installing underground water mains. Lights and a fence would likely be added for security, he said.
Sterling officials and residents have expressed concerns about Nestlé’s production affecting private wells nearby and wildlife habitat. A Sterling official was at the meeting, and spoke to Mr. Burgoyne privately.
Mr. Billings said DEP required a longer testing period than usual. He said stream flow was measured for 15 days — more than twice the usual — and found to have good flow between Spring Basin, which would be the main source, and a flow-through underground lake near it.
Town Solicitor Dennis P. Sargent recommended that any work on the project go through the public bidding laws.
The Wekepeke consists of five reservoirs, which were used as Clinton’s public water supply from 1883 to 1964, although their use began to be phased out in the 1920s after the Wachusett Reservoir was built.
Because of that public use, Mr. Billings said, there are lots of records and documentation of water quality and output, which was about 1.2 million gallons a day.
“Back in the day, it was always clear, cool water, consistently,” he said.
**************************************
Monday, February 18, 2008
Controversy flows around water-buying plan
Clinton would sell to Nestlé from aquifer in Sterling
By Jean Laquidara Hill TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
Controversy flows around water-buying plan
Clinton would sell to Nestlé from aquifer in Sterling
By Jean Laquidara Hill TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
STERLING — Nestlé Waters wants to convince Clinton residents that selling water to Nestlé company for bottling and resale is the very best thing that could happen to their town.
Nestlé Waters pitched the idea of buying water from Clinton months ago, prompting Clinton to consider the possibility of selling water to other entities. A couple of weeks ago, Clinton issued a request for proposals inviting other companies to woo the town for its water.
The 564 acres holding the coveted water, the Wekepeke reservoirs, is in Sterling. It has, however, been owned by Clinton since the late 1800s, when it was transferred to Clinton for use as the town’s drinking water. The Wachusett Reservoir has since replaced the Wekepeke reservoirs as Clinton’s water supply. But Clinton still holds deed to the Sterling land.
And there lies the rub.
Some Sterling residents oppose Clinton selling water from the sprawling aquifer under Sterling that supplies the Wekepeke reservoirs.
In fact, Sterling residents are preparing to fight on several fronts: whether anyone has the right to own an entire aquifer, whether Clinton has the right to sell the water or if its rights are limited solely to use as a public water supply; and whether Nestlé Waters can be trusted to protect the natural resource and not suck the aquifer dry for profit.
Meanwhile, Clinton Chairman of Selectmen Robert V. Pasquale Jr. is chuckling over the passion bubbling all around him. Describing the status of Clinton’s interest in selling water as “thinking out loud,” Mr. Pasquale said selectmen are exploring an option proposed to them — nothing more.
But Catherine A. Harragian of Sterling’s Committee for Informed Citizens believes residents must prepare now to protect their natural resource and not wait until their options run dry.
What is unquestioned is that the reservoirs are municipally owned. And Mrs. Harragian is among residents who believe a public water supply should not be sold to a private company.
“As informed citizens we want to keep public water public. It’s our natural resource,” she said.
Paul R. Della Valle of Sterling is also concerned about Clinton’s interest in selling water to Nestlé Waters or any other company. He asserts that Clinton cannot own the aquifer, only the reservoirs and land. And he questions whether Clinton has the legal right to draw water from an aquifer, noting the original legislation granting Clinton the string of reservoirs and land referred to Clinton’s right to “impounded” water and made no mention of aquifers.
“The water in the ground has never been Clinton’s. I’d say it’s mine more than theirs because it’s right under my house and I rely on it for drinking water,” he said, referring to his private well. Some Sterling residents use private wells while others rely on municipal water.
However, Mr. Della Valle said he understands why Clinton might want to sell water. And he said he might acquiesce if scientific studies prove drawing water from the reservoirs would not make water from the aquifer less plentiful for the public. His primary concern, Mr. Della Valle said, is that Clinton not hedge on a promised conservation restriction on the land it owns in Sterling in order to meet water-selling needs.
That concern is no problem, Mr. Pasquale said. He said selectmen are signing the conservation restriction that will maintain the 564 acres it owns in Sterling as open land. He said selectmen are making no substantive changes in the conservation restriction agreement — just corrections to inaccuracies, such as changing the acreage from 500 to 564.
Mr. Della Valle said he knows Nestlé Waters’ proposal is to draw far less water than Clinton used to take from the reservoirs.
And he notes Clinton could use the money from water sales to pay the $1.5 million cost to repair the dams along the reservoirs, as ordered by the state Department of Environmental Protection.
Sure, the cost of maintaining the dams is a concern, Mr. Pasquale said, but that is not Clinton’s incentive for exploring the possibility of selling water. Rather, Mr. Pasquale said, Clinton selectmen feel obliged to thoroughly examine the option because of their overall responsibility to the residents they serve.
Revenues from water sales could be used toward dam repairs or other capital expenses. But, Mr. Pasquale said, the income could also be used to lower water rates for financially struggling elderly residents.
But, he said, that talk is nothing more at this point than “thinking out loud.”
As for the ownership of the aquifer, Mr. Pasquale said there is no question. “We own the aquifer,” he said.
He said he wants Sterling residents to trust Clintonians and not worry. “We’re not selling our souls,” he said. “We’re not going to infringe on anyone. We’re good people.”
