Dana Milbank has a great piece in the Washington Post today about recent congressional hearings on bottled water. He notes: “The nation is entangled in two wars, a deep recession and a flu pandemic, and the people’s representatives are hard at work investigating the menace of . . . bottled water?” Indeed. This is a silly issue for them to focus on, but unfortunately, their regulations may increase prices of a low-calorie, healthy beverage option.

The same day of the hearings, the congressional research arm, U.S. Government Accountability Office, also released a conveniently-timed, allegedly independent report on the topic, which buttresses lawmakers’ concerns. What a “surprise!”

The GAO report recommends increased labeling on bottled water indicating what trace elements it might hold in the parts per billion range. But GAO’s recommendation is a policy judgment. It is not a supported for data showing that bottled water poses significant risks under current regulatory practices or that more bureaucratic reporting of data would improve water quality. The study did not even assess bottled water’s safety. Instead it compared EPA regulations of tap water to FDA regulations of bottled water, which it found to be basically the same, except that FDA also applies food safety and packaging regulations. It suggested that FDA implementation was weaker than EPA, but it did not assess performance–the quality of bottled water verses tap.

Lawmakers used GAO value judgments to suggest that bottled water was no different than tap water, and that it might even be less safe. As well documented on enjoybottledwater.org and in my study, the facts do not support that contention. In terms of safety, both tap and bottled water are generally good, yet available data indicates that bottled water has a better safety record. If you compare health-related problems that have been connected to both bottled and tap water, tap water has more documented health-related incidents by factors in the tens of thousands. For details on the health and safety records, see here. For details on the regulations, see here.

As a result, not only won’t government-mandated information about trace level contaminants make water safer, it won’t educate consumers on the risks. These contaminants exist at such low levels that they pose negligible risks, which is why FDA does not fuss over them. The regulations will increase paperwork, bureaucracy, and waste money. But then Washington specializes in those things.

For some details watch this news report below.

Photo above: Mississippi River, drinking water source for Minneapolils; source is adamsfelt photostream on Flickr.

New York follows the lead of several other states and cities that have suddenly deemed bottled water a new “sin” industry. Chicago imposed a tax, Toronto banned it in government buildings, and Salt Lake has denied it to firefighters—at fires!

New York lawmakers are promising more than they can deliver. At least some of the water found in government agencies is delivered in large five-gallon plastic bottles, few of which ever enter the landfill. These bottles are reused on average, 35 to 50 times or more. Once these bottles are retired, they are recycled. They actually represent a private-sector environmental/recycling success story. Banning them in government agencies won’t save landfill space.

The replacement products—which demand the use of filters—will send waste to the landfill. It should also be noted that the water filtering devices require regular maintenance and repairs. And failure to change filters can produce quality problems with tap water too.

Finally, it is silly to claim that banning government purchases of them would matter significantly in terms of solid waste. Plastic water bottles amount to a measly 0.3 percent of trash nationally. In fact, absent bottled water as an option, many workers will likely bring their own or drink other bottled drinks. In fact, much of the increase in bottled water consumption over the past decades has replaced drinking of sugared or caffeine-containing drinks rather than tap water.

You can speak out against such silly bans and taxes on bottled water here.

Nemitz’s point applies to a much larger debate. Activist groups are around the nation offer silly arguments about water resources being “finite” and in danger of depletion. But properly constructed bottling operations do not deplete community water supplies. Aquifers, springs and other natural sources replenish via precipitation, a process called “recharging.” Many have been operating sustainably for hundreds of years. A study produced by Keith N. Eshleman, Ph.D. at the University of Maryland’s Center for Environmental Science reports that “withdrawals for bottled water production represent only 0.019% of the total fresh ground water withdrawals in the U.S.,” which is far less than what Mother Nature recharges. The fact that communities and consumers can “profit” by enjoying these renewable resources is a good thing!

Water shortages can be a problem in certain areas. But problems usually result from government ownership and mismanagement, including from subsidies mostly to large, politically organized users—particularly agriculture. We need market-based systems to these manage resources. There is no reason to stop using them altogether, particularly where they are plentiful.

Yes, indeed, the term “reverse tea party” is oh so appropriate. Our founding fathers protested tyranny and called for freedom with their forward-thinking Boston Tea Party. Today, greens do the reverse. They protest freedom, private enterprise, and your right to choose. They call for more government, more mismanagement of our resources, and less freedom!!

