ECONOMY  
comments_image -

Vermont Deals a Blow to the Bottled Water Industry

The state's legislature has passed a bill that limits how much groundwater bottlers and other companies can draw.
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Economy headlines via email.

 
 
 
 

With Lake Champlain, snowy peaks, and 40 inches of rain a year, the Green Mountain State isn't exactly parched. But don't tell that to Annette Smith.

Six years ago, a mining company pumped 2.7 million gallons of water from an underground well near her Danby, Vt., home. The local springs were so dry she had to spend more than $4,000 to dig a new well. When water eventually returned to the springs, the levels weren't what they once were, she says.

Such episodes have Vermonters so worried about unregulated water withdrawals that on Friday the state legislature passed a bill that establishes a water-permit requirement.

There's just one problem.

Several local bottled water companies and manufacturers worry that the new measure will boost costs and delay sales. While the measure has won praise from environmentalists, some analysts say it could violate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) by unfairly restraining international trade.

"We're concerned that this going to add an undue cost to businesses currently in Vermont who want to expand operations," says William Driscoll, vice president of the Associated Industries of Vermont. "We're also worried about discouraging new businesses from coming to Vermont."

He estimates that the new bill would increase permit costs by 50 to 100 percent. Depending on the site, he says, a permit could cost from $20,000 to $100,000, even $200,000 in select cases.

Declaring groundwater to be a public trust, the bill aims to prevent corporations from taking more than their fair share. Enterprises withdrawing more than 57,600 gallons of water a day must now obtain a permit. (Most farms are exempt.) Gov. Jim Douglas (R) is expected to sign the measure.

"We wanted to protect our groundwater for the next several generations," says state Sen. Virginia Lyons (D), chair of the Natural Resources and Energy Committee. "If we don't have any protections, then an international company could come in and begin to extract water and take [it] without regard for the amount of resources available."

At least one Canadian bottled water company already pumps water out of Vermont, bottles it in New Hampshire, and sells it around the country, a sore spot among many locals.

"It really is commercializing and making a commodity of something that is really a staple for all of us," says Carolyn Shapiro, an East Montpelier artist who lives near a proposed bottled water site.

While Vermont is not the first state to enact such groundwater legislation, its measure is unusual because it avoids grandfathering large numbers of groundwater users -- something that has created problems in other states. Despite more than 20 years of regulation in Massachusetts, for example, an estimated 160 streams struggle to support fish and other aquatic life: Groundwater withdrawals have lowered water levels, says Kirt Mayland, director of the Eastern Water Project for Trout Unlimited, a conservation agency based in Arlington, Va.

"It's hard to overemphasize the importance of getting ahead of this problem before it's created, because trying to fix it once it's already out there is extremely difficult," says Mr. Mayland. "And from an environmental standpoint, it's almost too late because the damage has been done in a lot of these streams."

The legislation is a "good first step," says Ms. Smith, the Danby resident who also heads Vermonters for a Clean Environment. But she'd like a stronger law. "A permit is usually a permit to pollute or a permit to in some way degrade the resource," she says. "A regulatory program that permits the extraction of large withdrawals of groundwater is not necessarily one that protects the resource."

On the other side, analysts say if Vermont's permit process disrupts international companies' operations, they may challenge it on the grounds that it violates NAFTA by interrupting trade.

submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Economy headlines via email
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
Fox, Breitbart, and Ricketts Try to Bring Back D'Souza's Pseudo-Birtherism

By Steve M | No More Mister Nice Blog

 
 
Activists Speak Out Against Lack of Access to Bradley Manning

By Agence France Presse

 
 
NYPD Catches Sexual Assailant, Then Lets Him Go Free Because He Didn't Feel Like Being Questioned

By Jill F | Feministe

 
 
Gov. Scott Orders Purging of Florida’s Voter Rolls - Just in Time For Prez Election

By Adele Stan | Washington Monthly

 
 
Abortion Clinics Across Country Put On Alert In Wake of Georgia Clinic Arson Cases

By Robin Marty | RH Reality Check

 
 
Former GOP Congresswoman Blasts New GOP Women’s Caucus: ‘They’re Not Voting In Best Interest Of All Women’

By Josh Israel | ThinkProgress

 
 
Debbie Wasserman Schulz is Wrong on Wisconsin

By LaFeminista | DailyKos

 
 
Pro-Coal Group Pays People to Wear Its Shirts at EPA Hearing

By Heather Moyer | Sierra Club

 
 
Kids Inundate NY Governor With Concerns About Fracking

By Seth Gladstone | Food and Water Watch

 
 
Shareholders, Top Doctors Demand McDonald's Assess its Health Impacts

By Sara Deon | Civil Eats

 
 
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 1 ]