19 Replies to “The Crozet Water Treatment Plant”

        1. I don’t see anything about Nestle donating $1 million to the Ragged Mountain Dam Project.  I’d like to see something on that.

          1. The Nature Conservancy program, funded by a donation from Nestle Waters…  Cut and pasted from article. Easy to find if you want to.

          2. A “water program funded by a donation” and “$1 million to the Raggad Mountain Dam Project” are two different things.

            @ Fish,

            Is the point you’re trying to get across is  the $1 million was given by Nestle to the Nature Conservancy to fight the Raggad Mountain Dam so that they’d have a better market for their bottled water?

          3. It is possible that fishhead was referring to some of the coverage by Hawes Spencer of The Hook on local environmental leaders and organizations that have been enthusiastic about Ragged Mountain dam project. 

            http://www.readthehook.com/99648/flaws-tripled-rates-spun-numbers-and-conservancy-conflicts-why-war-dredging-slogs

            http://www.readthehook.com/88910/scenic-treasure-how-conservation-lines-pockets-rich

            http://www.readthehook.com/75828/pec-opens-new-fronts-war-dredging

          4. They are only different if you choose not to read the article and not follow the related links. You would of had the information you wanted by now instead of dragging this thing out…  It was also explained about why they
            donate money.

          5. the whole project smells of a rat. the fact that the dam proponents have given no costs of what it will be to pump water 9 miles up hill to the rivanna treatment plant. the fact that the resevoir has not had any maintenance in a decade. the fact that the cost estimate by a company for dredging was done by a company that builds dams.

          6. Plenty of smell to go around. Notice the conflict of interest that exists
            locally?  Not on the big projects either… We need elected officials that are willing to deal with issues directly. Not through third parties. If all we have are consultants and unelected boards
            what do we need them for??

          7. more info
            ARLINGTON, VA — May 30, 2006
            — Steve McCormick, president and CEO of The Nature Conservancy highlighted the
            leadership

            of the out-going Nature Conservancy Board
            Chairman Henry M. Paulson,

            who today was nominated by President Bush to be
            the next Secretary of the Treasury.

            “Hank has brought leadership
            and strength to this organization through critical times,” said Steve McCormick,
            president and CEO of The Nature Conservancy. “Hank has an unmatched passion and
            commitment for conservation. A tireless advocate, he has been a voice for
            environmental issues at the highest levels of business and government. His mark
            on the Conservancy is indelible, and I know he will bring his visionary
            global perspective to the Department of the Treasury.”

             

            In addition to serving as chairman and CEO of The
            Goldman Sachs Group, Paulson has served as Chairman of The Nature Conservancy’s
            Board of Directors since January of 2004. An ardent conservationist, Paulson
            joined the Conservancy’s Board of Directors in October of 2001. Paulson also was
            a driving force behind the Conservancy’s Asia Pacific Council, an advisory board
            comprised of public and private sector leaders created to help promote
            conservation and sustainable development across the Asia-Pacific
            region.

            Under Paulson’s tenure, The Nature Conservancy made
            significant gains in global conservation and in strengthening governance
            and accountability. As Chairman, he played key roles helping define the
            organization’s global conservation vision, expand into new geographies
            and enhance the organization’s partnerships with the private and public
            sectors.

             

        2. When I click the link this is what shows up:

          http://waterwars.wordpress.com/2006/12/20/a-brief-history-of-nestles-water-battles-in-michigan/

          Undercurrents: beneath the obvious

          December 20, 2006

          A Brief History of Nestle’s Water Battles in Michigan

          Filed under: Bottled Water,Great Lakes History,Michigan,Water Diversion — nemo @ 10:32 pm

          Notes from a presentation by Tony Clarke, Director, Polaris Institute, Canada.

          In North America, bottled water companies like Nestlé
          Waters have been able to secure control over underground aquifers and
          streams by taking advantage of an archaic patch work of regulatory
          regimes. One of these is called the “rule of capture.”
          According this law, “ground water is the private property of the owner
          of the overlying land” and they “have the right to capture the ground
          water beneath their land.” It is also known as the ‘law of the biggest
          pump’ because the landowner with the largest pumping capacity “can dry
          up the adjoining landowner’s well.”
          In Michigan, the initial battle lines were drawn around the zoning
          changes that were required in Mecosta County, and neighboring Osceola
          County, to allow Nestlé’s to build its water bottling operation. In June
          and August 2001, referendums were held in both Mecosta and Osceola
          counties, and rezoning was rejected by a 2-to-1 margin.
          In October 2002, a judge ruled that while Nestlé had the right to pump water on a ‘reasonable use’ basis, the company’s water withdrawal has harmed, or is likely to harm, the community residents and the environment.
          Nestle appealed this decision and, in November 2003, the Michigan
          Circuit Court upheld the lower court and “…ordered the company that
          produces Ice Mountain bottled water to halt all water withdrawals in
          Mecosta County.” But, in December 2003, Nestlé won an emergency reprieve
          to continue pumping spring water until its appeal of the circuit court
          ruling has been heard and decided.

          In 2005 on appeal by Nestle, the Appellate Court reversed the lower
          court decision that landowners along streams have legal standing
          superior to those bottling water and exporting it out of state. At this
          time, the Supreme Court is evaluating a segment of the case addressing
          the legal right to file suit.

          Nestle / Ice Mountain contends that the company’s primary issues in
          the battle are decided — “To a great extent, the case has largely been
          resolved through the Court of Appeals when it decided Nestle has the
          right to use water under the rules of the state’s reasonable use laws.” (Deb Muchmore)

  1. Folks – Unlike most of you, I actually asked The Nature Conservancy if money from Nestle went to the new water project and they said “No.”  Case closed.  Those of you, like fishead, who want to tell lies about others, should do your homework.  Sounds like The Hook was wrong.  So what else is new.

    1. Thanks Ricardo,

      Now if only that would actually close the case; what’s the more likely scenario? They’ ll just double down and continue to lie or reject reality.

      1. The problem with ricardolini’s question  is that the Hook didn’t allege that “money from Nestle went to the new water project”. 

        Spencer alleged Nestle gave money to the Nature Conservancy to develop a program, in part, to manage the area’s water decisions/policies.  That’s it. 

         And, Spencer’s editorial questioned whether the Nature Conservancy leadership advocated the construction proceed at Ragged Mountain to shift water resources to its primary donors/friends, rather than  provide Albemarle with the lowest environmental/fiscal cost.  

         It is very unusual for environmental leadership to support a large, environmentally costly project.   Questions were certain to be raised — outside of the Daily Progress, Albemarle’s planning staff, or Charlottesville Tomorrow.

        It is not the first time Albemarle residents see environmental policies that seem conflicting.   The major problem with the bypass, locals are told by local environmental charities/leaders, is that they have found the bypass to be in the watershed of the reservoir and near children/schools.   If that is the case, why would the same leaders passionately support the construction of new city in Western Albemarle, a move that creates more runoff in the “watershed” than the bypass, proximates to more children/schools, and will create more commuter pollution?     

        I think the best way for ricardolini to magically ‘close his case’ and do his homework, would be go back and read Spencer’s article with solid comprehension.    Then, ricardolini might wish to quote, accurately, the ‘lies about others’ from ‘The Hook’ that he feels are offend him, reject reality, or are unfair.  

         

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *