Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Final Report
April 21, 2021
Harvey Economics
Economic Impact Study of Nestle Waters
North America’s Operations in Chaffee
County
Prepared for
Board of Commissioners of Chaffee County
and Chaffee County Attorney
PO Box 699
Salida, Colorado 81201
Prepared by
Harvey Economics
469 South Cherry Street, Suite 100
Denver, Colorado 80246
720.889.2755 fax 720.889.2752
www.harveyeconomics.com
Harvey Economics
Page i
Table of Contents
SECTION 1: Introduction
Study Objective and Approach .............................................................................................. I–1
Data Sources .......................................................................................................................... I–2
Caveats and Limitations ........................................................................................................ I–2
SECTION 2: NWNA Baseline Operations and Impacts
First NWNA Special Land Use Permit ................................................................................. II–1
RMSO Facilities ................................................................................................................... II–1
Water-Related Activities of the RMSO ................................................................................ II–3
RMSO Water Shipments ...................................................................................................... II–4
NWNA Expenditures in Chaffee County ............................................................................. II–5
SECTION 3: NWNA Employment Effects
Current NWNA Employment and Wages ........................................................................... III–1
Projected NWNA Employment and Wages......................................................................... III–3
Chaffee County Employment and Income Profile ............................................................... III–4
RMSO Impact on the Chaffee County Employment Base .................................................. III–6
SECTION 4: NWNA Non-Employment Local Expenditures
Current NWNA Local Expenditures.................................................................................... IV–1
Projected NWNA Local Expenditures ................................................................................. IV–4
RMSO Impact on the Chaffee County Economy ................................................................ IV–4
SECTION 5: NWNA Fiscal Impacts
NWNA Tax Payments .......................................................................................................... V–1
Projected NWNA Property Tax Payments ........................................................................... V–3
Summary of NWNA Fiscal Impacts in Chaffee County ...................................................... V–3
SECTION 6: Economic Impact of NWNA Plastic Bottles
NWNA and the Water Bottling Industry ............................................................................. VI–1
Plastics in Chaffee County ................................................................................................... VI–2
Summary of NWNA Plastic Bottling Impacts in Chaffee County ...................................... VI–6
SECTION 7: The Impact of NWNA Presence on Chaffee County
Economic Development
Chaffee County Business and Employment Trends .......................................................... VII–1
Chaffee County Economic Development Efforts and Strategies ....................................... VII–4
Table of Contents (Continued)
Harvey Economics
Page ii
Resident Image and Vision for Chaffee County ................................................................ VII–5
Summary of RMSO Impact on Chaffee County Economic Development and
Residential Growth ............................................................................................................ VII–7
SECTION 8: Other Issues
Big Spring/Ruby Mountain Conservation Easement ........................................................ VIII–1
Transportation and Roads ................................................................................................. VIII–4
Recreation and Tourism .................................................................................................... VIII–5
SECTION 9: Economic Value of NWNA Water and Impacts to
Chaffee County Water Resources
Recent RMSO Water Production, Consumption and Augmentation .................................. IX–1
Projected RMSO Water Production, Consumption and Augmentation .............................. IX–5
Alternative Uses and Economic Value for the RMSO Water ............................................. IX–6
Future Water Demands and Supplies Available to Chaffee County ................................... IX–9
Summary of RMSO Impacts on Chaffee County Water Resources .................................. IX–14
SECTION 10: Summary of NWNA Economic Benefits
Compared with Costs and Alternative Resource Use
Current and Future Direct and Total Economic Benefits ..................................................... X–1
Alternative Use of NWNA Resources .................................................................................. X–5
APPENDIX
List of Persons Interviewed .................................................................................................. A–1
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 2-1. NWNA’s Ruby Mountain Springs Operations Facility Locations ................... II–2
Exhibit 2-2. Historic NWNA Groundwater Pumping, 2010 - 2020 ..................................... II–3
Exhibit 2-3. NWNA Pumping, Augmentation Flows and Net Gains to the Arkansas
River, 2019 and 2020 ............................................................................................................ II–4
Exhibit 2-4. RMSO Tank Truck Loads and Estimated Water Shipments, 2019 and
2020 ...................................................................................................................................... II–5
Exhibit 2-5. NWNA Other Expenditures in Chaffee County, 2010 to 2020 ........................ II–6
Exhibit 2-6. NWNA Contributions in Chaffee County, 2010 to 2020 ................................. II–7
Exhibit 3-1. NWNA Employees, Ruby Mountain Spring Operations, 2019 and 2020 ....... III–2
Exhibit 3-2. NWNA Truck Trips, Ruby Mountain Spring Operations, 2019 and
2020 ..................................................................................................................................... III–2
Table of Contents (Continued)
Harvey Economics
Page iii
Exhibit 3-3. Wages and Salaries for Ruby Mountain Spring Operations Employees
(Chaffee County Residents), 2019 and 2020 ....................................................................... III–3
Exhibit 3-4. Chaffee County Employment Profile, 2019 and 2020 ..................................... III–4
Exhibit 3-5. Employment by Industry for Chaffee County, 2019 ....................................... III–5
Exhibit 3-6. Income and Earnings Data for Chaffee County, 2019 ..................................... III–5
Exhibit 4-1. Non-Employment Local Expenditures, Excluding Taxes and UAWCD
Payments, 2019 and 2020 .................................................................................................... IV–2
Exhibit 4-2. NWNA Contributions to Non-Profits or other Public Entities in
Chaffee County, 2019 and 2020 .......................................................................................... IV–3
Exhibit 5-1. NWNA Property Tax Payments, 2010 - 2020 .................................................. V–1
Exhibit 5-2. NWNA Property Taxes, by Taxing Entity, 2019 and 2020 .............................. V–2
Exhibit 6-1 Amounts and Types of Waste in Chaffee County Landfill, 2019 .................... VI–3
Exhibit 6-2. Amounts and Types of Compacted Waste in Chaffee County Landfill,
2019 ..................................................................................................................................... VI–4
Exhibit 6-3. Estimates of Plastic Bottle Contributions by NWNA to Chaffee County
Landfill ................................................................................................................................ VI–5
Exhibit 6-4. Chaffee County Landfill Waste Disposal Fund Expenditures, 2019 –
2021 ..................................................................................................................................... VI–6
Exhibit 7-1 Growth in Chaffee County Businesses and Employment, 2010 - 2020 ......... VII–2
Exhibit 7-2. Number of Business Establishments by Industry for Chaffee County,
2019 ................................................................................................................................... VII–3
Exhibit 7-3. Gross and Retail Sales Data for Chaffee County Businesses, 2015,
2019 and 2020.................................................................................................................... VII–4
Exhibit 7-4. Chaffee County Population and Household Data, 2010 - 2020 ..................... VII–6
Exhibit 8-1. Proposed Big Springs/Ruby Mountain Easement Location ......................... VIII–3
Exhibit 8-2. NWNA Truck Trips in Chaffee County, 2019 and 2020 .............................. VIII–4
Exhibit 9-1. Historic NWNA Groundwater Pumping and Shipping, 2010 - 2020 .............. IV–2
Exhibit 9-2. NWNA Diversions, Augmentation, Transit Loss and Net Credit to the
Arkansas River, 2010 - 2020 ............................................................................................... IV–3
Exhibit 9-3. NWNA Historic Groundwater Pumping and Augmentation Activity,
2010 - 2020 .......................................................................................................................... IV–4
Exhibit 9-4. NWNA Groundwater Pumping and UAWCD Augmentation Deliveries
by Month, 2019 and 2020 .................................................................................................... IV–5
Exhibit 9-5. Projected NWNA Pumping and Augmentation Activity, 2021 - 2030 ........... IV–6
Exhibit 9-6. Chaffee County Water Demands, 2020, in Acre-Feet ..................................... IV–7
Exhibit 9-7. Chaffee County Gross Sales and Percent of Total by Month, 2018 -
2020 ..................................................................................................................................... IV–8
Exhibit 9-8. Estimated Annual Economic Value of RMSO Water, 196 AF ....................... IV–9
Table of Contents (Continued)
Harvey Economics
Page iv
Exhibit 9-9. Projected Population and Household Growth in Chaffee County, 2020
- 2050 ................................................................................................................................. IV–10
Exhibit 9-10. Projected Water Demands for Chaffee County, 2030 and 2050, in
Acre-Feet ........................................................................................................................... IV–11
Exhibit 10--1. Average Annual Direct Net Economic Benefits in Chaffee County
from NWNA Operations, 2019 and 2020 ............................................................................. X–2
Exhibit 10-2. Current Direct and Total Net Economic Benefits in Chaffee County
from NWNA Operations ....................................................................................................... X–3
Exhibit 10-3. Projected Total Net Economic Benefits in Chaffee County from
NWNA Operations, 2021 - 2030 .......................................................................................... X–4
Harvey Economics
Page I-1
SECTION 1
Introduction
This report identifies the economic impacts of Nestle Waters North America’s economic impacts in
Chaffee County, Colorado.
Nestle Waters North America (NWNA or the Company) has been operating in Chaffee County since 2009
under a 1041 Special Land Use permit. In September of 2019, NWNA submitted a request for a permit
extension. The renewal process thus far has entailed various submittals by NWNA, input by County
agencies, and public testimony. One issue yet to be addressed is the economic impact of NWNA
operations, as required in Chaffee County 1041 regulations, specifically 3-303(1)(k)(vi):
“The benefits accruing to the County and its citizens from the Project outweigh the losses
and any natural, agricultural, or recreational resources within the County, or the losses of
opportunities to develop such resources.”
Harvey Economics (HE) was hired by Chaffee County to specifically address this regulation.
Study Objective and Approach
To comply with this requirement from an economic analysis perspective, HE identified, estimated, and
evaluated the different economic benefits and costs stemming from NWNA’s Ruby Mountain Springs
Operations (RMSO). HE quantified the current benefits and costs to the County, and then projected these
impacts for ten years.
The following aspects of the RMSO are addressed in the report:
❖ Local employment and wages
❖ Other local NWNA expenditures
❖ NWNA’s contributions to schools, non-profits, or other local entities
❖ Property taxes and other tax payments
❖ Solid waste and recycling
❖ NWNA’s impacts on economic development and County image
❖ NWNA’s conservation easement
❖ Transportation impacts
❖ Traffic, fishing, and recreation
❖ NWNA’s water use and impact on local water resources
In 2009, previous economic studies about NWNA focused heavily on the public sector finances in Chaffee
County. This report considers the economic implications of NWNA’s footprint in Chaffee County more
comprehensively.
Importantly, HE also considered any Chaffee County resources utilized by RMSO that could have been
utilized by others as an alternative economic benefit. HE determined whether RMSO was “crowding out”
the utilization of each resource it employed. Under that circumstance, HE then estimated the opportunity
Harvey Economics
Page I-2
costs of the resources NWNA utilizes or consumes that could be deployed by other present or future
endeavors. Finally, we compared NWNA net economic benefits to these opportunity costs.
Data Sources
The first study requirement was to gain a full understanding of the RMSO and NWNA’s other involvement
in Chaffee County. We obtained and reviewed many NWNA documents, presentations, and submittals,
including two Fall 2020 presentations, Annual Reports, and expert reports. HE made two formal requests
for information to which NWNA responded. HE also requested and received various submittals and
reports from the local opposition to the RMSO. For additional information, HE conducted multiple
interviews with County Commissioners, County staff, municipalities in the County, economic development
professionals and other County stakeholders.1 HE gathered the remaining data needs from Colorado
Department of Local Affairs, Colorado Department of Revenue, the Colorado Water Plan, the United
States Bureau of Labor Statistics, and other sources as necessary. Beyond direct effects, HE estimated
indirect and induced economic effects through the use of economic multipliers drawn from the RIMS
input-output model.
Caveats and Limitations
HE work scope and Chaffee County regulations. Our work scope was squarely focused on
the regulation related to economic impacts associated with an extension of the 1041 Special Land Use
Permit in Chaffee County. We did not dwell or give credit to previous NWNA impacts, positive or negative,
during the 2009 to 2019 period covered under the original permit, since that was irrelevant to the
extension. HE instead focused on future economic impacts during the 2020 to 2030 period. Also, HE only
examined economic impacts occurring within the borders of Chaffee County. The jurisdictional purview
of Chaffee County government only applies within the County itself. Further, HE did not examine
environmental impacts or RMSO activities that did not have the clear potential for an economic nexus.
Assumption of accurate NWNA data. HE reviewed the data and information originally provided
by NWNA to the County and others and, finding certain information lacking, we sought and received
additional information through direct inquiries to NWNA. Although we evaluated that information for
consistency and clarity as part of our review, we did not perform any type of audit to confirm the accuracy
of the provided information. We assume that the information NWNA provided presents an honest
representation of their operations and expenditures.
COVID-19. HE began this study in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. As such, HE conducted all
interviews virtually. To prepare the baseline conditions for RMSO and Chaffee County, we included 2019
as well as 2020, since 2020 was an anomaly on many levels. The pandemic has created uncertainties about
the economic outlook for many industries, businesses and communities. As of early 2021, the pandemic
is ongoing; however, treatments and vaccines are advancing suggesting this condition is temporary. The
pandemic has also led to increased tourism and traffic in Chaffee County. Uncertainty remains regarding
the full or long-term effects of COVID-19 in Chaffee County.
1 A complete list of persons interviewed is included as Appendix A.
Harvey Economics
Page I-3
Uncertainties. Economic impact studies, especially those relying on projections of future
conditions, are inherently uncertain. Reliance on data sources of uncertain accuracy is required.
Assumptions must be made. HE has utilized best judgement throughout this study, relying upon its
training and experience. We have made every effort to be as accurate and objective as possible, but
there can be no assurance that the future impacts of NWNA and the RMSO in Chaffee County will
occur as we have portrayed it here. One or more events that are now unforeseen will likely occur in
the next ten years that may affect the economic impact results presented here.
Harvey Economics
Page II-1
SECTION 2
NWNA Baseline Operations and Impacts
The focus of this report is on NWNA’s future operations from 2020 through 2030, but it is important to
briefly recognize the history of RMSO, along with its activity and impacts in Chaffee County. Although
County decisions and the Company’s actions, impacts and contributions prior to 2020 obviously cannot
be changed, historical effects provide background and a useful baseline when considering NWNA impacts
going forward.
First NWNA Special Land Use Permit
NWNA applied for a Special Land Use Permit following the 1041 permit process in 2008 and received
unanimous approval for the permit in September of 2009. Twelve technical revisions to the permit have
been approved since 2010. The original permit had a ten-year term, expiring in 2019. This permit is
currently under temporary extension, pending deliberations by the County regarding NWNA’s request for
a new ten-year permit.
In acting on the original permit application, Chaffee County passed a resolution with numerous conditions
the Company was to follow. NWNA has reported on its compliance with these conditions during various
County Commission meetings but at least annually. NWNA submitted the first Annual Report to the
County in 2010 and has submitted a report every year since.
RMSO Facilities
NWNA began construction of its various facilities in 2010, using local contractors and construction
companies where possible. At the RMSO site, the Company removed and rehabilitated the Hagen Fish
Hatchery, developed two production groundwater wells plus monitoring wells, and constructed an
underground pipeline that transported the produced water to Johnson Village, where a truck loading
facility was established.2
The bulk of the materials and labor used to construct these facilities were imported into Chaffee County,
but the County did benefit from some economic stimulus during the construction phase.
The location of NWNA’s RMSO facility is illustrated in Exhibit 2-1.
2 NWNA also paid for a second pipeline that might serve the Town of Buena Vista’s customers at some point.
Harvey Economics
Page II-2
Exhibit 2-1.
NWNA’s Ruby Mountain Springs Operations Facility Locations
Note: Two groundwater wells are located within the RMSO site.
Source: NWNA, 2021
Harvey Economics
Page II-3
Water-Related Activities of the RMSO
NWNA obtained the RMSO property along with the springs from the Hagen Fish Hatchery. As a non-
consumptive use, the Fish Hatchery was operating without an adjudicated water right and that operation
had fallen into disrepair when taken over by NWNA.
NWNA obtained groundwater well permits to extract up to 196 acre-feet (AF) of water per year, or up to
16.6 AF per month at the Ruby Mountain Springs location. NWNA has two operating wells, RMBH-2
(WDID# 1105104) and RMBH -3 (WDID # 1105219), which are permitted for “commercial water bottling”.
