In what some describe as a courageous battle, Concerned McCloud Citizens (CMC) keeps reigning victory in virtually all of the court rulings, despite Nestle's latest failed attempt to take legal issues to the California Supreme Court.
Originally represented as a great deal by McCloud's Community Services District board members (MCSD) and it's manager, contemplation reveals consequences regionally and beyond. The sale of water from pure Mount Shasta springs and boreholes deep in the earth raises more concerns than dollars. From the quality and culture of life in the McCloud Area to the Nation's non-renewable resources, water concern is wise. No longer a discussion limited to environmental enthusiasts, any economic benefits to be found in Nestle's 1 million square foot wish-list are outweighed by the countless costs to quality of life, contractual loopholes, and potential harm to the environment.
At issue is both the spring water that a small service district (MCSD) claims rights to, and the ground water below the surface. Many county and area residents believe that the tiny service district board exceeded their powers when they approved a complicated contract for the sale of water over a 50 year period, renewable for another 50 years.
The contract allows Nestle segregated water pipelines from McCloud's three springs at the base of beautiful Mt. Shasta. In addition to that, one of those springs (Nestle's preference) would be dedicated to NWNA (Nestle Waters North America).
Siphoned into a complicated game of corporate clout, political influence and paid public relations, many wonder if the small town of McCloud and the surrounding areas will just get swallowed-up along with it's water.
To the credit of Concerned McCloud Citizens (a project of Mount Shasta BioRegional Ecology Center) and their attorney Don Mooney, the contract appears to be in jeopardy with the many court rulings.
In March of 2005, CMC and supportive area residents claimed victory when Siskiyou County Superior Court (case #VPT040000500) ruled in favor of the request to set aside the contract between NWNA and the McCloud Community Services District. The ruling declared that Nestle and the MCSD were not in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act as no environmental review was completed before the contract signing.
Refusing to give up on a profitable venture, Nestle returned to the courts again in July of 2005. They argued that only those clauses subject to the CEQA process should be voided, asking to leave the remaining issues intact. Nestle lost that one, too.
Nestle has appealed to the Third District Court of Appeals in Sacramento.
They didn't stop there. The corporation filed a petition with the Third District Court of Appeals claiming that the Honorable Judge Kosel had not been qualified to rule on the merits of the case. The appellate court rejected Nestle's petition.
As Nestle's ballooning legal expenditures continued to expose the global company interest in the small town district deal, the corporation fought harder to maintain their stronghold by filing a Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court. The Petition for Review challenged the appellate court's dismissal of the claim that Judge Kosel was disqualified to the rule on the merits. In May 2006, the California Supreme Court struck down Nestle's petition for review when a decision for denial came weeks earlier than expected.
As the McCloud Services District and Nestle Waters team up to sway public opinion on the massive plant and contract, one might wonder how any water district survives without Nestle buying up water at all springs and boring holes for groundwater to bottle up a booming business.
For further information on this issue, Concerned McCloud Citizens or EIR response information:
###
Press Contact: Lori Vance
Company Name: CONCERNED MCCLOUD CITIZENS
Email: info@cmcsite.org
Phone: 415-381-5876
Website: http://www.mountshastaecology.org/
AndhraNews.net News for May 25, 2006