Hatchery objects to Creston bottling plant

 Click this link below to read....

http://www.dailyinterlake.com/members/hatchery-objects-to-creston-bottling-plant/article_6e13601a-f6da-11e5-9075-4fbb54dc71fc.html

 

"The federal agency estimates the hatchery’s wells could see a draw-down of 20 feet!!"

Eleven of us met on March 29 at 6pm at the home of *****

I want to highlight where we are right now and some immediate action steps:

1. We have a name: Water for Flathead’s Future

2. We have volunteers working on setting us up as a Montana nonprofit and setting up a bank account - we will need financial support!

3. We have volunteers working on graphics and setting up a website and domain.

4.We will have a table at the Creston VFD Annual Auction (upstairs in the Grange Hall) this Saturday, April 2
 *** Updated 3/31/2016*** TABLE @ CRESTON AUCTION CANCELED***

5. We are setting up a special meeting with John Wheaton and James Rose of the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology for Thursday, April 7.

6. Get involved in the DNRC process now! The deadline is now April 7 to file an initial objection to the MAWC application in the form of a DNRC form 611 http://dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/water/water-rights/docs/forms/611-u3-25-2016_fillable.pdf This form requires the payment of $25, and we highly recommend retaining legal help. Many of us who filed objections on March 11 received rejection notices on March 25. That created a new deadline of April 9 to respond to the denial letter for those who already filed those objections. Those who receive rejections later will have later response dates (15 calendar days from date of rejection letter.) ****** is already involved in this case representing people , and he can help you. To obtain his help, email him requesting that he represent you on this case. His email is ********* New filers should expect to contribute a minimum of $125 of which $25 is a fee paid to the state, and those wishing to dispute a “rejection” should expect to contribute a minimum of $100 since they’ve already paid the $25 filing fee. Whether or not you use Mr. *******, we can’t emphasize enough that without expert help you can expect to have your objections rejected. We cannot circulate privileged legal advice.

Since many of you already on this email list head up HOAs, please feel free to circulate this to your members. We are still working on our goal/purpose statement and the wording of the petition, but since we have very short deadlines ahead (particularly the auction) I wanted to get this much out now. We tentatively plan to meet again this Thursday evening, and we discussed the possibility of gathering auction volunteers in advance to provide guidance. Also, if anyone knows a way to quickly create some T-shirts for us to wear at the auction, let me know.

If there are any Thomas Jefferson’s among you who would like to help with some of the writing - please let me know. We have a goal (mission statement), the petition, some language to go on the website (which may just be based on the former language) and I’d also like to create some preliminary FAQs for the website. Email me at ******* to help.

You will hear more from me very soon,

Thanks to all of you for your support!

*******

Last night, Thurs Mar 24, we held our first meeting of the core of our concerned citizens group. We had great information shared. Soon we will have a public meeting and will post the information here.

As you may know already, there are numerous environmental issues here along with the water pumping issues. These include air pollution, water pollution, and possibly noise pollution as well.

Here on the Cascade Locks Oregon web there is a pro video (by Nestle) and there is a con video (by a citizens group). We will see many of these arguments again and again.

 The battle over the Columbia River Gorge Water


More on the Same subject...

Cascade Locks, Keep Nestle out


The Montana Artesian Water Company Environmental Assessment

Just a comment: Please note on page 3 under Water Quality that "Flathead Lake has been assessed and is identified by DEQ as not supporting aquatic life...".

This appears to be a fill in the blanks rushed EA done from the desk that was never proofread by anyone. Is this any indication of how carefully DNRC protects our county and our way of life?


 The Montana Artesian Bottling Company EA

Just a reminder,  the new period to file objections will begin on Wednesday, March 23, when the public notice is published, and will run through Thursday, April 7.


Are you wondering if your well is affected?  (According to their flawed model which fails to take in underground topography, as well as many other things)

Located below is the affected well spreadsheet list from DNRC. Please note, that for whatever reason, it does not contain all the affected wells. Searchable in MS Excel or Open Office Calc.

(Note: If you have an IPad, click on the arrow that you see displayed)

Otherwise just click on the live link below...
Affected Wells Here

So why should we object? Many reasons... For many of us, the dropping of the well levels in the area are only the tip of a very large iceberg...

Some folks from Many Lakes said this on their DNRC Form 611.  Link to DNRC Form 611

Criteria 3. Adverse Effect.

