FILE - In this July 16, 2002, file photo, shows the warehousing area of the Arrowhead Water Bottling plant is part of the 383,000 square foot structure in Cabazon, Calif. Nestle, which sells Arrowhead... (Associated Press) 
 
 LOS ANGELES (AP) — Nestle, which sells Arrowhead bottled water, may have to stop taking millions of gallons of water from Southern California's San Bernardino National Forest because state regulators concluded it lacks valid permits. 
 
 The State Water Resources Control Board notified the company on Wednesday that an investigation concluded it doesn't have proper rights to about three-quarters of the water it withdraws for bottling. 
 
 "A significant portion of the water currently diverted by Nestle appears to be diverted without a valid basis of right," the report concluded. 
 
 Nestle Waters North America was urged to cut back its water withdrawals unless it can show it has valid water rights to its current sources or to additional groundwater. 
 
 The company, a division of the Swiss food giant, also was given 60 days to submit an interim compliance plan. 
 
 Nestle said it was pleased that the report reaffirms that it holds valid rights to "a significant amount" of water. 
 
 "We will continue to operate lawfully according to these existing rights and will comply fully with California law," Nestle added in a statement. 
 
 The report also was applauded by activists who have fought to turn off Nestle's tap in the forest. 
 
 Amanda Frye, who filed one of the complaints that prompted the investigation, said she was pleased with the result although she hadn't read the entire report. 
 
 "I feel like it's a victory," Frye told the Desert Sun of Palm Springs. "I'm happy that the State Water Resources Control Board did pursue it and look into it. I feel that they're protecting the people of California." 
 
 Nestle took about 32 million gallons of water from wells and water collection tunnels in the forest last year. A long water board investigation concluded that it only had the right to withdraw 26 acre-feet per year, or about 8.5 million gallons. 
 
 Nestle has contended that it inherited rights dating back more than a century to collect water from the forest northeast of Los Angeles. It uses the water in its Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water. 
 
 Opponents of the water withdrawal have long sought to turn off Nestle's tap, arguing that it lacked proper permits and that the water usage could harm the environment and wildlife, particularly in the midst of California's drought. 
 
 In 2015, the U.S. Forest Service was sued by environmental and public interest groups who allege the company was being allowed to operate its Strawberry Canyon pipeline on a permit that expired in 1988. 
 
 However, the court ruled that the company could continue water operations while its application to renew the permit was pending. ||||| California Says Nestle Lacks Permits To Extract Millions Of Gallons Of Water 
 
 Enlarge this image toggle caption California State Water Board California State Water Board 
 
 California regulators say Nestle may have to stop collecting a large portion of the water it bottles from the San Bernardino National Forest, because it lacks the legal permits for millions of gallons of water. Nestle sells the water under the Arrowhead label. 
 
 The State Water Board says that of the 62.6 million gallons of water that Nestle says it extracted from the San Bernardino spring each year on average from 1947 to 2015, the company may only have a right to some 8.5 million gallons. Those numbers come from a nearly two-year investigation. 
 
 The state says Nestle should apply for a new permit and ensure that all of its water diversions comply with California regulations, laying out a timeline for the company to respond. 
 
 The Water Board began investigating after several complaints were made against Nestle during California's recent drought. Spurred by a 2015 report in the Desert Sun newspaper, the allegations against Nestle ranged from accusation that the giant company lacked full rights to the water it was selling to claims that its actions were harming the natural environment and its inhabitants. 
 
 Nestle has said it monitors its spring sites to be sure they don't cause problems, and the Water Board's report was less conclusive on those points. But Nestle wasn't able to satisfy Water Board investigators who wanted to clarify how much water the company could lawfully extract. 
 
 "While Nestlé may be able to claim a valid basis of right to some water in Strawberry Canyon," the board says in its report, "a significant portion of the water currently diverted by Nestlé appears to be diverted without a valid basis of right." 
 
 When the Desert Sun published its story about Nestle's Arrowhead operation back in 2015, the newspaper's Ian James told NPR, "Nestle has 11 spring sources that it uses in California as well as five bottling plants. And the water that's bottled comes both from springs as well as from other supplies pumped directly from groundwater or from municipal supplies." 
 
 In that 2015 story, James said that he found California lacked reliable state-wide oversight data on the bottled-water industry. 
 
