BIg Dawg, it's the opposite. The more liberal states are the wealthier ones. They're the ones paying the higher taxes and they're the ones that tend to enact these environmentally friendly laws (Think West Coast, Northeast.) I mean how many environmentalists do you see that aren't upper middle class, if not downright filthy rich (the Davids, the Gores, etc.)?

That is your opinion; I have a different opinion. It is not the governments job to make choices for us; I am very capable of doing that for myself. There are a lot of good reasons to have bottled water, but I do not have to explain those reasons, as it is my freedom and my right to buy what I want. I will continue to buy bottled water and that is my choice.

I agree Janet. Do you feel the same way about marijuana? Should we all have the freedom to purchase it?

Hear! Hear! I worked at a school in Moon that prides itself on its environmentally conscious agenda. As of August 31, they still have coolers full of such bottles on sale for students. Students are not allowed to bring any kind of refillable water bottles of their own for sound reasons, but think of how many bottles of water and drinks are recycled every day. That's a good thing, but a better thing would be to not have them for sale at all. Think of all the bottles sold at all the schools in Moon and multiply that effect. Given all the things that come to the Moon Board's attention and generate discussion, I don't believe this has been addressed.

Bottled water isn't regulated?! Where'd you get that nugget of misinformation from? Practically everything sold commercially is regulated.

http://www.fda.gov/food/foodsafety/product-specificinformation/bottledwatercarbonatedsoftdrinks/ucm077079.htm

Depending on your definition of 'clean' and 'natural', tap water is far from it. Tap water is treated with fluoride, chloramine, zinc, etc. and contains by-products of chlorination that are known carcinogens.

Actually bottled water is much less regulated then tap water. It is considered a food which is why the FDA has oversight. The regulations of the EPA on drinking water are far more stringent.
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/07/09/09greenwire-fewer-regulations-for-bottled-water-than-tap-g-33331.html

I've never had a problem with the taste of Moon's water, but then I use a pitcher that filters water before I drink it, then fill a reusable bottle or drink it from a glass.

True. Recent research shows there are significant levels of toxic chemicals, antibiotics, and hormones in our public water systems nationwide. Fish and other sea/river life show the effects of those chemicals in poor health and mutations. There is a new product to filter such things out of city water.

That plastic forced by currents into one area creeps me out and concerns me big time. I think environmental issues should take top priority in the interests of American society and worldwide health. Right up there with our President's use of Air Force One for frivolous trips, including vacations to Hawaii. Having him use commercial transportation like the rest of us would set an example worth seeing. As would having him take a pay cut during the sequestration, forego some of the amenities funded by our tax dollars, etc., etc. Congress, too.

Common sense and effective.

True, but doesn't something reasonable and effective kind of disqualify it from consideration by those folks in a position to legislate in the best interests of the American people???

That's all rubbish.

Straight from the FDA page I linked earlier:

"Under the standard of quality (165.110[b]), FDA establishes allowable levels for contaminants in bottled water. There are microbiological standards that set allowable coliform levels..."

"Specific items mentioned in the inspection guide for bottled water establishments include: (1) verifying that the plant's product water and operational water supply are obtained from an approved source; (2) checking whether any source claims on the label comply with the definitions in 165.110(a); (3) inspecting washing and sanitizing procedures; (4) inspecting the filling, capping, and sealing operations; and (5) determining whether the firms analyze their source water and product water for the chemical and microbiological contaminants listed in165.110(b) according to the required schedules."

"The FDA relies on state and local government agencies to approve water sources for safety and sanitary quality..."

"... that establish allowable levels for contaminants (chemical, physical, microbial and radiological) in bottled water."

When has there ever been a report of someone getting sick from bottled water? Most bottled water is filtered tap water anyway, so most of it meets EPA standards for tap water.

Regardless, the issue is using government force to alter the choices, lifestyle, behavior, and morals of individuals... not the quality of tap vs. bottled water.

Ever heard of externalities? Who pays to clean up all the litter that these bottles create? Who pays to discard of them in a landfill or to recycle them? Who pays for the damage to the environment and wildlife? Who pays for the diminished air quality that comes from manufacturing and shipping these bottles? The public pays for all of that through tax dollars, whether they drink bottled water or not. That's not fair. That's an inefficiency. And that's exactly why there is government regulation and why the markets can actually perform better with government intervention.

Me, too. Still do. Taught my sons same. They do. Their wives, not so much.

I think it's a moral imperative to live simply, so that others may simply live.