In the early years of operation, NWNA pumped more water than it shipped out, discharging the remainder
back into the Arkansas River. Between 2011 and 2014, the RMSO operated continuously. In early 2015,
on-demand pumping was implemented at the production wells to eliminate the need for continuous
operations and to reduce water and power consumption. In an average year, groundwater pumping was
reduced by approximately 47 percent due to the implementation of on-demand pumping. Exhibit 2-2
provides NWNA’s groundwater pumping rates since 2010.
Exhibit 2-2.
Historic NWNA Groundwater Pumping, 2010 - 2020
Notes: (1) In 2010, no pumping occurred prior to May.
(2) On-demand pumping replaced continuous pumping activity in early 2015.
Sources: Nestle Waters North America, Annual Reports, 2010 - 2020.
Given NWNA’s intended use of the water for shipment out of the Arkansas River Basin, the produced
water is assumed to be 100 percent consumed, and must be fully augmented or replaced. Stemming from
additional stipulations placed by Chaffee County, the water must be imported into the Basin and the
augmented water must be released from a location above Chaffee County into the Arkansas River system.
Through its augmentation plan, NWNA is committed to replacing the amount of water pumped with
releases of water into the Arkansas River, after adjustment for transit losses, free river days and timing
lags.3 Transit losses have historically averaged 1.96 percent of replacement water.4 Since NWNA has paid
3 Free River days are very rare and lagged depletions are minor. 4 According to annual Applegate Group accounting data.
Year Well Diversions (AF)
2010 54.23
2011 158.77
2012 164.54
2013 155.58
2014 160.76
2015 83.13
2016 78.36
2017 62.09
2018 79.55
2019 88.35
2020 72.27
Harvey Economics
Page II-4
for the opportunity to have the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District (UAWCD) release up to 196
AF, UAWCD has released more augmentation than is required each year, resulting in a credit or net
increase in the flows of the Arkansas River through Chaffee County.
Thus, the amount of augmentation water has historically included a replacement of the water pumped
and a net gain to river flow volumes as shown in Exhibit 2-3.
Exhibit 2-3.
NWNA Pumping, Augmentation Flows and Net Gains to the Arkansas River, 2019 and
2020
Notes: (1) Required replacements account for lagged depletions after free river days.
(2) The net credit to the Arkansas River is calculated as replacement water released by UAWCD minus required replacements minus
transit loss.
Source: Nestle Waters North America, Annual Reports, 2019 and 2020.
The augmentation plan originally sourced the water from the City of Aurora, releasing water from Twin
Lakes, but in 2015, NWNA enlisted UAWCD as the supplier of augmentation for RMSO. UAWCD continues
to supply this water out of Twin Lakes, although UAWCD could also utilize its storage rights in Turquoise
Lake or Clear Creek Reservoir.5
RMSO Water Shipments
A fleet of tanker trucks load water from RMSO loading stations at Johnson Village. These trucks have a
volume capacity of 8,200 gallons but are each filled with 8,100 gallons of water before heading north on
US 285/24 heading for the Commerce City plastic bottling plant in the northwestern Denver area. The
trucking company, D.G. Coleman, has attempted to hire local truckers, but at present, only three trucking
employees are Chaffee County residents. In 2020, local drivers were paid approximately $493,296
including benefits.6 NWNA employees and associated wages and salaries for the RMSO are discussed in
detail in Section 3.
The total number of tanker truck loads and estimated water shipments are indicated in Exhibit 2-4.
5 Interview with Terry Scanga, manager, UAWCD, March 2021. 6 NWNA Annual Report, 2021.
2019 2020
Groundwater pumped (AF) 88.35 72.27
Required replacements (AF) 88.53 71.99
Replacement water released by UAWCD (AF) 96.09 85.39
Replacement water transit losses (AF) 1.88 1.67
Net credit to Arkansas River (AF) 5.68 11.68
Harvey Economics
Page II-5
Exhibit 2-4.
RMSO Tank Truck Loads and Estimated Water Shipments, 2019 and 2020
Notes: (1) The volume capacity of the tanker trucks is 8,200 gallons. NWNA loads 8,100 gallons of water on each truck.
(2) Total water shipments assumes that each tanker truck is filled to 8,100 gallons on each trip to the bottling plant.
Sources: Nestle Waters North America, Annual Reports, 2019 and 2020; Harvey Economics, 2021.
By stipulation from Chaffee County, not more than 25 trucks per day or more than two trucks per hour
may leave Johnson Village.
NWNA Expenditures in Chaffee County
Fiscal impacts of NWNA. In 2019 and 2020, NWNA paid real property taxes of $25,931 and $20,200,
respectively. Of the 2020 property taxes, Chaffee County received about $3,200 or about 16 percent of
property taxes paid by NWNA in that year. The R-31 School District received about $13,600, or about 68
percent of NWNA’s 2020 property tax payment. Since 2010, the Company has paid a total of $312,562 in
property taxes. Additionally, in 2010 NWNA paid $22,483 in sales taxes on purchases of materials and
supplies. This was a one-off purchase in the County.
Chaffee County receives reimbursement from NWNA for any County personnel time or other costs
created by NWNA. Other than those costs, the County has not experienced any special service or facility
costs related to NWNA beyond those normally associated with working with local businesses.7 Fiscal
impacts are addressed in Section 5.
Other NWNA expenditures in Chaffee County. Outside of tax payments and contributions to
various non-profit organizations, NWNA also pays wages to local employees and expends money on local
goods and services to run its business.8 Altogether, those local expenditures amounted to $558,420 in
2019 and $583,352 in 2020, including wages to Chaffee County resident truck drivers, augmentation
payments to the UAWCD, and payments to local contractors, local professional service providers, local
utilities, and other local service providers. The 2019 and 2020 expenditures are described in detail in
Sections 3 and 4.
Exhibit 2-5 describes NWNA’s historical local expenditures for RMSO activities.
7 Dan Short, Director of Finance and Personnel, Chaffee County, March 2021. 8 Per NWNA’s 1041 Permit, the term “local” is defined as Chaffee County and the area within a 25 mile radius of Chaffee County.
Year Round Trips
Truck Loads
(Gallons)
Total Water
Shipments (Gallons)
Total Water
Shipments (AF)
2019 3,107 8,100 25,166,700 77.23
2020 2,771 8,100 22,445,100 68.88
Harvey Economics
Page II-6
Exhibit 2-5.
NWNA Other Expenditures in Chaffee County, 2010 to 2020
Notes: (1) NA indicates Not Available. These data were not included in the NWNA Annual Reports.
(2) Truck driver wages are the wages paid to drivers that are Chaffee County residents.
(3) Additional wages are paid to one local load station manager – a Chaffee County resident. Those wages have not been disclosed by
NWNA.
(4) NWNA began making payments to UAWCD for augmentation water in 2014.
(5) HE has assumed that other expenditures, defined as “local” in the NWNA Annual Reports, were made within Chaffee County.
Sources: Nestle Waters North America, Annual Reports, 2010 – 2020.
NWNA contributions to Chaffee County entities. Since 2010, the Company has donated both
money and water to a variety of non-profit and other entities in Chaffee County for a host of purposes.
NWNA also funds educational endowments to the Buena Vista Education Assistance Fund and to Support
Our Schools Salida. NWNA’s total annual contributions are identified in Exhibit 2-6. Details of contributions
made in 2019 and 2020 are discussed in Section 4.
Year
Truck Driver
Wages
UAWCD
Payments
Other
Expenditures
Total Non-Tax
Expenditures
2010 NA NA $3,430,981 $3,430,981
2011 NA NA $272,378 $272,378
2012 NA NA $296,093 $296,093
2013 $327,600 NA $153,211 $480,811
2014 $308,414 $135,000 $150,396 $593,810
2015 $315,000 $150,000 $189,448 $654,448
2016 $310,835 $151,538 $115,916 $578,289
2017 $281,108 $156,276 $120,553 $557,937
2018 $250,534 $169,910 $108,600 $529,044
2019 $289,219 $152,174 $117,027 $558,420
2020 $295,978 $152,174 $135,200 $583,352
Total $2,378,687 $1,067,072 $5,089,803 $8,535,562
Harvey Economics
Page II-7
Exhibit 2-6.
NWNA Contributions in Chaffee County, 2010 to 2020
Sources: Nestle Waters North America, Annual Reports, 2010 – 2020.
These expenditures resulted in employment opportunities, raised personal income, and increased sales
for goods and services in Chaffee County. The economic impact of such historical expenditures is noted,
but expenditures from 2020 to 2030, as addressed in subsequent sections, are the focus of this report.
Year Financial Donations Bottles of Water
2010 $134,575 1,454
2011 $58,072 10,034
2012 $38,860 11,400
2013 $45,057 21,984
2014 $45,520 11,860
2015 $50,099 15,876
2016 $47,189 11,856
2017 $39,901 18,292
2018 $39,516 10,592
2019 $34,981 142,078
2020 $93,149 279,620
Total $626,919 535,046
Harvey Economics
Page III-1
SECTION 3
NWNA Employment Effects
NWNA’s RMSO operations provide employment opportunities to a small number of Chaffee County
residents. Those employees’ wages are largely spent within the County, providing local economic benefits
to different economic sectors and industries. This section of the report presents current NWNA
employment and wages associated with the RMSO, describes anticipated changes in RMSO employment
levels over the next 10 years and places that information within the context of the larger Chaffee County
economy.
Current NWNA Employment and Wages
Current employment activity. NWNA’s trucking operations and driver hiring are completed
through a contract with D.G. Coleman Trucking, based in Commerce City, Colorado. In response to HE’s
inquiries, NWNA stated that for record keeping and annual reporting purposes, D.G. Coleman and NWNA
“track driver trips as the primary measure, as individual driver employment and frequency of trips can
change throughout the year.” Therefore, both drivers and truck trips are discussed below.
As shown in Exhibit 3-1, NWNA employed a total of 13 truck drivers in 2019 and 12 truck drivers in 2020.
In both 2019 and 2020, five RMSO truck drivers were considered “local”; the local region includes Chaffee
County and areas within a 25-mile radius of Chaffee County.9 As of 2020, three local drivers were Chaffee
County residents living in Salida and two local drivers were residents of neighboring counties.10 The RMSO
also requires one load station manager. The load station manager is a Chaffee County resident, living in
Buena Vista. In 2020, 25 percent of NWNA’s RMSO truck drivers were Chaffee County residents and about
31 percent of total RMSO employees were Chaffee County residents.11
9 Section 1.4 of the 1041 Permit, Chaffee County Res. 2009-42, as amended defines “local” as including Chaffee County and areas within a 25-mile radius of Chaffee County. 10 Drivers may turn-over frequently and therefore, the residence patterns of local drivers vary from year to year. HE does not have information about the residence patterns of local drivers in 2019. 11 Section 4.26 of the 1041 Permit states that at least 50 percent of truck drivers will have a primary residence in Chaffee County. That condition has not been met in recent years. Efforts to reach those goals are discussed later in this section of the report.
Harvey Economics
Page III-2
Exhibit 3-1.
NWNA Employees, Ruby Mountain Spring Operations, 2019 and 2020
Notes: (1) The term “local” refers to Chaffee County and the area within a 25-mile radius of Chaffee County, per the NWNA 1041 Permit.
(2) HE does not have information about the number of local drivers that were Chaffee County residents in 2019.
(3) The Other employee is the manager of the load station in Chaffee County; that employee is a resident of Buena Vista.
(4) All employees are full-time equivalents (FTEs).
Source: Nestle Waters North America, 2021.
Exhibit 3-2 presents the number of truck trips make by RMSO truck drivers and the portion of trips made
by local drivers. As a group, non-local drivers make more trips in total than local drivers. However,
information provided by NWNA states that the Company endeavors to utilize Chaffee County drivers
before non-local drivers. That effort was seen in 2019, when about 46.5 percent of all truck trips were
made by local drivers and each local driver made about 80 more truck trips than each non-local driver.
However, in 2020, only 39 percent of truck trips were made by local drivers and each local driver made
fewer trips than non-local drivers. According to NWNA, since trucking operations began in 2010, local
drivers have hauled 56 percent of all trips from the load station.12
Exhibit 3-2.
NWNA Truck Trips, Ruby Mountain Spring Operations, 2019 and 2020
Notes: (1) The term “local” refers to Chaffee County and the area within a 25-mile radius of Chaffee County, per the NWNA 1041 Permit.
(2) Each trip is a round trip.
Sources: Nestle Waters North America, 2021; Harvey Economics, 2021.
Current wage levels. Exhibit 3-3 offers total and per driver wage and salary data for the three
Chaffee County resident truck drivers hauling RMSO water. Including benefits, each local truck driver
earned more than $98,600 apiece in 2020. In comparison, the average annual pay for workers in all
industries in Chaffee County was about $41,900 in 2020 and average annual pay for workers in the Trade,
Transportation and Utilities industry was about $37,000 in 2020.13 NWNA has stated that they provide the
highest truck driving wages in Chaffee County.
12 NWNA, 2020 Annual Report. 13 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages program, 2021.
Chaffee
County
Other
Local
Non-Local
Truck Drivers
Other
Employees
Total NWNA RMSO
Employees
% Living in
Chaffee County
2019 8 1 14 NA
2020 3 2 7 1 13 30.8%
Local Truck Drivers
5
Total # of Trips
by Local
Drivers
Average # of
Trips per Local
Driver
# of Trips by
Non-Local
Drivers
Average # of
Trips per Non-
Local Driver
Total
Truck
Trips
% Local
Driver Trips
2019 1,444 289 1,663 208 3,107 46.5%
2020 1,080 216 1,691 242 2,771 39.0%
Harvey Economics
Page III-3
Exhibit 3-3.
Wages and Salaries for Ruby Mountain Spring Operations Employees (Chaffee County
Residents), 2019 and 2020
Notes: (1) Total truck driver wages include Chaffee County residents only. 2019 wage estimates for Chaffee County drivers assume the same
pattern of local employment as for 2020 (three Chaffee County resident drivers, two local drivers from surrounding counties).
(2) ND indicates Non-Disclosed. Wage and salary data for the single load station manager was not disclosed for privacy reasons.
(3) NA indicates Not Available.
Source: Nestle Waters North America, 2021
NWNA employment goals. As part of NWNA’s 1041 permit, Condition #4.26 states “Permittee shall
ensure that at least 50% of the drivers for all Project-related trucking operations have a primary residence
in Chaffee County…and will endeavor to hire up to 100% local drivers if available. Permittee shall
document efforts to hire local drivers in the annual report.” NWNA has stated that hiring qualified drivers
with mountain driving certifications has been a challenge in the past two years. According to NWNA, over
the past 11 years the overall percentage of local drivers hired has been 59 percent; however, it has been
difficult to secure qualified drivers since 2018.14
NWNA has been working with D.G. Coleman since 2018 to attract and recruit additional qualified, local
drivers. Those efforts have included the following actions:
• Continuously run job postings in various online, radio and print media sources;
• Offered a $2,500 signing bonus and $1,000 referral bonus (the signing bonus was increased to
$5,000 in 2020);
• Offered relocation assistance;
• Guaranteed a minimum of 40 hours per week paid for all Chaffee County drivers;
• Increased hourly pay by $5.00, depending on the shift;
• Allowed new drivers to start at the top of the pay scale from day one; and
• Guaranteed payment for “baseline” loads, even if they are not used.
NWNA has stated that the ability to maintain the 50 percent quota for Chaffee County drivers is
considered at risk going forward despite relocation and recruitment efforts.
Projected NWNA Employment and Wages
NWNA does not anticipate changes to current employment levels. However, they have stated that they
will continue to endeavor to meet or exceed the 50 percent local driver requirement. NWNA does not
anticipate “significant” changes to wages and salaries, beyond continuing to increase those items (and
14 For example, according to the NWNA 2020 Annual Report, 10 of 12 applicants in that year were deemed unqualified due to inability to pass DOT physicals, insufficient mountain experience, lack of required Class A experience or unsatisfactory driving record or work history.
