Nice job, Zephyr.

Now THAT's what I call an egg nog! Yum. Oh, and the Paesanos photo is awesome.

Thanks for this article, Chris! Very well written and informative. Sounds like it was a great event.

Lucky you, Allison! That Mulvaney's beer dinner seemed to sell out quickly. I'll be at Pangaea Cafe enjoying The Bicycle Chef's handmade sausages and moule frites with Odonata's Belgian-inspired beer selections.

Thanks for writing about the Beer Week scavenger hunt, Greg. Sounds like fun!

Thank you, Rene!

Cool! Uh, I mean hot! Is SCI a Sacramento area company?

Jim: Sounds like a great idea! Are you volunteering? =)

Ladies and Gentlemen! I now present to you... YOUR HUMBLE PRESIDENT OF THE METRO CHAMB... oooops, I mean MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO! Enjoy. http://www.sacfortourists.com/post/226275672/k-j-cares-more-about-nestle-than-sacramentans

I was there, Tony, and your guess is as good as mine as to how supportive the individual councilmembers are of the project. Based on what was communicated at the meeting, both verbally and non-verbally, I would say that Vice Mayor Hammond is the only councilmember who objects to the idea of the City selling its public water to be bottled and sold for profit. Councilmember McCarty, of course, has also expressed concern, and did so again tonight. He said he thought the Council owed it to the public to get the issue right. Councilmember Pannell expressed confusion at why the Council had not been informed by Community Development Department about the project before things progressed so far, and she warned Dept. Manager Kwong not to "do this in my district." Councilmember Sheedy spoke up only once to question Save Our Water Sacramento's Evan Tucker when he claimed City staff, upon being asked for more information on the project, had told him to speak to Nestle's PR firm. Councilmembers Tretheway, Cohn, and Waters, and Mayor Johnson were very concerned that the City had stopped work at the plant and they wanted answers from Development Dept. Manager Kwong right away as to how much longer Nestle would have to wait. After Nestle got everything it wanted, Mayor Johnson apologized to them. I don't recall Councilmember Fong saying anything.

Thanks, Suzanne!

fargo: My point was that Nestle isn't being given any limits or restrictions in the amount of water they buy. Yes, I know they have a projected water budget for themselves, but frankly, who cares? It is just bad policy for any local government (our public servants) not to put some restrictions on a business who will use one of our public resources as their for-profit end product. I completely agree with your other points. Fantastic comments!

Matt: Yes, but it has to be "fair" to everyone, not just to businesses. The promises of jobs and investment should not be substitutes for an open, fair, public review. Who decided that it was "good policy" for Nestle to come to Sacramento and bottle public water? The mayor? The Chamber? The City Development Department? We don't really know, and that is one of the problems in this case. Who decided that it was "bad policy" to put a pause on the project and discuss it? Apparently you did. "Political whim?" Really? From what little information has come out, it would appear the City Council was all too willing to completely ignore this project, even after having been informed about it. The only reason this has been agendized for a Council meeting is because a bewildered and agitated public has demanded input. Would this situation be better if the project had been subject to Council (public) review from the start instead of in midstream? Of course. I don't want to see businesses promised one thing only to have the rug pulled out from under them any more than you do. But this is the situation we find ourselves in. No one wants to hang a "closed sign" over Sacramento. But Sacramento residents are not going to be told to "take our 40 jobs and shut up" either.

I hope that EVERY one of you, regardless of your opinion on this issue, will come to the City Council meeting tonight. We the people finally have a chance to get this out in the open and discuss it with the policymakers. The fact that this project went ahead with no public input at all is at the crux of our concerns. It was never about "NIMBY" or simply a "knee-jerk" reaction as some here have claimed.

fargopentameter wrote: "Even moderate reductions in per-household water use in Sacramento residences can add up to water savings that will dwarf the Nestle plant's entire water budget." But Nestle doesn't have a "water budget." THAT'S THE POINT.

Huh? Why wouldn't one have to pay money to see a film in a theater? Crazy? Maybe you could explain what you mean, Reno.

Great article, Colleen. I am so psyched to be doing the Big Nosh. Can't wait!

Yes, 'bbbbmer,' unfortunately it would appear that the Mayor hasn't given this much thought beyond: "Nestle Waters' desire to do business in Sacramento is more proof that we are on our way to becoming a world-class city." (I am paraphrasing).

Great question Anthony. According to Nestle's press release, the plant will initially provide 16 on-site jobs with additional work being provided for contractors, delivery personnel, etc., and that the plant will eventually provide approximately 40 jobs once it is working at full capacity. In addition to the point 'President1' makes above, someone at the Save Our Water Sacramento meeting pointed out that Nestle is making the claim that this plant will provide 40 jobs for Sacramento. The reality is, of course, that Nestle can't legally make any guarantees as to who will get those jobs. They are posted on the web for anyone who is qualified. "Approximately 40 jobs" doesn't sound to me like something we should be willing to accept in trade for a company to bottle our public water and sell it back to us.

Great article, Suzanne. I was at the meeting too, and you did a good job here in accurately describing the events. I would like to emphasize one of Save Our Water Sacramento's main points. As far as anyone knows, the relationship between Nestle Waters and the City's (our) municipal water supply is not defined. That is, there are no limits set on how much water Nestle can purchase. (Some, like Zeidner, have claimed that Nestle would be subject to drought restrictions like anyone else- But if not now, when?) Save Our Water Sacramento believes this is not wise because the water is itself the end product for Nestle, and they will consequently have an incentive to take as much as they can get.