Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Water

Is Your City Going to Be Bottled Water-Free?

By Tara Lohan, AlterNet. Posted June 24, 2008.


A new resolution from leading U.S. mayors shows that more cities may be ditching the bottled stuff in favor of tap.
Advertisement

It started with San Francisco's Mayor Gavin Newsom, but now the rest of the country is getting on board. Last summer Newsom issued an executive order canceling San Francisco's bottled water contracts. Now, at the U.S. Conference of Mayors, which represents more than 1,100 mayors nationwide, a resolution was passed to encourage all mayors to phase out their cities' spending on bottled water and to promote tap water.

"Cities are sending the wrong message about the quality of public water when we spend taxpayer dollars on water in disposable containers from a private corporation," said Newsom. "Our public water systems are among the best in the world and demand significant and ongoing investment."

The resolution was spurred by not just Newsom, but the more than 60 other mayors who have been canceling bottled water contracts to help their cities save money and protect the environment. The most recent to join the tide were San Jose, Miami and Orlando. But the resolution is supported by other major cities like Philadelphia, New York, Chicago and Boston.

Corporate Accountability International, a leading national pressure group, reported:

Over the past year, the U.S. Conference of Mayors explored the economic and environmental impact of bottled water. Research conducted by conference staff has found that bottled water is being sold for as much as 4,000 times the cost of tap water delivery even though up to 40 percent of bottled water comes from the same source.

Cities are also spending more than $70 million a year to dispose of plastic water bottles. San Francisco and other large cities were also spending more than $500,000 a year on annual contracts.

"It's just plain common sense for cities to stop padding the bottled water industry's bottom line at taxpayer expense," said Gigi Kellett, national director of CAI's Think Outside the Bottle campaign. "This resolution will send the strong message that opting for tap over bottled water is what's best for our environment, our pocketbooks and our long-term, equitable access to our most essential resource."

The bottled water industry has grown into an $11.5 billion empire in recent years that went virtually unchallenged until last year, when a massive backlash began, ignited mostly by an increasing environmental awareness about bottled water. For one, Food and Water Watch reported that it takes 17.6 million barrels of oil each year to make all the plastic bottles we need in the United States -- the equivalent of one than 1 million vehicles on the roads -- not to mention all the fuel it takes to ship the bottles to stores and to dispose of them. More than 80 percent of the bottles end up in landfills or tossed onto the street, making their way into our waterways; some even end up in the giant plastic whirlpool circling in the Pacific Ocean that is poisoning marine life and birds.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: water, bottled water, privatization, think outside the bottle, tap

Tara Lohan is a managing editor at AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Water! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
biggest rip-off around
Posted by: kiel on Jun 25, 2008 5:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bottled water has always baffled me. How can people be such suckers? Aside from the occasional emergency and/or event where water is hard to find and needs to be more portable, it's completely useless (and can be avoided even in these situations with a little planning). Seriously, I'm curious: Anyone out there who buys this wasteful crap, please explain what the allure is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's so... Posted by: Roger Ritthaler
» RE: biggest rip-off around Posted by: pete1029
» RE: biggest rip-off around Posted by: madamswalt
» RE: biggest rip-off around Posted by: madamswalt
Garbage water
Posted by: maddogmarley on Jun 25, 2008 5:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until recently, when I bought a water filer, I purchased bottled water. Why? Because the tap water in my city tastes and smells like it came out of garbage dump.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reusable Glass Bottles Anyone???
Posted by: rllewis on Jun 25, 2008 5:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you prefere bottled water, why not which to a reusable type of bottle?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kind of on topic...
Posted by: Knowmad on Jun 25, 2008 5:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...environmentally related anyway. I just read the following under the 'On the Wire' story about biking to work:

Cycling at the mellow rate of 5 miles per hour, you'll burn about 175 calories in an hour. Compare to that to your car, which releases about 23 pounds of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide for every gallon of gas burned.

Can someone please tell me how you get 23 pounds of co2 from a gallon of gas which weighs about 10 pounds? Is it the decimal placement maybe; like it's really 2.3 pounds, or even .23.

Thanks. And oh yeah, don't use bottled water!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The source Posted by: Roger Ritthaler
» RE: Kind of on topic... Posted by: dp1228
» RE: Kind of on topic... Posted by: Knowmad
Don't be naive; city water is often a "cancer cocktail"
Posted by: Moonray on Jun 25, 2008 6:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before you chuck out your Evian, you'd better take a very, very hard look at what's coming out of your tap. Chances are your tap water contains dangerous levels of lead and other minerals from corroded pipes, plus various toxic chemicals used for "purification." These chemicals can combine to form carcinogenic substances in the human body. Of course, utility operators say the chemicals are either benign or present only in "trace" amounts, but we all have heard that before.