Total Truck Driver
Wages and Salaries
(with benefits)
Per Driver Wages
and Salaries
(with benefits)
Total Truck Driver Wages
and Salaries
(without benefits)
Per Local Driver
Wages and Salaries
(without benefits)
Other NWNA
RMSO
Employee
2019 $289,219 $96,406 $269,761 $89,920 ND
2020 $295,978 $98,659 NA NA ND
Harvey Economics
Page III-4
offering hiring incentives) to ensure that NWNA (via D.G. Coleman) remains the highest paying truck
driving position in Chaffee County.15
As discussed in Section 9, NWNA projects small annual increases in groundwater pumping over the next
ten years (an estimated two percent per year). HE assumes that NWNA’s existing workforce will be able
to handle the additional shipments; however, it is possible that NWNA would need to hire an additional
driver at some point in the coming years. For purposes of projecting future economic benefits to Chaffee
County (included in Section 11), HE has also assumed that the current resident patterns of truck drivers
and the load station manager remain constant; if NWNA is able to hire more Chaffee County drivers in the
future, those estimates may be conservative.
Chaffee County Employment and Income Profile
Employees at NWNA’s RMSO (the drivers and load station manager) make up a small portion of total
Chaffee County employment. Exhibit 3-4 provides a summary profile of recent Chaffee County
employment conditions. Of NWNA’s six “local” employees, four were Chaffee County residents in 2020.
Those four employees made up about 0.05 percent of total employed Chaffee County residents in that
year. Between about 2015 and 2019, Chaffee County experienced a multi-year period of low
unemployment rates (ranging from 2.4 percent to 3.4 percent each year), lower even than those of the
State of Colorado as a whole, which ranged from 2.8 percent to 3.9 percent for that same period.
However, in 2020, the number of Chaffee County residents in the labor force decreased and the number
of employed residents dropped by about 11 percent as compared to 2019, likely due to the effects of the
COVID-19 pandemic. Chaffee County’s unemployment rate rose to an average of 6.4 percent in 2020, with
a peak unemployment rate of 13.4 percent in April of that year.16 Colorado’s unemployment rate averaged
8.2 percent over the course of 2020, with a peak of 12.2 percent in April.
Exhibit 3-4.
Chaffee County Employment Profile, 2019 and 2020
Note: (1) All data are annual averages.
(2) The labor force includes civilians aged 16 and over that are classified as either employed or unemployed.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics program, 2021.
Peak employment in the County occurs in the months of June, July, and August, which is consistent with
a region heavily reliant on tourism and outdoor recreation comprised mainly of warmer weather activities
(hiking, biking, water sports). Over the last several years, total employment in July has generally been
between 10 and 11 percent higher than the County’s average annual employment.
15 NWNA response to HE inquires, February 2021. 16 In comparison, the County’s unemployment rate was 2.5 percent in April of 2019.
Labor Force Employed Unemployed Unemployment Rate
2019 9,872 9,636 235 2.4%
2020 9,448 8,576 598 6.4%
Harvey Economics
Page III-5
Exhibit 3-5 lists employment by industry in Chaffee County in 2019.17 Employees of the Leisure and
Hospitality industry make up over 26 percent of total employment, illustrating the importance of tourism
and recreation to the County.
Exhibit 3-5.
Employment by Industry for Chaffee County, 2019
Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics program and Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
program, 2021.
Personal income data for Chaffee County, as shown in Exhibit 3-6, indicate a population base with healthy
earnings levels from diversified sources.
Exhibit 3-6.
Income and Earnings Data for Chaffee County, 2019
Notes: (1) Personal income includes earnings, transfer receipts and dividends, interest, and rent.
(2) Per capita personal income for 2019 is based on a Chaffee County population of 20,356.
(3) Income and earnings data for 2020 is not yet available from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Chaffee County Economic Profile, 2021.
17 Employment by industry data is not yet available for the full year of 2020. Additionally, data for 2019 likely represents a more typical employment pattern for Chaffee County as compared to 2020, which will reflect the effects of COVID-19.
Industry Employees
% of Total
Employment
Leisure and Hospitality 2,531 26.3%
Trade, Transportation and Utilities 1,902 19.7%
Education and Health Services 1,856 19.3%
Public Administration 1,100 11.4%
Construction 759 7.9%
Professional and Business Services 432 4.5%
Financial Activities 414 4.3%
Other Services 257 2.7%
Manufacturing 219 2.3%
Information 96 1.0%
Natural Resources and Mining 71 0.7%
Total 9,636 100.0%
Total Personal
Income
Per Capita
Personal Income
Per Capita Net
Earnings
Per Capita Transfer
Receipts
Per Capita Dividends,
Interest, Rent
$998,171,000 $49,036 $23,791 $9,906 $15,339
Harvey Economics
Page III-6
RMSO Impact on the Chaffee County Employment Base
Overall, NWNA’s RMSO generates a very small number of jobs in Chaffee County. Only four Chaffee
County residents were employed by NWNA in 2019 and 2020. Unemployment rates in the County were
low in multiple years prior to 2020, although more unemployed people were evident during the recent
COVID-19 pandemic. NWNA has struggled to meet local hiring goals in recent years but is making efforts
to rectify that situation.18
Even so, there were more than 200 County residents available and looking for work in 2019 and almost
600 were available in 2020. Low unemployment rates often indicate a “tight” labor market, but the
number of unemployed people looking for work would suggest that the County is not currently
experiencing a shortage of workers.19 However, some regional economic development folks are
concerned about a looming workforce shortage in the area.20 Additionally, several economic development
agencies also spoke with HE about continued population and economic growth in Chaffee County, which
is likely to bring an additional workforce with it.21
RMSO jobs provide above average wages and salaries as compared to other employed Chaffee County
residents. The high wages paid by NWNA may work to lure some residents employed at other companies
to NWNA, but given the number of RMSO employees, that is likely to be a very small redistribution of
employment within the County. For example, some construction companies have lost employees to
NWNA in the past; however, the construction industry employs over 750 people in the County.22
It is HE’s conclusion that NWNA’s operations in Chaffee County are not crowding out other employers but
are instead adding to the overall employment and income base.
18 In addition to NWNA’s efforts described previously in this section of the report, the Chaffee County Economic Development Corporation is also working with NWNA to increase the number of local truck drivers employed. 19 The qualifications of the unemployed as compared to the jobs available are unknown. 20 Central Mountain Small Business Development Center. 21 Interviews were conducted with the Chaffee County Economic Development Corporation and the Central Mountain Small Business Development Center. Information from those interviews is discussed in Section 7. 22 The anecdotal construction employment activity was provided by Wendell Pryor, Director of the Chaffee County Economic Development Corporation, in an interview with HE staff.
Harvey Economics
Page IV-1
SECTION 4
NWNA Non-Employment Local Expenditures
In addition to labor costs paid to employees (Section 3) and various tax payments made to local entities
(Section 5), NWNA also spends money in Chaffee County for materials, supplies and other services to
support RMSO. This section describes those expenditures, as well as recent monetary contributions to
different Chaffee County agencies.
Current NWNA Local Expenditures
Trucking contractor. NWNA’s trucking contractor, D.G. Coleman, is not based in Chaffee County.
Except for wages and salaries for local drivers, payments made to D.G. Coleman do not provide economic
benefits in Chaffee County.23 According to NWNA, D.G. Coleman primarily fuels their own trucks at their
site in Commerce City and does their own truck maintenance at that same site. The truck fleet and any
truck purchases are managed by D.G. Coleman; NWNA does not own the trucks used for the RMSO.
Goods and services. Exhibit 4-1 describes NWNA’s expenditures for local goods and services, which
amounted to approximately $117,000 in 2019 and $135,200 in 2020.24 Those expenditures include the
following:
• Local contractors and supplies – services and materials for system operation, maintenance, and
equipment upgrades;
• Local professional service contractors – including community relations, technical consulting and
operations and maintenance assistance;
• Local utility payments – utilities associated with project operations; and
• Local service providers – waste management, telecommunications, and security.
23 Some small trucking related expenditures may occur within Chaffee County; NWNA has indicated that these are inconsequential. 24 Per NWNA’s 1041 Permit, the term “local” is defined as Chaffee County and the area within a 25-mile radius of Chaffee County. HE assumes that the majority of these expenditures were made in Chaffee County.
Harvey Economics
Page IV-2
Exhibit 4-1.
Non-Employment Local Expenditures, Excluding Taxes and UAWCD Payments, 2019
and 2020
Note: NA indicates Not Applicable. No load station construction occurred in 2020.
Source: Nestle Waters North America, 2019 and 2020 Annual Reports.
Benefits to the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District (UAWCD). In 2019 and
2020, NWNA paid the UAWCD $152,174 each year for the augmentation water. This represents more
than 20 percent of the total UAWCD revenues in those years, making NWNA a significant customer.
These revenues allow UAWCD to play a larger role in its mission to provide water resources to meet
present and future demands within its service area which includes almost all of Chaffee County and
western Fremont County. UAWCD offers important advantages to those seeking augmentation water
because of its blanket augmentation plan, which allows new water users to avoid individually acquiring
water rights, storage, attorneys and engineers and the time required for water court approval. By
securing and protecting regional water sources and selling augmentation water service to Chaffee
County residents and businesses, UAWCD represents a benefit to Chaffee County.
NWNA provides an additional benefit to UAWCD by allowing that entity to use its groundwater
monitoring wells to plan an aquifer storage facility.25 According to Terry Scanga, General Manager of
UAWCD, NWNA shares data collected via the 22 monitoring well network installed by NWNA in Trout
Creek Park with the UAWCD. That data aids the District in evaluating the feasibility of aquifer storage
projects, and it also supports monitoring of groundwater levels and changes in groundwater levels over
time. In terms of the financial benefits to the UAWCD, annual monitoring and data collection activities
undertaken by NWNA could cost NWNA as much as $10,000 per year.26
Augmentation water supplied by the UAWCD is discussed in Section 9.
Contributions to non-profits or public entities in Chaffee County. As discussed in Section
2, NWNA makes monetary and non-monetary contributions to various Chaffee County agencies each year.
Exhibit 4-2 lists the monetary contributions reported for each individual non-profit or other public agency
in Chaffee County in 2019 and 2020.
25 Interview with Terry Scanga, Manager, UAWCD, March 2021. 26 This information was provided as a direct quote from Terry Scanga as part of materials provided directly to Harvey Economics from NWNA in February 2021.
Expenditure Item 2019 2020
Load station construction $2,900 NA
Local contractors and supplies $37,327 $12,000
Local professional service contractors $37,100 $71,300
Local utility payments $29,900 $20,200
Local service providers $9,800 $31,700
Total $117,027 $135,200
Harvey Economics
Page IV-3
Exhibit 4-2.
NWNA Contributions to Non-Profits or other Public Entities in Chaffee County, 2019
and 2020
Source: Nestle Waters North America, 2019 and 2020 Annual Reports.
NWNA has stated that it will continue to support these and other Chaffee County entities that have
received funds and/or water donations in the past. We will assume $63,000 per year going forward from
2020 through 2030.
Education endowment contributions. In December 2009, NWNA funded science education
endowments through the Buena Vista Community Education Assistance Fund (BVCEA) and through
Support our Schools Salida (SOSS). The total endowment at that time was $250,000 each. As of 2020,
NWNA’s endowment program had distributed the following amounts to those entities:
• A total of $153,000 since 2009 to Support our Schools Salida, including $16,168 in 2020.
• A total of $147,000 since 2009 to the Buena Vista Community Education Assistance Fund,
including $14,081 in 2020.
According to NWNA, that money provided income to educational projects, priorities, and scholarships
that otherwise would not have been available to the school districts. As of year-end 2020, the SOSS fund
balance was $308,503 and the BVCEA fund balance was $309,734. According to NWNA, contributions
made via the endowment fund will continue in the future.27
27 NWNA, 2020 Annual Report.
Local Entity 2019 2020
Chaffee County Community Foundation $10,000 $25,000
Boys and Girls Club $1,000 $16,000
Greater Arkansas River Water Basin Forum NA $5,000
Chaffee County Economic Development Corporation NA $5,000
Quilts of Valor $1,500 $4,500
Friends of Brown Canyon NA $2,000
Denver Foundation $2,000 $2,000
Buena Vista Heritage Foundation NA $1,900
Trout Unlimited $2,500 NA
Greater Arkansas River Nature Association NA $1,000
Salida Community Center NA $500
The Optimist Club of Buena Vista $2,000 NA
One-time Vendors $1,900 NA
Total $20,900 $62,900
Harvey Economics
Page IV-4
Non-monetary contributions. In addition to the monetary contributions described above, NWNA
has also made the following non-monetary contributions to local entities:
• NWNA has donated hundreds of thousands of bottles of water to Chaffee County organizations
and events, with a large portion of that going to local emergency service providers. In 2019, NWNA
donated 142,078 bottles of water to 31 agencies or events. In 2020, NWNA donated 279,620
bottles of water to 18 different agencies or events.
• During the construction of NWNA’s pipeline for RMSO, NWNA constructed an additional pipeline
and donated it to the Town of Buena Vista.
Benefits related to recreational amenities or recreational opportunities are discussed in Section 10.
Projected NWNA Local Expenditures
As discussed in Section 9, NWNA projects small annual increases in groundwater pumping over the next
10 years (an estimated two percent per year). Because the projected increases in pumping are so small,
NWNA anticipates that future purchases and expenditures for local goods and services will be similar to
current purchases and expenditures, in terms of type of goods and amounts of expenditures.
HE did not find a direct relationship between groundwater pumping rates and expenditures on local goods
and services when comparing the historical data for those items. NWNA likely faces some level of fixed
costs for operations and maintenance activities, regardless of the amount of water pumped; those costs
may fluctuate depending on prices of labor and materials. Additionally, in any particular year, there may
be a unique activity or need that requires local spending, likely unrelated to the amount of water pumped.
Therefore, HE assumes that future spending levels will be similar to current levels, even with increased
pumping activity.
RMSO Impact on the Chaffee County Economy
NWNA has spent an average of about $126,000 per year in Chaffee County in the last several years on
local services and contractors.28 Those expenditures are beneficial to the County and support local
employment and business activity. Although only a small part of the overall economy (0.01 percent of
total gross sales in Chaffee County), and likely only a small benefit to any individual business, NWNA’s
local purchases offer a positive impact to the County’s economy and do not crowd out access to goods
and services available in Chaffee County. NWNA’s payments to UAWCD, about $152,200 per year, for
augmentation water comprises a substantial amount of UAWCD’s revenues (about 20 percent). In
addition to those purchases that support RMSO, NWNA also makes financial and other contributions to
entities across the County, which provide a modest benefit to a wide swath of County residents.
28 Not including payments made to UAWCD for augmentation water.
Harvey Economics
Page V-1
SECTION 5
NWNA Fiscal Impacts
This section examines Nestle Waters North America’s fiscal impact on the County. Specifically, County and
other local tax and fee contributions made by NWNA. HE looked at annual reports and budgets and
interviewed the County finance director, as well as other local municipalities, to learn of NWNA’s fiscal
contribution and fiscal impact in the area.
NWNA Tax Payments
Property taxes. Total property taxes paid by NWNA are provided in Exhibit 5-1 for each year from
2010-2020, according to NWNA Annual Reports. County tax payments made in a particular year are for
the previous year’s tax liability. For example, taxes paid in 2020 are for 2019 tax charges. Taxes for 2020
will be paid in 2021.
Exhibit 5-1.
NWNA Property Tax Payments, 2010 - 2020
Note: Payments made in these years cover the previous year’s property taxes.
Sources: Nestle Waters North America, Annual Reports, 2011 - 2021
NWNA’s taxable properties are located in Chaffee County Taxing District 2. The mill levy applicable to that
District includes mills for the following entities: (1) Chaffee County, (2) Salida Hospital, (3) South East
Colorado Water Conservancy District, (4) Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District, (5) Chaffee County
Fire Protection District, (6) Northern Chaffee County Library District and (7) R-31 School District/Buena
Vista Schools. In 2019, mill levy rates applicable to taxes due in 2020 amounted to a total of 55.324 for
Tax District 2. The 2020 mill levy rates for taxes paid in 2021 were 55.604. Exhibit 5-2 shows the applicable
taxing entities in Tax District 2, along with the 2019 and 2020 mills and taxes paid by NWNA in those years.
Year Real Property Taxes
2010 $2,592
2011 $4,770
2012 $40,000
2013 $43,654
2014 $45,513
2015 $35,823
2016 $33,550
2017 $29,743
2018 $30,985
2019 $25,931
2020 $20,000
Total $312,562
Harvey Economics
Page V-2
These are all the property taxes levied, received, and disbursed by the Chaffee County Treasurer. The
proportionate distribution should be representative of prior years since the mill levy landscape does not
change much from year to year. The $3,442 tax for Chaffee County is 0.04 percent of the County’s total
General Fund property tax revenues and 0.02 percent of their total General Fund revenues. This amount
is clearly inconsequential for Chaffee County operations from a property tax standpoint.
