You are here

National Parks Being Lobbied To Do Away With Bottled Water, Install Filling Stations

Share

A lobbying effort is under way to get more national parks to phase-out bottled water in favor of reusable water bottles and water-filling stations, such as this one at Arches National Park. Kurt Repanshek photo.

It's been more than a year since bottled water and corporate America collided at Grand Canyon National Park, and the push continues to get more national parks to phase out packaged water in favor of fresh tap water and refillable bottles.

Next week National Park Service officials at Yosemite and Mount Rainier national parks, Independence Hall National Historical Park, and Golden Gate National Recreation Area will be presented with over-sized postcards urging them to phase out disposable water bottles.

At Corporate Accountability International, a non-profit that works to encourage cleaner environmental habits, officials intend to make March 27 a "national day of action ... in a heated battle between those who are fighting to get billions of plastic bottles out of our waste stream, and Coca-Cola (owner of Dasani), who is throwing hurdles in the way of those parks that want to become bottled water free."

Coca-Cola rose to the limelight back in November 2011 when an email trail seemed to indicate the beverage maker was pressuring the National Park Foundation to urge the Park Service not to ban disposable water bottles at Grand Canyon National Park. At the time, Park Service officials said they weren't bowing to corporate pressure but simply conducting due diligence on the impacts of such a ban. For instance, they said at the time, how might the safety of visitors to Southwestern parks such as the Grand Canyon, Arches, and Canyonlands be impacted by a ban?

Ultimately, Grand Canyon officials, who had installed water filling stations early in 2011, were able to phase-out bottled water and put to use filling stations they had installed

Kristin Urquiza, who oversees the "Outside the Bottle and Public Works Compaign" for Corporate Accountability International, says more parks need to follow Zion, Hawaii Volcanoes, and Grand Canyon national parks in phasing out the sale of disposable water bottles.

At the same time, she was critical of an extensive memorandum (attached below) Park Service Director Jon Jarvis sent out to his superintendents in the wake of the Grand Canyon uproar that directed the steps they would need to take to phase-out bottled water. That memo called for superintendents to, among other things, review the amount of waste that could be eliminated from their park; consider the costs of installing and maintaining water filling stations for visitors; review the resulting impact on concessionaire and cooperative association revenues, and; consult with the Park Service's Public Health Office.

Then, too, they must consider "contractual implications" to concessionaires, the cost and availability of BPA-free reusable containers, and signage so visitors can find water filling stations. Also, they need to take into consideration safety considerations for visitors who might resort to drinking water "from surface water sources with potential exposure to disease" or who neglect to carry enough water with them on hikes.

"That is a clear indication of how Coke, stepping in, really is putting pressure on the Park Service to make it much more difficult for additional parks to follow suit," maintained Ms. Urquiza during a phone conservation. "Coke and the other bottlers, Nestle and Pepsi, there were several conference calls that were organized with Park Service employees and representatives from the big bottlers, asking them to put a hiatus on additional bans, and really working to stop this from happening in additional places."

To get more parks to phase-out bottled water, the non-profit has been working with stakeholders in and out of national parks, including concessionaires, "to help give Park Service (superintendents) the support they need to really move forward on implementing a 'bottled-water-free' policy in their parks," she said.

While none of the four parks has given "firm commitments" to moving forward with a ban, said Ms. Urquiza, talks have been ongoing to examine the feasibility of such a ban.

"The real exciting feedback that we've been getting is that water in the parks is an incredibly important issue for superintendents," she said. "They want to figure out how to minimize the amount of waste, to promote public water."

The organization plans to organize efforts this fall in Washington, D.C., to lobby the Park Service to hold firm to its original plan of having refillable water stations in 75 percent of park visitor centers by 2016, while encouraging parks to discontinue the sale of disposable bottled water.

On March 27, next Wednesday, the non-profit hopes superintendents at Yosemite, Mount Rainier, Independence Hall, and Golden Gate will commit to moving forward with a ban of disposable water bottles. "Our hope is that the superintendents can make a public commitment to implementing bottled-water-free policies," Ms. Urquiza said. "We're really hopeful, and see this as a win-win for parks.

"... At the end of the day, it's really sending the wrong message for our national parks to be promoting bottled water," she added.

