Bottled Water is a Poor Partner for Local Communities
As far as corporate responsibility, the bottled water industry is far from a fair or responsible steward of local water resources. Water bottlers harm both the environment by depleting aquifers and other groundwater sources, and the local economy by paying too little for the water it takes.
As far as corporate responsibility, the bottled water industry is far from a fair or responsible steward of local water resources. Water bottlers harm both the environment by depleting aquifers and other groundwater sources, and the local economy by paying too little for the water it takes. Contracts often also give preference to water bottlers over the town’s ratepayers because the company can draw the maximum amount of water it wants, regardless of drought or water shortage. The local water district also bears all the responsibility for the wellbeing of the water infrastructure required.
Mecosta County, Michigan
One of the first water removal projects to draw intense local opposition sprang up in rural Michigan. In 2002, a proposal by Nestle to extract spring water raised environmental and economic concerns among residents in Mecosta County, Michigan. Nestle, the world’s largest bottled water company, markets such bottled water brands as Deer Park, Poland Springs, Arrowhead, and Ice Mountain.
The company extracts some of the water for its Pure Life and Ice Mountain spring water brands from underground sources in Mecosta County. In 2002, a state court judge ruled that the removal of the water had harmed community residents and the environment. Three years later, however, the state appeals court reversed the earlier decision and said that Nestle had a legitimate right to take the water.
McCloud, California
Nestle’s thirst has also roiled the waters in northern California. In 2003, it entered into an agreement with the McCloud Community Service District to extract water from the slopes of Mount Shasta. Under the 50-year contract, Nestle will build a one million-square-foot facility to bottle more than 500 million gallons of local water annually.
McCloud residents fought the plan, contending that the company paying only $300,000 a year for access to the water would leave the town with only a penny for every 17 gallons. They also emphasized the environmental problems that taking so much water would create. This resonated with a Siskiyou County Superior Court judge who nixed the contract in 2005. However, a state appeals court reinstated the deal in early 2007.
Read more about the environmental, health, economic, and equity concerns associated with bottled water in our report, Take Back the Tap: Why Choosing Tap Water Over Bottled Water is Better for Your Health, Your Pocketbook, and the Environment.