Exhibit 5-2 provides the dollar break-down of NWNA property taxes in Chaffee County.29
Exhibit 5-2.
NWNA Property Taxes, by Taxing Entity, 2019 and 2020
Note: Property tax payments made in 2019 and 2020 cover taxes for 2018 and 2019, respectively.
Source: Property tax spreadsheet provided by Dan Short, Director of Finance and Personnel, Chaffee County.
Buena Vista school District was the largest NWNA property tax recipient. Chaffee County’s portion of the
NWNA property tax payments is distributed among the General Fund, Road and Bridge, Public Welfare,
Retirement, Capital Expenditures, and the Animal Shelter.
Total Buena Vista School District revenues for fiscal year 2019-2020 were roughly $12.5M.30 The property
taxes paid by NWNA to the School District was $14,545 or roughly 0 .1% of revenues. While this portion
of the property taxes was the largest of what NWNA paid, it is still an insignificant portion of the School
District’s revenues. As indicated above the property taxes paid are generally insignificant, County-wide.
Sales taxes. Since construction of the RMSO facility, NWNA has not incurred sales taxes in Chaffee
County. In 2011, NWNA reported sales tax data for 2010. In 2010 NWNA paid $22,483 in sales taxes on
purchases of materials and supplies, as a one-off. NWNA will only contribute to sales tax in the County as
an infrequent and uncommon occurrence.31
NWNA County costs. NWNA does not require additional public sector services or costs to Chaffee
County other than that of a normal business. To cover any specific costs Chaffee County incurs, NWNA
has set up an escrow account with the County originally funded at $200K. The current balance of the fund
29 The figures in Exhibit 5-2 do not match the totals in Exhibit 5-1 because the amounts in Exhibit 5-1 came from NWNA Annual Reports, while the figures in Exhibit 5-2 came from Dan Short, County Finance and Personnel Director. The amounts are not materially different. 30 FY2019-2020 Summary Budget Buena Vista School District, January 27,2020. 31 Interview with Dan Short, Director of Finance and Personnel, Chaffee County, March 2021.
Applicable
Mill Levy Taxes Paid
Applicable
Mill Levy Taxes Paid
Chaffee County 8.754 $3,388 8.900 $3,442
Salida Hospital 1.787 $692 1.870 $703
South East Colorado Water Conservancy District 0.902 $63 0.942 $64
Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District 0.435 $168 0.445 $171
Chaffee County Fire Protection District 3.954 $1,530 3.955 $1,555
Northern Chaffee County Library District 2.500 $968 2.500 $983
Buena Vista School District 36.992 $14,316 36.992 $14,545
Total 55.324 $21,124 55.604 $21,462
2019 2020
Harvey Economics
Page V-3
is $26K. Any costs the County incurs related to NWNA gets billed to this escrow account. There are 20
funds within the County budget that can bill to NWNA. Relative to other funds, the NWNA fund is generally
inactive.32
Projected NWNA Property Tax Payments
NWNA property tax payments have declined but fluctuated over the past ten years. The County explained
that some of the variations in the past were because of land splits and the change in classification between
agricultural and commercial uses on the land. Moving forward, the RMSO property (land and buildings)
will increase in value substantially due to market and cost re-evaluations. According to the County,
NWNA’s total property tax could potentially increase by $6,000 to $8,000 a year.33
Summary of NWNA Fiscal Impacts in Chaffee County
Even if property taxes were to increase by $6,000 – $8,000 per year, NWNA pays a very small amount of
property taxes, less than 0.05 percent of Chaffee County’s total property tax revenues, and no other
substantive local taxes. NWNA also does not require an inordinate amount of County services or costs,
and the costs NWNA does incur are paid for by NWNA through their escrow account.
HE spoke with finance officials and town managers from Chaffee County, Buena Vista and Salida to
understand local government perspective on NWNA’s overall fiscal impact.34 Chaffee County and local
municipalities believe that NWNA creates very little direct fiscal impacts, either positive or negative. When
asked if there would be an impact to the County if RMSO were to cease operations, all three entities
indicated that there be little or no fiscal impact.
Overall, the financial impact in Chaffee County is expected to be minimal.
32 Interview with Dan Short, Director of Finance and Personnel, Chaffee County, March 2021. 33 Ibid. 34 Interview with Dan Short, Director of Finance and Personnel, Chaffee County, March 2021; Interview with Joel Benson and Philip Puckett, Town of Buena Vista, March 2021; Interview with Drew Nelson, City of Salida, March 2021.
Harvey Economics
Page VI-1
SECTION 6
Economic Impact of NWNA Plastic Bottles
Some members of the local community within Chaffee County have expressed concerns about the
continuation of RMSO partly because of environmental degradation that occurs with the use of plastic
water bottles. Plastic water bottles are a type of single-use plastics, which if thrown away and not recycled
can pollute water bodies, take up valuable space in landfills, and requires centuries to biodegrade.35 As
discussed in Section 9, Chaffee County prides itself on its outdoor recreation and wilderness areas, and
the juxtaposition of an environmentally conscious county allowing companies that manufacture single-
use plastics to operate in the County is perceived by some to be incongruous at best, even though the
plastics manufacturing plant is not located in Chaffee County.
As previously indicated, HE’s scope of work in this study is strictly limited to economic impacts within
Chaffee County. Pursuant to that goal, HE examined the economic impacts of NWNA’s potential financial
impact on the Chaffee County Landfill in this section. In the next section, we considered the possibility
that the presence of NWNA’s RMSO in the County could discourage new residents, companies, or visitors
from moving to or remaining in Chaffee County.
NWNA and the Water Bottling Industry
NWNA is one of the world’s largest bottled water producers. In 2017, NWNA’s market share in the U.S.
bottled water market was 33.4 percent, and Nestlé Waters’ worldwide market share was 11.3 percent.36
Growth in the volume of bottled water sales has been slowing over the past handful of years; in the U.S.
bottled water volumes increased by 8.3 percent in 2015 but grew by only 4 percent in 2018. The
worldwide bottled water market grew by 7.2 percent in 2015 but only increased by 6 percent in 2018.37
The bottled water industry is slowing primarily because of environmental concerns about plastic waste,
rising costs to make and transport bottles, competition from store-branded products, and efforts to
increase trust in municipal water systems.
Local initiatives aimed at decreasing bottled water purchases are evident in the U.S. The city of
Philadelphia’s “Drink Philly Tap”, Squaw Valley Alpine Meadows’ “Drink Mountain Tap” and Delta Dental’s
“Trust the Tap” programs encourage people to drink more tap water for a variety of reasons, including:
purchasing fewer quantities of bottled water means less circulation of plastics and fewer single-use
35 National Geographic. Environment | The Story of Plastic. How the plastic bottle went from miracle container to hated garbage. August 23, 2019. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/plastic-bottles 36 Nestle Waters North America. At A Glance 2017. 2017. https://www.nestle-watersna.com/sites/g/files/pydnoa606/files/content/documents/pdfs/nwna_at_a_glance_2017.pdf. In 2001, NWNA’s market share in the U.S. bottled water industry was about 33 percent, and Nestlé Waters’ worldwide market share was about 16 percent. NWNA’s share in the U.S. bottled water market was about 30 percent by 2007. NWNA did not provide their market share of the U.S. water bottle industry in HE’s request for information. 37 The Wall Street Journal. Nestlé to Refresh Bottled-Water Business as Sales Turn Flat. October 17, 2019. https://www.wsj.com/articles/nestle-to-refresh-bottled-water-business-as-sales-turn-flat-11571298398
Harvey Economics
Page VI-2
plastics ending up in landfills; filling water from taps into reusable water bottles reduces the amount of
plastics in circulation; tap water is cheaper; and tap water is safe and healthy.38,39,40
Plastics in Chaffee County
The Greater Arkansas River Nature Association (with grant funding from NWNA) prepared a Waste Audit
Report (WAR) for Chaffee County. The purpose of the WAR was to determine solutions for increasing
waste diversions and to define the quantities of waste held by the Chaffee County Landfill (CCL). The WAR
showed, among other findings, the CCL generated over 26,000 tons of waste, and only 7.3 percent was
either recycled or composted. By comparison, Colorado as a whole averages about 12 percent of waste
diverted from landfills to recycling or compost.
Exhibit 6-1 shows the percent of waste by material type within the CCL.
38 Drink Philly Tap. 2019. https://drinkphillytap.org/faq/ 39 Tahoetopia. Squaw Valley Alpine Meadows Introduces ‘Drink Mountain Tap’ Initiative. January 21, 2016. https://tahoetopia.com/story/squaw-valley-alpine-meadows-introduces-drink-mountain-tap-initiative 40 The New York Times. “In Denver, Persuading Latino Immigrants to Trust the Tap Water”, March 31, 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/01/us/in-denver-persuading-latino-immigrants-to-trust-the-tap-water.html
Harvey Economics
Page VI-3
Exhibit 6-1.
Amounts and Types of Waste in Chaffee County Landfill, 2019
Source: Waste Audit Report, Greater Arkansas River Nature Association, 2020.
Compacted trash makes up nearly half of the waste in the CCL. Compacted trash includes municipal solid
waste that gets picked up at homes, as well as waste generated at local businesses and public buildings.41
The WAR did not analyze how much compacted trash was composed of plastic water bottles. To define
specific types of compacted trash, the WAR relied on data previously gathered by the Waste Optimization
Regional Study (WORS) completed in 2017 by the Upper Arkansas Area Council of Governments
41 Dr. Erica Wohldmann-Gift, who co-authored the Waste Audit Report (WAR), indicated to HE that the WAR is unable to say how much of the compacted trash, loose trash, or recycling included plastic water bottles.
Harvey Economics
Page VI-4
(UAACOG).42 Of the 49 percent of compacted trash, 9 percent is composed of plastics, as shown in Exhibit
6-2.
Exhibit 6-2.
Amounts and Types of Compacted Waste in Chaffee County Landfill, 2019
Source: Waste Audit Report, Greater Arkansas River Nature Association, 2020.
Ms. Dominique Naccarato (Executive Director for GARNA) edited the WAR and communicated to HE that
9 percent may not be representative of the plastics in compacted trash within the CCL. Ms. Naccarato
recommend utilizing the Environmental Protection Agency’s statistics regarding plastics generation, which
indicated 12.2 percent of municipal solid waste generation is plastics.43
42 Jessica Scott, Executive Director of the UAACOG indicated to HE that the UAACOG Recycling Program had problems, and Ms. Scott disclaims any accuracies of the WORS. 43 Environmental Protection Agency. Facts and Figures about Materials, Waste and Recycling. Plastics: Material-Specific Data. Accessed March 2021. https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/plastics-material-specific-data
Harvey Economics
Page VI-5
NWNA contribution to plastics in Chaffee County. Using the above information, HE estimates
NWNA’s plastic waste contribution to the CCL is as much as 0.5 percent of the landfill’s total waste. HE
completed two sets of calculations, one using the 9 percent number from WORS and another using the
EPA’s 12.2 percent figure. Detailed calculations are shown in Exhibit 6-3.
Exhibit 6-3.
Estimates of Plastic Bottle Contributions by NWNA to Chaffee County Landfill
Note: HE calculations are as follows: ‘Plastics’ = 6.0% = [12.2% plastic waste (EPA) * 49% compacted trash (WAR)];
‘Plastics’ = 4.4% = [9% plastic waste (WORS) * 49% compacted trash (WAR)];
‘Bottles/ Bottle Caps’ = 1.4% = [6.0% ‘Plastics’ * 23% ‘Percent of Plastics’44];
‘Bottles/ Bottle Caps’ = 1.0% = [4.4% ‘Plastics’ * 23% ‘Percent of Plastics’];
‘NWNA Water Bottles’ = 0.5% = [1.4% * 33.4% NWNA U.S. Market Share’].
‘NWNA Water Bottles’ = 0.3% = [1.0% * 33.4% NWNA U.S. Market Share’].
Source: Waste Audit Report, Greater Arkansas River Nature Association, 2020, Harvey Economics, 2021.
The amount of plastic water bottles NWNA contributes to the CCL is likely to be less than 0.5 percent. Of
the 1.0 - 1.4 percent of total waste estimated to be bottles/ bottle caps in Exhibit 6-3, some portion of
these would be for other beverages (alcohol, soda, juice, milk, etc.). Moreover, there is no proof that
NWNA’s market share is indicative of the number of plastic water bottles thrown away in the CCL, nor
could HE find any granular data quantifying how many NWNA plastic bottles exist in the CCL. HE
concludes that NWNA-made water bottles probably account for no more 0.5 percent of waste in the
CCL.
NWNA costs to the Chaffee County Landfill. Determining specific costs borne by the CCL due
to NWNA-made plastic water bottles is difficult. Water bottles are either thrown away and take up
space in the CCL, or they are recycled and take up no space in the CCL. Exhibit 6-4 shows expenses for
the CCL’s Waste Disposal Fund from 2019 – 2021.
44 5 Gyres Institute, Upstream, and Clean Production Action. The Plastics Better Alternatives Now (BAN) List. HE estimated 23 percent of plastics thrown away are bottles (7.27 percent) and bottle caps (15.5 percent). https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5522e85be4b0b65a7c78ac96/t/581cd663d2b857d18a7db3fd/1478284911437/PlasticsBANList2016-11-4.pdf
Chaffee County Landfill
Material Type
Percent of Total Waste
Assuming 12.2% Plastics
Percent of Total Waste
Assuming 9% Plastics
Total 100% 100%
Compacted Trash 49% 49%
Plastics 6.0% 4.4%
Bottles/ Bottle Caps 1.4% 1.0%
NWNA Water Bottles 0.5% 0.3%
Harvey Economics
Page VI-6
Exhibit 6-4.
Chaffee County Landfill Waste Disposal Fund Expenditures, 2019 – 2021
Source: Chaffee County Annual Budget, 2021
Assuming NWNA-made plastic bottles account for 0.5 percent of all the waste in the CCL, the operating
expenditures incurred to the CCL in 2021 due to NWNA would be $5,517.45 If HE considers NWNA’s bottles
to account for a portion of all CCL Waste Disposal Fund expenditures (including capital outlay, which is for
large equipment necessary to manage the landfill), the total expenditures attributable to NWNA would
be $8,892.46 However, HE’s estimated range of impacts, $5,517 - $8,892, do not account for plastic bottles
other than NWNA’s (suggesting an over-estimate) or the amount of time it takes for plastic water bottles
to biodegrade, thereby increasing the amount of time plastic bottles occupy space in the CCL (suggesting
an under-estimate).
The CCL does not recycle plastics, but it does recycle certain items like scrap metal and branches. The CCL
contracts with Angel of Shavano, Waste Management and Chaffee County Waste for all other recycling
efforts, and together these three contracting agencies accept certain plastics for recycling.47 In 2021, the
CCL budgeted $200,000 for all recycling (which includes internal recycling at CCL). The expenditure for
recycling at non-CCL facilities is around $150,000 - $180,000.48 This expenditure funds recycling efforts for
a variety of items beyond plastics, such as cardboard, aluminum/ tin, glass, paper and newspaper. This
expenditure is also subset of the operating expenditures for the CCL. On April 8, 2021, Angel of Shavano
ceased operations, so now there are only two agencies that accept certain plastics for recycling in the
County.
Summary of NWNA Plastic Bottling Impacts in Chaffee County
HE examined the economic impacts of NWNA’s plastic bottles on Chaffee County, recognizing that there
are environmental and other issues stemming from water bottles not being biodegradable, which were
beyond the scope of our study. The economic impacts on the landfill range from $5,517 to $8,892
annually, although these estimates must be considered to be generalizations. These effects would likely
be present during the 2020 to 2030 period.
It is not possible to connect water pumped from the Arkansas River to plastic bottles in the Chaffee County
Landfill. The water NWNA pumps from the Arkansas River is transported to Denver, where it is bottled.
NWNA’s distributors place water bottles in convenience stores, supermarkets, and other various locations
45 $5,517 is calculated as the budgeted operating expenditures ($1,103,400) * 0.5%. 46 $8,892 is calculated as the budgeted total expenditures ($1,778,400) * 0.5%. 47 Interview with Shannon Wilcox, Landfill Manager, Chaffee County, April 2021. 48 Interview with Dan Short, Director of Finance and Personnel, Chaffee County, April 2021.