By all means let's cut back on using plastic bottles, some of which contain harmful chemicals themselves. But rushing to drink city water without a thorough evaluation of that water would be even more foolish. Besides, city water usually tastes like crap.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» thats why you filter it... Posted by: rafaeltoral
Fire Hydrant water
Posted by: xvictor on Jun 25, 2008 6:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
New York City must be one of the few places in the world where deliciously cold drinking water gushes out of a fire hydrant. In other places, household tap water doesn't even come close. So it's really foolish of folks to buy water in poisonous plastic bottles right here in the Big Apple. Drinking water from a fountain in a city park on a hot day is a pleasure in itself. Thank goodness we still have such a great water supply system!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps Posted by: Roger Ritthaler
Tap water as good as or better than bottled
Posted by: drdanj on Jun 25, 2008 6:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For a science project I got my son five water test kits. We tested four brands of bottled water and water from the tap. Tap water was as good as or better than the bottled waters. Add a filter on your fridge and the tap water is even better.

Pay up to 4,000 times more for something that has no standards and is destroying the environment? Nope.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is good news, but
Posted by: socialpsych on Jun 25, 2008 6:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as we all know, corruption has no limits, and that certainly pertains to government and the bottled water industry.

The local government in my rural Pennsylvania community purchases large bottles of water for a cooler in the municipal building. The chair of the board of supervisors (an elected official) used to own the company that sells that water (Divine Spring Water) and continues to have a vague "interest" in that company which he refuses to publicly disclose. I called attention to this conflict of interest in a letter to the local paper. No effect.

The joke is that the tap water in the municipal building comes from the same aquifer from which Nestle Waters North America withdraws millions of gallons per week and bottles as Deer Park Spring Water. It's very high quality water.

So there is absolutely no reason, other than blatant corruption, that my local government should buy bottled water from the guy who is running that government, is there?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pharmaceuticals in the water?
Posted by: Amphetameme on Jun 25, 2008 7:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What about the recent scandal regarding Pharmaceuticals in the tap water?

Where is a referencing URL or list of the 40% of the bottled water companies currently tested as using tap water anyway? If you don't mention or provide reference to who they are, this article is nothing more than fear mongering.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tara Lohan continues her crusade with tunnel vision
Posted by: Illiteratilumen on Jun 25, 2008 7:18 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first 1/3 of the article along with the title brought up a very good question. Should city governments purchase bottled water with taxpayer money when they already have a safe supply available? I see that as wasteful public spending. Let government employees buy their own bottled water if they prefer. She could have written a good article about that but she decided to bait-and-switch to her favorite thing in life: bitching about the bottled water industry.

No need to draw attention to the fact that scores of other products come in the same PET packaging or that beer, soda and every other packaged beverage on the market takes more water to manufacture than bottled water. Those pesky facts will only weaken her laser-like focus on big bad bottled water.

2/3's of the article is spent rehashing her same old arguments she presents in every other article she writes. Every single article she writes just bashes a single sector of a much larger beverage industry and ignores the larger issues of commercial water use and package recycling.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great now if we could just get rid of the Fluoride
Posted by: DeaconJ on Jun 25, 2008 8:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fluoride used by Nazis to sterilize inmates and make them docile. Fluoride a key dumbing down ingredient of Prozac and Sarin nerve gas -- poisons of choice for tyrant rats.

Putting it into the water supplies is a different story. 98% of Europe has banned this practice due to safety concerns. Sodium Fluoride was put into the water of Nazi & Soviet concentration camps...and it is a powerful carcinigin, no wonder the US has one of the highest cancer rates in the world.....the promotors of fluoride in the water in the US are no better than the Nazi Concentration camp doctors....the US should have its own medical Nuremburg and put all of these water fluoridation promotors on trial.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fluoride in BEER
Posted by: nismx on Jun 25, 2008 11:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If anyone knows of an American beer made without fluoridated water please let me know. AND when consumed in aluminum cans it has a synergy effect increasing it's potiency 600 %. Also have not been able to find a Coke or Pepsi made without fluoridated water. Which means pretty much everything we consume has some of this poison in it. Now they want us to drink more and kick the bottle !!! Only half of consumed fluoride leaves the body. The other half causes Alzheimer's, Obesity, Hair Loss, Cancer, Heart Problems, Low IQ, Thyroid Problems, and BAD TEETH. Doctors, Dentist, and Drug Co's Make More Money if we DRINK FLUORIDE.
Forget all that !! Let's just be good Americans and drink their poison so they won't have to dispose of it as Toxic Waste. The Aluminum Co's and the Fertilizer Co's of America thank you. Beside a little poison is good for you just look at Chemo Therapy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

filter your own tap water for pennies per liter
Posted by: sirios on Jun 25, 2008 12:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all ,as far as Gavin Newsom and tap water for San Fran.is concerned, it is easy for him to make statements about the purity of the tap water in SF because San Fran. water comes from hetch hetchy resevoir in Yosemite National Park, which is as far as i know unpolluted from fertilizers,pesticides,heavy metals etc.But the mayors from other cities would be hard pressed to make a similar claim except for parts of NYC because it comes from the catskill mountains although may not be as pure as Yosemite. There are probably other cities as well with good quality water that i am not aware of. Second, Tap water in general in many cities is quite polluted with all or part of the above, plus chlorine and ? Third, there are two basic types of bottled water. Spring water and tap water that has been run through a reverse osmosis membrane and charcoal filter, plus other filter methods. Any one can purchase a reverse osmosis system for their home for only a few hundred dollars and make it taste exactly like bottled water that has been filtered. Spring water brings up a whole other esoteric arguement about taste and supposed health benifits. Fourth, outlawing plastic bottles is a good thing. A final note, almost all bottled water in europe is sold in glass bottles that are re used not recycled.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What a farce. They're trying to save money, not the environment nor your health
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on Jun 25, 2008 4:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This was framed as a big money saver, that SF depts had too much indulgant spending, when it first started. When this bottled water nonsense began was after media criticism of SF govt. workers wasting money and having too many perks. Newsom then targeted bottled water, in a big announcement, as a perk elimination and a big money saver. Now suddenly it's being touted as good for the environment and your health, and the perk issue is forgotten.

