WaterWired

Another Gift to the Bottled Water Industry? Let's Hope Not!

Elizabeth Royte has an excellent post on pollutants in drinking water - most recently, the herbicide atrazine - and the boost it may provide to the bottled water industry. She is not arguing that we turn off the tap and head for the Fiji or whatever, but this does pose a dilemma for those of us concerned with the increasing number of chemicals found in our drinking water: what do we drink?

As she eloquently indicates, bottled water is expensive, even if we discount its environmental footprint (which we should not).  What about tap filters? Those can work, but remember they don't destroy the chemicals, but just remove it from the water. Filters actually concentrate the stuff, and require proper disposal of the spent filtration medium (usually pulverized carbon).  Filter users may just be transferring the problem elsewhere or 'recycling' the pollutant.

[Here is an article by Danielle Ivory about water utilities' lack of filters for atrazine - thanks to Dorian Roffe-Hammond for sending this along.]

What concerns me about all this is that we may lose the political will to maintain our municipal drinking water systems and the surface watersheds and aquifers that provide the water. That could occur if more and more people decide to forego tap water altogether and drink bottled water. If that's the case, then more than our drinking water will suffer. 

If we do lose the will to maintain municipal water systems, then we will have come full circle. In the USA, starting around 100 or so years ago, one of the cogent arguments for constructing municipal drinking water systems was that they would improve health by providing clean, safe drinking water. Business leaders bought into the idea because they were convinced workers would lose fewer days to sickness, thereby increasing productivity and profits. Later on came wastewater treatment. It all worked - diseases like cholera and typhoid have all but disappeared from the USA.

Will the water make us sick again?

A slight digression: I once heard a person say that if you had to thank one profession for doing the most to improve our health, don't thank the medical profession, but the engineering profession. They built water and wastewater treatment facilities. There's quite a bit of truth to that.

As for 20-20 hindsight, I wish I'd paid more attention in Chem 201-202 (organic chemistry) in 1967-68 (you were right, Dr. Hill!), although in some ways, I'm glad I didn't. Ignorance may be bliss, but unfortunately, what you don't know can hurt you.

"The road to disaster is paved with assumptions." -- Unknown

Novel Use of Bottled Water Caps: Objet d'Art

Elizabeth Royte, auteur extraordinaire, has an item on her blog about artist Christine Destrempes' installation entitled 13,699 - that number of plastic water- bottle caps strung on monofilament. It represents the number of people who daily die from preventable diseases related to water. That is about 5 million per year.

Here is a close-up showing the detail of the installation. The caps were obtained from a recycling center.

It is on display at the  Sharon Arts Downtown Exhibition Gallery in Peterborough, NH.  

From the press release:

Christine Destrempes created the installation 13,699 to raise awareness of the number of people who die every day from preventable, water-related diseases because they do not have access to clean water. Clear plastic, recycled water bottle caps, collected from the Keene, NH Transfer Station, represent each person who dies, tying the environmental and social impact of the water bottling industry to the plight of people in developing countries.

The caps, strung on monofilament and hung from a 10' x 10' metal grid, form a fluid, cube-like structure with one point of access and exit. The production of 13,699 was taken into public venues, high schools, and colleges. Hundreds of people listened to Destrempes' presentation on global water issues and art for social change, and volunteered to drill holes in and string bottle caps. 13,699 is an invitation to look deeply, yet gently, at a disturbing humanitarian crisis statistic by literally entering into it.

I think Einstein's quote is apropos.

“Art is an expression of the profoundest thoughts in the simplest way.” -- Albert Einstein
 

Bottled Water Disaster Presentation; Nestlé Waters Eyes the Pacific Northwest

A colleague forwarded this PowerPoint to me. It appears to have been produced by PMArchitecture, as 'PMA'  appears throughout and the name is listed on the last page. I have not vetted al the claims but they certainly seem in line with the numbers I have heard and seen.

Download Water-disaster 

Speaking of bottled water, Nestlé Waters is considering building a bottled water plant in the Columbia River Gorge town of Cascade Locks, Oregon. Nestlé does not have a facility in the Pacific Northwest. The plant would use about 100 million gallons per year, a little more than 300 acre-feet, from a spring just off Interstate 84. Here is more on the story from Oregon Public Broadcasting.

"Ever wonder about those people who spend $2 apiece on those little bottles of Evian water? Try spelling Evian backward." -- George Carlin

Bottled Water Blues: Some Things To Ponder

Check out this 20-page pdf with some facts and photos about bottled water.

Spolier alert: it does not cast bottled water in the most favorable light.

"Common sense is not so common." -- Voltaire

Bottled Water Bonanza: What's Wrong With This Promotion?

So an environmental group is having a promotion? Sounds innocuous enough, right?

From KHSB-TV news:

WASHINGTON - An environmental group wants to know what kind of bottled water you drink.  It’s even running a contest to see who can collect the most labels.

The Environmental Working Group is conducting research to find out which bottled water companies are honest about the water they sell.

The group is asking where various bottled water comes from, and if it is purified, or if the FDA makes sure bottled water is clean.

The next time you buy bottled water, the group wants you to choose a non-sparkling, unflavored bottle of water in glass or clear plastic.

The group asks you to remove the entire label from the bottle, write down the name and location where you bought it, date you bought [emboldening mine] it, and your name, email and mailing address.

Send it to:
  Environmental Working Group
  Att. Nneka Leiba
  1436 U St. NW, Suite 100
  Washington, DC  20009

The person who sends in the most labels by June 15 will win a stainless steel water bottle.

Let me get this straight: EWG, an anvironmental group, is promoting the purchase of bottled water, especially by offering a prize for the most labels submitted [Gayle Leonard and others picked up on this].

Is this what an environmental organization wants to do?

Note that EWG wants to know where you bought the water, so that would preclude scavenging the landfills and recycling bins, although one could be dishonest and say you bought it. 

Perhaps EWG could have asked its supporters to go the store, record the desired information and send it in.

WaterWired's Take: File this under the "We should have thought this thing through' or 'Unintended Consequences' category. Or perhaps "Duhhhh" is the best category.

"The incompetent with nothing to do can still make a mess of it." -- Laurence J. Peter

Elizabeth Royte's Blog: Waste, Water, Whatever

Elizabeth Royte, author of Bottlemania, The Tapir's Morning Bath, and Garbage Land, has recently started a blog, Waste, Water, Whatever.

Elizabeth is supposed to have an article in which I'm quoted in the May 2009 issue of Elle.

My reputation will either rise or fall, depending upon one's vantage point.

Supermodels who can read will likely be texting me.  

"I don't remember ever having finished a book" -- Supermodel Bridget Hall

WAA-TAH! God's Way Of Saying...

"You're an idiot" or "You make too much money."

Gayle over at Thirsty in Suburbia alerted me to this wonderful product.

Until then, I was having a nice weekend.

No need to expound upon this stuff here. Gayle's post expressed my thoughts far more eloquently than I ever could.

Oh yeah - you can take the WAA-TAH! Challenge. Take it and...

Sure, it's better than caffeine-spiked, sugar-laden soda, but then again, 5W-30 motor oil is probably better, too. How about good ol' tap water? Get your children to try some of that. Have them drink bottled water and give the money you save to a worthwhile cause like Peter Boddie's The Kasiki Project.

Sorry if my allusion to a Supreme Being offended any readers. I was thinking of saying "Allah" or "Yahweh", but figured I'd really be in trouble.

Read Gayle Leonard's further post on how to turn water nonsense into water good sense.