At least one reusable bottlemaker, Vapur, has been talking with national parks about installing water-filling stations for visitors. Company officials, however, have declined to discuss what progress they're making.

Comments

re: Wouldn't being "democratic" be giving the choice to use tap or bottled?

This proposal allows exactly that, but encourages visitors in the park to use the free tap water provided there to lessen the impacts of throw-away plastic bottles on the park.

If people want to use bottled water, they are free to so, they just need to buy it outside the park.


use the free tap water provided there to lessen the impacts of throw-away plastic bottles on the park.

If that were truly the case, I might have more sympathy but we all know those demanding this action are doing so for emotional/politcal reasons. See:

"protectors of our environment"

"bottled water requires more than 15 million barrels of oil annually"

"subtle complexities or our planet"

"so environmentally damaging"

"stop allowing ourselves to be led around by the advertising agencies"

"corporate control of water"

"wie use"

This is nothing but an anti-corporation, anti-oil company, expand government's role, save the world (but from unidentified danger) attack.

But Jim, I do like your previous idea. Charge a deposit. Just make sure that any unclaimed "deposit" money is used to clean up and dispose of the bottles and not for some other purpose.


Rick,Perhaps rather than "dodging" the water bottles you should have been doing the responsible thing and packing them out. That's what I do, though I must say its seldom I come across a plastic water bottle. Much more likely to be a candy wrapper or cigarette butt.

As to "entitled" that is such a funny charge coming from on OWSer. The only thing I believe I am entitled to are the inalienable rights identified in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.


ecbuck, your posts are always interesting, but I find myself in disagreement at times. I am in complete support of banning the sale of plastic disposable water bottles inside the parks and/or requiring a deposit on them where ever they are sold. The deposit really makes a difference on how these items are disposed. It really does not take much to carry your own "canteen"/ etc, my wife and I have made it a habit of doing it. Here in California, many communities are either banning the sale of plastic bags at grocery stores or charging for them if you did not bring your own. We citizens get use to it real fast and it truly helps.


rmackie,

I too typically carry a refillable bottle or platypus. Many people are not so equipped and may find it more convenient and sanitary to use plastic bottles. I don't think they should be denied that opportunity. Again, I have no problem with a deposit - assuming the unclaimed deposit money is actually used to clean-up/dispose of the bottles.

As to grocery store bags, another "tilting a windmills" on the part of the anti-oil, environmental extremist movements. Such bans will have no real incremental impact on "the environment" and will only lead to a backward step in sanitation.

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/06/reusable-shopping-bags-and-food-sa...

Besides, they are useful for my dog's poops.


EC-

You're welcome to your view that issues such as this are merely " nothing but an anti-corporation, anti-oil company, expand government's role, save the world (but from unidentified danger) attack."

I'd suggest that a previous poster had a more balanced view of the issue by noting at the Grand Canyon, "one third of our waste stream was disposible water bottles." It's simply not good use of scarce dollars to collect and dispose of that much trash when it can be reduced to at least some extent by encouraging people to make a switch to reusable water bottles.

As you commented on a different thread last week, it's about setting priorities for limited dollars.

If you truly believe throw-away plastic bottles aren't a problem, I'd respectfully suggest you spend at least a week in a major park during their busy season, volunteering to pick up litter at least eight hours a day; then when you're finished, haul it all out of the park and pay the landfill fees to dispose of it. While you're at it, don't limit your activities to the edge of the parking lot, but go after that trash left alongside trails and on riverbanks and lakeshore beaches that require a full day's hike or canoe or boat trip to complete. Those are real costs that could be reduced if we try.

There's no single, quick and easy fix for budget shorfalls in parks, or in the government as a whole, that's acceptable to both ends of the political spectrum. I'd submit, however, that the combination of a lot of small steps, including reducing costs for litter pickup and disposal, can in the aggregate make at least some difference. Like any other problem, we have a choice: try to contribute to a solution, or sit on the sidelines and snipe and gripe.


Jim, THANK YOU for one of the most sensible and well considered comments here in quite some time.


In covering this issue, hasn't the Traveler cited parks (Saguaro? Hawaii Volcanoes?) that have shown direct fiscal and ecological benefits to taking this step?


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.