Pegasus Research Consortium

This is not looking good at all for the farmers in CA.
Adding this to the Livestock situation where many
ranchers had to ship cattle out of state due to no
grass in pastures....

Stock up on your food items at current prices
if you can, looks like we are headed for an increase.

Quote

The State Water Project will continue to withhold water from agricultural water service contractors, a first in more than 50 years since it was created. Most people who get their water from the Central Valley Water project will also not get their allocations.

Federal wildlife refuges and senior water rights holders along the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers will continue to receive 40 percent of their contract totals and water rights holders along the Feather River will get 50 percent of water promised them, the least amount permissible under the terms of their contract with the state.


http://www.contracostatimes.com/contra-costa-times/ci_25533494/state-federal-officials-officially-unveil-drought-plan-no

State officials expect to finalize water allocations later this month,
though many farmers have locked meters; I dont think this is
going to get undone.

(http://blogs.kqed.org/science/files/2014/04/Terra-Bella-7-1024x682.jpg)

http://blogs.kqed.org/science/2014/04/08/cold-then-dry-dealing-california-citrus-farmers-a-double-punch/

lots of embedded links .. if you are interested go to the article
here:

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/07/nestles_despicable_water_crisis_profiteering_how_its_making_a_killing_%E2%80%94%C2%A0while_california_is_dying_of_thirst/




Tuesday, Apr 7, 2015 02:36 PM EDT

Nestlé's despicable water-crisis profiteering: How it's making a killing — while California is dying of thirst

While California suffers through a historic 4-year drought, the corporate giant has made billions on bottled water
David Dayen 


California Gov. Jerry Brown has taken a lot of heat for announcing mandatory water reductions to cope with the state's historic drought — even while exempting agriculture, which uses 80 percent of the available water supply, while accounting for just 2 percent of the state's economy. On ABC's "This Week," Brown countered that many farmers lost state and federal water allocations, forcing them to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland. He even added, "some people have more of a right to water than others.



In a technical sense, that's true. Some farmers have "senior water rights," dating back to the Water Commission Act of 1914, which puts them at the front of the line for allocations. But unlike the individual apartment dweller, farmers aren't limited to "surface water" found in reservoirs and canals and streams. They can also extract groundwater virtually unimpeded; until last year there were basically no regulations against anyone sticking a drill in the ground and pumping the water under the Earth — which has drained long-term water resources almost dry and contributed to the land actually sinking in some parts of the Central Valley. This safety valve, the ability to go underground, has led to the perpetuation of wasteful irrigation systems and unsustainable plantings. (Enough with the almonds and rice!) And even the aforementioned new rules, which Brown pushed for, are woefully inadequate and in some cases don't kick in until 2022, thanks to industry lobbying.


As a political matter, saying that some people have more of a right to water than others is a deadly epigram, calling attention to the serious inequality in California, between farmers as well as individuals. People need only to look at the perfectly manicured lawns in Malibu, a city that uses five times as much water as poor neighborhoods in South Los Angeles, to feel the power distribution problem. And farmers paying far less for the water they hog contributes to that perception. Brown's headed for serious trouble if he punishes residents while taking it easy on an influential industry like agriculture – or worse, oil, which uses millions of gallons a day fracking the state for climate-destroying hydrocarbons, and which is similarly exempt from water restrictions.

If Brown wants to survive what will become a major headache hanging over his fourth term, and if the state wants to survive and remain habitable for the future, the special rights and corrupt deals have got to end. And there's no bigger example of that than Nestlé, one of the world's biggest corporations, actually pumping California water, when the state is bone dry, to sell in plastic bottles.

That's right, if you purchase an Arrowhead or Pure Life bottled water, you may be drinking from California's dwindling tap, which Nestlé has been monetizing for over a decade. And they get away with it through an increasingly common corporate gambit, by partnering with Native American tribes to conduct the water raid in sovereign territory.


In particular, Nestlé has a 25-year contract with the Morongo Band of Cahuila Mission Indians to draw water from wells in Millard Canyon, in the desert city of Cabazon. The plant is one of the largest in North America. Morongo, which also has a casino that features entertainment from the likes of REO Speedwagon and Australian male revue "Thunder From Down Under," no longer provides statistics on how much water Nestlé pumps out of the underground spring. But independent statistics put the total anywhere between 200 and 250 million gallons a year.