"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." -- Elbert Hubbard

PacInst: Bottled Water Can Be 2000X More Energy-Intensive Than Tap Water

I got this in an email from the Pacific Institute. I suspect I'll get some comments.

In a newly published article in the February 2009 edition of the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research Letters the Pacific Institute estimates that the annual consumption of bottled water in the U.S. in 2007 required the equivalent of between 32 and 54 million barrels of oil—roughly one-third of a percent of total U.S. primary energy consumption.

The article, “Energy Implications of Bottled Water” by researchers Peter H. Gleick and Heather Cooley, is the first peer-reviewed analysis of its kind. Gleick and Cooley find bottled water is up to 2000 times more energy-intensive than tap water. Similarly, bottled water that requires long-distance transport is far more energy-intensive than bottled water produced and distributed locally.

“As bottled water use continues to expand around the world, there is growing interest in the environmental, economic, and social implications of that use, including concerns about waste generation, proper use of groundwater, hydrologic effects on local surface and groundwater, economic costs, and more. But a key concern is how much energy is required to produce and use bottled water,” said article co-author Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute. “It turns out the answer is, a lot.”

The authors note that a single estimate of the energy footprint of bottled water is not possible due to differences among water sources, bottling processes, transportation costs, and other factors. Gleick and Cooley calculate the energy requirements for various stages in bottled water production, including the energy to manufacture the plastic bottles, process the water and the bottles, and transport and cool the final product.

Combining the energy intensities for these stages, the analysis finds that producing bottled water requires between 5.6 and 10.2MJ per liter—as much as 2000 times the energy cost of producing tap water. The authors further estimate that to satisfy global demands, the energy equivalent of 50 million barrels of oil per year is used just to produce the bottles, primarily made of PET plastic, almost all of which are currently made from virgin, not recycled, material.

For water transported short distances, the energy requirements of bottled water are dominated by the energy to produce these plastic bottles. Long-distance transport, however, can lead to energy costs comparable to, or even higher than, the energy to produce the bottle. In the article, the authors calculate the energy costs of three different scenarios for a bottle of water consumed in Southern California—a locally produced bottle and bottled water from both France and Fiji transported to the region.

“With the U.S. consumption of bottled water exceeding 33 billion liters a year, and with intensifying efforts to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, these data should help identify ways to reduce the energy costs of bottled water and may help consumers themselves make more environmentally sustainable choices,” said co-author Heather Cooley, senior research associate at the Pacific Institute.

Here is the article "Energy Implications of Bottled Water".

"No glaciers were harmed in making this water." -- label on Tap'd NY, a brand of bottled NYC tap water

TIME's Top 10 Food Trends of 2008: War on Bottled Water is #4

John Cloud's TIME article on the Top 10 Food Trends of 2008 lists the war on bottled water as #4:

In 1992's The Player, Tim Robbins' character, the consummate Hollywood insider, showed his sophistication at restaurants through his ability to differentiate among various kinds of bottled water. But today, that same Hollywood macher would never ask for anything but tap. Because of the environmental costs of producing and shipping bottled waters, more and more chefs are offering only filtered tap water to customers. Mario Batali and his business partner Joseph Bastianich stopped selling bottled water at their New York City restaurants Del Posto and Otto earlier this year, and eateries in Florida and Massachusetts are also serving only tap. The U.S. Conference of Mayors voted in June to recommend that City Halls stop serving bottled water even at special functions. Once hip, bottled water is now unforgivably '90s.

Thanks to Elaine Hebard for passing this to me.

From Nestlé Waters North America: The Shape of Citizenship

What you've been awaiting: Nestlé Waters North America has released its 2008 corporate citizenship report, The Shape of Citizenship.

I know - some of you out there are either vomiting or getting yourself scraped off the ceiling, or both.

Here's the blurb on its WWW site:

This year, Nestlé Waters North America launched our first Corporate Citizenship Report: The Shape of Citizenship.  It describes the social or environmental challenges facing our company, and the steps we have taken to address those issues.  Additionally, it features the goals we have set to improve our future performance and further our corporate citizenship commitment.

And yes, Nestlé Waters North America does have a partnership with The Nature Conservancy, going on ten years (see page 41).

No, I'm not going to provide a review. You all can do that yourselves.

Remember - if we didn't drink so much bottled water many of you would not have to fighting Nestlé's activities in USA towns and villages. 

No one forces us to buy bottled water.

"Clean water is not an expenditure of Federal funds; clean water is an investment in the future of our country. " -- former Rep. Bud Shuster (R-PA), Washington Post, 9 January 1987

Tough Sledding for Poland Spring in Maine

Todd Jarvis, Mr. Bottled Water himself, sent me this item.

The Portland Press Herald's Noel K. Gallagher reports that challenges are piling up for bottled water purveyor Poland Spring, a subsidiary of Nestlé Waters North America. Check this out from the story: 

After 146 years of doing business in Maine, Poland Spring is fighting battles on three fronts these days -- over test wells in Shapleigh, a proposed tax that would cost the company $7 million a year, and a state Supreme Court case over a pumping station in Fryeburg.

"Where have we done harm or where have we caused issues that have caused people to take drastic steps like this?" asked Mark Dubois, natural resource director for Poland Spring, a subsidiary of Nestle Waters North America.

Poland Spring is the third-leading brand of bottled water in the country, behind Aquafina (Pepsi) and Dasani (Coke), and employs about 800 Maine residents.

Gallagher further reports that 14 bills concerning ground water have been introduced in the Maine legislature, including measures to declare Maine's ground water a public trust (like its surface water), and repeal the "absolute dominion" law, whereby a landowner can pump as much ground water as s/he desires.

There are also a number of municipal regulations on the table.

Could be a long winter for the folks at Poland Spring.

"Bottled water has certainly animated the conversation in the last several years." -- Andrew Fisk, director of Land and Water Quality, Maine Department of Environmental Prtotection 

Dear President-elect Obama: National Agenda for Drinking Water

Here's another missive for soon-to-be President Obama from the American Water Works Association (AWWA), Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA), National Association of Water Companies (NAWC), and the National Rural Water Association (NRWA).

Download National Agenda for Drinking Water

Issues discussed include:

• Economic stimulus through water infrastructure investment
• Long-term water infrastructure investment
• Safe drinking water standards
• Source water protection
• Climate change research and adaptation
• Water system security

Good reading, and not too long.

Ever since working in and traveling in developing countries I've been a big fan of the USA's tap water. I am now more appreciative and supportive of our nation's municipal drinking water systems than ever before, especially after reading Elizabeth Royte's excellent Bottlemania. 

One of the reasons I am not supportive of the widespread use of bottled water is my fear that we will eventually lose our will and interest in maintaining our drinking water systems and protecting source water.

"Barack Obama will invest in our nation's most pressing short- and long-term infrastructure needs, including modernizing our...water...needs." -- www.barackobama.com (quoted in the report)

Bottled Water Session Summary - 2008 NGWA Ground Water Summit

At last spring's NGWA Ground Water Summit my colleague Todd Jarvis convened a great session on bottled water.

Afterwards, he was asked to prepare a session summary for posting on the NGWA WWW site. If it is there, it's hard to find, so Todd granted me permission to blog it.

Voilà!

Download NGWA Bottled Water Session_Summary_NGWA_Summit_2008

Enjoy - it's footnoted, too!