Chaffee County Landfill
Waste Disposal Fund
2019
Actual
2020
Estimated
2021
Budget
Operating Expenditures $868,376 $1,087,170 $1,103,400
New Landfill Engineering/Construction $38,632 $100,000 $115,000
Capital Outlay $851,792 $60,000 $560,000
Total $1,758,800 $1,247,170 $1,778,400
Harvey Economics
Page VI-7
throughout the U.S. The water transported to Denver is not necessarily brought back to Chaffee County
in the form of plastic water bottles.
One of the recommendations provided by the Waste Audit Report is that Chaffee County could implement
mandatory curbside recycling, which would help consumers dispose of the plastic bottles in a more
environmentally friendly way. Unfortunately, with Angel of Shavano ceasing operations, Chaffee County
residents have fewer options for recycling materials, and it is likely most recyclable items will be thrown
away in the CCL until other agencies (Waste Management, Chaffee County Waste, etc.) can handle the
materials previously recycled by Angel of Shavano.
Harvey Economics
Page VII-1
SECTION 7
The Impact of NWNA Presence on Chaffee
County Economic Development
As part of the concern about NWNA’s participation in the single-use plastics water bottling industry, a
question can be raised about whether the mere presence of the Company’s RMSO has a negative impact
on Chaffee County economic development. Has the presence of the Company discouraged economic
growth or new businesses or residents from moving to the County? Such discouragement could result in
negative economic impacts in the County. HE explores this economic nexus in this section.
Below, we briefly describe economic activity in Chaffee County and the potential effects of NWNA
presence and operations on overall business activity. HE also identifies the potential impact of the
existence of NWNA on Chaffee County’s image, as seen and described by County residents.
Chaffee County Business and Employment Trends
In recent years, Chaffee County has experienced strong growth in both the number of businesses
operating within County boundaries and in the number of people employed. Growth in number of
business establishments averaged 3.8 percent per year between 2015 and 2019. Employment growth in
the County averaged 4.1 percent per year during that time. By comparison, business growth in all of
Colorado averaged about 3.2 percent and total statewide employment grew by about 3.1 percent during
that same period. Exhibit 7-1 provides the number of businesses and total employment in Chaffee County
since 2010, along with longer-term and more recent annual growth rates for each topic.
Harvey Economics
Page VII-2
Exhibit 7-1.
Growth in Chaffee County Businesses and Employment, 2010 - 2020
Note: Business establishment and employment data are average annual calculations, with the exception of 2020 business establishments,
which are as of the third Quarter of the year.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics program and Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
program, 2021.
In 2020, business growth slowed, and employment dropped by about 11 percent; those conditions are
most likely due to the hopefully temporary effects of the COVID -19 pandemic.
Exhibit 7-2 presents the number of individual business establishments in Chaffee County, by industry, in
2019. 49
49 Data on the number of businesses by industry is not yet available for the full year of 2020. Additionally, data for 2019 may represent a more typical picture of Chaffee County, as compared to 2020, which will reflect the effects of COVID-19.
Total Business
Establishments Total Employment
2010 892 7,634
2011 857 7,702
2012 870 7,796
2013 884 7,790
2014 888 8,021
2015 917 8,200
2016 938 8,600
2017 989 9,079
2018 1,033 9,369
2019 1,066 9,636
2020 1,090 8,576
Average Annual Growth
(2010 - 2019)2.00% 2.62%
Average Annual Growth
(2015 - 2019)3.84% 4.12%
Harvey Economics
Page VII-3
Exhibit 7-2.
Number of Business Establishments by Industry for Chaffee County, 2019
Note: Other services includes a wide variety of business activity, including services such as Repair and Maintenance, Personal Care
Services, Funeral homes, and Membership organizations (religious, social, environmental, etc.).
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics program and Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
program, 2021.
The leisure and hospitality, professional and business services, and construction industries experienced
the largest amount of business establishment growth in the County; each sector grew by about five
percent per year between 2015 and 2019.50
Exhibit 7-3 offers data on the total gross and retail sales activity generated by Chaffee County businesses
in 2015 and 2019, which reflects the more recent period of faster business and employment growth. Gross
sales increased by an average of about 8.3 percent per year and retail sales increased by an average of
about 6.7 percent per year during that period. In comparison, gross and retail sales for the State of
Colorado grew by 5.8 percent and 5.3 percent, respectively. Chaffee County’s economy continued to grow
in 2020, despite, or perhaps because of, the COVID-19 pandemic. Gross sales in the County increased by
11.7 percent between 2019 and 2020, while the State saw a contraction of gross sales in 2020 (a decrease
of 2.8 percent as compared to 2019). The relatively large annual increases in sales in Chaffee County are
indicative of a rapidly growing economy.
50 The number of businesses in the Other Services category grew by more than 11 percent each year between 2015 and 2019; growth of those services is also an indicator of the economic growth in the County.
Industry
Business
Establishments
% of Total
Businesses
Trade, Transportation and Utilities 198 18.6%
Professional and Business Services 171 16.0%
Leisure and Hospitality 168 15.7%
Construction 160 15.0%
Financial Activities 122 11.4%
Education and Health Services 90 8.4%
Other Services 70 6.5%
Manufacturing 39 3.6%
Public Administration 21 2.0%
Information 17 1.6%
Natural Resources and Mining 12 1.1%
Total 1,066 100.0%
Harvey Economics
Page VII-4
Exhibit 7-3.
Gross and Retail Sales Data for Chaffee County Businesses, 2015, 2019 and 2020
Note: Gross sales includes all types of sales transactions, including intermediate products. Retail sales are sales of finished goods and
services to consumers.
Source: Colorado Department of Revenue, County Sales Reports.
Sales generated by individual businesses will vary widely based on factors such as product type and
business size, but on average each business establishment in Chaffee County generated about $783,500
in gross sales, or about $667,800 in retail sales in 2019.51
Chaffee County Economic Development Efforts and Strategies
HE staff interviewed representatives of both the Chaffee County Economic Development Corporation
(CCEDC) and the Central Mountain Small Business Development Center (SBDC) to gain a more detailed
understanding of Chaffee County’s business environment and economic activity.52,53 Both those agencies
provide diverse support services to businesses in Chaffee County, including: assistance with funding;
various business development and workforce training services; support for jobs creation; and liaison with
other entities, including county and state governments.
Both the CCEDC and the SBDC acknowledged recent population growth and gains in jobs and employment.
The County has long been a desirable place to retire to and includes many retired residents. In recent
years, the County has also seen an influx of young families and young professionals seeking opportunities
to start new businesses in the area. Growth in the construction, manufacturing, and tourism/ recreation
industries has generated many new employment opportunities in the County.
According to the CCEDC and the SBDC, Chaffee County offers a number of benefits to residents and
businesses, including: its sense of place and community; location as a rural mountain area, but not a resort
community; openness to business opportunities; mild climate; natural amenities and recreational
51 Average sales per business is provided for 2019 since 2020 sales were likely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and may not be representative of a typical year. 52 Interview with Wendell Pryor, Director, and David Blazer, Board Member, from the Chaffee County Economic Development Corporation, February 2021. 53 Interview with Jamie Billesbach, Center Director, of the Colorado Central Mountain Small Business Development Center, March 2021.
Gross Sales Retail Sales
2015 $606,355,000 $550,089,000
2019 $835,179,000 $711,892,000
2020 $932,819,000 $801,066,000
Average Annual Growth
(2015 - 2019)8.3% 6.7%
Growth 2019 - 2020 11.7% 12.5%
Harvey Economics
Page VII-5
opportunities; and good schools and educational opportunities. The Heart of the Rockies Regional Medical
Center in Salida offers local medical care to all, including an increasing elderly population.
Chaffee County business “image”. CCEDC staff described the County as having an
“entrepreneurial spirit” and both agencies described the County as open and welcoming to new ideas and
new business development. Chaffee County was described as a place where people with new ideas can
actually develop them and make something happen. There is an overall openness to and encouragement
of development, invention, and business activity. The CCEDC staff indicate there is a vibrancy to the area
in terms of growth and opportunity.
Although tourism and recreation are mainstays of Chaffee County’s economy, effort has been put into
diversifying the local economy over time. In recent years, that has included new wholesalers, including:
breweries and distilleries; marijuana producers; manufacturing projects; high-tech jobs, including a
biotech firm and IT firm; and the development of medical tourism opportunities.54
NWNA’s effect on Chaffee County business activity. Staff from both agencies described
NWNA as having a positive effect on the economy and the community. NWNA was described as being a
quiet operator, but one that provided significant benefits, especially as related to financial support and
contributions made to agencies across the County. Neither the CCEDC nor the SBDC have heard any
concerns or comments regarding actual negative effects of NWNA’s existence or operations in Chaffee
County on business activity or the local economy.55 Neither agency has had any experiences related to
concerns from potential new businesses that might deter new business development. NWNA was
described as a good partner to the County and an asset to the community.
Resident Image and Vision for Chaffee County
The question arises, does the presence of NWNA in Chaffee County create a perception that ultimately
produces an economic impact on the County, other than on economic development? Of course,
perceptions about any business can be highly subjective, or there can even be little viewpoint, one way
or the other. Regardless, in order to have an economic impact, the perceptions about a business would
have to either repel or attract residents or business or have a material effect on expenditure levels to
cause an economic impact.
The population of Chaffee County has increased by more than 2,600 people since 2010, with more rapid
growth occurring in recent years. Between 2015 and 2019, the County’s population and number of
households grew by an average of about 2.3 percent per year, as shown in Exhibit 7-4. In comparison, the
State of Colorado’s population grow by about 1.4 percent per year over that same period. As described
previously, Chaffee County’s population growth can be attributed to both retirees and younger folks
enjoying the amenities the County has to offer.
54 An example of this was described as the partnership between the Medical Center and Mt. Princeton Hot Springs to offer health and wellness vacations. 55 In Section 3, HE did note the few instances in which several construction industry workers were lost to NWNA as new truck drivers.
Harvey Economics
Page VII-6
Exhibit 7-4.
Chaffee County Population and Household Data, 2010 - 2020
Note: Population and household data for 2020 are projections (not estimated actuals).
Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs, State Demography Office.
These data suggest that the presence of NWNA has not constrained growth or in-migration into Chaffee
County. Whereas it is possible that recent newcomers to the area have different opinions and values
compared with long-time residents, there are no discernible migration or economic effects. There have
been a record number of applications for small and large subdivisions coming into the County, and many
people are buying second homes in the area to rent out on VRBO and similar rental sites.
HE interviewed various entities to learn about resident image and how NWNA fits into that image. We
also reviewed The Envision Community Action Plan (2018) and the Together Chaffee County 2020
Comprehensive Plan to learn more about Chaffee County’s perception of itself and to ascertain whether
NWNA operations might contrast with the expressed values and image of the community.
From interviews with Salida, Buena Vista and County officials and staff, and a review of materials provided
by the NWNA opposition, HE leaned that the presence of NWNA is at least somewhat incongruous with
the overall image of the County for some local residents.56 With certain residents, largely in Salida, NWNA
has a negative reputation, and a group of individuals oppose the Company’s presence in Chaffee County.
The most prominent issue is a concern about single-use plastics and sustainability. Future water
availability is another issue.
According to The Envision Community Action Plan and the Together Chaffee County 2020 Comprehensive
Plan, healthy lands, waters, and wildlife are the main reasons that people live in and visit Chaffee County.
56 Interview with Joel Benson and Philip Puckett, Town of Buena Vista, March 2021; Interview with Drew Nelson, City of Salida, March 2021; Interviews with County Commissioner Greg Felt, County Commissioner Keith Baker and County Commissioner Rusty Granzella, January 2021.
Year Population Households
2010 17,797 7,602
2011 18,031 7,630
2012 18,164 7,647
2013 18,330 7,730
2014 18,462 7,659
2015 18,604 7,673
2016 19,116 7,786
2017 19,661 7,957
2018 20,063 8,308
2019 20,361 8,409
2020 20,419 8,474
Average Annual Growth
(2010 - 2019)1.5% 1.1%
Average Annual Growth
(2015 - 2019)2.3% 2.3%
Harvey Economics
Page VII-7
In the Envision Survey, people of all ages, incomes, and financial situations counted the “sense of
community” as one of the things they most value and are most concerned about losing as population
grows. Chaffee County residents and tourists love the community’s exceptional beauty, strong western
heritage, quality recreation, and friendly people.
County residents are good stewards, according to these reports. They value the natural beauty provided
by the Arkansas River, surrounding mountains, and valley. Residents care for the environment that
supports the communities and natural systems. Locals are civically minded and engaged. They value the
willingness of people to work together and collaborate towards the betterment of the community.
Among some of the goals mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan, the community has expressed a need
for a County-wide Sustainability Plan, including sustainability in planning and building regulations. Many
of the residents’ values are at odds with NWNA operations.
As expressed in the two reports, certain community values are inconsistent with single-use plastics
production, but the presence of NWNA in the County does not seem to affect residential growth or the
economy.
Summary of RMSO Impact on Chaffee County Economic
Development and Residential Growth
There is no indication that the presence of RMSO has had any material effect on the economic
development or growth in Chaffee County since it was established in 2010. County economic and business
establishment growth has been strong, especially during the last five years, and higher than State
averages. There is no evidence that NWNA has “crowded out” other businesses from coming into the
area.
There are those Chaffee County residents who oppose the NWNA’s business activity and local presence,
largely due to single-use plastics and sustainability. As documented in local planning reports, there is an
incongruency between certain values and a single-use plastics producer. In contrast, economic
development leaders indicate that, on balance, NWNA has had a positive influence on economic
development. Assuming future RMSO operations will be similar, but grow slightly by 2030, HE believes
that impacts on economic activity or residential growth would continue to be undiscernible.
Harvey Economics
Page VIII--1
SECTION 8
Other Issues
In addition to the economic issues previously discussed, RMSO activities and existence also have the
potential to affect other amenities in Chaffee County, including roads and recreation opportunities and
tourism. Each of those topics is addressed below.
Big Springs/Ruby Mountain Conservation Easement
HE has addressed the economic impacts associated with NWNA’s commitment to place its lands at Big
Springs/ Ruby Mountain under a perpetual conservation easement. This step was a commitment by the
Company as part of the original 1041 special permit, but that was not completed during the first permit
period. The history, current status and economic implications are briefly described below, although HE
does not consider any net economic effects of the prospective easement relevant to the current special
land use permit extension since it was accounted for and agreed to in the original permit resolution.
Conservation easement objectives. As defined by NWNA in the October County presentation57,
an easement is a grant of property rights to a third party for a specific purpose. In this instance, the goal
is a permanent, perpetual conservation of the property. The conservation values of this easement are:
❖ Recreation or Education: Recreational conservation values will be served by this conservation
easement because NWNA, in conjunction with the State of Colorado Parks and Wildlife, intends
to create a viewing location for use by the general public to see bighorn sheep and raptors. There
are also two public-access fishing easements to provide for greater public access to the Arkansas
River.
❖ Relatively Natural Habitat: The Property supports relatively natural habitat via protection of an
environmental system and significant habitat or ecosystem.
❖ Preservation of Open Space: The Property qualifies as open space because it services numerous
clearly delineated government policies, provides scenic enjoyment, and attempts to yield a
significant public benefit.
One of the initial goals of the reclamation project, as developed with the participating stakeholders, was
to Incorporate a conservation easement on the property to allow fishing in the Arkansas River, below the
high-water mark along the property boundary.
Pursuing an easement donation requires surveying, title review, analysis of the conservation value of the
property, recordation, appraisal, legal and other professional service fees. NWNA is covering these costs.
History of the Big Springs/Ruby Mountain easement. To proceed with a conservation
easement, a third party must be identified who will manage the resources in perpetuity. Identifying an
organization to hold the easement has proved challenging. The beneficiary has fiduciary stewardship
responsibilities and organizational risks associated with receiving and managing easements in perpetuity.
57 Nestle PPT 10.20.2020 and Nestle PPT 10.22.2020, provided to HE from NWNA.
Harvey Economics
Page VIII--2
NWNA has been seeking that third party for more than a decade.58
❖ 2008 - NWNA begin discussions about how to effectively manage the area’s natural resources
with representatives from Colorado Mountain College, the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area,
Bureau of Land Management, the Colorado Division of Wildlife and Arkansas River Outfitters
Association.
❖ 2012-2017 - NWNA explore the possibility of conservation easement with the Colorado Coalition
of Land Trusts and various conservation organizations to no avail.
