The Northern California Fly Fishing Board

I just got a CalTrout letter today about the Nestle project in McCloud. I ran a few quick numbers and they propose to take an astonishing quantity of water from that area. Just from surface water alone it would be as much as 41 semi's a day, 365 days a year, to take their limit. In addition, they have proposed to take even more sub-surface water . . . that is more than 41 semis worth.

What's the take on Nestle's chances? Are they going to get their plan pushed through? Is it "crunch" time up there, or is this just the oppening salvos of the war?

There are some big holes in the EIR but it looks like the county is trying to push the thing thru. If you read the original EIR they state that there is no data on the tributaries but later come to the conclusion that there will be no significant damage. How can you determine that with no data?

I learned from my big brother, a phd statitician, that numbers can be manipulated to "prove" almost anything you want. So, I am slow to believe everything I read or hear.

My own feeling is that the McCloud area is special and needs to be safeguarded from damaging development. Prudent development should be given fair consideration, and approval of anything near the scope of Nestle's proposal must allow for reversal should it later be found to be damaging ( that would be prudent, eh? ).

Disclaimer: I have friends who reside and run a business in McCloud who feel it would benefit the town. Oh, and I work for a developer . . . just not doing development work.

FYI, the trout underground has been following the Nestle thing for some time now. Check out the related articles on this page (obviously Tom has a point of view):

http://tro...dents-asked-to-use-less/

My own 2 cents: I think its important to remember that this is all $ driven. While I do drink bottled water sometimes (rarely). I have made it my habit not too, given here in the US is really not a necessity and we can for the most part filter our water to a point where taste is not an issue.

It seems from what I have read that Nestle would prefer less public scrutiny. Given this alone, it seems obvious there is a need for a comprehensive and independent study (with data to support it).

Also:

http://www...il.org/nestle/index.html

On the other hand, they have a drinking fountain in McCloud that runs 24 hours per day. The thriving businesses in town seem to be limited to bed & breakfast and hotels, as well as the dinner train. I can see why locals might welcome some business that would be non-tourist oriented. The crucial idea is "prudent development"--something that can be monitored and modified if needed to maintain the environmental quality of the area. It's awfully easy to be anti-industry when it's not your job or community. I'd like to see better analysis before giving support to either side.

The Nestle/McCloud issue is in a bit of a lull right now; the county is going to reissue the draft Environmental Impact Report (an unusual step) for more public comment, but what isn't clear is whether Nestle is pushing for this to happen so they can include minimal flow data from the affected tributaries.

What's important to note about the original Draft EIR is that it was an environmental impact report that didn't bother to measure the key environmental impacts -- including the removal of water from Squaw Creek.

Until CalTrout started doing it, Nestle and the consultants preparing the report hadn't even bothered to collect flow data.

The County definitely wants to push the thing through (the power base in this county is located up North), and it's my personal feeling that both the county and Nestle knew the draft EIR (lacking flow data) was basically a lawsuit waiting to happen, so they're looking to insert just enough data to create a little cover on that front.

I've written a lot of posts about this on the Trout Underground (which have generated some nasty e-mails), and it's been a very divisive issue in McCloud.

Sure, jobs would be nice (keep in mind these are going to be $10/hour jobs -- which won't bring families flocking back to town like proponents claim), but consider the effects of 600 semi-truck trips per day on the rest of the town's largely tourist-based economy.

I could go on and on about Nestle's intimidation tactics (they once tried to subpoena the personal financial records of those opposed to the project), and fueling this mess is the simple fact that the McCloud Services District (a few citizens) approved the contract with almost no public comment at all.

In fact, the contract wasn't made available to the public until 48 hours before "The Meeting" and the district had no answers for most of the public questions, but astonishingly, they went ahead and approved the contract at the end of the meeting.

It's little wonder that half the residents are pissed off, and I expect -- which ever way this thing goes -- the fractures in the social fabric of McCloud are going to take a long time to heal.

A couple more things: the proposed bottling plant is huge (one million square feet -- big enough to hold every building in the town of McCloud), and while Nestle makes noises about their sensitivity to environmental issues, they've been sued (and lost) for damaging watersheds in Michigan, and then sued a small town in Maine when the town didn't want to allow them to run more heavy trucks on town streets (that one's gone before the Maine Supreme Court).

Personally, I could support a more reasonably sized bottling plant in McCloud, but in this case, the contract is too ridiculously one-sided, and Nestle's concern for environmental effects appears to be little more than skin deep.

Like the new board...

http://troutunderground.com