"If someday I find myself wanting to buy bottled water, I will do it as an informed consumer, someone who knows that the image on the label may not reflect an ecological reality, that part of its sticker price may be landing in the pockets of lawyers and PR flacks, that profits probably aren't benefiting those who live near the source and that the bottle and its transportation have a significant carbon footprint." -- Elizabeth Royte, Bottlemania, p. 226

"All I want to have is a choice about what I drink. I want five or six waters to match a dining experience. Fine waters are a treat." -- Michael Mascha, water expert, quoted in Bottlemania, p. 172

Canadian Complaint Against Nestlé Waters Canada: False Advertising?

My friends over at Stop Nestle Waters should be happy. Five Canadian groups - Friends of the Earth Canada, the Polaris Institute, the Council of Canadians, Wellington Water Watchers, and Ecojustice - have filed a complaint against the Nestlé Waters Canada for some of its advertising claims, which the groups claim are not true:

• Most water bottles avoid landfill sites and are recycled
• Bottled water is the most environmentally responsible consumer product in the world [WTF?]
• Nestlé Pure Life is a Healthy, Eco-Friendly Choice

These claims were made in a full-page ad in the Toronto Globe and Mail last October. You can read more about this at HV120.CN, where you can find these comments:

"They can spin the bottle all they want, but the truth is there is no green solution to bottled water," said Joe Cressy, Campaigns Coordinator, for the Polaris Institute, in Ottawa.

"We welcome the opportunity to show that we have, in fact, been honest in our conversation with Canadians, with the media and with government of the environmental stewardship exercised by our industry," said John Challinor, a spokesman for Nestlé Waters Canada.

See more from Defending Water in Maine. Here is a copy of the complaint:

Download Advertising Standards Canada Complaint-Nestle Waters  (thanks to Linda Hunn)

We'll see how this plays out. In the meantime, Nestlé might want to consider sticking with the chocolate business.

"Advertising is the art of convincing people to spend money they don't have for something they don't need." -- Will Rogers

Review of 'FLOW' - It's Two Films and Features the 'Maude Barlow Effect'

I started this post last month by telling some colleagues that I was going to review the film FLOW: For Love Of Water. I first posted on this film in January 2008 and again in February 2008.

Now I am being bugged to finish my review.

Well, almost a year later, I have finally seen the film. Based strictly on what I had read about the film here's what I said about it last January:

I have not seen this film, but from the story, it seems that this might be akin to a Michael Moore film - some valid points, but with a fair dose of hyperbole. Still, people like filmmaker Irena Salina and activist Maude Barlow are necessary elements of civil society. Like Moore, they serve to poke a sharp stick in our collective eye and keep us from getting too comfortable.

Turns out I was prescient.

But there's more: it's actually two films: one I liked and one I did not like.

Here are reviews by David Zetland and Noah Hall. I'd read Noah's review, but not David's, before finishing mine.

What I Liked
The film graphically illustrates water pollution problems, in both the developed and developing world. Pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, atrazine (a herbicide) and similar agricultural chemicals are serious problems in certain areas, as is untreated waste being dumped into waterways. The atrazine segment relies heavily on the work of Dr. Tyrone Hayes. What he and the film say about this nasty chemical will make your skin crawl. 

Before we blame big corporations for all the pollution, let's remind ourselves who uses pharmaceuticals and cosmetics - we do. When we dispose of them improperly, we can introduce them into our water supply. Yes, government and industry do pollute and must be stopped whenever they are found out. But you and I also shoulder a fair amount of responsibility by consuming far more than we need to and demanding things be produced as cheaply as possible.

The film also highlights some wonderful community-based approaches to water supply and management. In one case in India, villagers are supplying clean water with UV purification costing just $2/person/year. The locals manage the treatment system. Great - no big private firm, no bevy of bureaucrats.

Another segment discussesthe community-based approach to enhancing ground water recharge in India. I had heard of this project several years ago and met the Indian gentleman who was one of the "gurus" behind this. Pretty neat stuff - again, locals tackling the problem.

The problems with dams are also examined, and the film notes that in the 20th century, something like 40M-80M people have been displaced by dams.  I have actually heard that the upper number is closer to the truth.

The ever-logical and intelligent Peter Gleick is very articulate.

The daily struggle of the disadvantaged to gain access to clean water is also featured. This problem can be solved, and it's not rocket science; it requires some money and political will.

So What Didn't I Like?
Now comes the "second film".

I didn't like the fact that it portrays corporations as evil, part of some worldwide conspiracy to "steal" our water, and responsible for many of our water woes. Maude Barlow makes her presence known with the usual diatribe against privatization.

A digression: water privatization can be good or bad. For it to be good, there must be: 1) clear ground rules for the private firm; 2) effective oversight; and 3) consideration of the poor.

It's painful to see Peter Gleick juxtaposed with Barlow.

Let me pick a particular nit: Barlow repeats the "fact" thet New Mexico will run out of water in 10 years. I worked in New Mexico for 17 years and never heard any such claim. Thinking that I might have missed something in the 2.5 years since I left, I called colleague Bruce Thomson and asked him if he had heard that.

"What? Is it going to stop raining?" was his initial response. He then told me what I had already suspected: he'd never heard anything like that.

I then wracked my brain to try to understand where Barlow might have obtained that 10-year figure.

A light went off! A number of years ago, the City of Albuquerque (now the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority), which supplies over 500,000 customers, decided that it would alter its water supply strategy: instead of using 100% ground water, it would start to use surface water from the Rio Grande. By doing so, it would retire ground water pumping and keep its ground water in reserve so that if the Rio Grande went completely dry for 10 years, the ABCWUA would have enough water to supply all its customers for that duration.

Barlow probably heard "New Mexico", "10 years", and "went dry" in the same sentence and drew the wrong conclusion. So I suspect that is the origin of her 10-year claim. If so, then Barlow got it wrong and misunderstood the context. But either way, her claim is bogus. Are her other claims likewise flawed?

And remember, now that she is a UN Senior Water Adviser, she needs to get her facts straight. Why? Well, now she's more than just a Canadian activist, but someone with the UN imprimatur.

The film takes a good shot at Nestlé and its bottled water operation in Mecosta County, MI, and depicts how bad they are.

If you read this blog, then you know I am no fan of bottled water. But I don't believe it should be outlawed. There is a time and place for it. Is bottled water part of some grand conspiracy to control/own all our water? No. It's just some company trying to make a profit, which corporations are wont to do, by providing a product that people want to buy. In places like Michigan, no one forces people to buy bottled water.

If the people are upset because Nestlé got a lot of tax breaks to locate there, then they should complain to the local governments who gave the breaks. If they don't like the water laws/regulations that allow Nestlé to pump ground water and sell it, then lobby to change the laws.

I have been able to ascertain that Nestlé can pump 368 gpm (gallons per minute); that is about 600 acre-feet per year. What effects does that have on the water resources in the area? I don't know, but with enough information, those effects can be determined. If the pumping is adversely affecting water resources, then the cognizant government agencies need to clamp down. If they don't or won't clamp down, that is not Nestlé's fault.  

Let me ask some questions of the Nestlé protesters: if another plant (le'ts assume it's a low environmental impact plant) had chosen to locate in Mecosta County and consumed 600 acre-feet of ground water per year, would you have been so upset? What if all that water had been exported out of the county/state as virtual water? Would you have been as upset? What I'm clumsily asking is this: it is only because it's a bottled water plant that upsets you?

Bottled water operations, or the threat of them, actually can have beneficial effects:

• people start thinking about their water supply, which they likely took for granted;

• people think about bottled water and whether it is such a "good" thing; and

• laws/regulations governing water supply and contamination are introduced, revisited, or strengthened.

I've been told the last bullet is actually happening in Michigan.