This is a small number in the grand scheme of things: the water restrictions announced by Gov. Brown would save 500 billion gallons a year, or 2,000 times as much as what Nestlé pumps out. But Nestlé has at least a dozen such operations statewide, many in severely dry regions. And the fact that they've turned exporting groundwater during a drought into a moneymaking enterprise is absurd. The Morongo plant alone produces over 1 billion bottles of water per year, and the parent company, Nestlé Waters North America, earned annual revenues of $4 billion from its 29 facilities in 2012. Plus, pulling water from an oasis magnifies the environmental impact on the desert ecosystem. The water taken out would normally recharge the local underground aquifer or increase flow along a surface stream.

Morongo told the Palm Springs Desert Sun that the water plant creates 250 local jobs, and that they control the resources as part of their sovereign nation. And, given the history of American brutalization of native people, it's hard to get too agitated about how tribal nations use their own land, which represents a tiny fraction of what they actually deserve. But the water actually belonged to the Cabazon Water District as recently as they early 2000s. They sold it to the Morongo tribe in a quick-cash privatization deal for just $3 million, enabling them to temporarily reduce water rates to customers. Morongo almost immediately struck the agreement with Nestlé, for access to a canyon that gushes 3,000 gallons of water per minute at full strength. Nestlé pays Morongo an undisclosed fee for every gallon they pump.

This has become a familiar corporate tactic in recent years — partnering with tribal nations to evade federal laws or restrictions. To use another, even savory example, an online payday-lending service located on Otoe-Missouria tribal lands in Oklahoma charges 448 percent interest to borrowers nationwide, even those living in states that have banned payday lending. The conservative Institute for Liberty, run by an ex-lobbyist for the National Federation for Independent Business, recently put up billboards in Connecticut, where the state banking department has tried to block the tribal lender, featuring a native child and the caption "Don't take away my future." The Institute for Liberty doesn't have to disclose funders, but they are clearly running interference for the payday lending industry, using tribal members as a shield. Corporations routinely play on their association with tribes to keep profits rolling.

California actually tried to revoke a portion of Morongo's license to use water from Millard Canyon starting in 2003; the tribe successfully fought that action. But with the drought and the water restrictions, the debate has restarted. Last week, the Courage Campaign, an online progressive group with 900,000 members, petitioned the state Water Resources Control Board to stop Nestlé's bottling operations statewide.

We should criticize the local water district's stupid privatization deal as much as anything else in this story. And that's one major point: With water a scarce commodity in California, its usage has been dictated and governed by those with power and resources. Only the state, acting in the public interest, has the ability to curtail that.

What makes Gov. Brown's responses to the drought so dangerous is that he has in no way tried to upset those power imbalances, instead uncomfortably working within them. In the fourth year without much rain, that will no longer work without revealing stark differences between winners and losers. And those special interests are largely the same ones whose profligate, profit-chasing use of water resources helped create the problem.

One things is clear: If the governor can't stop even a relatively small player like Nestlé from monetizing the same water every Californian must conserve, he loses the moral authority to do virtually anything else.
 
David Dayen 
David Dayen is a contributing writer for Salon. Follow him on Twitter at @ddayen.

sorry had to add another post too late to modify the one above

more info good old nestle... I was trying to find just how many places they take water from
when I came across the stop nestle  dot org....verrrrrrrrrry interesting



http://stopnestlewaters.org/

Random header image... Refresh for more!
Does Nestle's Infiltration Of Maine's PUC Make An Unconflicted Decision About Its Water Operations Impossible?
by TC










http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/27/1373887/-Activists-Shut-Down-Nestl-Water-Bottling-Plant-in-Sacramento#


Dan BacherFollowRSS
Daily Kos member
Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 06:57 PM PDT

Activists 'Shut Down' Nestlé Water Bottling Plant in Sacramento



.............


http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/environment/2014/07/12/nestle-arrowhead-tapping-water/12589267/

Little oversight as Nestle taps Morongo reservation water
Ian James, The Desert Sun 2:29 p.m. PDT March 31, 2015


.............................



http://rt.com/usa/172764-nestle-california-bottling-plant/
Nestle continues to sell bottled water sourced from California despite record drought
Published time: July 15, 2014 03:05
Edited time: July 17, 2014 10:54




.............................................