 California's State Water Board recently sent Nestle a letter summarizing its report. As for what the company must do now, the board issued a string of recommendations, giving Nestle 60 days to submit a compliance plan and 90 days to submit an investigation and monitoring plan. 
 
 Member station KPCC reports: 
 
 "Nestle said it was too soon to say what impact, if any, the letter would have on Arrowhead bottled water. A spokeswoman said she was pleased that the report reaffirms Nestle holds valid rights to 'a significant amount' of water." 
 
 Water from the headwaters of Strawberry Creek in the San Bernardino National Forest has been bottled since the late 1800s — and Nestle had told California regulators that the claim to the water by the original owner of the Arrowhead Springs Hotel had extended through the years to the Swiss multinational. 
 
 Water Board officials did not agree, saying that while the hotel's use was riparian — taking place at the water's origin — Nestle couldn't convert that to an "appropriative use." 
 
 The board left open the possibility that Nestle could make a valid claim to extract more water from the forest land. ||||| Last month, California newspaper The Desert Sun published an investigation revealing that Nestlé Water’s permit to transport water across the San Bernardino National Forest for bottling has been expired since 1988. On Friday, the U.S. Forest Service announced it would make it “a priority” to reassess the permit, and that it might impose as-of-yet unspecified “interim conditions” on the bottling operation in light of the severe drought, The Desert Sun reports. 
 
 The fact that Nestlé has continued its massive water-bottling operation while the state struggles with crippling water shortages has become a sticking point for activists. A petition demanding Nestlé immediately stop bottling and profiting off California water has drawn 27,000 online signatures and counting, and last month activists reportedly blocked the entrances to Nestlé’s bottling plant in Sacramento. 
 
 Another investigation published last year by The Desert Sun found that after 2009, Nestlé Waters stopped submitting annual reports to local water districts about how much groundwater the company extracted for bottling. Since then, the local San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency has listed “a rounded estimate” in its own reports of 750 acre-feet, or 244 million gallons of water, extracted by Nestlé per year, according to the Sun. Reuters reports the company drew 50 million gallons from the Sacramento area alone last year. 
 
 No state agency is tracking exactly how much water is used by the 108 private water-bottling plants in California (of which Nestlé operates five), according to the Sun. Although Nestlé submits reports on its water usage to the Forest Service, the Service has not been closely tracking the volume of water leaving the San Bernardino National Forest, or the way the extraction impacts the environment, the Sun writes. 
 
 In response to the online petition, Nestlé Waters North America issued a statement saying that it used 705 million gallons of water last year, which the company says is about the same amount of water needed to irrigate two golf courses. 
 
 “While responsible management is expected and essential, bottled water is such a small user that to focus on our industry as a material concern in water policy debates is misguided,” the statement read. 
 
 The latest Sun investigation also notes that the California Forest Service has never monitored the impacts of the bottled water business on streams in two watersheds that Nestlé draws from, which supply water to sensitive wildlife habitats. The Forest Service now says it plans to carry out an environmental analysis of the operations. 
 
 Keep up with this story and more by subscribing now 
 
 “Now that it has been brought to my attention that the Nestlé permit has been expired for so long, on top of the drought ... it has gone to the top of the pile in terms of a program of work for our folks to work on,” San Bernardino National Forest Supervisor Jody Noiron told the Sun. 
 
 Renewing Nestlé’s permit could take up to 18 months, or more than two years, according to Noiron. 
 
 Nestlé says its bottling of spring water from the national forest isn't causing environmental harm, and that it manages its water use for sustainability. A spokesperson told the Sun that the company plans to work with the Forest Service to facilitate the permit renewal. ||||| CLOSE Nestle Waters pipes water out of the San Bernardino National Forest using a permit that lists an expiration date of 1988. Jay Calderon/The Desert Sun 
 
 Buy Photo Nestle's pipeline carries water drawn from wells in the San Bernardino National Forest. The water is piped to a tank and trucked to a bottling plant in Ontario. (Photo: Jay Calderon/The Desert Sun)Buy Photo 
 
 Three environmental groups sued the U.S. Forest Service on Tuesday for allowing Nestle, the country’s largest bottled water producer, to pipe water out of a national forest for years using a permit that lists an expiration date of 1988. 
 
 The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court by the Center for Biological Diversity, the Story of Stuff Project and the Courage Campaign Institute. 
 