Take a look at the video Nestlé produced as a rebuttal to FLOW. Just like the FLOW piece, the film takes an advocacy position. Noah Hall is featured in a pro bono role. 

I am not in a position to accept or reject Nestlé's claim of "no effect"; my hydrogeologic intuition says the presence of an effect is more likely than not.  If there is an effect, there is the question of the magnitude and extent. If there is no effect, there is the queston of "Will there be one eventually?" But I do not have access to the data/reports and my knowledge of the hydrogeology of Mecosta County and environs is woeful. 

One tidbit: Malcolm Pirnie, Nestlé's consultant, won an award for its work for Nestlé from the National Ground Water Association as the outstanding ground water water-supply project in 2002.

Let me close by quoting Noah Hall:

What disappointments me most about the movie FLOW is that it feeds the ideological opposition to water bottling and water privatization at the expense of focusing attention on the real threats to our water.  For example, as just reported by John Flesher of the Associated Press (see Chicago Tribune story), some environmental activists in Michigan are considering a ballot initiative to affirm public ownership of water and restrict water bottling, using the release of the movie to build attention for the cause.  But this response does nothing to solve the problems of unsafe drinking water and chemical pollution of our lakes and rivers highlighted in the movie. 

I agree with Noah, and furthermore, I call the knee-jerk revulsion to water bottling and anything involving water privatization as the "Maude Barlow effect".

Bottom line: should you see the film? Yes - it does have some important messages for us all. But it insists upon conflating privatization with many of the world's water ills, so be sure to view it with a critical eye.

Next up: Maude Barlow's Blue Gold: World Water Wars.

But first I need to rest.

“A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.” – Paul Romer, Stanford economist

So Is Ground Water Renewable...Or Not? Yes!

Kind of a funny question coming from someone who just finished co-chairing a conference on nonrenewable ground water. So what prompted this question, surely one that will generate more controversy than "Is ground water one word or two?"

Yesterday morning I had an enjoyable hour-long phone conversation with Elizabeth Royte (that's pronounced 'Royt'), author of Bottlemania and other books. The topic of renewable versus nonrenewable ground water arose because of a comment directed to her on the Competitive Enterprise Institute's WWW site EnjoyBottledWater.org. The CEI has mounted an aggressive campaign to promote bottled water.

There is a section on the WWW site titled Ground Water Is Renewable by Dr. Angela Logomasini:

Environmental activists have been claiming that if we keep bottling ground water, we will eventually run out.  In the book Bottlemania, the author even calls water a “finite” resource.  This is very silly.  Ground water is replenished naturally via precipitation.  Check out this research paper on the topic.   It highlights the fact that not only do groundwater resources replenish, the amount accessed for bottled water is tiny.  The author, Keith N. Eshleman, Ph.D.– Associate Professor, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science–notes:

“Ground water withdrawals for bottled water production represent only 0.019% of the total fresh ground water withdrawals in the U.S.  In comparison, agricultural use of ground water (irrigation) comprises 65% (17,885 billion gallons) of total ground water withdrawals on a national basis.  … Ground water supplies are continuously ‘recharged’ or replenished by precipitation, thus ground water resources are considered ‘renewable.’  Based on data published by the U.S. Geological Survey, the 1995 renewable ground water supply was determined to be 1,270.4 billion gallons per day or 463,696 billion gallons per year.  Bottled water production was found to use an infinitesimal percentage of renewable supplies at the national scale and in all but one water resource region (Lower Colorado).  It was determined that annual bottled water production accounted for only 0.0012% of the nation’s total renewable supply.”

I have no arguments with Dr. Eshleman's claim that water used for bottled water is, in toto, quite small. But of course, that depends upon the site-specific situation. If some bottler is tapping into your water supply, then the water used may not be insignifcant.

Here is where the nonrenewable versus renewable comes into play - the first three sentences:

Environmental activists have been claiming that if we keep bottling ground water, we will eventually run out.  In the book Bottlemania, the author [Elizabeth Royte] even calls water a “finite” resource.  This is very silly. 

Royte's statement is not very silly. Yes, groundwater is replenished by precipitation. Yes, a lot of ground water is renewable. And I don't think bottling ground water is going to cause us to run out of ground water (on a global scale). But on a local scale - it depends.

But in the renewable vs. nonrenewable argument what makes things difficult is the the rate of replenishment (recharge), which in some cases, may be extremely low, requiring hundreds or thousands of years to replenish the aquifer. So in human terms, these aquifers are treated as being "nonrenewable".

There are some aquifers - the ones in North Africa come to mind, as does the portion of the High Plains (aka Ogallala) aquifer beneath the Texas Panhandle - that are not replenished at rates high enough to replace what has been withdrawn by pumping. In these aquifers, people talk about "mining" ground water, just like you "mine" coal. You are extracting a resource that, as far as you're concerned, will not be replaced or renewed. This is one definition of nonrenewable ground water.   For others, read the first paragraph and citations in our nonrenewable ground water conference report:

Download nonrenewable_gw_conference_report_oct2008.pdf

But don't take my word for it: here is a UNESCO report. Or a World Bank Briefing Note:

Download 811332_E2_BN11_non_renewable.pdf

And finally, for you technogeeks, read one of my favorite papers by three ground water giants: John Bredehoeft, Steve Papadopulos, and Hilton H. Cooper, Jr., Groundwater: The Water Budget Myth. It's still relevant after 26 years. They repeat C.V. Theis's mantra that when you start pumping, ground water levels will continue to decline and some water will be "mined" until you reach a new equilibrium either by increasing recharge or decreasing natural discharge, or some combination of both.

Download water_budget_myth_bredehoeft_et_al..pdf

So to call someone "very silly" for invoking the concepts of "finite" or "nonrenewable" when discussing ground water is, well, very silly itself.

“I may not be an expert in hydrogeology, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.” – Unknown

Aguanomics Goes Berserk Over Bottled Water

David Zetland decided to clean out his electronic attic and posted a bunch of stuff about bottled water. I'm glad he did.

There is a cute video about the stuff from Down Under.

Then, to top it off, he added a post about the good side of bottled water.

And he provided this cute warning sign.

Economists have such a great sense of humor - you can't put a price on it!

I'm somewhere over the Atlantic now.

"A study of economics usually reveals that the best time to buy anything is last year." -- Marty Allen

The True Price of Fiji Water

Last April I posted an item Why Fiji Water Will Never Be 'Green'.

Now comes William E. Marks and his post,The True Price of Fiji Water, on AlterNet.

Here's a teaser:

The small island nation of Fiji with its population of about 150,000 -- is now controlled by a military regime that took control via the 2006 Fijian coup d'état. With such an unstable government -- people suffer while some industries prosper. One of these prospering companies is Fiji Water. Water imported into the US from the small island nation of Fiji is ranked number 2 in bottled waters. France, of course, is number 1.

Today, about one-third of Fiji's people lack access to clean drinking water, leading to incidents of typhoid and other water-related diseases.

The irony of these statistics is that Fiji Water exported about 130 million liters of Fiji water in the past year. To present a "green face" to the world -- Fiji Water returns a token amount of money to bring clean water to certain areas of Fiji. However, according to a recent BBC investigation, the Fiji capital of Suva has an undependable water system with failing infrastructure.

Marks is off by a factor of almost 6 in his estimate of Fiji's population; it is about 850,000. I suspect he may be citing the population of the main island of Viti Levu, often referred to as 'Fiji'.

Give it a read, as well as the comments.