While the Nestlé news in California has garnered a significant amount of media attention, this is hardly the only instance where bottled water companies have taken precedence over local ecosystems.

Crystal Geyser Water Company opened a facility in Mount Shasta in 2014, much to the dismay of local residents, without performing an environmental impact report. Like Nestlé, Crystal Geyser is not closely monitored by the Forest Service but submits water usage reports. According to the Forest Service, the impact of the company's water use on groundwater supplies and aquifers is "unknown." Apparently, "unknown" is the new "okay."

According to the National Resources Defence Council, "Other springs in national forests across the country have been tapped for use by bottled water companies, including Nicolet National Forest in Wisconsin, Ocala National Forest in Florida, Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee, Chattahoochee National Forest in Georgia, Nantahala National Forest in North Carolina, and Sumter National Forest in South Carolina. Information on the consequences is hard to come by."

Converting public waters into private products is a major issue in the U.S., and the lack of transparency is troubling to say the least.

What You Can Do
http://www.onegreenplanet.org/environment/nestle-california-national-parks-bottled-water/




......................

https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/films/rebuttal-to-nestle-waters-north-america-statement-on-flow-for-the-love-of-water/




.....................................................

http://www.groundswell.org/shame-on-you-nestle/


from middle of article

Nestle does require a permit from the U.S. Forest Service to transport water across the San Bernadino National Forest. It has one—from 1988. Despite the fact that Nestle's permit expired 27 years ago, the Forest Service hasn't reviewed it. The government should be able to give us an unbiased look at the environmental costs of Nestle's plant, but it looks like that's not happening.

"The lack of oversight is symptomatic of a Forest Service limited by tight budgets and focused on other issues," explained a reporter from The Desert Sun.

The Desert Sun, a local newspaper, has repeatedly asked Nestle for a tour of the facilities. These requests have never been granted. In addition, Nestle and the Morongo tribe refuse to answer any questions.

We do have a few numbers to work with; up until six years ago, Nestle submitted an annual report to a group of local water districts about how much water it was extracting. The amounts ranged from 595 acre-feet of water (in 2005) to 1,366 acre-feet of water (in 2002).

Since the water agency doesn't have any data since 2009, it's been using an average of 750 acre-feet, or 244 million gallons, per year.

As The Desert Sun points out, "none of the figures have been independently verified, and it's also uncertain how much water the bottling plant could be drawing from other local sources."
- See more at: http://www.groundswell.org/shame-on-you-nestle/#sthash.CkbtOW07.dpuf



..............................

http://www.bottledlifefilm.com/index.php/the-story.html

Water war in the USA
To be able to sell and make money from water, you first have to own it. In the case of Nestlé this applies to many parts of the United States, by far the biggest market for its booming bottled water business. Whoever owns land or has acquired leasing rights is permitted to pump as much water as he likes. In the rural state of Maine, Nestlé has purchased many such water rights and resources. Every year the company pumps out millions of cubic metres of water, for transportation in road tankers to huge bottling factories. In the small towns of Fryeburg, Newfield and Shapleigh, journalist Res Gehriger witnessed how Nestlé tries to stifle and suppress local opposition to its operations with an army of powerful PR consultants, lawyers and lobbyists.



Nestlé's expansion strategy

............................................................


http://www.nestle-watersna.com/en
Nestlé Waters North America: Bottled Water| Bottled Water ...
www.nestle-watersna.com/ Cached
Similar

Nestlé Waters North America has 15 leading bottled water brands & offers ... to homes & businesses across the U.S. Learn more about our bottled water & tea ... autogas will began operation November 5 at Nestlé Waters North America's Los ...