❖ 2018 - Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) agree to hold conservation easement on the property
with the requirement of an adjustment of NWNA’s property boundaries to make the area
contiguous.
The Company and the CPW and Colorado Department of Natural Resources have worked through the
necessary procedures and documentation toward final reviews and approval. NWNA maintains that the
conservation easement in conjunction with operation of the project is almost complete. Exhibit 8-1,
below, is a map showing the plan for the conservation easement, including public access and areas of
protected habitat.
Economic implications of the conservation easement. NWNA is not pursuing a tax credit
for the conservation easement. Easements are valued on a “before” and “after” condition (e.g., the value
of the land before the donation and the residual value after the donation). In this instance, the value of
the conservation easement would be relatively small. Further, that value only exists as a tax-credit, to
reduce tax liability.
The economic impacts of the Big Springs/Ruby Mountain conservation easement represent a trade-off
with a benefit and a loss. The preservation of the area and the enhancement of natural resource values is
clearly a value to the County’s recreation and tourist economy. Through the easement, the land will be
held in perpetuity and will remain untouched by development which will benefit a nearby campground
and tourists that pass by the area. As growth continues, this perpetual easement will increase in economic
importance.
On the other hand, the County will lose out on the economic benefits of development. For example, as
many as 30 or more homes could be built on these lands, bringing construction jobs and income and later
sales tax and property tax to local governments. Assuming land was available, that growth could also occur
elsewhere in Chaffee County, so there might be no loss of benefits. In addition, if the landscape of the
County were to change too much, there might be a decrease of in-migration and growth. On balance, the
Big Springs/Ruby Mountain conservation easement must be viewed as a net economic benefit since the
County, reflecting the values of the residents, sought this in its original permit approval.
Regardless, HE has credited the economic impacts of the easement to the previous permit period, so it is
not accounted for in the 2020-to-2030 time frame.
58 Nestle PPT 10.20.2020 and Nestle PPT 10.22.2020, provided to HE from NWNA.
Harvey Economics
Page VIII--3
Exhibit 8-1.
Proposed Big Springs/Ruby Mountain Easement Location
Harvey Economics
Page VIII--4
Transportation and Roads
In 2019 and 2020, RMSO activities resulted in 3,102 and 2,771 truck trips, respectively, out of Chaffee
County, as shown in Exhibit 8-2.
Exhibit 8-2.
NWNA Truck Trips in Chaffee County, 2019 and 2020
Note: The limits on trips between Memorial Day and Labor Day are from the hours of 11am to 6pm.
Source: Nestle Waters North America, 2021
Tanker trucks are loaded with water at the load station in Johnson Village and leave Chaffee County by
way of U.S. Highway 285, a trip of about 14 miles within Chaffee County. According to NWNA, none of the
truck trips occur on Chaffee County roads.
Highway Station ID 100805, at the intersection of Arizona Street and U.S. Highway 285 in Johnson Village,
has an average daily traffic count of 6,800 vehicles, so the NWNA trucks account for less than one percent
of total traffic. By 2030, the average daily traffic at Station ID 100805 is expected to increase to 7,847
vehicles.59 Passing lanes on hills have been created to help reduce congestion or delays caused by trucks
or other slower vehicles.
Based on NWNA’s 2030 pumping projections, total truck trips on U.S. Highway 285 would increase to an
average of 12 per day, up from an average of 11 per day in 2019 and nine per day in 2020. Projected future
truck trips would amount to less than one percent of total daily traffic volume in 2030. If NWNA pumps
its full permit allocation, HE expects the maximum number of truck trips per day would increase from
about 23 to 25 trips. At its permitted maximum, NWNA trucks would result in a 0.5 percent increase in
average daily traffic near Johnson Village.
Each tanker truck has a volume capacity of 8,200 gallons and the Company loads about 8,100 gallons of
water into each truck per trip.60 The combined weight of each truck and the water is about 97,000 pounds.
The standard allowable weight limit is 85,000 pounds on U.S. Highway 285 and 80,000 pounds on
interstate highways; NWNA’s trucks run on an overweight permit issued by the Colorado Department of
Transportation’s Colorado Oversize Overweight Permitting and Routing department (COOPR). NWNA pays
road use taxes and pays the cost of the overweight permit, all of which goes to the State.61
According to NWNA, no known road damage was caused by RMSO truck traffic in 2020 and no vehicle
accidents were reported. No material change is anticipated in these risk levels.
59 Colorado Department of Transportation. Online Transportation Information System. Traffic Data Explorer – Station ID: 100805. https://dtdapps.coloradodot.info/otis/TrafficData#ui/0/0/0/criteria//15/true/true/ 60 NWNA response to HE inquiries, February 2021. 61 Colorado Department of Transportation. Business Center. Frequently Asked Questions. https://www.codot.gov/business/permits/truckpermits/frequently-asked-questions.html
Year
# Days of
Operations
Total Truck
Trips
Average # of Truck
Trips per Day
Max # of Truck
Trips per Day
Max # of Truck Trips per Day
(Memorial - Labor Day)
2019 295 3,102 11 20 7
2020 296 2,771 9 23 3
Harvey Economics
Page VIII--5
Summary and conclusions. Truck traffic associated with RMSO activities currently comprises a very
small percentage of existing traffic volume on U.S. Highway 285. No truck traffic occurs on local roads in
Chaffee County. Projected truck traffic is not expected to increase substantially and will continue to make
up a very small portion of total traffic volume. Future NWNA activities are not expected to result in any
new traffic issues or impacts within Chaffee County, and the NWNA trucks are not likely to create future
road capacity issues.
Recreation and Tourism
NWNA’s pumping facility is near the Ruby Mountain Springs Campground close to Browns Canyon
National Monument. Members of the Chaffee County community have expressed concerns about
negative effects NWNA’s pumping facility has on recreation and tourism. HE spoke with representatives
from Trout Unlimited and the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area (AHRA) to learn about the potential
positive and negative impacts that might be caused by RMSO.
The Arkansas River is recognized as one of the nation’s most popular locations for whitewater rafting and
kayaking. The Arkansas River is one of, if not the most commercially rafted river in the United States and
has outstanding opportunities for trout fishing.62 Nearly 80,000 walk/ wade anglers fish the river annually,
and about 7,000 boating anglers fish the river annually.63 Nearly 50,000 boats float the Arkansas River
each year, with most trips being commercial.64 It is common for more than 200,000 clients to participate
in commercial boating trips annually.65 About 80 percent of average annual visitation to the AHRA are
from non-locals.66
There are roughly 15 outfitters permitted to operate walk/ wade fishing tours, and 47 outfitters permitted
to offer guided boating tours on the Arkansas river.67 The AHRA has stopped issuing permits to fishing and
boating outfitters, in accordance with the Final Management Plan and Environmental Assessment.68
Visual effects of RMSO facilities. When NWNA established its presence in Chaffee County, it
removed the deteriorated Hagen Fish Hatchery which was unsightly and odiferous.
Currently, NWNA’s pumping facility can be seen by recreationalists fishing in the area or floating down
the Arkansas River (in rafts, kayaks, paddleboards, etc.), but the visual effects are small and often
unnoticeable; Trout Unlimited indicated to HE that the facilities are not a blight on tourism and most
people do not even know the facilities pump water out of the Arkansas River.69 Visual impacts on boaters
are unknown but likely to be modest if any. The Arkansas River is regularly one of the most commercially
rafted rivers in the United States and has been for the past 10 years; there is no indication that RMSO
62 U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and U.S. Forest Service Supervisor’s Office. Final Management Plan and Environmental Assessment – Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area. 2019. https://cpw.state.co.us/placestogo/parks/ArkansasHeadwatersRecreationArea/Documents/Admin/Publications/ArkRivMgmtPlan.pdf 63 Ibid. 64 Ibid. 65 Ibid. 66 Ibid. 67 Ibid. 68 Interview with Tom Waters, Operations Manager, Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area, March 2021. 69 Interview with Karen Dils, Secretary, Collegiate Peaks Chapter of Trout Unlimited, March 2021.
Harvey Economics
Page VIII--6
facilities have been a detraction for recreationalists and tourists. The visual impact of NWNA facilities on
commuters along U.S. Highway 285 is virtually nonexistent, as commuters either cannot see the facilities
or would only have fleeting glimpses of the facilities.
The pumping facility can be seen by hikers and campers around the Ruby Mountain Springs Campground.
NWNA’s effects on the campground have been positive, as they have rebuilt the Ruby Mountain Springs
Campground parking lot and improved County Road 30 to the point where the road is no longer a
hinderance to recreationalists.
Angler access and fishing experience. The NWNA presence has impacted fishing in a positive
way.70 Over the past 10 years, NWNA has created two access points for fishing.71 This was an improvement
in access to fishing in the area, as most of the land on either side of the Arkansas River is private and
inaccessible to the public.72 NWNA also created a parking area that is for anglers only, which has improved
commuting safety for anglers.73
NWNA has positively impacted the visual aesthetics of the river near the pumping facility by improving
existing vegetation and getting rid of noxious weeds by the riverbanks.74 Over the past 10 years, mature
trout now reside in the pond and pools of the stream channel system, and this has also improved the
fishing experience.75
Arkansas River flows. As discussed in Section 9, NWNA operations and UAWCD augmentation
releases result in a net credit to the Arkansas River each year. Over the last four years, that increase in
flow has ranged from about six AF in 2019 up to almost 12 AF in 2020. Although this is a small increase in
flows, the rafting community is generally supportive of NWNA’s operations since they do add water to the
river.76
Summary and conclusions. The impacts of NWNA facilities on recreation and tourism have been
minor but positive. The visual impacts of the facilities have no discernible effect on tourism. NWNA has
improved fishing access for residents and tourists, and this has had a positive impact on fishing access.
NWNA also cleaned up much of the area by the river near the pumping facility and this has increased the
number of mature trout in the river and improved the fishing experience. Due to NWNA’s augmentation
plan there is more water in the river due to NWNA’s presence, which has a small positive effect on river
flows, but the amount of additional water is small enough that it likely has no effect on fishing or rafting.
No change in RMSO effects on tourism or recreation is anticipated in the next ten years.
70 Ibid. 71 Ibid. 72 Ibid. 73 Ibid. 74 Ibid. 75 Ibid. 76 Interview with Jamie Billesbach, Center Director, of the Colorado Central Mountain Small Business Development Center, March 2021.
Harvey Economics
Page IX-1
SECTION 9
Economic Value of NWNA Water and Impacts
to Chaffee County Water Resources
This section of the report focuses on NWNA’s current and anticipated impacts on water resources in
Chaffee County. Section 2 describes the key operating characteristics and history of the water operations.
This section identifies how those operating characteristics are projected to change over the next ten years.
The augmentation plan receives special focus, since those waters will determine net effects on the
Arkansas River.
Next, this section explores key study questions:
1. What are alternatives uses that could be made of NWNA’s water resources?
2. What would be the economic contribution of those alternative water uses?
3. Is there a present or future shortage of water in Chaffee County that would make the tradeoff of
NWNA water use vs. alternative water use relevant?
4. Is NWNA’s use ultimately limiting future uses in Chaffee County such that the economic tradeoffs
are meaningful?
Recent RMSO Water Production, Consumption and Augmentation
In essence, RMSO in Chaffee County is comprised of groundwater pumping at the Ruby Mountain Springs
site, transporting that water to the Johnson Village loading station and shipping that water to the Denver
area for bottling and distribution in the U.S. as described previously in Section 2.
Production and consumption. According to data provided by NWNA, the surface flow of Ruby
Mountain Springs has an estimated average discharge of 1,968 AF per year.77 In the 2019 water year, the
estimated discharge was 1,573 AF.
Between 2011 and 2014, the RMSO pumped water continuously. In early 2015, on-demand pumping was
implemented at the production wells to eliminate the need for continuous operations and to reduce water
and power consumption. In an average year, groundwater pumping was reduced by approximately 47
percent due to the implementation of on-demand pumping. Exhibit 9-1 provides NWNA’s groundwater
pumping rates since 2010.
77 This reflects the November to October water year.
Harvey Economics
Page IX-2
Exhibit 9-1.
Historic NWNA Groundwater Pumping and Shipping, 2010 - 2020
Note: The amount of groundwater pumped is also referred to as the well diversions.
Source: Nestle Waters North America, Annual Reports, 2010 – 2020.
In 2020, NWNA shipped an estimated 22,445,100 gallons, or about 68.9 AF, of water out of the RMSO.78
That amounts to about 95.3 percent of pumping in that year.
Augmentation water. NWNA’s augmentation water is released from Twin Lakes Reservoir,
currently via the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District (UAWCD) and previously through the City
of Aurora as the augmentation supplier. Currently the volume of augmentation water consists of the
amount required to replace 100 percent of groundwater pumping plus transit loss in the river from Twin
Lakes Reservoir to Ruby Mountain Springs. The existing permit gives the UAWCD the discretion to
release augmentation water from Twin Lakes Reservoir, Turquoise Reservoir and Clear Creek Reservoir.
Since taking over the augmentation duties in 2013, UAWCD has only used Twin Lakes Reservoir for
releases.
Exhibit 9-2 describes NWNA’s augmentation activities since 2010.
78 That estimate is based on the total number of truck trips made in 2020, assuming each truck is a full load. NWNA provided HE with an estimate of 23,490,000 gallons shipped in 2020; however, that amount of water could not have been shipped given the known number of truck trips that occurred in that year.
Year
Groundwater
Pumped (AF)
Groundwater
Pumped (gallons)
2010 54.23 17,670,900
2011 158.77 51,735,363
2012 164.54 53,615,524
2013 155.58 50,695,899
2014 160.76 52,383,807
2015 83.13 27,088,319
2016 78.36 25,534,336
2017 62.09 20,231,763
2018 79.55 25,920,795
2019 88.35 28,789,588
2020 72.27 23,549,252
Harvey Economics
Page IX-3
Exhibit 9-2.
NWNA Diversions, Augmentation, Transit Loss and Net Credit to the Arkansas River,
2010 - 2020
Note: Well diversions describe the total amount of groundwater pumped. Required replacements accounts for lagged depletions and free
river days.
Sources: Nestle Waters North America, Annual Reports, 2010 – 2020.
As seen in Exhibit 9-2, NWNA’s activities, including augmentation releases made by either Aurora or
UAWCD, resulted in a net credit to the Arkansas River in each year of operations, after accounting for
RMSO depletions. That credit was larger in earlier years, when Aurora released augmentation water,
and has averaged about 9.5 AF per year in more recent years (since 2017).
Exhibit 9-3 illustrates groundwater pumping, augmentation releases, transit losses and the net credit to
the Arkansas River since 2010.
Year
Well
Diversions
(AF)
Required
Replacements
(AF)
Released
Replacement
Water (AF)
Transit
Losses (AF)
Net Credit to
Arkansas River
(AF)
2010 54.23 53.21 106.38 2.09 51.08
2011 158.77 156.72 193.38 3.79 32.87
2012 164.54 165.29 196.54 3.85 27.40
2013 155.58 155.58 197.35 3.87 37.90
2014 160.76 160.52 197.35 3.87 32.97
2015 83.13 85.34 168.07 3.29 79.44
2016 78.36 78.40 111.29 2.18 30.71
2017 62.09 61.87 72.86 1.43 9.56
2018 79.55 79.97 93.09 1.83 11.30
2019 88.35 88.53 96.09 1.88 5.68
2020 72.27 71.99 85.39 1.67 11.68
Harvey Economics
Page IX-4
Exhibit 9-3.
NWNA Historic Groundwater Pumping and Augmentation Activity, 2010 - 2020
Source: Nestle Waters North America, Annual Reports, 2010 – 2020.
NWNA’s groundwater pumping occurs on a relatively constant basis throughout the year and the
UAWCD releases augmentation water in a similar pattern. Groundwater pumping and augmentation
releases by month are presented for 2019 and 2020 in Exhibit 9-4
Harvey Economics
Page IX-5
Exhibit 9-4.
NWNA Groundwater Pumping and UAWCD Augmentation Deliveries by Month, 2019
and 2020
Note: Groundwater pumping reflects well diversions prior to adjustment for lagged depletions and free river days.
Source: Nestle Waters North America, Annual Reports, 2019 and 2020.
Projected RMSO Water Production, Consumption and
Augmentation
From the standpoint of water resource impacts, the amount of water pumped from the ground and
shipped out of the County and the amount of water replaced in the Arkansas River are key. Total
production from the two RMSO wells averaged 80.06 AF per year between 2018 and 2020. NWNA
projects ground water production to grow by two percent a year for the next nine years. 79 Application
of the assumed two percent per year growth rate to the average production between 2018 and 2020
would result in production of approximately 97.6 AF by 2030.80 Based on historical augmentation
activity, by 2030, augmentation water released by UAWCD will amount to an estimated 111.9 AF. This
will result in a net credit to the River of about 12 AF in that year. Projected pumping, augmentation, and
gains to the River through 2030 are illustrated below in Exhibit 9-5.
79 S.S Papadopulos & Associates, Inc., Ruby Mountain Springs Anticipated Future Pumping Operations, Letter to Mr. Jon Roorda, Chaffee County Planning Manager, March 3, 2020. 80 The annual decreed production limit for the Ruby Mountain Springs boreholes combined is 196 acre-feet, with restrictions not to exceed 200 gallons per minute, nor more than one acre-foot per day, or 16.6 acre-feet per month.
Groundwater
Pumping
Augmentation
Releases
Groundwater
Pumping
Augmentation
Releases
January 6.65 6.19 6.31 7.46
February 5.90 7.35 4.81 7.65
March 6.82 7.45 10.62 10.16
April 10.26 10.57 6.73 7.17
May 9.87 10.38 3.66 3.52
June 8.53 9.51 6.18 6.53
July 9.08 9.52 8.30 8.71
August 9.86 9.76 6.34 7.45
September 7.70 8.85 5.79 8.71
October 5.70 6.35 4.54 7.52
November 3.94 4.74 4.28 5.28
December 4.05 5.43 4.71 5.24
Total 88.35 96.09 72.27 85.39
2019 2020
Harvey Economics
Page IX-6
Exhibit 9-5.
Projected NWNA Pumping and Augmentation Activity, 2021 - 2030
Note: 2021 data are based on application of a 2 percent growth rate to average water production between 2018 and 2020.
Sources: Nestle Waters North America; Harvey Economics, March 2021.
Alternative Uses and Economic Value for the RMSO Water
One purpose of this study was to identify alternative uses for the water RMSO pumps and ships out of
the County and what economic contribution that water might represent to Chaffee County. Looking at
2030 projections, RMSO will pump an estimated 97.6 AF, and UAWCD will provide augmentation
releases of 111.9 AF, but in fact, NWNA has the right to pump up to 196 AF, which is water UAWCD must
have available for RMSO augmentation. Hence, HE will consider the alternative uses and associated
values for that augmentation water. In the absence of RMSO, that water could potentially be used for
other purposes, including residential development, commercial activity or for agricultural production.
The following discussion places NWNA’s recent consumptive use in the context of other types of water
uses and economic activity in Chaffee County. Of course, this presumes that RMSO is actually displacing
other water uses, an assumption that is addressed later in this section.
Current Chaffee County water demands. Total Chaffee County water use has been estimated
and projected in the Colorado Water Plan (CWP) and its technical updates. Through the Colorado Water
Conservation Board, the CWP has identified water demands and supplies and future requirements by
river basin. The CWP included estimates of municipal, industrial, and agricultural water demands for
Chaffee County. Municipal demands, which are population based, were updated to 2020 by HE, as
shown in Exhibit 9-6.
Year
Groundwater
Pumped (AF)
Required
Replacements (AF)
Released Replacement
Water (AF)
Transit
Losses (AF)
Net Credit to
Arkansas River (AF)
2021 81.7 81.7 93.6 1.8 10.0
2022 83.3 83.4 95.5 1.9 10.2
2023 85.0 85.1 97.4 1.9 10.4
2024 86.7 86.8 99.4 1.9 10.7
2025 88.4 88.5 101.3 2.0 10.9
2026 90.2 90.3 103.4 2.0 11.1
2027 92.0 92.1 105.4 2.1 11.3
2028 93.8 93.9 107.5 2.1 11.5
2029 95.7 95.8 109.7 2.1 11.8
2030 97.6 97.7 111.9 2.2 12.0
Harvey Economics
Page IX-7
Exhibit 9-6.
Chaffee County Water Demands, 2020, in Acre-Feet
Notes: (1) Municipal demands for 2020 are HE estimates based on data provided in the Colorado Water Plan and Technical Updates applied
to 2020 population data for Chaffee County from the State Demography Office.
(2) Industrial demands include energy development, large industry, snowmaking, thermo-electric and hydropower.
(3) Agricultural demands are baseline demands in an average year for Water District 11, as provided in the Water Plan.
Sources: Colorado Water Plan, Technical Update, 2019 and Harvey Economics, 2021.
RMSO augmentation water at a maximum (196 AF) represents approximately 0.15 percent of total
current County water use and about 5.1 percent of estimated 2020 municipal use. Although in recent
years the augmentation water released by UAWCD has been much less than the maximum, NWNA has
the right to that full amount.
Economic activity generated by Chaffee County water use. One method for calculating
the economic value of the NWNA water is simply to consider the RMSO water requirements as a
proportion of total water use and multiply that use by measures of County economic activity. The
Chaffee County economy is diversified but largely driven tourism, agriculture and retirees moving into
the area.
One means to measure total economic activity generated in the County is to combine total gross sales
with agricultural sales. Average annual gross sales in the County between 2018 and 2020 were $836.7
M.81,82 As of 2017, Chaffee County included about 66,300 acres of land in farms, including 16,464
irrigated acres (about 25 percent of total farmland in the County).83 The total market value of Chaffee
County’s agricultural products sold in 2017 (crops and livestock) was approximately $12.2 M.
Recognizing that agricultural revenues fluctuate, HE will assume the total County crop and livestock
sales in 2020 was also $12.2 M. Adding the $836.7 M in gross sales to the total agricultural sales
amounts to about $848.9 M in total current economic activity in Chaffee County.
For the sake of completeness, HE made a similar calculation, removing the tourism component of gross
sales, since the RMSO water supply does not directly affect tourism. Arkansas River flows will be
81 Colorado Department of Revenue, County Sales Reports. 82 As a “check” on the gross sales data from the Department of Revenue, HE also obtained data on Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) for Chaffee County. GDP is a measure of the value of goods and services produced in an area.
According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the total GDP of Chaffee County was $907.4 M in 2019.
83 U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2017 Census of Agriculture, Chaffee County Profile.
Current Water Demand (2020
Estimate) (AF)
Municipal 3,812
Industrial 0
Agricultural 123,033
Total 126,845
Harvey Economics
Page IX-8
essentially unaffected by the presence or absence of RMSO. Average gross sales per year-round County
resident can be estimated by estimating sales during low tourism months. Total gross sales by month for
the County are provided in Exhibit 9-7.
Exhibit 9-7.
Chaffee County Gross Sales and Percent of Total by Month, 2018 - 2020
Source: Colorado Department of Revenue, County Sales Reports.
The low sales months as a percent of total sales were consistently January, February, and April over the
last three years. For these months, the average monthly sales over the last three years were $50.4
million, which HE estimates as the average monthly gross sales for year-round residents. Multiplying
that figure by 12 produces and full year estimate of gross sales per year, $604.4 M, for year-round
residents. These calculations suggest that year-round residents represent approximately 72 percent of
Chaffee County gross sales. HE considered but rejected this approach because visitors and the water
they require are an integral part of the local economy.
Economic value of RMSO water. Multiplying the total economic activity of Chaffee County by
the fraction of RMSO water use to total county water use, 0.15 percent, the economic activity
accounted for by water use equivalent to RMSO is about $1.3 M per year.
From another viewpoint, one might argue that the RMSO water would only go to municipal uses, as the
higher valued water use. In this instance, we would apply the RMSO water use as a proportion of
municipal water use, 0.51 percent, to the gross sales. Under these assumptions, RMSO water would
account for $43.0 M in economic activity in 2020.
The RMSO water could be used to support agricultural production. The total revenues from agricultural
goods divided by agricultural water use equals $99 per AF. Therefore, 196 AF of water would be
equivalent to about $19,500 of agricultural production value.
Gross Sales % of Total Gross Sales % of Total Gross Sales % of Total
January $45,791,000 6.2% $48,373,000 5.8% $57,220,000 6.1%
February $43,732,000 5.9% $48,227,000 5.8% $56,856,000 6.1%
March $62,481,000 8.4% $63,717,000 7.6% $65,362,000 7.0%
April $46,304,000 6.2% $54,493,000 6.5% $52,296,000 5.6%
May $58,536,000 7.9% $61,741,000 7.4% $64,463,000 6.9%
June $77,551,000 10.5% $82,059,000 9.8% $91,463,000 9.8%
July $73,922,000 10.0% $83,951,000 10.1% $94,367,000 10.1%
August $69,841,000 9.4% $77,918,000 9.3% $86,086,000 9.2%
September $71,689,000 9.7% $84,200,000 10.1% $89,410,000 9.6%
October $57,728,000 7.8% $76,173,000 9.1% $77,111,000 8.3%
November $48,025,000 6.5% $59,948,000 7.2% $68,830,000 7.4%
December $86,359,000 11.6% $94,379,000 11.3% $129,355,000 13.9%
Total $741,959,000 100.0% $835,179,000 100.0% $932,819,000 100.0%
2018 2019 2020
Harvey Economics
Page IX-9
Exhibit 9-8 presents HE’s estimates of the value of NWNA’s RMSO water, considering different types of
uses and the economic value of those uses.
Exhibit 9-8.
Estimated Annual Economic Value of RMSO Water, 196 AF
Note: Comprehensive use reflect a mix of municipal and agricultural use, weighted by the proportion of economic activity in each of those
sectors.
Source: Harvey Economics, 2021.
In HE’s opinion, the comprehensive water use value should be adopted for the purposes of this study,
since it is theoretically possible that RMSO water could displace municipal or agricultural use in the
future.
Whether agricultural or municipal water users in Chaffee County would actually use the RMSO water if it
were available is unclear. That issue is discussed below.
Future Water Demands and Supplies Available to Chaffee County
As discussed in previous sections, Chaffee County has experienced substantial population and economic
growth in recent years. The combination of residential and commercial growth and development is what
supports the County’s economy.
Continued population growth and increases in business activity are anticipated for Chaffee County in the
future. According to the Colorado State Demography Office, the County’s population is projected to
grow by almost 2,000 people, or about 10 percent, over the next 10 years, as presented in Exhibit 9-9.84
84 That is a slightly slower growth rate than projected for the State. Colorado’s population is projected to grow by about 12.8 percent between 2020 and 2030.
Comprehensive Use Municipal Only Agricultural Only
$1,311,645 $43,021,208 $19,500
Harvey Economics
Page IX-10
Exhibit 9-9.
Projected Population and Household Growth in Chaffee County, 2020 - 2050
Sources: Colorado Department of Local Affairs, State Demographer’s Office.
By 2050, the County’s population is projected to increase by about 25 percent, reaching approximately
25,570 people at that time. The State Demography Office also projects household growth of about 25
percent by 2050 and jobs growth of approximately 20 percent by 2040.
That growth is supported, in part, by the availability of water resources required to build homes and
expand the business community. Residential and commercial growth will require additional water,
either supplied by municipal utilities or through other sources. The CWP offers projections of future
water demands at the County, river basin and State levels. 85 The CWP focuses on five different future
conditions or scenarios, each based on varying economic and climate change assumptions. The State
Demographer’s projections described above are most closely aligned with the “Business as Usual”
scenario. The other CWP scenarios assume a stronger or weaker economy, generally coupled with
warmer climate conditions. Exhibit 9-10 presents projected water demands for Chaffee County,
including municipal estimates developed by HE based on data provided in the CWP and industrial and
agricultural estimates taken directly from the CWP.86
85 Agricultural water demands are projected at the water district level. Water District 11 is comprised of Chaffee County. 86 The CWP’s municipal demands were developed in 2019 and are population based. Since the Technical Update to
the CWP was released, population projections have changed; HE applied the population and water demand trends among scenarios provided in the CWP to current projections of the 2050 population for Chaffee County to estimate future water demands at the County level for each scenario.
Year Population Households
2020 20,419 8,474
2030 22,399 9,351
2040 24,126 9,919
2050 25,566 10,580
Total Growth
2020 - 2030 1,980 877
Total % Growth
2020 - 2030 9.7% 10.3%
Harvey Economics
Page IX-11
Exhibit 9-10.
Projected Water Demands for Chaffee County, 2030 and 2050, in Acre-Feet
Notes: (1) 2030 municipal projections are HE estimates based on data provided in the Colorado Water Plan applied to population projections
for Chaffee County from the State Demography Office. HE did not develop agricultural projections for 2030.
(2) 2050 municipal projections are HE estimates based on data provided in the Water Plan applied to updated population projections
for Chaffee County from the State Demography Office.
(3) Industrial demands include energy development, large industry, snowmaking, thermo-electric and hydropower.
(4) 2020 agricultural demands are baseline demands in an average year for Water District 11, as provided in the Water Plan.
Sources: Colorado Water Plan, Technical Update, 2019 and Harvey Economics, 2021.
Chaffee County’s municipal demands are projected to increase by 353 AF by 2030 and by 846 AF by
2050 under the “Business as Usual” scenario. Projections of agricultural demands are more varied,
potentially decreasing by 2050.
The current version of the Arkansas Basin Roundtable’s Basin Implementation Plan (BIP) was finalized in
2015.87 Among a variety of other topics, the BIP addresses current and projected municipal, industrial,
and agricultural water demands in the Arkansas Basin and provides analysis of current and future water
shortages. Although these topics are mainly addressed at the Basin level, the BIP does include some
information specifically for Chaffee County. As part of the Future Regional Shortage Analysis, the BIP
notes a future (2050) municipal shortage of 100 AF per year in Chaffee County.88 However, the timing of
such a shortage is not addressed; therefore, it is unknown whether that is expected to occur within the
next 10 years, over the course of a renewed NWNA permit, or further into the future.89
Now, there are major questions raised about whether RMSO is displacing Chaffee County economic
growth, now or in the future. These questions are addressed below.
87 The BIP is currently undergoing an update process. The timing for completion of that update is unknown. 88 At this point, the 2015 BIP is relatively outdated. HE has not undertaken any analyses to determine the current accuracy of the data included in the BIP, for example, changes in population assumptions, water use patterns or water supplies may have occurred in Chaffee County since the development of the BIP. 89 In the BIP, agricultural shortages are identified by ditch or canal area and not at the county level. Therefore, we have not included any discussion of future agricultural shortages in this section.
2020 2030
Estimate Projection Business As Usual Other Scenarios
Municipal 3,812 4,165 4,657 4,170 - 5,200
Difference from Current: 353 846 358 - 1,288
Industrial 0 0 0 0
Difference from Current: 0 0 0
Agricultural 123,033 NA 112,095 112,100 - 143,700
Difference from Current: -10,938 -10,933 - 20,667
Total 126,845 NA 117,598 116,600 - 148,900
Difference from Current -9,247 -10,245 - 22,055
Colorado Water Plan (2050)
Harvey Economics
Page IX-12
Has RMSO displaced economic growth thus far? RMSO has been in operation since 2010.
During that time, Chaffee County has experienced substantial population and economic growth. County
and local governments indicate that coping with growth, not the lack of it, is the challenge they are
confronting.90 Economic development officials indicate that RMSO has not held back economic growth.91
There is no basis for asserting that RMSO has held back Chaffee County growth over the last ten years.
Will RMSO displace future economic growth in Chaffee County? This is a more
complicated issue. Future RMSO groundwater production for the next ten years is projected to increase
only moderately, resulting in augmentation demand also increasing to about 112 AF per year. Even so,
NWNA has a right to call upon UAWCD for up to 196 AF of augmentation water at some point in the
future. Based on the CWP, we can assume that municipal users coming into the County will need 353 AF
and 845 AF in additional water supplies by 2030 and 2050, respectively. The question then becomes, will
there be enough water to supply RMSO and the future growth expected in Chaffee County? In other
words, can both be accommodated such that RMSO does not displace future growth?
First, we can consider the larger municipalities in the County. Based upon interviews, the Town of Buena
Vista (BV) and the City of Salida (Salida) indicate that they have sufficient supplies to meet the demands
they anticipate, although with little margin to spare.92,93 If water demands increase more than expected
or supplies diminish for any reason, these utilities maintain that they will need additional water supplies.
Both municipalities, especially BV, are actively exploring new supply alternatives at present. NWNA built
a pipeline parallel to its own so that BV could access certain potential future water supplies and serve
developing areas.94 A major challenge for these entities is financial; with the explosive growth, there are
immediate needs for costly infrastructure expansion.
To obtain additional water supplies, these municipal water utilities or other new users must secure both
water rights for surface water or from groundwater wells and a place and the right to store that water.
Surface water and storage are property in Colorado, and opportunities arise occasionally to purchase
such rights. However, those rights are expensive in the Upper Arkansas region in part because of
competition for ownership among the Cities of Colorado Springs, Aurora, Pueblo Board of Water Works,
and the UAWCD. As an over-appropriated basin, the Arkansas River Basin is an area where
augmentation plans, and augmentation water must accompany any water withdrawals from the
Mainstem or tributaries.
If expanding municipal users or others need to obtain new supplies, the UAWCD represents a
convenient alternative. UAWCD offers important advantages to those seeking augmentation water
because of its blanket augmentation plan which allows new water users to avoid individually acquiring
water rights, storage, attorneys and engineers and the time required for water court approval. This
service comes with a price: water augmentation for a new domestic well serving one home and some
90 Interviews with the Chaffee County Planning office, Town of Buena Vista and City of Salida, March 2021. 91 Interviews with the Chaffee County Economic Development Corporation and the Central Mountain Small Business Development Center, February and March 2021. 92 Phillip Puckett and Joel Benson, Town and Buena Vista, and David Lady, City of Salida. 93 HE also contacted Pagosa Springs, which indicated that they were unaffected by RMSO and that their future water supplies were not a major concern at present. 94 BV is not presently using this pipeline, nor do they anticipate acquiring the water supplies that could be diverted through this pipeline in the near future.
Harvey Economics
Page IX-13
outside vegetation costs $4,300. UAWCD is also willing to serve and assist water utilities such as BV.95
Outside of those municipal service areas, residential properties and small commercial areas are likely
served by individual wells or via other privately owned water rights. Groundwater wells in these areas
also require augmentation, and property owners typically look to UAWCD for augmentation water.
This raises an important question: does UAWCD have sufficient water supplies to serve future growth in
Chaffee County? Throughout its service area, UAWCD currently services 840 AF of water demand.
According to its manager, UAWCD has the present capability to serve 1,750 AF in demand from its
various water rights and sources of storage. Thus, UAWCD has additional water resource to meet 910 AF
of demand at present. The UAWCD manager believes that the District could meet future demand for at
least the next 30 years.96 Regardless, there is a sufficient margin to meet Chaffee County’s projected
demands through 2030 and probably through 2050. Further, UAWCD is actively pursuing means to add
to its water supply capabilities, including development of aquifer storage and acquisition of additional
agricultural water rights.
The Towns’ municipal users or other new users also have other opportunities for developing supplies.
Ranches with substantial irrigation water rights continue to be retired, creating a market for water
rights, although their type and point of use would need to be changed. The Ruby Mountain Springs also
produces about 1,968 AF of water in an average year, considerably beyond what RMSO pumps from its
wells there.97
Further, if NWNA were to cease operations in Chaffee County, this would mean that its groundwater
wells permitted for commercial bottling would become inactive, and that its agreement to purchase
augmentation water from UAWCD would be terminated. Another entity would have to either develop
its own wells or convert the use of the existing wells and then enter into an agreement with UAWCD to
obtain augmentation water. In other words, the cessation of RMSO does not immediately mean there is
additional water available for the taking by other Chaffee County water users. Of course, other water
users could utilize the RMSO infrastructure and enter into their own contract with UAWCD.
Colorado River Compact issue. There is at least one over-arching issue that threatens Chaffee
County’s future water supply: a Colorado River Compact Call. In an attempt to simplify a very
complicated issue, we offer the following explanation.
The Colorado River supplies water to seven states in the southwestern U.S. for agricultural, municipal,
industrial and hydropower needs. Recognizing the need to share those supplies, the seven states, plus
Mexico, through the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, have followed an agreement known as the Colorado
River Compact, signed in 1922, wherein each state would be allocated an annual supply. However, that
allocation is predicated upon the maintenance of certain water elevations within Lakes Powell and
Mead. Through a host of reasons, including originally errant river flow measures, demand growth,
drought and climate change, those lake elevations face a real threat of shortage. Should that occur, the
potential for a Compact Call exists, wherein the Upper Basin States, which include Colorado, might be
asked to reduce, or curtail its use of post-1922 Colorado River water rights. This is a highly complicated
95 Interview with Terry Scanga, Manager, UAWCD, March 2021. 96 Interview with Terry Scanga, Manager, UAWCD, March 2021. 97 NWNA response to HE inquiries, 2021.
Harvey Economics
Page IX-14
matter which lawyers, engineers and policymakers are working on at present, but without a resolution
at this time. This threat is real, although many experts will debate its timing or ultimate effect.
The UAWCD water resources largely come from the Colorado River Basin, and they are mostly post-1922
water rights. Hence, potential future shortages in the Colorado River Basin are a threat to many Chaffee
County water users. If UAWCD is adversely affected by a Colorado River Compact call, that would
presumably impact all of its augmentation customers.
However, NWNA would be affected at the same time as other UAWCD customers. NWNA could
presumably be cut off from its water supply and would need to cease pumping at RMSO, but that
augmentation water would not be available for use by others, since it would be called out by, in effect,
the Upper Colorado River Commission responding to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Ironically, the
Colorado River Compact issue is therefore of limited relevance to the 1041 permit issues which this
report has addressed, except to point out one threat to the Chaffee County water supply.
Summary of RMSO Impacts on Chaffee County Water Resources
NWNA’s operations currently amount to a very small portion of total water use in Chaffee County. In
2019 and 2020, NWNA’s groundwater pumping amounted to less than 100 AF each year. Augmentation
water supplied by UAWCD replaced those well diversions plus added additional water to the Arkansas
River from Twin Lakes Reservoir.
If NWNA’s maximum water withdrawal potential were utilized by other Chaffee County water users, the
economic contribution of that water would amount to an estimated $1,312,000 per year.
Over the next 10 years, NWNA anticipates small increases in groundwater pumping (about 16 AF
between 2021 and 2030) and in augmentation water releases (about 18 AF during that same period),
reaching about 112 AF per year. Although the water used by NWNA could theoretically be used for other
purposes (municipal service or agriculture), generating economic benefit in Chaffee County, it appears
that, at least for the next 10 years, and probably much longer, there is enough water available in the
County to meet projected demands while the RMSO is in operation. UAWCD currently has supplies to
meet future Chaffee County demands and is expanding its supply. Municipal providers maintain they
have sufficient supplies to meet future demands and they continue to look for new supplies. In sum, HE
believes that continued growth and economic development within Chaffee County can occur in
combination with continued RMSO operations. It does not appear that RMSO operations is stifling the
ability of other water providers or water users to meet current or future demands in Chaffee County.
A call on the Colorado River is a real threat, but the cessation of RMSO would not lessen that threat to
Chaffee County water users.
Harvey Economics
Page X-1
SECTION 10
Summary of NWNA Economic Benefits
Compared with Costs and Alternative
Resource Use
Previous sections of this report addressed the full spectrum of economic impacts associated
with NWNA’s operations in Chaffee County. This section summarizes NWNA’s net economic
benefits and compares them to the value of alternative use of the resources NWNA consumes.
The focus here is upon quantified impacts: qualitative impacts are recognized in previous report
sections. All dollar figures are expressed in 2020 constant dollars.
Current and Future Direct and Total Economic Benefits
NWNA’s operations and activities in Chaffee County produce a variety of economic benefits in
Chaffee County, including wages to local employees, property taxes, local expenditures for
goods and services, financial donations to various local entities and payments to UAWCD for
augmentation water. Altogether, those benefits to Chaffee County amounted to an average of
about $773,000 per year over the past two years (2019 and 2020). From these benefits, we
subtract NWNA’s landfill costs of $8,900. The net economic benefit figure of approximately
$764,000 is calculated in Exhibit 10-1.
Harvey Economics
Page X-2
Exhibit 10-1.
Average Annual Direct Net Economic Benefits in Chaffee County from NWNA
Operations, 2019 and 2020
Note: (1) Employee wages are Chaffee County resident truck driver wages and estimated wages for the Chaffee County resident
load station manager.
(2) Local expenditures include local contractors, supplies, services and utility payments.
(3) Contributions are donations made to Chaffee County non-profit organizations.
(4) County reimbursements are NWNA payments made to Chaffee County to cover incremental costs County expenses
related to NWNA administration.
Source: Nestle Waters North America, Annual Reports 2019 and 2020, and Harvey Economics, 2021.
The total annual economic effects of NWNA operations in Chaffee County includes the direct
effects described above plus the additional indirect and induced effects of those expenditures as
the NWNA money circulates through the local economy.98 HE estimated the total economic
effects of NWNA operations in Chaffee County via application of County specific multipliers from
the Bureau of Economic Analysis (RIMS II multipliers).99 Truck driver employment and
compensation was applied to a set of multipliers separate from other NWNA local expenditures;
multipliers applied to non-employee expenditures reflect an average of representative
economic sectors.100 Then, the total economic benefits associated with truck driver employment
were added to the total net benefits from the other sectors to estimate total current net
economic impacts from NWNA, shown in Exhibit 10-2.
98 Indirect effects are local businesses to business purchases made by companies doing business with NWNA. Induced effects are related to additional household spending by both NWNA employees and employees of businesses directly and indirectly impacted by NWNA operations. 99 Bureau of Economic Analysis, RIMS II Multipliers, https://apps.bea.gov/regional/rims/rimsii/. 100 Multipliers used for estimated the total effects of non-employee expenditures are the average of the following industries: Utilities; Construction; Food and beverage stores; General merchandise stores; Other retail; Other transportation and support activities; Warehousing and storage; Professional, scientific and technical services; Management of companies and enterprises; Waste management and remediation services; Educational services; Ambulatory health care services; Hospitals; and Other services. These industries were assumed to generally represent the categories of expenditures made by NWNA and those entities receiving NWNA monies.
Benefit Type Annual Average
Employee Wages $390,131
Property Taxes $22,966
Local Expenditures $126,114
Contributions $41,900
Education Endowment $22,165
UAWCD Payments $152,174
County Reimbursements $17,500
Cost Type Annual Average
NWNA Landfill Costs $8,900
Net Economic Benefits $764,049
Harvey Economics
Page X-3
Exhibit 10-2.
Current Direct and Total Net Economic Benefits in Chaffee County from NWNA
Operations
Notes: (1) Direct employment and earnings includes NWNA employees that are residents of Chaffee County
(2) Output includes all NWNA expenditures in Chaffee County, including employee earnings.
(3) Value Added is equivalent to NWNA’s contribution to local GDP; it includes earnings, some taxes and other property
income, if applicable. The difference between Output and Value Added are intermediate inputs (consumption of goods and
services purchased from other industries).
Sources: Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2021, and Harvey Economics, 2021.
Projected direct and total economic benefits. As discussed in Section 9, NWNA
anticipates small annual increases in groundwater pumping over the next 10 years. Because the
anticipated increases in operations are small, NWNA does not anticipate changes in local
employment or in local expenditures over the next 10 years, as compared to current operations.
Therefore, HE assumes that the net annual economic benefits of NWNA’s operations in the
future will be similar to those of the recent past, with the exception of employee wages. HE
assumes that employee wages will increase along with increased groundwater pumping and
truck trips for shipping water to the Front Range.
By 2030, total employee compensation is projected to be about $475,600. All other NWNA
expenditures (property tax payments, local expenditures, etc.) are assumed to remain the same
through 2030 on a constant dollar basis.
Exhibit 10-3 presents HE’s estimates of future economic benefits resulting from NWNA activities
over the next 10 years.
Employment Earmings Output Value Added
Direct Effect 4 $390,131 $764,049
Total Effect 10 $709,379 $1,083,226 $587,300
Harvey Economics
Page X-4
Exhibit 10-3.
Projected Total Net Economic Benefits in Chaffee County from NWNA
Operations, 2021 - 2030
Notes: (1) Total employment includes the four NWNA employees currently residing in Chaffee County.
(2) Output includes all NWNA expenditures in Chaffee County, including employee earnings.
(3) Value Added is equivalent to NWNA’s contribution to local GDP; it includes earnings, some taxes and other property
income, if applicable. The difference between Output and Value Added are intermediate inputs (consumption of goods and
services purchased from other industries).
Sources: Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2021, and Harvey Economics, 2021.
The estimated 2030 annual total economic benefits of NWNA operations in Chaffee County,
includes 10 people employed, approximately $827,700 in earnings, and approximately $1.2M in
output and $646,800 in value added.101 However, the estimates presented in Exhibit 10-3 may
be conservative when considering NWNA’s economic benefits in the for the UAWCD contract
escalator exceeds inflation. Also, property tax payments are expected to increase “substantially”
in the near future due to market and cost re-evaluations, which will reflect increased values for
land and buildings in Chaffee County.102
Alternative Use of NWNA Resources
The NWNA economic benefits are compared with the economic benefits that would accrue to
Chaffee County if the resources which NWNA utilizes were consumed by entities other than
NWNA. As described in this report, NWNA is not “crowding out” other resources:
• The land will eventually be put into a conservation easement.
▪ Labor requirements are very minor and do not limit hiring opportunities of Chaffee
County business.
▪ The RMSO is not hindering other businesses or economic development.
101 Value Added is equivalent to NWNA’s contribution to local GDP; it includes earnings, some taxes and other property income, if applicable. The difference between Output and Value Added are intermediate inputs (consumption of goods and services purchased from other industries). 102 Dan Short, Director of Finance and Personnel, Chaffee County, April 2021.
Total Employment Total Earmings Total Output Value Added
2021 10 $720,200 $1,094,400 $592,700
2022 10 $731,200 $1,105,800 $598,300
2023 10 $742,500 $1,117,500 $603,900
2024 10 $753,900 $1,129,300 $609,700
2025 10 $765,600 $1,141,400 $615,600
2026 10 $777,500 $1,153,800 $621,600
2027 10 $789,700 $1,166,400 $627,700
2028 10 $802,100 $1,179,200 $633,900
2029 10 $814,800 $1,192,300 $640,300
2030 10 $827,700 $1,205,700 $646,800
Harvey Economics
Page X-5
▪ NWNA’s business activities, while inconsistent with some Chaffee County residents’
perception of their community, have not limited growth or economic activity.
▪ NWNA does not utilize local capital resources, so does not crowd out other Chaffee
County borrowers.
Water resources present a more complex picture. Whereas there are a number of water supply
opportunities to meet future demands, it must be acknowledged that this resource is essential
for growth and new economic opportunity and that water resources available to Chaffee County
users are ultimately finite. HE estimates the economic value of alternative uses of the water
available to NWNA as $1,312,000 in 2020. Going forward, this figure is likely to grow on a
constant dollar basis because of growth in the Chaffee County economy and because water
values will grow faster than inflation as supplies become increasingly difficult to develop.
Comparison of NWNA net economic benefits to alternative resource uses.
The economic contributions of NWNA and alternative uses for the water the Company pumps
and ships out of Chaffee County are roughly similar at the present time. Going forward through
2030, alternative water uses are likely to equal or exceed the NWNA’s economic contribution.
However, as previously noted, NWNA’s water use does not appear to preclude the deployment
of additional water supplies for Chaffee County users in the foreseeable future.
Harvey Economics
Page A-1
Appendix
List of Persons Interviewed
Keith Baker, County Commissioner, Chaffee County
Greg Felt, County Commissioner, Chaffee County
Rusty Granzella, County Commissioner, Chaffee County
Dan Short, Director of Finance and Personnel, Chaffee County
Shannon Wilcox, Landfill Manager, Chaffee County
Phillip Puckett, Town Administrator, Town of Buena Vista
Joel Benson, Special Projects Manager, Town of Buena Vista
David Lady, Director of Public Works, City of Salida
Drew Nelson, City Administrator, City of Salida
Wendell Pryor, Director, Chaffee County Economic Development Corporation
David Blazer, Board Member, Chaffee County Economic Development Corporation
Jamie Billesbach, Center Director, Colorado Central Mountain Small Business Development Center
Dominique Naccarato, Executive Director, Greater Arkansas River Nature Association
Karen Dils, Secretary, Trout Unlimited
Tom Waters, Operations Manager, Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area
Terry Scanga, Manager, Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District
David Shohet, Attorney, Monson, Cummins & Shohet, LLC.