• We feel that the analysis to determine no adverse impact has been insufficient. The modeling methods used are old and outdated. We suggest you look at data from at least 3 different models to determine impacts to the surrounding area.
• The list of affected wells includes only one well under 100'. We believe there are potential impacts on wells in the area, and the shallower wells should not have been omitted.
• Adverse impacts are not limited merely to area well levels. The groundwater in the Many Lakes Community is very closely tied to lake levels and local wetlands. As our groundwater drops, so do our lake levels. Differences as small as four feet show dramatically in lake level fluctuations. As our lake levels drop, nursery habitat for fish populations is eliminated, wetland habitat is degraded, and our property values drop correspondingly.
• Evidence from the well-log and water pump test suggest the well is not located in the deep aquifer as suggested in the permit. It appears it is in an intermediate aquifer connected to the shallow aquifer. Clear and convincing evidence that the well is in the deep aquifer has not been provided.
• We are concerned that the permit includes no thresholds for ceasing operations should it be found that unanticipated adverse impacts occur following issuance of the permit.
• The proposed water use is not comparable to the Creston Hatchery use or agricultural use that are permitted to draw similar acre-feet per year. Agricultural permits use only about 25% of their allotment in a typical year. Also, the water pumped is used on site and drains back into the same aquifer or condenses into clouds that generally precipitate in state. This proposal is to remove more than 200 million gallons of water per year and ship it out of state. In no way, should this be considered a beneficial use for the citizens state of Montana.
• We are one year into an El Niño cycle and may be facing unprecedented drought conditions in the coming years. We suggest that before issuing a 710 ac-ft permit that removes the bulk of the water from our region, that you include the potential for climate variability in your modeled recharge rates. Keep in mind that all glaciers in the Flathead Basin headwaters are predicted to melt in the next decade or two, decreasing the reliability of aquifer recharge rates in coming years. This is not a time to sell our limited water resources out of state.
• No general data or analysis has been provide to the public that demonstrates that no damage would occur to existing wells and groundwater fed lake and wetland systems. You have also failed to conduct and provide the public with a detailed environmental assessment that provides a comprehensive study of possible impacts with adequate notice for a comment period. The Environmental Analysis prepared by DNRC is woefully inadequate. At a minimum, the EA should meet standards for the Montana Environmental Policy Act, and we request that it be submitted to the public for at least a 30-day comment period.
• We object to the wording on DNRC form 611, that limits objections merely to impacts on groundwater wells. In this particular instance, the issue is much bigger, and the potential for adverse impacts extends far beyond a simple water right.
  
  
  Help with leaving comments on blogger.
  
  

Sign the Stop the Creston Bottling Plant Petition!     Link to the Petition Here

 

Please note the extension of the objection period below:

FlatHead Beacon

DNRC Extends Objection Period for Creston Water Bottling Plant
State agency received requests for extensions from area water right holders
By Tristan Scott // Mar 11, 2016 // News & Features