But, the solution was not to ban milk in bottles. The solution was to require the return of bottles. I lived in Michigan most of my life where there was a deposit on bottles (Michigan doesn't include water but states like Conn do). It's a pretty simple solution. And after big events (i.e. college game wins) a lot of kids make money picking up bottles are returning them. I don't buy bottled water for home, but I do sometimes when I'm out or traveling. I think we all should have that choice.

Something we need to get back to.

Hello Lisa, I too am a proponent of smaller, limited government. However with all due respect, the statement that there is no reason for the government to "make decisions for us" is flawed in its logic. There are legitimate needs for government and some regulation. The speed limit exists to promote safer travel. Money is regulated to ensure smooth exchange of value. Environmental laws were created to keep corporations from dumping toxic sludge into the streams and environment. I would wager that if someone decided to burn tires and medical waste next door, you would seek the help of some governmental entity. Finally, it was a local decision. Recycling and trash collection are local issues and should be managed by local authroities. I like Dennis' suggestion for a referendum Let the people decide.

Does that include allowing parents to give their minor children alcohol, weed, etc?? or beating them?? or allowing them to be used in pornography?

There is a reason for laws: to protect the innocent from the poor judgement/bad choices/ignorance of others.

and if the majority don't want to be bothered recycling, etc.??

Should the rest of us then pay the price?

I don't think so...

EXACTLY!!!! Great post Ernie. So nice to finally see an intelligent post on here!!!
So what would be next? Why ban water bottles? What about soda bottles and cans, beer bottles and cans, gatorade bottles, all the energy drink bottles. The stores are full of individual BOTTLES of drinks! Government cannot ban everything!! Get a life and be a responsible consumer and quit trying to tell other people how to live their lives. We have freedom of choice and everyone is not the same. PTL!!!

So why not address that issue?

How do we promote personal responsibility as vital??

Or are we doing that in schools now, having learned the lesson of the previous generation's education in relativism. "If it feels good do it??"

We need a "like" button per post facebook style.

I have seen it, not personally, but on TV and the internet. It's crazy scary. I haven't personally seen all the trash from Japan's tropical storm now off the shore of CA, but I've seen it on TV and the internet.

Or you could just freeze a gallon jug of water and pour it into a reusable container to drink from as you travel and get thirsty. Better than soft drinks. I do. It works.

Time for a resurgence of use of cloth diapers via diaper service. Been there, done that. Lived to tell the tale.

Not so much special interest getting into an individual's business, but folks concerned for the environment acting in its best interest over the objections of those who don't see group needs as potentially more important than individual convenience.

We're abusing our planet beyond the pale and reaping the consequences of generations of short sighted decisions.

Great post Ernie. I do agree with you that the market, accounting for the full life cycle costs & implications, is the best way to go. Education and awareness will catch up as today's kids grow up. Much as the seat belt laws and education have significantly improved safety and seat belt usage since the 1970's.
I would like to hear from the folks that are apposed to any regulation of environment concerns and government intervention, is what their suggestion? I hope that we could all agree that the pollution and waste stream issues caused by a these water bottles is a significant & tangible issue. Personally, I like the deposit requirements that some states have. Since there is a value created in the waste, people will collect for themselves. If people don't return it, then they are "taxed" on their actions and downstream impacts. Finally, the original premise of the question was should LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES ban the sale. I believe in divesting the federal government of most of its power and bureaucracies, in favor of state's rights and local control. Recycling and trash collection is a local issue. Shouldn't the citizens of a municipality have the right to determine what they want for their community? I think this is where this whole stream of posts got derailed. It was turned into a federal matter , not a local one. Thanks for a rational and well crafted post!

Local municipalities enacting laws like this are basically for show and do nothing to address the larger issues. In a perfect world we could keep the federal government from having to enact environmental laws, depend on local laws and personal responsibility, but this is far from a perfect world.

This would be like Pittsburgh trying to clean up the Mon by preventing dumping into the river, while Braddock allows unlimited dumping of wastes into it. Our ban would make us feel all warm and fuzzy, but the river would still be polluted by our neighbor upstream. Now, we could accept the polluted river because Braddock should have their "states" rights, we could try to talk sense into them and be accused of being a bully and trying to take away their rights to dispose of their waste as they see fit. Or we could invade them and, by force, make them stop polluting the river that we share with them.

I think the sensible option would be for the state or federal government to pass laws which protect clean water for everyone. We all share the air and water that we use. I've been taught since I was a child in the 60's, and we all became aware of what we are doing to our planet at that time, that our resources are limited and we need to conserve and reuse. 50 years of educating people still leads to people who don't want to be inconvenienced by what is the environmentally right thing to do. Sorry, state and federal laws seem to be the only way.