 The groups said the Forest Service has violated the law by letting the company draw water from the San Bernardino National Forest without a valid permit. They argue the taking of water threatens sensitive habitat along a creek, and they are demanding the agency halt Nestle’s use of wells and a water pipeline in the forest “unless and until it issues a valid special use permit.” 
 
 The groups brought the suit after a series of investigations by The Desert Sun revealed that the Forest Service has long allowed the company to keep using the old permit, and that officials failed to follow through on plans for a permit review that would have involved an environmental study. 
 
 “We want better management of public lands,” said Rachel Doughty, a Berkeley-based environmental lawyer representing the Courage Campaign Institute and the Story of Stuff Project. “Right now, it really feels like the primary emphasis is letting Nestle take water. They’ve delayed the permit review for years and years and years, and let them continue to operate without a permit.” 
 
 The Forest Service in August said officials plan to begin studying the renewal of the company’s permit. The agency has told Nestle that until it decides on the company’s application, its current permit remains in effect. 
 
 Forest Service Press Officer John Heil said in an email that officials “will develop a proposed action for the issuance of a new Nestle permit which the public will then be invited to review and comment on before next steps are taken.” 
 
 When that process will begin isn’t clear, but Forest Service officials have said it will be soon. Heil said he could not discuss pending litigation. 
 
 The defendants named in the suit also include Regional Forester Randy Moore and San Bernardino National Forest Supervisor Jody Noiron. 
 
 Nestle Waters North America, which bottles water from the forest as Arrowhead 100% Mountain Spring Water, is not named in the lawsuit. Jane Lazgin, the company’s director of media and corporate communications, said the company was unaware of the suit and not in a position to comment. 
 
 Nestle, based in Vevey, Switzerland, is the world's largest food and beverage company, and Nestle Waters North America runs five bottling plants in California. Some of the water is drawn from wells that tap into natural springs, including Arrowhead Springs in the mountains north of San Bernardino. 
 
 The company has said its 1978 permit continues to be legally “in full force and effect” until the Forest Service acts on it. 
 
 Nestle says it bottled nearly 25 million gallons from the national forest last year, on average about 68,000 gallons a day. That was down from about 27 million gallons during 2013. 
 
 The company’s permit – the latest in a series of permits dating back to the 1930s – was issued to its predecessor Arrowhead Puritas Waters, Inc., for the purpose of maintaining more than four miles of water pipes, water collection tunnels and horizontal wells in the national forest. 
 
 The water is drawn from about a dozen wells on the mountainside and flows through separate pipes before coming together in the single pipeline that runs along Strawberry Creek. The water is collected in a tank and hauled in trucks to a bottling plant in Ontario. 
 
 The Forest Service does not collect fees for the water. It has been charging Nestle an annual permit fee of $524. 
 
 Critics including former Forest Service employees have been calling for a thorough environmental review, arguing the company shouldn’t be allowed to keep taking unchecked amounts of water from public lands, especially during the drought. 
 
 In the lawsuit, the environmental groups say the removal of water from the ecosystem is harming the habitat of threatened animals ranging from mountain yellow-legged frogs to birds such as willow flycatchers and California spotted owls. They point out that the wells are drilled as deep as 490 feet into the mountain, and say the habitat would be healthier if that were allowed to flow naturally through the canyon. 
 
 Earlier this year, the Courage Campaign Institute launched a petition drive demanding that Nestle stop bottling water in California during the drought. The group said more than 185,000 people added their names to its online petition. 
 
 “For us, it’s this whole privatization of public resources and profiteering off the stuff that all of us are supposed to own collectively,” said Eddie Kurtz, executive director of the California-based nonprofit. “The issue could not be more urgent, and neither Nestle nor the Forest Service showed any indication they would take action to remedy the situation.” 
 
 He said it’s the first time the Courage Campaign has decided to file a lawsuit in one of its campaigns. 
 
 The suit is also a first for the Story of Stuff Project, which has previously built its advocacy campaigns around short videos that it has produced on topics such as e-waste, the hazards of microbeads in products, and the environmental impacts of overconsumption. The group’s latest 4-minute film, about Nestle’s use of water from the national forest, was released on Tuesday to coincide with the filing of the lawsuit. 
 
 “We need to create the political and the public will to make the Forest Service do their job,” said Stiv Wilson, campaigns director for the Berkeley-based nonprofit. “We wanted a big public outcry to essentially give the political cover to the Forest Service for them to be able to do their job.” 
 