As for the controversy, Nestlé Waters spokeswoman Nancy J. Sterling said it is unfortunate that there is discord between the two towns.
Nestlé Waters has established a Web site, www.Nestléwatersma.com to inform residents about its proposal.
Nestlé Waters pitched the idea of buying water from Clinton months ago, prompting Clinton to consider the possibility of selling water to other entities. A couple of weeks ago, Clinton issued a request for proposals inviting other companies to woo the town for its water.
The 564 acres holding the coveted water, the Wekepeke reservoirs, is in Sterling. It has, however, been owned by Clinton since the late 1800s, when it was transferred to Clinton for use as the town’s drinking water. The Wachusett Reservoir has since replaced the Wekepeke reservoirs as Clinton’s water supply. But Clinton still holds deed to the Sterling land.
And there lies the rub.
Some Sterling residents oppose Clinton selling water from the sprawling aquifer under Sterling that supplies the Wekepeke reservoirs.
In fact, Sterling residents are preparing to fight on several fronts: whether anyone has the right to own an entire aquifer, whether Clinton has the right to sell the water or if its rights are limited solely to use as a public water supply; and whether Nestlé Waters can be trusted to protect the natural resource and not suck the aquifer dry for profit.
Meanwhile, Clinton Chairman of Selectmen Robert V. Pasquale Jr. is chuckling over the passion bubbling all around him. Describing the status of Clinton’s interest in selling water as “thinking out loud,” Mr. Pasquale said selectmen are exploring an option proposed to them — nothing more.
But Catherine A. Harragian of Sterling’s Committee for Informed Citizens believes residents must prepare now to protect their natural resource and not wait until their options run dry.
What is unquestioned is that the reservoirs are municipally owned. And Mrs. Harragian is among residents who believe a public water supply should not be sold to a private company.
“As informed citizens we want to keep public water public. It’s our natural resource,” she said.
Paul R. Della Valle of Sterling is also concerned about Clinton’s interest in selling water to Nestlé Waters or any other company. He asserts that Clinton cannot own the aquifer, only the reservoirs and land. And he questions whether Clinton has the legal right to draw water from an aquifer, noting the original legislation granting Clinton the string of reservoirs and land referred to Clinton’s right to “impounded” water and made no mention of aquifers.
“The water in the ground has never been Clinton’s. I’d say it’s mine more than theirs because it’s right under my house and I rely on it for drinking water,” he said, referring to his private well. Some Sterling residents use private wells while others rely on municipal water.
However, Mr. Della Valle said he understands why Clinton might want to sell water. And he said he might acquiesce if scientific studies prove drawing water from the reservoirs would not make water from the aquifer less plentiful for the public. His primary concern, Mr. Della Valle said, is that Clinton not hedge on a promised conservation restriction on the land it owns in Sterling in order to meet water-selling needs.
That concern is no problem, Mr. Pasquale said. He said selectmen are signing the conservation restriction that will maintain the 564 acres it owns in Sterling as open land. He said selectmen are making no substantive changes in the conservation restriction agreement — just corrections to inaccuracies, such as changing the acreage from 500 to 564.
Mr. Della Valle said he knows Nestlé Waters’ proposal is to draw far less water than Clinton used to take from the reservoirs.
And he notes Clinton could use the money from water sales to pay the $1.5 million cost to repair the dams along the reservoirs, as ordered by the state Department of Environmental Protection.
Sure, the cost of maintaining the dams is a concern, Mr. Pasquale said, but that is not Clinton’s incentive for exploring the possibility of selling water. Rather, Mr. Pasquale said, Clinton selectmen feel obliged to thoroughly examine the option because of their overall responsibility to the residents they serve.
Revenues from water sales could be used toward dam repairs or other capital expenses. But, Mr. Pasquale said, the income could also be used to lower water rates for financially struggling elderly residents.
But, he said, that talk is nothing more at this point than “thinking out loud.”
As for the ownership of the aquifer, Mr. Pasquale said there is no question. “We own the aquifer,” he said.
He said he wants Sterling residents to trust Clintonians and not worry. “We’re not selling our souls,” he said. “We’re not going to infringe on anyone. We’re good people.”
As for the controversy, Nestlé Waters spokeswoman Nancy J. Sterling said it is unfortunate that there is discord between the two towns.
Nestlé Waters has established a Web site, www.Nestléwatersma.com to inform residents about its proposal.
If you think a water revolt couldn't possibly happen, google "Cochabamba Water Revolt".
ReplyDeleteBechtel imposed rules and regulations on the poorest of the poor in Bolivia. Raised water rates over 50% (sound familiar Templeton?). Bechtel enacted a law where it was illegal to collect rainwater in Bolivia.
Can't make this stuff up!
Sterling screwed up when they did not take back the land, the water source Clinton owned, when the reservoir became Clinton's water source. After all, Clinton was not using it anymore. I can not see how anyone can say the aquifer will not be affected when this company starts pumping large quantities of water from it. The one thing that is needed for all of us to survive is water and in my way of thinking this is the last thing anyone should sell or give away. I think Sterling should look at the deed and see if it says the aquifer was to be used as "Clinton's water source", then selling the water to anyone other than Clinton's residents, may make a difference. With many areas of the country under drought conditions, a company could suck any aquifer dry pretty quick, depending on the recharge area. This stinks to high heaven, and the people in Sterling should fight this to the bitter end. Bev.
ReplyDelete