"No, San Pellegrino and Perrier got rich off the pretensions of liberal wastrels like moi who thought it set us apart from the unlettered masses. We ordered it in restaurants for the same reason we read books we don’t like and go to operas we don’t understand - we say to the waiter, ”Perrier,” to give a continental touch to our macaroni and cheese." -- Garrison Keillor, Salt Lake Tribune, 29 September 2007

Green Mountain Ground Water and Bottled Water Redux

Last spring I posted an item about Vermont declaring its ground water to be a public trust, and requiring anyone who pumps more than 57,600 gallons per day to obtain a permit. The law does not take effect until 2010.

Enter Daniel  Antonovich, a businessman who wants to bottle 250,000 gallons per day from the town of East Montpelier's signature spring, which sits on his land. But last March the town of East Montpelier instituted a three-year moratorium on bottling water.

So it appears that all the ground water issues in the Green Mountain State have not disappeared. Felicity Barringer wrote about Vermont's ground water in the 20 August 2008 edition of the New York Times.

While some residents of East Montpelier worry that their wells may suffer if Mr. Antonovich’s firm, the Montpelier Springs Water Company, opens for business, Mr. Antonovich said that he had had the aquifer mapped and that there was more than enough water for all.

Mr. Antonovich, a furrier in the New York area who has been vacationing in Vermont for half a century, said he did not plan to contest the three-year moratorium.

But what about the new law?

The new law notwithstanding, there are still few restrictions on using groundwater, but the new system is designed to help map it, measure it and apportion it. It puts home and farm uses of water at the front of the line in case of shortages and makes large-scale withdrawals, like those envisioned by Mr. Antonovich, who owns the land where the spring emerges, subject to new permits and monitoring.

Barringer continues:

With the growing recognition that groundwater is not limitless, more states and localities are looking for ways to protect it. Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan and New Hampshire are at the forefront of this trend, and Vermont is now making its move.

“It’s no longer an under-the-radar issue,” said Jon Groveman, the general counsel of the Vermont Natural Resources Council. “There is now a sense that groundwater is finite and needs to be protected.”

It is interesting to see the Eastern USA take more of an interest in ground water, often the stepchild of water resources management, especially in wet regions with seemingly ample surface water.

Surface water in streams, lakes and rivers, has been legally managed for hundreds of years. But groundwater, until recent years, was often treated as something separate, hydrologically and legally. Both distinctions are now breaking down.

An interesting observation:

“Public policy makers are wrestling with legal systems designed in an era of abundance,” said Andy Buchsbaum, director of the Great Lakes office of the National Wildlife Federation. “They were not designed to address shortages.”

Buchsbaum continues, bringing the USA West into focus:

Mr. Buchsbaum said he believed that the Vermont law could produce fairer and more comprehensive results when done before a crisis, or “we’ll be trying to change our water laws in the context that the West is now.”

“There is no water and they’re trying to apportion droplets,” he said of the West. “They’re in the terrible position of trying to judge between needs that are all critical with not enough resources.”

“We have the chance to get ahead of it,” Mr. Buchsbaum said.

Let's hope Vermont gets it right.

There is a great analogy in the article: Vermont State Geologist Laurence R. Becker compares mapping flow in Vermont's fractured-rock aquifers akin to tracing a Jackson Pollock painting. Amen!

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell

Does 'Bottled Water: Height of Stupidity' Article Use a Stupid Example?

Diane Francis published an article"Bottled Water: The Height of Stupidity" in The Huffington Post (reprinted on Alternet).

In the story, she writes: 

An estimate by a University of Toronto geology professor Andrew Miall, who took a picture of a grocery store skid of bottled water and calculated the extent of the ripoff, found the stack of bottles:

• Contains 24,192 bottles, each containing 500 ml of water, a total of 12,096 liters of water, in 314.5 kg of plastic

• Purchase price of the $4.99 per 24-bottle pack is $0.42 per liter for a total retail value of $5,029.92

• To purchase the same volume of water in bulk through Toronto's domestic water supply would cost $16.93

If she is trying to demonstrate that buying bottled water is the height of stupidity, she certainly could have picked a more outlandish example of the bottled water ripoff than Miall's. The good professor's example shows that the bottled water is about 300 times more expensive that Toronto's municipal water. Pretty bad, right?

Not as bad as it could be. I can provide a more egregious example.

I once calculated that Ethos bottled water, at $1.80 per bottle, costs about $9.80 gallon. In Corvallis, Oregon, I pay about $0.002 per gallon, so Ethos water costs 4,900 times what I pay.

I posted some more examples of the bottled-water ripoff earlier this year.

Maybe Francis is trying to cut the bottled water industry some slack. But if she's really trying to prove that drinking bottled water is the "height of stupidity", then her example is pretty lame.  

"Make something idiot-proof and someone will come along with a better
idiot." -- Unknown

Amy Vickers' Op-Ed: Putting a Cap on the Bottled Water Industry; Nestle Exits McCloud

Colleague Patrick Griffith sent me this Op-Ed piece by engineer and water conservation consultant Amy Vickers from the 7 July 2008 Boston Globe.

Here is a response from Tom Brennan, Natural Resource Manager, of Nestle Waters North America that appeared in the 21 July 2008 edition of the paper.

And, speaking of Nestle, the firm has decided to cancel its contract with the McCloud (CA) Community Services District.

Nestle was not winning any public-relations kudos, what with all the negative press surrounding its 50-year contract (with a 50-year renewal option) with the town.

Read Tara Lohan's story at Alternet.org/water.

I have not been following the Nestle-McCloud issue that closely, but I wonder why the community signed the contract with Nestle? Did they get an attorney to scrutinize it?

[Noah Hall provided this link that will explain a lot of things thanks, Noah.]

"Wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then."-- Against the Wind by Bob Seger

Mayor Marty Returns From The Dark Side

Albuquerque Mayor Martin J. "Marty" Chávez, shown here with his trusted advisor El Perro Negro de Alcalde Marty, was one of the co-authors of a non-binding resolution passed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors urging the mayors to cease providing bottled water at official municipal functions.

Listen to Mayor Marty discussing the resolution in an interview with NPR's Scott Simon.

I'm glad to see that Mayor Marty has returned from the dark side.

Say what?

Normally, I wouldn't care much about what Mayor Marty does these days since I left the Duke City in 2006. But his sponsorship of the resolution reminded me of a time six or so years ago, when I was watching the Mayor hold forth on his show on the local access cable channel. He was at his desk, drinking bottled water. Since the show was a taped rerun, I couldn't call, but emailed him, mildly scolding him for setting a poor example by drinking bottled water when Albuquerque had such good tap water.

To my surprise, he responded a few days later. After a few sentences of blather, he concluded: "For what it's worth, there was tap water in the bottle."

Perhaps I was being unfair, or perhaps because I knew Mayor Marty, I did not believe him.  

But all is forgiven, Your Honor, for you have seen the light. 

"Albuquerque: Next 17 Exits" -- slogan suggested during Mayor Marty's first term

"Good for you, Albuquerque!" -- slogan selected by Mayor Marty

Coke and Pepsi Fear Bottled Water Backlash; Swiss Measure Impact of Bottled Water vs. Tap Water

Well, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are tanking, the USA owes a supertanker fleet-load of Benjamins to China, The House That Ruth Built is coming down, and A-Rod and C-Rod are splitting up. So is there any good news?

You bet! Coke (Dasani) and Pepsi (Aquafina) fear a bottled water backlash. Read Anthony Mirhaydari's story here (thanks to Alternet for the photo).

Looks like some consumers have finally discovered that gasoline is cheaper than most bottled water.  