 The permit is one of hundreds the Forest Service has allowed to fall out-of-date in California. Moore, the regional forester, said earlier this year that out of about 15,000 “special use” permits in the state – for all sorts of uses ranging from cabins to pipes for city water supplies – about 4,500 permits are past their expiration dates and have yet to be reviewed. An analysis of 1,108 water-related permits showed that 616 permits, or 56 percent of the total, were past their expiration dates. 
 
 Lisa Belenky, a lawyer for the Center for Biological Diversity, said the Forest Service shouldn’t have allowed Nestle to keep operating without reevaluating the permit. 
 
 “It’s basically an unpermitted use, an unlawful use,” Belenky said. The plaintiffs argue that the Forest Service has been violating the Federal Land Policy Management Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. 
 
 Documents obtained by The Desert Sun have shown that in the 1990s and early 2000s, there were discussions about conducting a review of the permit and carrying out environmental studies, but then the efforts stopped. The records also show that at times, Forest Service officials turned down requests by Nestle and by Arrowhead’s previous owner to tap more water sources in the forest. 
 
 In explaining the nearly three decades of inaction on the permit, Forest Service officials have cited a heavy workload of other priorities, wildfires and floods, a tight budget and limited staffing. The national forest allowed Nestle to rebuild portions of its pipeline after it was badly damaged in 2003 during the Old Fire, which set off deadly floods and mudslides. 
 
 Gene Zimmerman, the forest supervisor who was in charge at the time, retired in 2005. He now does paid consulting work for Nestle. 
 
 In their lawsuit, the environmental groups say the Forest Service “has never confirmed that Nestle has a valid water right to the water it diverts from the Strawberry Creek drainage.” 
 
 The company, however, has said it holds valid water rights that have been in continuous use since the late 1800s. Nestle has also insisted its bottling operation isn't causing any harm to the environment. 
 
 Late last year, retired Forest Service biologist Steve Loe began writing to the Forest Service to express concern about Nestle’s use of water during the drought and to call for a review of the permit. 
 
 Loe, who is a member of the three environmental groups, said he believes it’s a shame they had to take the Forest Service to court, but that it was necessary. 
 
 “The public trust is not being upheld by the Forest Service. They’re not taking care of those public lands,” Loe said. “I want to see them stop taking any water until the groundwater starts to recover from the drought, and that they only start taking water when there’s a new permit that protects the national forest.” 
 
 The controversy parallels similar debates over bottled water that have flared elsewhere in California and the West during the drought. 
 
 In May, Starbucks announced it would stop producing the bottled water brand Ethos Water in California due to the drought and would move the operation to Pennsylvania. 
 
 In August, a group of Mount Shasta residents and activists sued in an attempt to block Crystal Geyser Water Company from starting up a bottling plant that would use groundwater to produce sparkling mineral water, tea and juice drinks. 
 
 In Oregon, activists have been pushing for a local ballot measure aimed at preventing Nestle from building a plant in the town of Cascade Locks where the company would bottle spring water. 
 
 Ian James can be reached by email at ian.james@desertsun.com and on Twitter at @TDSIanJames. 
 
 Forest Service: Expired Nestle water permit a priority 
 
 Read or Share this story: http://desert.sn/1RFhefA
– Nestle extracted roughly 32 million gallons of water from Southern California's San Bernardino National Forest in 2016 and sold it as Arrowhead bottled water. An investigation has determined the company's permits only allow it to take about 8.5 million gallons per year. The AP reports the news is being hailed by opponents to Nestle's action—and by Nestle. The company reportedly described itself as pleased that the State Water Resources Control Board's report confirms it has the right to access "a significant amount" of water. "We will continue to operate lawfully according to these existing rights and will comply fully with California law," Nestle said in a statement. The longer view isn't quite as favorable sounding: NPR reports that between 1947 and 2015, Nestle extracted an average 62.6 million gallons annually, with the rights unchanged at 8.5 million. Nestle told the state its claim to the water dates to an 1865 claim held by the owner of the Arrowhead Springs Hotel; the board found that claim was limited to "riparian"—meaning at the water's origin—use "and is not valid for Nestle’s current appropriative diversion and use of water" from the forest. The company was notified of the findings—the result of an investigation begun in 2016 and borne from complaints spurred by the state's drought—on Dec. 20. A letter accompanying the findings recommended that Nestle immediately halt unauthorized distributions and outlined steps it recommends the company take over the next 18 months.