The Bottled Water Industry: When It Pours, It Reigns
Hey, all you sewer-clogging, turtle-choking, shrub-smothering plastic bags, go jump in a lake! Or an ocean -- where you can be reunited with the rest of your baggy brethren in that swirling vortex of cast-off plastic we call The Great Pacific Garbage Patch. We're just not that into putting things into you, anymore.
Now, if we could only stigmatize your rigid, landfill-lovin' cousin, the plastic water bottle. Because whereas you, my crinkly little symbol of fossil-fueled folly, are destined for history's trash heap (where you will defiantly, proudly, refuse to decompose), bottled water is still socially acceptable, despite the fact that it threatens to poison the very wellspring of our democracy.
Think that's some kinda Kunstleresque hyperbole? Consider what Lyndon B. Johnson said forty years ago:
A nation that fails to plan intelligently for the development and protection of its precious waters will be condemned to wither because of its shortsightedness.
Well, that would be us; from sea to shining sea, we've taken water for granted while spilling blood for oil, even though water's by far the more precious commodity. As Elizabeth Royte notes (drily?) in her essential new book Bottlemania: How Water Went On Sale And Why We Bought It, "We can live without oil, but we can't live without water."
No kidding, you say. But who's asking us to? Aren't we awash in water, bottled or not?
You might think so, but while our population's rising, lake levels in many states are plummeting and farmers are squabbling with developers over a dwindling water supply because there's just not enough to irrigate all those rows of corn and condos. And some of the water we've got left is contaminated by everything from Agribiz runoff to acid rain to antidepressants. No wonder people worry about whether their tap water's safe to drink, and reach for bottled waters with labels that promise purity.
From a marketing perspective, you couldn't ask for a more ideal product; imagine owning a commodity that literally everybody not only wants, but actually needs, on a daily basis. You'd be sitting on a $60 billion a year industry -- just like the corporations who are in the process of privatizing the world's water supply.
LBJ, who evidently had water on the brain, made this proclamation in 1965 when he signed the Clean Water Act:
No one has the right to use America's rivers and America's waterways that belong to all the people as a sewer. The banks of a river may belong to one man or one industry or one State, but the waters which flow between the banks should belong to all the people.
Presumably, then, no one has the right to use America's aquifers as a goldmine, either. But, as Bottlemania shows, that's exactly what Nestlé has done in the state of Maine; in 2006, Nestlé sold $843 million worth of Maine's water under its Poland Springs label, according to Royte.
That's an awful lot of water; does it leave enough to keep the citizens of Maine and their municipal water systems sufficiently hydrated? Royte goes to the source, in the little town of Fryeberg, and examines the claims made by locals who fear that Nestlé's depleting their aquifer and damaging its ecosystem.
This scenario's being repeated elsewhere in the country and the world as corporations seek to control more and more of our natural resources. And people have been fighting over water forever; as Royte notes, the word "rival" is derived from the Latin "rivalis," which means "one using the same stream as another."
Royte's investigation into our nation's murky relationship with municipal water also yielded this historical nugget; back in 1799, New York's residents were literally dying for a decent water system. The once-pure creeks and springs of the Algonquin Indians had been so fouled by the Dutch settlers and their livestock that the preferred beverage, even for children, had become beer.
So the New York State legislature awarded Aaron Burr, founder of the Manhattan Company, a two-million-dollar contract to build a water delivery system for the city of New York. But Burr failed to provide them with one, building only twenty-three miles of pipe over the course of the next thirty-two years.
Instead of investing in the infrastructure to give New Yorkers safe drinking water, Burr used the bulk of the funds to found the financial institution which became Chase Manhattan Bank, now known as JPMorgan Chase -- you know, the company that just bailed out Bear Sterns in the wake of the sub-prime mortgage meltdown, with help from the Federal Reserve. So, evidently, diverting taxpayer dollars from public good to private gain -- or, in the case of Bear Stearns, to offset private pain -- is a time-honored tradition in this country.
And speaking of public good, what about the current state of our tap water? The bottled water industry's made a fortune playing on our fears about whether the water that flows from our faucets is really safe despite the fact that tap water is held to a higher standard than bottled. With a few exceptions, as Royte notes, the quality of our tap water's actually quite high.
Plus, because tap water is, essentially, a local product that needs no packaging, it's far kinder to the environment than a petro-dependent bottle of water, which burns through fossil fuels from production to delivery, and then, more often than not, litters our landscape, winding up "crushed flat and gray, ratlike, in the gutters," as Royte describes it. Only a small percentage of single-use water bottles actually gets recycled.
So, from an environmental perspective, tap water's clearly a better bet, but Royte doesn't give it an unequivocal thumbs up. Tap water is, she says, "the devil we know, the devil we have standing with to negotiate and improve."
Of course, Royte acknowledges that bottled water has its uses:
Bottled water does have its place -- it's useful in emergencies and essential for people whose health can't tolerate even filtered water. But it's often no better than tap water, its environmental and social price is high, and it lets our public guardians off the hook for protecting watersheds, stopping polluters, upgrading treatment and distribution infrastructure, and strengthening treatment standards.
Our founding fathers declared that we have an inalienable right to life, and we need water to live, so doesn't our government have an obligation to provide all Americans, regardless of income, with safe drinking water?
At a time when there's less water to go around and more people demanding it, Bottlemania makes the case that it's not in our interests to let private multinational corporations float their boats on our nation's water. That's not democracy, it's dam-ocracy, and it could damn us all if we let their unquenchable thirst for profit take precedence over our right to clean, safe, free drinking water.
Kerry Trueman is co-founder of EatingLiberally.org, a netroots website & organization that advocates sustainable agriculture, progressive politics and a less-consumption driven way of life.