The Department of Natural Resources and Conservation has extended the period for water right holders to object to a water bottling plant proposed on a slough along the Flathead River near Creston.
According to a spokesman for the state agency, the decision to extend the period by 15 days was prompted by requests from water right holders who live near the proposed facility.
Kathy Olsen, manager of DNRC’s Kalispell Regional Water Office, said the new period to file objections will begin on Wednesday, March 23, when the public notice is published, and will run through Thursday, April 7.
Objections postmarked March 12-22 will not be accepted.
The company laying plans for the plant is Montana Artesian Water Co., which was incorporated in Flathead County in 2014. Creston farmer Lew Weaver applied for a water rights permit from the state last June and received a preliminary water use permit from the DNRC in January.
The permit would allow the company to pump 710 acre-feet of water per year from the underground aquifer, the equivalent of 1.2 billion 20-ounce water bottles.
According to the DNRC’s preliminary determination to grant the permit, the company intends to use machines that are capable of rinsing and filling 20-ounce water bottles at a rate of 7,000 bottles per hour.
“Ultimately, Montana Artesian Water Company intends to use up to 20 of these machines to produce 140,000 water bottles per hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year,” the application states.
The department found that there will be no adverse effect to existing water users due to the company’s proposed appropriations and that enough water is both physical and legally available.
Still, news of the proposal unleashed a deluge of concern from conservation groups and nearby residents who worry that the water bottling plant would diminish the amount of available water they draw from their own wells. They also expressed concern about an uptick in vehicle traffic and the potential to despoil nearby wetlands and waterbodies.
Jean Rachubka lives near the slough and said she and other neighbors banded together to oppose the bottling plant after learning of its scope last week.
“We are just putting together a grassroots thing and trying to bring some light to this, which we really feel was done under the radar,” Rachubka said. “I asked the DNRC for a 15-day extension, and every single one of us is going to file an objection, regardless of whether it will be deemed invalid.”
The objection period was slated to end on March 11, but DNRC extended the period for 15 days. Water rights holders who believe the project would have an adverse effect on their wells can download the form at the agency’s website at http://dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/water/water-rights/docs/forms/611.pdf.
The Montana Department of Environmental Quality is also conducting a review under the Montana Environmental Policy Act and is reviewing two separate permitting actions.
Montana Artesian Water Company has applied for permitting under the Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and is requesting a discharge permit at two outfall points, both of which would discharge into “an unnamed tributary of the Flathead River,” about 1,300 feet away from the river.
The first outfall would contain non-contact heating water, or geothermal water, and would average a discharge of 33,358 gallons per day. The second outfall would contain rinse water from plastic water bottles and would average a discharge of 2,640 gallons per day.
Although the company has not yet discharged any water, it submitted estimates of the chemicals that may be present in the effluent, including chloride, chlorine, fluoride, nitrate, nitrite, and sulfate.
A public notice package will be completed in about one month, at which point the agency will initiate and give notice for a 30-day public comment period.
“If we lose the first battle with the DNRC, the next one is with the DEQ and we are going to get up in their grill,” Rachubka said. “It’s time to put the heat on them.”
Meanwhile, a petition at change.org titled “Stop Montana Artesian Water Co. From Forming A Water Bottling Plant in Creston, MT” had gathered nearly 1,800 signatures as of Friday afternoon.
At full build-out, the company anticipates having three daily shifts of 15 employees each.

Original  Daily InterLake Legal Notice 27 January 2016 (Before our recent time extension)

Enlarged Section:

Creston farmer plans bottling plant

Proposed water permit could fill 2 billion bottles a year
Posted: Monday, March 7, 2016 4:21 pm

