The most disturbing trend is the use of this issue as an excuse to levy a new tax. That is what the City of Chicago has done. It applies a tax of five cents per bottle of water, regardless of size. Each bottle in a case is taxed separately, which means for the typical case of 24 bottles costing about $3.99, the tax comes to about 30 percent.

Chicago officials have used the hype about bottled water’s adverse impact on the environment as an excuse to enrich city coffers and help cover considerable shortfalls. But they would have had a better chance of meeting their goals of a balanced budget if they had cut spending instead. According to news reports, the tax is bringing in about half of what the city projected. Apparently, city residents would rather cross into the suburbs to buy tax-free bottled water.

In fact, stores just outside the city say they are seeing increased sales of bottled water. One store reported a 20 percent increase in sales of bottled water by the case. A Sam’s Club employee told the press: “It increased pretty well especially since we’re right across the street (from Chicago).” “There’s no reason someone is gonna pay $1.20 extra for a $4 dollar case of water when they can go to the suburbs to buy it without that,” David Vite, president of the Illinois Retail Merchants Association, pointed out in a press report. (Fran Spielman, “Bottled Water Tax Take Falls Far Short Trickle Could Contribute to More City Cuts,” Chicago Sun Times, June 19, 2008, 7)

Jim Tobin of the National Taxpayers United of Illinois notes in a letter to the editor some pitfalls of Chicago’s new tax. He points out that the city is collecting much less than expected because people leave the city to shop where there are lower taxes. He notes, when residents go outside the city to buy cheaper bottled water, they also buy other items. As a result, the economic effects for Chicago are bigger than simply losing bottled water sales. Tobin points out further that it hurts supermarkets, convenience stores, and employment. (See: Jim Tobin, “Bottled Water Tax a Failure,” Chicago Sun Times, June 24, 2008, 20.)

In January 2008, the International Bottled Water Association and several other trade groups filed a lawsuit to challenge this silly tax, seeking to have the tax voided on the grounds that bottled water is a food item. The city lacks the authority to tax food items according to state laws. The trade group also contends that the bottled water tax violates the state’s constitution, which includes a clause prohibiting lawmakers from singling out a specific product for a tax while ignoring similar products. Since the tax excludes bottles containing soda, sparking water, and the like—these groups claim the law violates this uniformity clause. Other plaintiffs include the Illinois Retail Merchants Association, the Illinois Food Retailers Association, and the American Beverage Association.

In June 2007, San Francisco captured national news attention when it barred city agencies from buying bottled water packaged in single serving sizes and water in large containers used in water coolers. That same month, Salt Lake City also banned city purchases of bottled water, even denying it to  firefighters. When firefighters raised concerns, Salt Lake City’s then-Mayor Rocky Anderson explained that each firefighter would get a refillable container. Two additional personnel would be dispatched to each fire to refill on the scene, which one would think might cost taxpayers more than a few bottles of water. In this case, firefighters would have to queue up for a drink when their bottle gets low.

In July 2007, the Ann Arbor, Mich., City Council passed a resolution barring city vendors from selling commercially bottled water at city events. The city said it would sell reusable water bottles that can be filled with tap water. Also that summer, New York City launched a tax-funded “advertising” campaign to encourage people to drink tap water rather than bottled water.

The issue has continued into 2008. In February, Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez banned city agencies from purchasing bottled water. Suffolk County, N.Y. followed suit in March by prohibiting county departments from buying workers bottled water in single-serving bottles, and Takoma Park Md., did the same in April 2008. In June, the National Conference of Mayors issued its 2008 resolution calling on more cities to stop buying bottled water.

Also this year, school districts in Canada announced they are considering removing bottled water from school vending machines. This move could lead students to choose less healthy options if they don’t want to carry bottled water to school or drink from unappetizing water fountains. Critics have also raised concerns about quality of the school’s tap water.

Washington State is looking into a statewide anti-bottled water law. The proposed law would ban the sale of petroleum-based water bottles as well as prohibit state agencies from buying such products. The bill reads that the state would not allow bottles “made from a petroleum-based plastic not intended by the manufacturer to be a reusable container that is one liter in size or smaller and is marketed to contain nonflavored, uncarbonated drinking water.” It would exclude bottles made from corn or “other biological materials.” To top the insanity off, the bill imposes fines for the sale of petroleum-based bottles at $250 per day!

Lawmakers in Pittsburgh said they wanted to ban government purchases of bottled water per the U.S. Conference of Mayors resolution. However, old pipes in the city’s office building produce rusty, orange water. According to news reports, the mayor indicated he wanted to be green, and bottled water was their best alternative. Apparently, not all tap water meets the same quality standards of bottled water, despite claims to the contrary.

In addition, a number of private establishments have decided that they would no longer market or serve bottled water. A number of restaurants in San Francisco, followed by others in big cities, decided to take bottled water off their menus. But not all of these restaurants are willing to serve just plain old tap water. Instead, they will offer filtered tap water.

If governments want to stop paying for bottled water and restaurants choose not to provide it, that certainly is their right. It might save governments some money, and that is okay. But those moves simply do not warrant the media attention they receive, and they are unlikely to matter much for the environment. However, as the information on this website shows, provisions that prevent workers from bringing bottled water to work undermine consumer freedom and accomplish very little, and could be detrimental.

The anti-bottled water craze has caused some politicians to do questionable things with taxpayer dollars. While some cities might save money by not providing bottled water to workers, other anti-bottled water campaigns may negate such savings. For example, one should question the wisdom of New York City spending $700,000 on ads simply to urge New Yorkers to drink tap water.

Similarly, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom launched a government campaign to encourage restaurants to stop providing bottled water. He has also announced a bunch of other expensive activities to promote tap water, including applying for an $11 million grant from the EPA to promote “innovative water quality protection measures.” The mayor had volunteers distribute stainless steel water bottles to lunchtime visitors following his news briefing on the topic, and the city made them available (while supplies lasted) to anyone willing to sign a pledge indicating they would no longer drink bottled water. Allegedly, the stainless steel bottles are “greener” but they can’t be cheap. In fact, producing steel is much more resource intensive than making a simple plastic bottle. Even if reused many times, these containers won’t necessarily save much energy, particularly since they require washing.

However, not all public officials have been unreasonable. According to news reports, state lawmakers in Connecticut refused one anti-bottled water proposal. One member of the legislature had urged the body to cut bottled water contracts worth $11,300 a year and invest in water fountains. The estimated cost was about $1,550 per fountain, and they would need about 60, costing a total of $93,000. At that rate it would take more than eight years to pay off the water fountain installation, not to mention maintenance costs. And what if lawmakers didn’t like drinking from fountains? You could be sure that some would bring in their own cases of bottled water. And perhaps before eight years were up and the anti-bottled water craze had ended, lawmakers would return to bottled water and the fountains would simply represent more government waste.