@JS

Your analogy regarding clean air and water is not valid. The Clean Air Act, and similar Federal Regualtions are certainly Federal Laws, but the authority to do stuff to meet those Regulations is delegated to the Local Authorities. Just ask anyone who has obtained a boiler permit in Allegheny County, or the thousands of Alcosan customers who have seen their bills double and triple to pay for segregating storm drainage for sewage.

This discussion is not about how to control pollution from the manufacture of plastic bottles, although that is a net result if the number of bottles is reduced. The topic is whether or not we need the government to ban these bottles entirely.

So far, no one has presented a good case for giving the government such power over this particular consumer good.

Ernie - I think the analogy is appropriate. There is a monetary and environmental cost to having all these bottles thrown into the waste system, whether recycled or just tossed into landfills, that is not just local. This doesn't even take into account the 47 million gallons of oil it takes a year to produce these bottles. We accept (or most of us do) the federal government's role in trying to reduce the use of oil.

I haven't seen anyone on here calling for a complete federal ban of bottled water, so your asking for good reasons for it is irrelevant. There are other options such as deposit laws that some states have enacted and people realizing the danger of their actions by buying bottled water and using other options (as proved by some posts, this just isn't going to happen for some). My analogy simply pointed out the folly of local environmental laws when environmental damage caused by waste and abuse of the environment is almost never limited to just that municipality.

Since you brought up the sewage issue, what is your solution to local governments having to comply by these regulations. Seems to me our other options would be do do away with the regulations and allow municipalities to dump raw sewage into our waterways or have the federal government pay for the updates. If the federal government should pay - exactly what taxes would you like raised to pay for it? If you just want to do away with the regulations all together - well that's just sad.

@JS
I am not one who believes that Federal Regulations do NOT have a place in America. I am one who believes that they have gotten entirely out of hand, and NEED to be scaled back if the Economy has any hope of recovery.

As to the Sewage issue, I blame it on short sighted city planners and managers from years gone by. Pittsburgh (and many other areas in our Region) did the fast and cheap thing when they built the original sewage system. They put a "combined" sewer system in. That means that storm water and sanitary waste go through the same piping systems to the Treatment Plant. So, when a big rainfall hits, the Sewage Plant gets a gigantic inflow of waste water that they are not designed to handle, and they open up the valves, and dump it in the rivers.

Alcosan has been ordered by the Clean Water Act ( a good Federal Regulation) to segregate their sewers in to separate Storm and Sanitary lines by "X" date. Alcosan has subsequently been doing that work, and ordering home owners to make sure their roof downspouts are not connected to the underground sanitary lines. Alcosan is looking at a multi-billion dollar project to comply, and they are passing the costs on to their users.

I am in favor of how this is being done. Both from the Federal Level and Alcosan's level. It is a good illustration of the impact that Federal Regulations have on Local Authorities. However, I will not agree that some sort of Government Regulation is required for plastic water bottles

Must happen!!!!
Must work to make it happen!!!!!!!!

@same old story:
Big problem with recycling? The ugly truth is that it consumes almost as much in chemicals and energy as reproducing the items. There are some types of plastic where they actually create more waste in recycling. It's good PR, is all, for all but a few materials.

I grew up in MI before and after mandated recycling through grocery stores. As Detroit and the economy declined, most bottles were recycled. Score one! although the stores weren't happy about having to have the system for getting the bottles back, folks did bring them back and get a reduction in their next grocer bill.

Recycling works for metals, such as tin and aluminum. It's reasonably efficient for paper, especially for items that don't have to be as high of quality. And, if I recall correctly, types 2 and 3 of the plastics are economic. The rest of them? Basically, the government sat down and investigated the materials and marked some plastics as "able to be recycled" and offered subsidies for companies willing to claim that they recycle such items. And so these companies do. Much like bio-diesel subsidies, it creates a situation where we're putting more energy in than we're getting out, but it sounds good, and it makes money for the people involved, so it continues.

Pretty much all of if is in plastic with toxic chemicals that get into the environment if not properly handled, etc., etc.

LOL!

Do you recall the Seinfield episode where Cramer tried to get the Post Office to turn off his mail permanently??? He got taken before the Post Master General (Wilford Brimley) to get "convinced" how bad that would be for America...

If it becomes to expensive, people will start using refillable/reusable water/soda containers.