By SAM WILSON/Daily Inter Lake | 0 comments

On one of the sprawling farms along the Flathead River’s Egan Slough, the Montana Artesian Water Co. is quietly working to open a plant that could bottle as much as 191.6 million gallons of groundwater per year.
The site of the proposed facility is less than two miles southwest of Creston and about a mile from the slough.
Creston farmer Lew Weaver owns the company, which was incorporated in Flathead County in October 2014.
“We made an application to all the regulatory agencies pursuant to the rules and regulations to do bottled water, and we are in the regulatory process and are waiting for the results of that,” Weaver said in an interview Monday.
He declined to elaborate on the company’s plans, including hiring impacts and operations, but said he would provide more information once the requisite permits are finalized.
According to a preliminary water rights permit issued Jan. 14 by the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, the company’s single well could withdraw from a deep underground aquifer up to 231.5 million gallons per year.
Of that, it could bottle and sell up to 191.6 million gallons per year, the equivalent of 2 billion 12-ounce water bottles. The rest would be used for rinsing bottles and equipment and for on-site tap water.
Emily Gillespie, an environmental engineer with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, said the plant would produce its own water bottles from sheets of plastic it brings into the facility. The process requires extruding the plastic and blowing air into the new bottles. They would then be rinsed and filled with treated well water.
The company’s one-page website describes its drinking water as containing “a light blend of minerals that imparts a refreshing and satiating taste,” including small amounts of calcium, magnesium and potassium.
Officials with the DNRC say the plant has generated substantial attention from nearby residents, many of whom worry the proposed water withdrawal could affect their private wells.
The department’s review of the water rights permit application found the plant would cause “no adverse impacts” to other water rights in the area.
The owners of 38 water rights within 1.5 miles of the proposed plant received notices of the decision, kicking off a 45-day period in which anyone can object to the new water right.
Objectors must pay a $25 processing fee to the department, and formal objections are due March 11.
“Basically, at this point, it’s been determined it’s good to go,” department water resources specialist Nate Ward said Friday. “If no one files an objection, we’ll issue” the water-rights permit.
A finding of “no adverse impacts” to existing water users doesn’t mean there will be no impacts.
That legal determination rests on whether the withdrawal will lower the aquifer’s water table below the perforated intakes for existing rights holders’ wells.
Based on the state’s hydrological modeling, which uses what deputy water resources office manager Kathy Olsen called a “scientific worst-case scenario,” it will not.
“In this case, there were no identified wells that were going to be drawn down below their perforated zone,” Ward said.
The model identified one well 635 feet from the proposed plant’s well for which the water table is expected to drop by 20.5 feet — the largest drawdown.
The closest the new well would bring any other permitted wells to drying up was one private well that extends 15 feet below the water table. The drawdown would be 3.5 feet, leaving an 11.5-foot water column above it.
The lower water table could cause a drop in water pressure for some rights holders, and Olsen noted that well owners may have to lower their pumps below the new water level or upgrade to a more powerful pump as a result.
The other caveat is that the state can only model wells for which a legal water right exists.
“That applies to existing, legal water users only,” Ward said. “With wells that can be kind of a big thing, because there’s a lot of wells out there that don’t have legal documentation. ... We can’t protect your water use if you don’t have a water right.”
Many of the phone calls Ward has fielded in the past couple of weeks came from well owners without legal water rights, and he said several responded by getting their wells permitted.
As with all water rights in Montana, the company’s water right would be subject to call by senior water rights holders during a water shortage. However, the department does not enforce calls, and should the company, or any junior rights holder, refuse to ratchet down their use, the matter must be settled in court.
According to the department’s preliminary determination to grant the permit, the 3,000-foot-thick Deep Aquifer underlies a 300-square mile area including the Flathead Valley and neighboring areas.
The aquifer is refilled by the Flathead River and Flathead Lake, and in the area where the well is located, it rests under an impermeable layer of earth — meaning water doesn’t travel between the Deep Aquifer and the shallow surface aquifer above.
Because the well won’t be pulling from the surface aquifer, Ward said it won’t have an impact on any wetlands.
There is also some precedent to the water company’s proposed annual withdrawal of more than 710 acre-feet of water.
One private well within three miles of the proposed plant is permitted to pump 711 acre-feet per year for irrigation, and the Creston National Fish Hatchery has a permit to pump up to 645 acre-feet per year at one of its wells.
The department’s environmental assessment found the plant would have “no significant impacts” on fish or wildlife.
But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which operates the fish hatchery, has begun drafting a letter outlining potential concerns.
“We recognize there could be impacts to the Creston National Fish Hatchery from this proposal. We continue to analyze what those might be,” said agency spokeswoman Sabrina Baker, who declined to elaborate on Friday.
State Sen. Bob Keenan, R-Bigfork, who represents the district extending north to Creston, said he also has fielded concerned calls from one of his constituents in the area.
“There are some real concerns about the amounts of water and the impact this will have on that little agricultural corner of the valley,” Keenan said Monday. “My concern is more that we have a more consistent and thorough environmental assessment process, not something that differs from agency to agency and that doesn’t include the locally impacted agencies.”
He said the Creston and Bigfork fire departments, schools and the Bigfork water district should have been notified.
While the water rights permitting process includes a formal environmental assessment, the permit is issued based on six separate criteria, not the outcome of the assessment.
Keenan also has heard concerns about the potential dust from heavy truck traffic transporting bottled water from the plant.
Flathead County Public Works Director Dave Prunty said Friday the county would ideally enter into a dust abatement cost-sharing agreement with the company as it does with local logging companies.
Under the agreements, the county and private haulers split the cost of treating unpaved roads with magnesium chloride, a salt that retains moisture and keeps dust levels down.
“If someone would be doing a sizable amount of hauling, we’d be interested in them applying through our dust cost-share program,” Prunty said. “Typically businesses like logging companies, they want to be good neighbors and have controlled it in some way.”
The county can’t force the company to do so, however, and enforcement would be up to the Department of Environmental Quality.
The plant still needs permits from the state Department of Environmental Quality for treating the bottled water and discharging wastewater into a Flathead River tributary.
Matt Kent, an environmental scientist for the agency, said Friday he expects to release the draft discharge permit for public comment in about a month. There would be at least a 30-day public comment period, and potentially a public hearing before the final permit is issued.
“We have certainly done that in the past, held hearings when there has been a sort of critical mass of interest,” he said Friday.
Geothermal heating water would be discharged about 1,300 feet from the river, a maximum of 33,358 gallons per day under the proposed permit.
Wastewater treated after rinsing the bottles and equipment would account for another 2,640 gallons per day.
Reporter Sam Wilson can be reached at 758-4407 or by email at swilson@dailyinterlake.com.