Nestlé CEO (Bilderberger) Peter Brabeck - GMO Promotor & Water as not a Human Right

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iGj4GpAbTM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iGj4GpAbTM

http://www.newsoxy.com/business/nestle-water-us-forest-service-6-187701.html

By: John Lester
Staff Reporter
Jan. 4, 2016


Nestle Water US Forest Service: Review Underway Of Bottled Water Plant Amid Lawsuit

Nestle Water US Forest Service: The U.S. government is reviewing a water plant after mounting pressure from a lawsuit filed by several environmental groups. Nestle has applied to renew its permit and can continue to operate its water plant in a San Bernardino Mountain canyon while the agency conducts its review process, according to The Guardian.

In December, US Forest Service spokesman John Heil said his agency "has begun the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) review to analyze the effects of re-issuing a special use permit" for the company. Nestle Corp. and its water will be reviewed by the board. Established in 1970, NEPA requires the federal government to use all practical means to create and maintain conditions "under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony."

It requires agencies to assess the environmental effects of their proposed actions prior to making decisions. "The forest has assigned an interdisciplinary team and is developing the proposed action. When the proposed action is fully developed, the public will be invited to submit comments through the scoping process," Heil wrote, in a statement.

The Nestle water review by the US Forest Service comes at a time when its permit expired in 1988. Since that time, the Switzerland-based company has been drawing what now amounts to millions of gallons of water from the rugged Strawberry Canyon in the San Bernardino Mountains, north of San Bernardino.

Under Forest Service regulations, expired special use permits, like what Nestle water has, remain in effect until they are either renewed or denied.

"We are pleased the USFS review process is underway," said Jane Lazgin, spokeswoman for Nestle Waters North America. "We are working with the U.S. Forest Service through the permit renewal process, recognizing the permit remains in effect because the company took the proper steps to request the permit renewal before it became due.

For more than 120 years, the Arrowhead bottle water brand, under many different owners as well as Nestle water, has been fueled by spring water from the San Bernardino Mountains and other springs around the state. NFS officials maintain that the backlog of expired permits has prohibited their review and update of Nestle's operations, which provide water for the company's Arrowhead brand of bottled water.

The canyon's rich natural spring environment has made it an attractive to a diverse group of plant and animal species – including endangered species – and caught the attention of environmentalists concerned about the non-stop removal of water from this canyon during the fourth year of the California drought.

In October, water environmentalists — led by the Center for Biological Diversity — filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in Riverside, seeking to force the forest service to begin a scientific study on the effects of the water drawdown as part of its evaluation of the long-expired permit.



In April, an online community group collected more than 135,000 signatures to demand that Nestle discontinue all its water operations in California. Three of Nestle's five statewide bottling operations are in Southern California.

In late November, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Los Angeles-based Courage Campaign Institute and the Story of Stuff Project, asked the federal district court in Riverside to quickly rule on the case, shut down Nestle's approximately four-mile long Strawberry Canyon water pipeline and order the Forest Service to begin its environmental study.

The Courage Campaign is the online community group that collected the signatures against the water company.

While the Nestle water review is underway by the US Forest Service, some people question the process. Lisa Belenky, senior attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity in Oakland, said her organization has heard the Forest Service would begin the NEPA process, but even now, the agency has filed no public documents indicating when the public comment period might be.

Tags: Lawsuit, Bottled Water, Water, Nestle, U.S. Forest Service

yep they're still at it..

Quotehttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/nestl%C3%A9-is-still-taking-national-forest-water-for-its-arrowhead-label-with-feds-help/ar-AACXq5K?li=BBnb7Kz

Nestlé is still taking national forest water for its Arrowhead label, with feds' help
Janet Wilson  8 hrs ago

(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AACXq5J.img?h=417&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=1247&y=1487)
© Provided by USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc.
Nestlé, the world's largest bottled water company, continues to take millions of gallons of free water from the San Bernardino National Forest two hours east of Los Angeles, 17 months after California regulators told them they had no right to much of what they'd taken in the past. And federal officials are helping them do it, despite concluding Nestlé is drying up springs and streams and damaging a watershed.

The company says it is legally entitled to every drop, and is "sustainably collecting water at volumes believed to be in compliance with all laws and permits at this time," according to emailed responses to questions from The Desert Sun.