The problems with government water systems (see section on drinking water in the Environmental Source) today have nothing to do with bottled water and privatization. They relate to politics. The federal government forces localities to spend limited precious resources (thanks to the green lobby) to widdle down inconsequential trace levels of certain chemicals in our tap water, greatly reducing funds to address much bigger, serious infrastructure problems.

The solution is not more government. It lies in more flexible standards—and yes—the “dreaded” (according to the greens) American way: free enterprise. Privatization could bring in the financial resources needed for upgrades. Unfortunately, local governments outlawed private provision of tap water decades ago when infrastructure of piped water was first under development. It’s a long road back to fixing that problem, but rather than call for the reverse of freedom and free-enterprise, we should employ the forward thinking of our forefathers whose advocacy for freedom understands the value of human creativity and achievement.

Major New Study

For the past couple decades, bottled water had been growing in popularity as an environmentally preferred choice and as a healthy beverage alternative. Yet in recent years, environmental activists have begun attacking its value and quality. The activists’ claims do not hold water, yet, based on those claims, they are promoting bans, taxes, and regulations on bottled water—taking the Nanny State to a whole new level. The following analysis counters this “new wisdom,” questioning the justifications for this new assault on consumer freedom.

Some key facts include:
Bottled water regulation is at least as stringent as tap water regulation. Under federal law the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must pass bottled water regulations that are “no less stringent” than Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. The law does not allow the FDA to set standards that produce a lower quality product. As a result, FDA regulations mirror EPA regulations very closely and are more stringent in some respects because FDA applies additional food, packaging, and labeling regulations.

Bottled water is substantially different from tap. About 75 percent of bottled water is from sources other than municipal systems such as springs or underground sources. Much of the bottled municipal water undergoes additional purification treatments to produce a higher quality product that must meet FDA bottled water quality standards, packaging, and labeling mandates. In terms of safety, tap water has more documented health-related case reports compared to bottled water. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends bottled water for individuals with compromised immune systems to reduce the risks associated with tap water.

Bottled water containers are a tiny fraction of the solid waste stream. Many people have turned to bottled water to replace other portable drinks containing sugar and calories, producing little increase in total waste. In any case, single-serving plastic water bottles amount to just 0.3 percent of the nation’s solid waste. Bottles used in water coolers are recycled at high rates and have even less impact on landfill waste. Taxing and banning either type of container will not matter much in terms of overall waste.

Plastic bottles are safe for consumers. The chemicals which environmental activists suggest are a problem are not even used in the PET plastic used for single-serving water bottles. Bisphenol A, a chemical found in large five-gallon water cooler jugs and other food containers exists at such low trace levels that there have been no reported health problems and the FDA, along with several scientific organizations around the world, have not found any problem with this substance.

The public has freely turned to bottled water as an alternative to drinks with calories, for convenience, freshness, and whatever other reasons they themselves find worthy. Misinformation spread by activists should not determine who can access this product. People who do not like the product can make their own choices. They should not have any right to make them for the rest of us.

Download the full study here: Bottled Water and the Overflowing Nanny State

Alas, if you don’t live in a community that grows oranges organically for locally produced juice, the carbon footprint is just unacceptable. In fact, the post concludes, all citrus products are “an imported luxury” that responsible environmentalists shouldn’t be drinking every day!

What the greens have discovered here is no great revelation. The reality is: Everything in life has a carbon footprint! And bottled water probably has one of the lower ones. Unfortunately for so many well-intended greens, having a light carbon footprint requires considerable self denial. If orange juice is so bad, just consider the carbon footprint of the computers used to produce Tree Hugger posts, the coffee consumed (do they really need coffee anyway?) while writing such posts, and yes, even that morning McMuffin!

Fortunately for market advocates, we understand the value of globalization—the opportunity eat bananas from Brazil, drink wine from Australia, and and yes, even consume water all the way from Fiji. We recognize that a better world is one in which more people have more access to such goods so more people can eat well, heat their homes, and live well. Drinking orange juice, water, or whatever, from places where it is most efficiently produced around the globe is a blessing, not a curse. In fact, CEI has shown many times over that the best approach to climate change is not to get wrapped up in such foolish worries or policies that they produce, like bans on bottled water!