Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday February 18 2020, @07:45PM   Printer-friendly
from the will-you-drink-to-that? dept.

Lawmakers open groundwater fight against bottled water companies:

Washington state, land of sprawling rainforests and glacier-fed rivers, might soon become the first in the nation to ban water bottling companies from tapping spring-fed sources.

The proposal is one of several efforts at the state and local level to fend off the fast-growing bottled water industry and protect local groundwater. Local activists throughout the country say bottling companies are taking their water virtually for free, depleting springs and aquifers, then packaging it in plastic bottles and shipping it elsewhere for sale.

"I was literally beyond shocked," said Washington state Sen. Reuven Carlyle, who sponsored the bill to ban bottling companies from extracting groundwater. It was advanced by a Senate committee last week.

"I was jolted to the core to realize the depth and breadth and magnitude of how they have lawyered up in these small towns to take advantage of water rights," the Democrat said. "The fact that we have incredibly loose, if virtually nonexistent, policy guidelines around this is shocking and a categorical failure."

Elsewhere, lawmakers in Michigan and Maine also have filed bills to restrict the bottling of groundwater or tax the industry. Local ballot measures have passed in Oregon and Montana to restrict the industry, though in Montana, Flathead County's zoning change remains tied up in court.

"The Washington state bill is groundbreaking," said Mary Grant, a water policy specialist with the environmental group Food and Water Watch. "As water scarcity is becoming a deeper crisis, you want to protect your local water supply so it goes for local purposes. (Bottled water) is not an industry that needs to exist."

Though much of the controversy around the bottled water industry has concerned "bottled at the source" spring water sites, nearly two-thirds of the bottled water sold in the United States comes from municipal tap water, according to Food and Water Watch. The Washington state legislation would not keep companies from buying and reselling tap water.

Americans consumed nearly 14 billion gallons of bottled water in 2018, while sales reached $19 billion—more than doubling the industry's size in 2004. The bottled water industry is expected to grow to more than $24 billion in the next three years, according to Beverage Industry magazine.

Industry leaders have opposed sweeping legislation that would cut off resources, pointing out the potential hit to local employment and the importance of bottled water in disaster relief.

"This legislation would prevent any community from having these jobs or having a project in their area," said Brad Boswell, executive director of the Washington Beverage Association, who testified against the bill. "We think these issues are best dealt with on a project-by-project basis."

The International Bottled Water Association defended the track record of its members in an emailed statement. The bill in Washington and other legislation to limit the industry "are based on the false premise that the bottled water industry is harming the environment," wrote Jill Culora, the group's vice president of communications.

"All IBWA members," she wrote, "are good stewards of the environment. When a bottled water company decides to build a plant, it looks for a long-term, sustainable source of water and the ability to protect the land and environment around the source and bottling facility."

Culora did not address specific examples of community claims that bottling companies have damaged their watersheds and aquifers.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 19 2020, @01:43AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 19 2020, @01:43AM (#959738)

    Do you think the folks who insisted the state be named "Washington" knew how much damn confusion they'd be creating between the state and the District? I figure they had to have known, and after they managed to get it the official name of the state, they laughed and laughed and laughed.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday February 19 2020, @10:26AM (2 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Wednesday February 19 2020, @10:26AM (#959835) Homepage
    The guys who named the thing now in the District of Columbia (which wasn't formally called that yet) "Washington" were naming a town. Alexandria and Georgetown were also towns in the same territory, Washington wasn't the whole territory. Those two still exist, go check out their boundaries (and state/status). Washington only became the whole of DC in 1871, but by that time Washington Territory was already well established in the north-west. Even though they weren't ratified as a state yet, what was to become the state got to the name "Washington" as the name for a whole territory *before* DC decided that Washington shouldn't coexist with Alexandria (be gone!) and Georgetown (gobble gobble).

    When I say "Nevada", do you get confused between the Iowa one, the Missouri one, and the Texas one? (No, I'm not mixing those towns up with the counties with the same name in California and Arkansas.) Lots of things have repeated names, but all of them have ways of disambiguating them.

    The town in DC with the name "Washington" is "Washington, DC", it's very simple. You pay the cost of getting there second with two extra syllables, deal with it.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves