From the very beginning, environmentalists and some town residents attacked the deal as one-sided in favor of Nestle and detrimental to the environment. (For instance, they contended that Nestle, which intended to market the water under its Arrowhead brand, would pay $115 a day for water with an annual retail value of $2 billion.) California Trout, an organization dedicated to preserving fishing areas, led a coalition of groups that opposed Nestle’s plans. “Our strategy involved telling Nestle we need to know more about the spring they are tapping into,” says Curtis Knight, California Trout’s program manager for the Mount Shasta area.
In February 2008, San Francisco–based Manatt, Phelps & Phillips lawyers Andrew Bassak and Stephen Mayne joined the fight, representing California Trout and the McCloud Watershed Council, a local organization that also opposed the bottling plant, on a pro bono basis. “We evaluated the contract between Nestle and the McCloud Community Services District for avenues of attack, which included looking at public meeting issues, water-rights issues and CEQA (California Environment Quality Act) issues,” says Bassak. “We also became involved in overall strategic planning for the coalition.” In total as many as five Manatt lawyers in four offices were involved in the representation, which never actually culminated in litigation. Nestle first decided to downscale its project, but ultimately canceled the project before anything was built.