Copyright © 2008 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
18 Comments so far
Show AllEver see Spaceballs... where there's an air shortage on planet spaceball but the president has a desk full of canned air he huffs...
Ohhhh it's priceless.
I remember seeing a "news" report earlier this year terrorizing people with the threat of disease if they re-use their water bottles because the bacteria multiply so quickly as soon as the bottle is opened. So of course this encourages people to throw out their water bottles if they've been open for, say, an hour, and buy a new one. And if you manage to drink all of the water before the level of bacteria reaches some supposed dangerous level, you MUST NOT refill it with clean water. I don't remember how the report addressed the notion of rinsing or washing the bottle between uses. I guess the report must have been funded by the bottled water industry.
Hah! Water-to-Finance! Chase Manhattan founded on a scam! Bait-and-switch! How American!
Apple pie will kill you.
And the water is then put into plastic bottles. PLASTIC, tasty stuff! Nothing harmful or wasteful there...
Yeah why would you want ultra-safe water for years and years and years when you could just buy bottled water!!!
Right....that makes lots of sense. Who cares about resource waste, corporate greed, fluoridization, meds, chlorine, the privitization of public resources, etc. etc.
Wait, I do. And maybe you're just being sarcastic Hollow point, but if not you need to reread the article and the posts that follow a few more times.
You can have ultra safe drinking water in your home for about 500$. But bottled water is so cheap I can pick up 24 bottles most of the time for 2$ so why install a filter system? Even the water bottle place in town is cheap as the cost is about 5 cents a litre.
Next we'll be buying bottled air.
Fifty years ago, if someone had said Americans would pay a dollar a bottle for filtered tap water, the bystanders would have all said, "No way, people aren't that crazy."
Well, guess what, we ARE that crazy. And marketing drives the asylum.
Nuttier yet, though, we happily go with the idea of growing corn for fuel. Put in 1 part energy and get out 1.3 parts energy, if you're lucky, using MASSIVE amounts of guess what, aquifer WATER, in the process. This trend may be even crazier than the bottles.
"In many cases, bottled water is tap water. Suckers!"
You know who says this a lot? Rush Limbaugh. True.
Seattle Dreams and NateW have succinctly identified REAL issues, not issues the bottling industry has contrived to sell more stuff.
Although chlorine is needed in some systems, flouride is industrial waste that has been cleverly marketed to municipal governments. Some cities that have relatively pure water sources also have old lead pipes in the distribution systems (Seattle and San Francisco for example), and some cities add chloramine (San Francisco) which kills fish and amphibians even if you let it air out for days.
Have any of the above posters ever tasted the tap water in Los Angeles? It arrives in an uncovered canal from Northern California & the Colorado River through some of the most insecticide heavy farmland in North America.
Niave spelled backwards is Evian.
To lamB:
Actually, I am completely OPPOSED to bottled water. I think it has all the problems of tap water PLUS the problems associated with the cost, health impacts, and environmental impacts of bottling (see post above).
What I am saying is that there are problems with tap water, which many of the anti-bottled-water crowd seem to avoid.
It seems it would be a much better strategy to acknowledge the problems with tap water, advocate using home water filters, and pressuring municipal water systems to use better water treatment techniques to reduce pharmaceuticals in the drinking water and also reduce the amount of chlorine needed.
It would also make sense to have a real debate about the addition of fluoride into municipal tap water. This is especially a problem for people with young children who are unable to breast-feed and need tap water to mix up formula (even the American Dental Association says that unfluoridated bottled water should be used to mix up baby formula for kids under 1 year old. (Interesting, this may no longer be effective, since many bottled water companies now plan to ADD fluoride to their water now that the FDA plans to allow them to advertise this as a health benefit.)
Bottom line: Acknowledging the real problems that are driving people, mistakenly, to bottled water would help us work towards real solutions on water quality.
To Seattle Dreams,
You've bought into the marketing that bottled water is better. It is less regulated than tap water and in fact, is often nothing more than bottled tap water.
Add to that the fact that bottled water is delivered in endocrine-disrupting, phermone releasing plastic bottles that will be on earth for 1,000 years and you've got a mess.
Finally, corporations enjoy the 1,200 percent marketup selling tap water back to consumers.
I'm totally opposed to the bottled water industry. However, I think there's an important point that's getting lost in this debate: There are real reasons why people are turning, falsely to bottled water. Quite simply, the tap water does contain things they'd rather not ingest.
First, most municipalities add fluroide to the water. Even the American Dental Association acknowledges that this isn't safe for children under 12 months old. For those over 1 year old, there is debate about the health impacts of fluoridation.
Then there's chlorine, which tastes nasty and can combine with organic compounds in the water to form carcinogens.
Finally, there's pharmaceuticals. The highest concentrations are of synthetic hormones and anti-depressants.
It's no wonder people are turning to bottled water, even if it's not any safer, creates additional issues with plastic leaching, and is an expensive, environmentally-destructive option.
I would love to see the people who simply slam bottled water simultaneously acknowledge the forces that are driving the behavior, suggest affordable, eco-friendly water-filtering options, and talk about how to get pharmaceuticals and fluoride out of our water. There's even ways to reduce the amount of chlorine that's used if governments will splurge on better water treatment facilities.
My neighbor is starting his own water-bottling business. He's got a big contract to ship some of it hundreds of miles to the edge of the Ogalala aquifer. Fuel is obviously still too cheap if this kind of idiocy makes financial sense.
In many cases, bottled water is tap water. Suckers!
Couldn't agree more !! I live in a small city that has recently installed a state of the art water treatment plant. We essentially have bottled water coming out of the tap. It was expensive, but there are no toxic side effects and no plastic bottles. If we could just get the sewage treated properly we'd really have something to be proud of.