The fact is that bottled water can be better or worse than tap water depending on the individual company used-- what are their water sources and kind of filtering, etc. To blanket say that tap water is better is purely false.

Another problem with tap water is that despite all the self-created accolades about its purity, tap water nowadays is not filtered enough for many more modern pathogens such as pesticides, gasoline by products run off, triathalomines, microscopic bacteria/parasites such as cryptosporidium and e-coli, hormones and antibiotics from agricultural run-off, radon, barium, asbestos, nitrates, (many of those I listed were right off from my water company report)and many other disgusting, health harming pathogens. Publicly provided tap water filtering standards, in terms of what is supposed to be filtered out, are seriously archaic and have not been raised much since the late 1970's or early '80's. Just look at the statement your water company provides you periodically on contaminants. They'll claim the levels are acceptable, meeting state standards, but you can see there are parts per billion of all sorts of things that anyone paying any attention knows is polluting the local water source, such as pesticides, agricultural run-off, radiation from tail mines, sewage from various sources and other pollutants that really aren't filtered out enough for public safety. Then there's the lead and copper from your own pipes.

I use an inexpensive brand name water filter on my tap water that's supposed to filter out 95% of that stuff.

Nowhere do I see any of these any of these anti bottled water crusaders advocating putting water filters on the faucets for the workers' safety or home use.

To claim tap water is safe and better than bottled water is a travesty, and that some environmentalists are buying into this is a scandal.

And by the way, Newsom was trying to save money-- I could say that twelve times. If I was a city office worker, I'd be po'd he targeted the perk of my office bottled water, and that he may have started a trend that corporations might go for too.

What a giant, deceptive crock. The only good that come out of this is if tap water standards are re-scrutinized and brought into the 21st century. Which they won't, because no one wants to go there-- that would mean scrutiny of the polluters who give campaign contributions, potentially costing them money if they have to reduce their pollution, and too much money to spend to bring tap water filtering technology up to better new standards. That isn't going to happen, and instead we have this asinine anti-bottled water campaign, a diversionary hoax.

The environmentally damaging plastic in the water bottles is a valid issue, the water in the plastic is not being addressed correctly here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

About tappening.com's anti bottled water campaign
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on Jun 25, 2008 4:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
--it seems to be well intentioned. This site was started by a couple of ad execs who have their own little companies, and are environmentally concerned and want to eliminate plastic pollution.

I will criticize tappening.com's website for not having an about page-- there's nothing there about who they are, which makes it look like astroturf.

If you google about tappening.com you'll find out that:

"They personally financed an inventory of reusable water bottles that were available for purchase on the site. DiMassimo and Yaverbaum expected these 39,000 bottles to sell throughout the first year of their new project and self finance their marketing message. Their initial inventory sold within 36 hours." --from brand noise website.

I'm going to give these guys the benefit of the doubt and assume their intent was environmental, and not to make a fortune exploiting environmentalism.

The article goes on to mention that:

"The answers aren’t simple. This opens up a whole new set of issues. You’ll start to see filtration products on the horizon. Imagine a bottle with a built-in filter that you can refill, say 10 times. Each time the filter adds a functional aspect like electrolytes that you desire to your water.

Along those lines, Pur Water Filter known for its in-home filtration has been offering its Exstream portable bottle purification system to the outdoor sporting community. But no one has bought 39,000 units of it in 36 hours."

I will say that if such products become readily available, my objection to the anti bottled water campaign is reduced. I do believe people should have the choice to drink bottled water, but in recyclable plastic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

EVEN RURAL AREAS AND SMALL TOWNS HAVE POOR WATER QUALITY
Posted by: realmuzik on Jun 25, 2008 5:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank the factory farmers for that! Where I live in the Midwest, people cannot get enough of bottled water, and my bets are anyone merely suggesting banning bottled water will be swiftly elected out of office. As it is, we were just hit with another rate increase for our supposedly "affordable" rural water service. Suffice it to say, the well water in my neighborhood is not fit for drinking, thanks again to the factory farmers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

New approach needed
Posted by: mtnrunner on Jun 27, 2008 11:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is so much that isn't filtered for in municipal treatment processes that must be considered now. Many people I know are reluctant to even let their pets drink some of the chlorinated swill coming out of taps. Check out http://www.hydrate.myxziex.com for a technology that's being used many places in the world to extract pure water from air. It's just become available here in the US. Could be a huge solution to a growing problem we're facing. Worth looking into.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]