A flood of water bottling EIR questions raised By Paul Boerger

Published: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 4:15 PM CDT E-mail this story | Print this page

      The Mount Shasta Elementary School gym saw every seat filled at the McCloud Watershed Council sponsored Nestle bottling plant EIR discussion.

More than 100 citizens attended and many expressed concerns over the draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Nestle water bottling plant during Friday evening's public meeting and presentation held by the McCloud Watershed Council at McCloud Elementary School.

Similar meetings during the week in the south county towns of Dunsmuir, Mount Shasta and Weed.

Meadow Barr, who was one of the speakers, said 69 citizens came to the Mount Shasta meeting, 31 to Weed and 27 the Dunsmuir presentation.

“One of the purposes of the meetings was to inform people how to write

meaningful, specific comments on the EIR,” Barr said. “It felt really good

to have so many come who cared about the issue.”

The controversial bottling plant proposal calls for a one million square

foot facility to be built on the old mill site in McCloud, with trucks

taking the product from the area via Highway 89.

The water would be taken from McCloud area sources.

Proponents cite increased employment and revenue to the McCloud Services

District.

Opponents cite Nestle payments to the MCSD as inadequate, low paying jobs

and impacts from increased truck traffic. They say potential environmental

damage to streams and the dependent wildlife and plants from the 1,200

gallons per minute of water Nestle is proposing to take from area water

supplies has not been adequately addressed.

The proposal has already engendered court actions with the California

Supreme Court declining this year to review a 2005 lower court ruling that

found the contract between Nestle and the MCSD should be reviewed and

possibly nullified.

The EIR's purpose is to evaluate the proposal in numerous areas, from noise

to water use, and propose mitigations where harm may be caused or where the

public interest is not adequately served.

The comment period for the draft EIR ends September 12th and as Donna Boyd

of the MWC pointed out, items not commented on in the draft EIR may not be

commented on in the final EIR.

“We have a legal right and an obligation to make comments,” Boyd said. “They

have to respond to our comments.”

The 2 1/2 hour meeting dissected the EIR in detail and speakers urged

attendees to send in written comments for inclusion in the final EIR.

Although the majority of the meeting attendees were opposed to the plant,

there were a few supporters.

Among the many objections to the EIR were the following:

-- That further hydrology data is needed with regards to effects on stream

and wildlife, water temperature and flows. Hydrologist Tom Meyers suggested

that five years of data was needed before an adequate study can be made. The

proposal calls for monthly monitoring for five years after full plant build

out;

-- That proposed passing lanes on Highway 89 are not adequate to mitigate

the estimated 600 truck trips per day and a compete traffic study is needed;

and

-- That according to the contract, plant water needs must be met at the

expense of residents with citizens of McCloud having to cut back during

droughts to ensure the plant meets its water needs.

Other issues with the EIR are noise from the plant, air quality including

emissions from the plant and the trucks, whether the water flows to the

plant can be maintained in an era of global warming and the possibility that

the plant will be used to bottle water from other areas, thereby increasing

traffic.

Public commentators opposed to the plant pulled no punches, saying the EIR

had “huge holes,” is “totally insufficient” and “full of air.”

“It's an elaborate fiction,” said a citizen.

In response to the noise issue, a citizen in favor of the plant asked, “if

anyone remembered when the mill ran 24 hours a day?”

“The mill sounds were music to my ears because people had jobs,” she said.

She noted that McCloud High School was now down to only a few students where

once there were hundreds because of the mill closure taking away jobs.

Another commentator, who said he was not completely opposed to the plant,

said the EIR needed more protections if the plant is built. To general

applause, he asked both sides of the issue to come together in getting

additional mitigations.

Nestle spokesperson Dave Palais said he disagrees the EIR is fundamentally

flawed, but supports the public's involvement in the comment process.

“We've been reviewing it and it looks like Siskiyou County and the Forest

Service have done a good job,” Palais said. “It sounds like the McCloud

Watershed Council is taking advantage of the public process. We encourage

anyone in the public interested in the project to take advantage of the

input process to the county.”

The $500,000 EIR, paid for by Nestle, is being prepared for Siskiyou County

under the direction of Mount Shasta based Pacific Municipal Consultants. PMC

president Mark Teague said the contract with the county prohibits him from

commenting on the specific issues, but he was able to explain PMC's role in

the EIR and how the process will unfold.

“PMC only works for government agencies. We work directly for Siskiyou

County. Siskiyou County is our boss,” Teague said. “It's not our job to

decide whether there is a plant there or not. Our job is to provide

information to the county. Legally, per the contract, we may not comment on

the EIR.”

Teague said the comments on the draft EIR will be evaluated with a response

and then a final EIR released. The final EIR will also have a comment period

with response prior to a public hearing before the county planning

commission. The planning commission comments will then have a response with

a final public hearing and response before the Siskiyou County board of

supervisors.

“The board of supervisors will then vote on whether to certify the EIR as

adequate,” Teague.

Teague said with the comment periods, responses and public hearings, he did

not see the issue coming to a supervisor's vote before the spring of 2007.

Second district county supervisor LaVada Erickson said the supervisors' role

is not to decide whether the plant is built, but if the “proposal is

environmentally safe.”

“We can ask for more mitigations, add or expand them, but we can't ask them

to go above and beyond to impossible conditions,” Erickson said. “They have

the right to build the plant under the current use permit. That's the

zoning.”

Under a Zoning Designation section the EIR says, “ The proposed facility is

an allowed use within the Heavy Industrial zoning district and does not

require a conditional use permit, a zone change or general plan amendment.”

Copies of the draft EIR/EA are available at the McCloud Community Services

District, McCloud Library, Shasta-Trinity National Forest ranger stations in

both McCloud and Mount Shasta, the county planning department in Yreka and

the Yreka and Mount Shasta Libraries.