The company reported piping 139 acre-feet — or 45 million gallons — of water from the springs and slopes of the popular national forest last year as part of its Arrowhead brand operations. They were required to pay about $2,000 for a new federal permit, but no fees for the water, which is theirs to use for retail sale. Some conditions were imposed in a management plan that they originally drafted, which was signed in March by the forest's district ranger.

State rights

The state's top water rights enforcer said in a recent interview that while he and his staff had advised the multinational company in December 2017 not to continue taking unauthorized water, it will take at least another six months for his team to finalize their investigation, and, if necessary, issue penalties.

"We hope by next December" the report will be complete, said Victor Vasquez, the senior engineer who heads water rights enforcement for the California Water Resources Control Board. He noted the draft report had taken two years to complete, and said his staff is working hard on the final version after receiving additional input from Nestlé and the public. "The issues we're examining are very complex, very technically complicated... this has a lot of geology involved in it, and a lot of legal aspects."

Vasquez and Nestlé also noted that state regulators had found that the company is entitled to up to 26 acre-feet of surface water and 126 acre-feet of groundwater piped from horizontal wells, for a total of 152 acre-feet.

Vasquez' team concluded that in past years the multinational had taken as much as 356 acre-feet of unauthorized water, and advised them to "immediately cease any unauthorized diversions." So far, according to required state records, Nestlé is staying within the 152 acre-feet limit, though they submitted a response to the state saying they actually have rights to at least 271 acre-feet.

Opponents dispute those claims.

"Based on the evidence gathered by the Water Board's investigators and others, we believe that Nestlé is diverting water for bottling to which it has no legal right," said Michael O'Heaney, executive director of Story of Stuff project, a global citizens' group that helped unearth data about Nestlé. "The Water Board has no choice but to end Nestlé's unauthorized removal of water and hold the company accountable to the people of California for its wrongdoing over many years. We continue to encourage the Water Board to complete its work in the most timely and thorough way possible."

Local activist Amanda Frye, who researched and submitted historical documents to the investigators, says a bottling operation which began in 1909 was in a different area, not the national forest, and that the company has no right to water based on that claim.

If state investigators conclude that the multinational has been taking water improperly, it could face fines of between $500 and $1,000 a day for every day it has continued to take it since the end of 2017, when the notice was sent. It's not clear how that would affect the company's bottom line.

Nestlé SA, headquartered in Vevey, Switzerland, is the world's largest food company, according to a spokesman, and its Paris-based subsidiary Nestlé Waters is the largest bottled water company. Its profits were a reported $10.5 billion last year.

With 87 locations in 33 countries, the company bottles and sells several other spring water brands, such as Deer Park, Ice Mountain and Poland Spring. It relies on sites in California, Colorado and Canada for its Arrowhead label, distributed across the West Coast.

In documents submitted to the forest service, Nestlé said if it lost access to water from the national forest, it could have "significant market impacts" and risk job losses among 1,200 employees connected with the Arrowhead brand.

The battle over Nestlé's operation in the southern California forest is one of several across the country in recent years, including in Oregon, Michigan and Pennsylvania, seeking to block it from siphoning water from springs and aquifers.

State and federal agencies began examining Nestlé's bottled water operation in the San Bernardino National Forest following a 2015 investigation by The Desert Sun, which revealed that federal officials were allowing the company to draw water from the forest with a permit that listed 1988 as the expiration date and without examining impacts on the environment, during a prolonged drought. The reporting prompted petitions, protests, a lawsuit against the U.S. Forest Service and multiple complaints to the state water board.

Nestlé has insisted it holds rights to the water that are "among the most senior" in California. The company could appeal any enforcement decision, triggering an in-depth hearing before the entire water board, which has the authority to make the final call. If the board concludes a company was taking water wrongly and they refused to comply, the matter could be referred to the state attorney general.

Feds keep water flowing, despite harm to springs and streams
After their own review, forest service officials issued an updated permit last year. This March, they finalized an "adaptive management plan" that allows Nestlé to keep taking water from Strawberry Creek, above the historic Arrowhead Hotel grounds, with flexibility for possible adaptations if needed.

The plan, which Nestlé said it drafted then submitted to federal officials for review and approval, was signed by the district ranger in March. It lets the company pipe water for up to five years, as long as surveys show it's "excess" water that isn't needed for forest resources. It also requires biological surveys and "mitigation" of any harm to species at risk of extinction. Initial studies found no federally endangered species on site, and varying degrees of risk or benefit to others.

