Bottled water plan divides towns
Nestle Co.'s quest to tap into aquifer could lift Clinton, but Sterling leery
For Clinton, Nestle's proposal could bring in thousands of dollars annually and relieve mounting economic pressures.
But the proposal carries risks, among them the possibility that one small town, Clinton, population 13,400, might alienate its 7,300 neighbors in another, Sterling.
A growing band of Sterling residents say that the deal would be a bad one for them because Nestle's proposed water sources lie within Sterling's borders. Clinton acquired the land where the water sources are located when state legislation in 1882 gave Clinton the right to purchase nearly 600 acres known as the Wekepeke lands, home to the Heywood Reservoir and other waters.
Sterling residents who oppose the deal say it would bring large trucks rumbling through town, deplete water needed for wells, and threaten local streams and brooks so that someone else could earn a profit. They also say it violates the terms of the 1882 legislation, which they say gave Clinton the right to surface water, not ground water.
"This is a slap in the face to the people of Sterling," said Russell Philpot, a resident of the town and candidate for its Board of Selectmen.
Opponents of the Nestle deal gained key support last week when the Sterling selectmen voiced their unanimous opposition.
Clinton officials said in interviews they are still evaluating the proposal, which Nestle presented last month after the town put out word that it was seeking a buyer for the Wekepeke water. One Clinton official said he is keenly aware of Sterling's opposition to the Nestle proposal.
"We don't want to be quarreling with our neighbors," said Joe Notaro, vice chairman of the Clinton selectmen.
Under the terms of the deal, Nestle, owner of many of the nation's major water brands, including Poland Spring in Maine, would pump 240,000 gallons of water daily out of Clinton-owned springs for bottling at the company's plant in Framingham.
(The company says that is less than a quarter of the amount that Clinton withdrew when it relied on the Wekepeke area as its water source before switching to the Wachusett Reservoir in the 1960s.)
Nestle would draw the water from three wells, about 35 feet deep, near the Spring Basin Reservoir of the Wekepeke Watershed. In return, the company would pay $2.55 per 100 cubic feet - or roughly 748 gallons - of water withdrawn. The company estimates this would amount to $200,000 to $300,000 a year for Clinton and between $150,000 and $200,000 annually for Sterling.
Nancy Sterling, a Boston-based media relations strategist who is acting as spokeswoman for Nestle, said opponents' worries are unfounded.
The company, she said, has conducted tests that show that wells would be unaffected by the removal of water and that the drilling would have no harmful effects on the environment.
She said trucks needed to transport the water would travel on major roads and not through residential areas.
She also said the operation would be more sustainable than some bottling practices because the water will go into 5-gallon containers that can be used up to five times, rather than individual plastic bottles.
"This will be environmentally friendly," Sterling said.
If Clinton officials approve the proposal, Nestle will be required to obtain permits for the water extraction from the state Department of Environmental Protection, according to state officials.
Critics say that Nestle's proposal mirrors others that the company has struck with similarly economically strapped rural areas in which the communities are paid too little for the valuable resource being extracted.
"They sell the water for $8 a gallon - higher than the price of gasoline," said Deborah Lapidus, an organizer with Corporate Accountability International, a nonprofit agency based in Boston. "It's sort of like the communities are selling their souls."
The issue of water extraction in rural areas for bottling is gaining national attention. In December, a Nestle representative appeared before a US congressional subcommittee looking into the issue. Meanwhile, some communities have defeated water extraction proposals.
In November, in the face of mounting opposition from residents, Nestle retracted its plan to bottle water from the Montague Plains in Montague.
In Sterling, some officials say they hope to derail the Nestle plan by striking a deal with Clinton. Paul Sushchyk, a Sterling selectman, said he would like to see Sterling co-own the Wekepeke lands to aid Clinton with the costs of upkeep. The state has ordered Clinton to make repairs of dams on the Wekepeke lands, which are estimated to cost more than $1 million.
Richard Sheppard, a Sterling selectman, said he is concerned that Nestle will overstep its bounds if the proposal is approved.
"They may in fact attempt to draw more water than they are telling us now, and eventually would fight us with their deep pockets - which they know we don't have," he said.
Phil Duffy, chairman of the Clinton planning board, said residents of his town also have questions about the Nestle proposal.
But he said the idea has appealing elements, among them: "the possibility of a new revenue stream for the community."
Sarah Schweitzer can be reached at schweitzer@globe.com.