And the Swiss have found that the environmental impact of bottled water is 90 to 1000+ times greater than that of tap water. Download the report:

Download bottled_water_impact_lca.pdf

Life is good.

"When the people take to reasoning, all is lost." -- Voltaire

Fight For Your Rights: Beastie Boy's Film Takes On Nestle, Privatization & Bottled Water

Thanks to friend and former student Amy Ewing for bringing this to my attention.

Beastie Boy Adam "MCA" Yauch, known for his activism and whose company distributes the film FLOW: For Love Of Water, defends his attack on Swiss firm Nestle in the film.

Read what Nestle says about bottled water.

You can see my previous posts about the film - 30 January 2008 and 29 February 2008.

From the story:

Yauch screened his documentary film FLOW at last weekend's (21 June 2008) U.S. Nantucket Film Festival, claiming the Swiss-based firm is being environmentally irresponsible.

The film, distributed by Yauch and his company Oscilloscope Pictures, blames the growing privatization of the world's fresh water supply partly on the company, and others including Pepsi and Coca-Cola.

A source tells the New York Post that Nestle bosses were furious at Yauch after hearing the company's name mentioned, revealing, "She (a company representative) stormed out about an hour in when the film named Nestle. The company obviously had no idea this content was in the movie. She told an audience member, 'That was one-sided,' on her way out and didn't come back for the question and answer session afterwards."

Yauch has refused to apologize for his honestly in the footage.

He tells the New York Post, "They (Nestle) put pretty pictures of springs and forests on the bottles, but in this movie they're getting called out. I think it's great. They lock down water as a commodity they can buy and sell. It's terrifying."

Yauch's film is set to debut in New York this September.

Maude Barlow would be proud of you, Adam!

“Everything starts out as a rebellion, then becomes a movement, and finally becomes a racket.” – Patrick Buchanan

NYT Reviews 'Bottlemania' and Royte's Interview on 'Marketplace'

Well, a book about bottled water has hit the big time: The Gray Lady has noticed.

The featured (front page) review in the New York Times Book Review of 15 June 2008 is Lisa Margonelli's review of Elizabeth Royte's Bottlemania: How Water Went on Sale and Why We Bought It.

The drawing is by Oliver Munday from the NYTBR's cover.

I won't bore you with a review of the review.The book has been around for a while and blogged to death. Besides I have not read it yet.

Margonelli mentions one thing Royte believes: that to be anti-bottled water is now becoming fashionable, much the way to drink bottled water was. So Royte wonders if the pro-bottle and anti-bottle movements aren't cut from the same plastic:

“Is it fashion or is it a rising awareness of the bottle’s environmental toll that’s driving the backlash? I’m starting to think they’re the same thing.”

I'll close with a factoid you've probably heard: 

"The total energy required for every bottle’s production, transport and disposal is equivalent, on average, to filling that bottle a quarter of the way with oil."

Good review. I think I'll read the book.

Here's Kai Ryssdal's interview with Royte from Marketplace. You can listen to it or read it.

"...the biggest enemy is tap water." -- Quaker Oats CEO, talking to industry analysts about bottled water, 2000

Read This Book: 'Bottlemania' by Elizabeth Royte

Again, I'm running behind on things and still using my two weeks in the South Caucasus as an increasingly-lame excuse.My faux-bird flu seems to be waning.

I've heard much about Elizabeth Royte's book Bottlemania: How Water Webnt on Sale and Why We Bought It. Here is a review by Mark Coleman from the 1 June 2008 Los Angeles Times and a book excerpt from the 22 May 2008 Wall Street Journal.

Sounds like a great read, but I have not cracked it open it yet - still trying to read Jeff Sachs' most recent book so I can review his approach to solving the world's water problems (I'm working on it, John!).

Time to do some reading.

"Bozone: the invisible layer that surrounds stupid people and won't allow smart ideas to penetrate." -- Firesign Theater Newsgroup

Vermont Protects Its Ground Water: Violation of NAFTA?

Their New Hampshire neighbors might sneer that they are "quiche eaters" (Vermont does make some wonderful cheese) but when it comes to protecting ground water, the Green Mountain State folks don't want strangers to pump too much of their precious ground water.

Today's Christian Science Monitor has Tom A. Peter's story.

So the Vermont legislature just passed a bill that establishes a water permit system, which Gov. Jim Douglas (R) will likely sign. The law declares ground water to be a public trust and requires all enterprises pumping more than 57,600 gallons per day (40 gallons per minute) to obtain a permit. Most farms are exempt.

The amount allowed without a permit is not insignifcant - it's about about 65 acre-feet per year. That's actually a lot of water from a so-called "exempt" (exempt from a permit or water right) well. Here in Oregon, we allow an exempt well 15,000 gallons per day, which is a lot; Washington allows an exempt well to pump 5,000 gallons daily. New Mexico, much drier that OR, VT, or WA, allows 3 acre-feet per year or about 2,700 gallons per day,  < 2 gpm.

So let's say you pump 57,000 gallons per day; no permit is required. That's enough to bottle over 200,000 one-liter bottles of water daily (I am conveniently neglecting the water used in the process), or over 80 M bottles per year. That is not a huge bottling operation, but it's not small, either.

There could be a problem, though: Vermont's measure may violate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), since it could constitute a barrier to international trade. If a foreign company believes that its ability to conduct business is hindered by the law, then it can file a claim against the state under NAFTA.

One Canadian firm already pumps Vermont ground water and bottles it in New Hampshire for sales across the country. Other firms may be considering bottling operations. Again, Vermont has "cachet".

Some have warned that NAFTA would have this effect and compromise the ability of border states (or provinces) to manage/allocate their water. Vermont believes it will not be a problem, because all enterprises are treated the same; international firms are not singled out.

Alyssa Neir and I broached these NAFTA issues as they might develop along the USA-Mexico border.

But time will tell, and I suspect this'll get interesting.

Note added on 11 June 2008: Gov. Jim Douglas signed into law legislation declaring Vermont's ground water a public trust and establishing a permit system. Read more here. 

"We cannot direct the wind, but we can adjust the sails." -- Bertha Calloway

Maude Barlow's and the Bottled Water Industry's Worst Nightmare

What could possibly cause massive heartburn for both Maude Barlow, the Canadian Crusader, and the bottled water industry? Infected, that's what.

Yes, the SciFi Channel managed to give both sleepless nights with its own made-for-TV (aka "straight to DVD") movie, Infected, a semi-decent flick about bad aliens who come to earth looking for human hosts to "grow" their slug-like babies (the adults are insect-like, but don human skin so as not to scare the locals).

Hmmm. Let me guess...the writers saw Alien.

So how do the aliens wreak havoc on humanity? Well, having monitored our media for a number of years, they know humans are real big suckers for bottled water. So they decide to enter the bottled water business, but they contaminate their water with an extraterrestrial amino acid to better prepare the humans, who also get a plague-like disease as a side effect. The company, Whitefield Industries, supplies the unsuspecting populace of Boston (with Montreal playing that role) with cheap (but not too cheap, else the humans won't drink it) bottled water (but none of that overpriced Fiji Water stuff).

If that's not bad enough, the slimy arthropods also grow cheap produce (the bugs also know humans are seduced by cheap but good food) with their contaminated bottled water, further spreading the nasty amino acid. This nefarious plot is discovered by a worker at the city's Water Resources Department, who soon is killed. Two newspaper reporters, former lovers but now on the outs, must team together to defeat the forces of evil (bottled water). They succeed after a bit.