Nestlé must also conduct paired surveys of a naturally flowing water basin and the Strawberry Creek basin from which it takes water. In a visit to the national forest in 2017, Desert Sun journalists confirmed that while the creek's east fork was flowing freely, the western fork — which lies in the watershed below Nestlé's boreholes and tunnels — was just a trickle.

Nestlé collects water from the national forest north of San Bernardino using a system of boreholes and water tunnels drilled deep into the mountainside. The water is piped downhill to a roadside tank, where it is pumped into tanker trucks and hauled to a bottling plant about 30 miles away.

Extraction damages natural resources
The watershed is currently "impaired" according to earlier studies validated by federal officials.

"The current water extraction is drying up surface water resources (springs and streams) that would have normally been perennial water resources," and "this extraction of water... is not in accordance" with a land management plan, federal staff concluded in 2018.

But the new management plan doesn't require all of Strawberry Creek to be restored to natural, free-flowing levels, only to a "functioning at risk" rating.

A San Bernardino forest spokesman said he couldn't define the ratings or comment on why full restoration wasn't being required. He provided an earlier environmental review that said while it was impaired, the changes to be undertaken in the adaptive management plan would be a step in the right direction, moving it up one level to "functioning at risk."

Critics said the forest service's decision was wrong.

"We believe the right place for this water is in the San Bernardino National Forest, not in Arrowhead's plastic bottles," said O'Heaney in an email.  "The Forest Service has a duty to maintain the Forest for generations to come. And while it is right to have finally taken action after years of ignoring Nestlé's water removal, the only way to fully restore Strawberry Creek is to let these waters flow freely. Our goal shouldn't be an ecosystem 'at risk,' it should be a thriving Forest."

Steve Loe, a retired biologist who worked for the U.S. Forest Service for more than 30 years, including on the San Bernadino forest, said of the decision to let them keep taking water, "it stinks."

He said a wet winter like this year's would have been the perfect time to allow the creek to begin to recover and provide critical habitat for diminishing wildlife, including three songbirds, the speckled dace fish and the mountain yellow-legged frog.

Nestlé said in an email that the company was following the guidance prescribed under the management plan it initially drafted, which it said it did in accordance with forest policies. "The (US Forest Service) itself can best address the government's rationale for various requirements under its permitting structures."

The statement added, "We recognize the great responsibility that we have as stewards of this precious resource. We are committed to ensuring that Arrowhead Springs will continue to be managed for long-term sustainability as has been the case over the past 122 years of operations in Strawberry Canyon."

Loe said he believed local forest officials had done the best they could with the management plan, because he believes they are facing enormous pressure from Trump administration officials overseeing the agency, who are pushing to allow natural resources to be taken and used by industries as much as possible.

While not commenting on Loe's charges, a forest spokesman said, "The District Ranger made the decision based on an analysis conducted by an interdisciplinary team of resource specialists. Guidance was provided by the forest, Regional Office and Washington Office."

Loe said he also was grateful to hear the state was still investigating, fearing political pressure might have ended that probe.

Secret reviews of watershed impacts?
Despite opponents' requests, many of the federally required surveys will be conducted by Nestlé or its paid consultants. The results could also be kept private, based on proprietary claims by the company, although they will be shared with officials. Forest staff retain the right to do inspections and to make modifications.

"The Forest Service has to approve the studies, they oversee and monitor them, but it's Nestlé that hires the consultants and conducts the studies," said O'Heaney of Story of Stuff. "We wanted a reading room set up where the public could come and review those documents. We think it's the right of citizens to have access to that information."

A forest service spokesman said he couldn't immediately comment on whether the studies would be kept private.

Janet Wilson is senior environment reporter with the Desert Sun, and authors Climate Point for USA TODAY. She can be reached at janet.wilson@desertsun.com and @janetwilson66. Arizona Republic reporter Ian James contributed to this report.

This article originally appeared on Palm Springs Desert Sun: Nestlé is still taking national forest water for its Arrowhead label, with feds' help