A digression: SciFi movies have at least two things in common: 1) one or more has-been stars: 2) a  climactic scene in what looks to be the basement of an industrial facility, one with plenty of pipes, valves, cables, tanks with flammable fluids, etc. This one was no different. Judd Nelson and Isabella Rossellini (say it ain't so, Isabella!) lend their awesome talents to this flick. Both play aliens, but Nelson is a good one.

Isabella's big moment comes when her breasts explode and two insect-like appendages come flying out to "accost" our hero and heroine. Tears welled up in my eyes. She gets killed by the boss insect, Mr. Whitefield (real name: Zxykownh), soon after that.

So it's easy to see that bottled water's image is tarnished, but why would Maude be perturbed? PRIVATIZATION! We've got a private company supplying Boston with water, people! See what happens when you let private companies into the water business! Aliens and slugs!

And Maude, this is a Canadian movie!

"Nature bats last." -- bumper sticker, Corvallis, OR

Why Fiji Water Will Never Be 'Green'

I first encountered Fiji Water several years ago when I attended a conference held at a "resort" hotel. You know the type - kind of snooty, who have lately taken to levying a mandatory daily  "resort fee" to your bill so they can advertise lower room rates. But that's fodder for another post.

Anyway, in my room were several bottles of Fiji bottled water, with a note saying that if I preferred to drink this water, I would be charged $4 per bottle. My Scots ancestry came to the fore and I wondered why anyone would pay $4 for water when there was perfectly good tap water.  I was even more amazed when I discovered that Fiji was not just a moniker, but actually indicated the origin of the water.

Why would people have to drink water from Fiji, about 2,800 miles southwest of Honolulu, unless they lived in Fiji? Drinking bottled water in lieu of of perfectly good tap water is foolish enough, but bottled water from Fiji?

On NPR's The World earlier this week there was a piece on how Fiji Water is "going green", and will eventually become "carbon negative". The host interviewed a real lulu - "Fiji Water Girl" - who drinks nothing but Fiji bottled water and "can't live without it." Puhhh-leeze! She was ecstatic to hear that Fiji Water was "going green".

But the show's host also spoke with "Tap Water Girl", who correctly exclaimed, "It's creating a problem and then trying to fix a problem... as opposed to not creating a problem at all in the first place."

Fiji is now going "carbon negative"  in order to convince people that drinking expensive water from thousands of miles away is good for the planet. They are planting trees, using renewable energy sources, and rerouting their shipping routes so as to save energy and reduce carbon emissions. I applaud them (go to Fiji Green for more information). But can such an approach really produce a green product?

I have a problem with planting trees to offset carbon emissions. On a total "carbon emitted, carbon sequestered" basis, this no doubt can work, but what about the time factors? For example, if I purchase carbon credits for a plane flight to Europe, my carbon emissions occur in about half a day. But when does the carbon sequestration occur, and how long does it take for the trees to absorb the carbon my flight emitted? They do not do do so at the same time the flight occurs. And it's important to have the carbon sequestration happen as soon as possible relative to the carbon emission. If it takes 10 years for trees to sequester the carbon, how much additional global warming will have occurred because of my plane flight during those 10 years? And what happens when the trees die? The carbon is released as CO2.

If I am missing something, please enlighten me.

But there is another issue that transcends the "carbon negative" issue, one that Fiji can never address. Regardless of how "carbon negative" Fiji Water becomes, petroleum products are used to make and transport it.  Petroleum is far too valuable a substance to waste it on a product that we do not need and can obtain quite easily here at home. [Here's an article from today's New York Times about the environmental costs of shipping food around the world - thanks to Robert of Watercrunch]

And that, my children, is the reason why Fiji Water will never be green.

“Bottled water is a business that is fundamentally, inherently and inalterably unconscionable. No side deals to protect forests or combat global warming can offset that reality.” -- Michael J. Brune, executive director, Rainforest Action Network, New York Times, 7 November 2007

Water: H2O = Life; Aqua Colbert

The American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) has an extraordinary exhibit Water: H2O = Life.

This special exhibit about water highlights the importance of the world's most precious resource. The exhibit includes hands-on activities and interactive displays to educate the public about water-where it comes from, how it shapes the planet and the lives of people, plants, and animals everywhere.

The Colbert Report even featured the exhibit on its 20 March 2008 show, along with Stephen Colbert's line of bottled water, Aqua Colbert. You can also find all these videos on Misublog.

"When you've got an extraordinary thirst, don't settle for an ordinary water that comes from just one foreign country. When you drink Aqua Colbert, you're drinking the world."

"Thirst locally, drink globally." -- Aqua Colbert's slogan

Bottled Water Humor

I swiped this from Robert at Watercrunch - I can't pass up a chance to take a poke at bottled water.

You can find more of Steve Greenberg's cartoons here.

Ethos Water - $3,200,000 per acre-foot.

"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw

I (Heart) Tap Water - Student Video Competition

Food & Water Watch has announced a student competition: produce a 1 to 2 minute video proclaiming your love for tap water and post it to YouTube.

The contest ends at 11:59 AM EST on 14 April 2008. Winners will be announced on Earth Day - 22 April 2008.

Your video should be inspiring, entertaining, and with a clear message. Easy, right?

Your video must be an original creation with the following three elements:

• a declaration of your love for tap water;
• some discussion about bottled water consumption; and
• make the case for why your school or any campus should give up bottled water.

The winner will get $1,500, the second place finisher will get $500, and the third place finisher will get a "Take Back the Tap" gift bag.

The winning video will also be featured prominently on the Take Back the Tap
WWW site.

Please - "family-friendly" videos only (that eliminates me).

And while we are extolling the virtues of tap water, take a look at
Tappening.com.

"Differential equations are like deodorants; more people who don't use them should." -- Steve Wheatcraft

Congressional Call for GAO Probe into Bottled Water, TCE, Perchlorate

Reps. Albert R. Wynn (D-MD) and Hilda L. Solis (D-CA) have called for a GAO probe into the bottled water industry and TCE and perchlorate in drinking water. Wynn is Chair and Solis Vice Chair of the House Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials.

Wynn and Solis are raising concerns about the purity of bottled water, source labeling, the effects of the bottles on landfills, and the energy used in the production and transportation of bottled water. They also are concerned with EPA's effort, or lack thereof, to address the issue of TCE (trichloroethylene) and perchlorate in drinking water.

The following is from Rep. Wynn's WWW site (see link above). The letter from Wynn and Solis to David Walker, Comptroller General of the GAO is also on the site.

***************
Washington, DC, 31 January 2008

"In the past decade, sales of bottled water have reportedly tripled, but no one is examining the environmental ramifications of Americans shifting their water consumption from the traditional tap to the plastic bottle," Wynn said.  "Petroleum is used in the manufacture of bottled water containers and transporting bottled water requires the use of additional fossil fuels.  today, we are asking GAO to look into the scope of these problems."

"As policymakers, it is our responsibility to ensure that all sources of drinking water, including bottled water, are safe for consumers to drink," said Solis. "Given the growing prevalence of bottled water, it is imperative that we have all the information regarding not only the source and labeling, but also the unintended consequences of this trend."

In their letter to GAO, the two lawmakers ask that GAO examine the effect that increased bottled water consumption is having on municipal landfill capacity, as well as the effects of energy use from the transportation and manufacture of bottled water.  The lawmakers also raised questions about the purity of bottled water and whether bottled water suppliers provide the details of the water source on their labels.

"Many consumers think that when they buy bottled water, they are consuming water from a pristine natural source that is purer than tap water," Wynn said.  "However, recent media reports have exposed some companies simply bottling and selling tap water.  GAO should examine how bottled water is labeled so we know consumers of bottled water are not being deceived."

Wynn and Solis are also asking the Government Accountability Office to examine EPA's failure to update its current drinking water standard for Trichloroethylene (TCE).  An EPA 2001 assessment found TCE was far more likely to cause cancer than previously believed.  Despite this assessment and a recommendation from the National Academy of Science, EPA has failed to update its national drinking water standard for TCE.

The evidence of the dangers of TCE keep piling up and the EPA keeps failing to act," Wynn added.  "Hopefully, GAO can shed some much needed light on the reasons for EPA's inaction."

The EPA's current drinking water standard for TCE allows a maximum of 5 parts per billion, but some have called for a revision of that standard to reduce the maximum amount of TCE allowed in water.

Finally, the letter asks GAO to evaluate the Environmental Protection Agency's process for selecting potential contaminants for regulatory action.  The EPA has published two new "Contaminant Candidate Lists" (CCLs) since 1996, but the agency has not identified a single new contaminant for subsequent regulatory action, including perchlorate, an ingredient in rocket fuel which presents a risk to human health in vulnerable populations like pregnant women and children. The letter from Wynn and Solis asks the GAO to evaluate the CCL process to determine if it is workable and effective to protect public health.

"Given that the EPA has published two Contaminant Candidate Lists since 1996, but failed to take action to regulate dangerous contaminants like perchlorate, one has to wonder whether the EPA's process adequately protects the public health," Wynn said.

In November, the Subcommittee passed H.R. 1747, the "Safe Drinking Water for Healthy Communities Act of 2007," legislation authored by Solis and cosponsored by Wynn, which would require EPA to create a national drinking water standard for perchlorate.

"We must do our best to make sure that water providers and consumers have confidence in the regulatory process," said Solis. "Unfortunately, the EPA's track record under the contaminant candidate list leaves room to question how effectively the process may work. I look forward to the GAO's evaluation of the existing process and to continued efforts to protect public health and the environment."

"The EPA's delay on perchlorate is inexcusable," Wynn concluded.  "As the EPA has failed to act, I will continue working to pass legislation to protect Americans from perchlorate in drinking water."

Last week, Wynn and Solis released a report prepared by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that found that more than 200 commonly consumed foods and beverages are contaminated with perchlorate, bolstering the argument for a national drinking water standard for perchlorate.
*************

"The world is run by those who show up." -- Unknown

Scam of Scams: Guess What?

In his column "Scam of scams: bottled water", Silver Donald Cameron lays it all out about bottled water in the Chronicle-Herald Nova Scotian (Halifax, NS).

Aren't Canadians supposed to be the world's "nice guys"? Wow! You go, guy!

Toss that bottle of Fiji...We are making a difference!

********************

TWO HUNDRED and sixty kilometres off the coast of Nova Scotia, Sable Island was once a graveyard of shipping. Today it is, among other things, a unique environmental monitoring platform, where universities and government agencies measure weather, the magnetic field of the Earth, and the quality and composition of the air and water. Among the pollutants the researchers encounter are pesticides banned since the 1960s but still circulating in the air, contaminants used only in China — and thousands of plastic water bottles.

Plastic water bottles?

Yep. If you want to do something for the environment, and also prove you are not a gullible mutton-head, then stop drinking bottled water — now.

In 1976, the average American drank less than two gallons of bottled water a year. Today, that figure is 30 gallons, and sales are growing at more than 10 per cent a year — faster than any other beverage. Bottled-water companies spend hundreds of millions a year on advertising — and Americans now spend $15 billion a year on bottled water. No doubt the figures would be comparable in Canada.

But bottled water is a scam, a triumph of brilliant marketing and knavish politics. The bottled-water industry routinely implies that the water from your taps, supplied by a municipal water authority, is not clean enough to drink. It further implies that bottled water is drawn from pristine natural sources, and is naturally cleaner and purer than tap water.

In fact, about 40 per cent of bottled water actually is tap water. The biggest-selling brands are Aquafina, which is owned by Pepsi, and Dasani, which is owned by Coke. As Pepsi was forced to admit last summer, both brands are just filtered tap water — with an outrageous markup.

In Tucson, reports the Arizona Daily Star, Aquafina costs $1.39 per half-litre bottle. The contents come from the Tucson municipal water system, which provides 6.4 gallons for a penny. The Aquafina consumer is paying roughly 7,000 times more for the same water.

Furthermore, many bottled-water companies are actually less rigorous in testing for purity and quality than are the municipal systems. One process used to enhance tap water is ozonation, which has a byproduct called bromate, a suspected carcinogen. In 2004, when Coca-Cola launched Dasani in the United Kingdom, the company was embarrassed to discover that about half a million bottles were contaminated with excess bromate.

In other words, the quality of the water was better before it was "purified." The company withdrew the tainted water — and also withdrew from the U.K. bottled-water market.

The environmental impact of the bottled-water ripoff is stunning. The U.S. produces 29 billion water bottles every year, using the equivalent of 17 million barrels of oil. The bottles are designed for one-time use, and shouldn’t be reused, because contaminants from the low-grade plastic may leach into the contents. Environmental groups estimate that only about 14 per cent of the bottles are recycled. More than 80 per cent of them end up in landfills, or in places like the beaches of Sable Island.

Once bottled, the product is shipped enormous distances to market, nearly 25 per cent of it travelling far enough to cross a national border before being sold. The Pacific Institute estimates that the energy used for pumping, processing, transportation, and refrigeration represents another 50 million-plus barrels of oil; equivalent to enough to run three million cars for a year.

The political implications are equally obnoxious. Private water promotion is a steady drumbeat of insinuation that public water supplies are inferior and dangerous, and that private supplies are safe and secure. Just like public schools versus private ones, or public transport versus private cars, or public health care versus private health care.

Happily, municipalities are taking offence. Last June, the U.S. Conference of Mayors noted that their 1,100 cities spend $43 billion a year to provide clean drinking water to citizens — and yet city officials often purchased bottled water for city employees. Led by San Francisco, Salt Lake City and Minneapolis, the group called for an impartial investigation into the environmental effects of bottled water. San Francisco subsequently ordered a complete ban on bottled-water purchases from public funds, as did the state of Illinois. Los Angeles has had such a ban for a decade.

"There’s a sucker born every minute," said circus magnate P.T. Barnum. And what the suckers are sucking on today are beautifully labelled plastic bottles of water, adorned by blue mountain peaks with white glacier caps.

When gasoline prices rise much above a dollar a litre, consumers vigorously object — but they cheerfully pay three or four times that much for tap water in designer bottles. Barnum would have loved it.

***************

"True freedom, when faced with a choice of A and B, is to create C." -- Robert Grudin

Reader's Digest: Rethink What You Drink

The February 2008 issue of Reader's Digest has a very good article about bottled water that touches upon all the issues: eco-footprint, price, safety (EPA regulation of drinking water vs. FDA regulation of bottled water, excluding bottled water packaged and sold within the same state), plastic bottles and the possibility of chemicals leaching into the water, etc.

Colleague and friend Todd Jarvis is quoted in the article.

The article concludes with a section on what you can do if you're worried about bottled water. Here is the list of things to do; the details are in the article.

• Try tap water again
• Get a canteen (stainless steel preferable)
• Shop smart
• Think twice about the office water cooler
• Keep it cool - don't drink from a plastic bottle that has been exposed to heat
• Go with glass bottles
• Use a filter on your tap

"A conservationist is someone who built his mountain cabin last year; a developer is someone who wants to build his mountain cabin this year." -- old Colorado saying