A sidenote to the omnibus appropriations bill that is keeping the federal government running through September contains a single sentence that directs the National Park Service to lift its ban on the sale of disposable water bottles in parks. However, it's not legally binding.
The battle over bottled water dates to December 2011, when then-National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis gave park superintendents the option to impose a ban in a move to reduce litter in the parks and waste in landfills. Since then, at least 22 parks have banned their sale, and installed water stations for visitors to refill their reusable bottles and hydration packs.
But the move was never popular with the bottled water industry, and their lobbyists found allies in Congress to push back against the Park Service ban. Indeed, even before Director Jarvis agreed to a ban, the Park Service's commitment to a green environment was partially derailed when Coca Cola in November 2011 raised concerns over plans to ban disposable water bottles at Grand Canyon National Park with the National Park Foundation and Director Jarvis, who initially blocked the ban.
The bottle ban had been in the works for some time. In anticipation of it, Grand Canyon crews early in 2011 installed nine free water stations throughout the park at a cost of more than $300,000, according to calculations made at the time by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Six were installed on the South Rim, three on the North Rim.
In coming around to agree to a ban of disposable plastic water bottles, Director Jarvis cited the Park Service's Green Parks Plan, which had a goal of reducing waste in the parks, in part by offering water bottle refilling stations in at least 75 percent of park visitor centers by 2016, the year the agency marks its centennial. (Note: The NPS failed to reach that goal.)
As for banning the sale of disposable plastic bottles, the director outlined three steps superintendents must take to implement a ban: "Complete a rigorous impact analysis including an assessment of the effects on visitor health and safety, submit a request in writing to their regional director, and receive the approval of their regional director."
In his correspondence to the field, Director Jarvis touched on the "symbolism" of banning the bottles from national parks, but also noted the potential consequences of such a move.
"Banning the sale of water bottles in national parks has great symbolism, but runs counter to our healthy food initiative as it eliminates the healthiest choice for bottled drinks, leaving sugary drinks as a primary alternative," he wrote. "A ban could pose challenges for diabetics and others with health issues who come to a park expecting bottled water to be readily available.
"For parks without access to running water, filling stations for reusable bottles are impractical. A ban could affect visitor safety; proper hydration is key to planning a safe two-hour hike or a multi-day backcountry excursion. Even reasonably priced reusable water bottles may be out of reach for some visitors, especially those with large families.
"For these reasons, the National Park Service will implement a disposable plastic water bottle recycling and reduction policy, with an option to eliminate sales on a park-by-park basis following an extensive review and with the prior approval of the regional director."
Since that directive went out, there have been occasional moves to force the Park Service to lift the ban.
Early in 2013 the bottled water industry pushed back against the ban, saying it would encourage visitors to turn to unhealthy alternatives to quench their thirsts. According to the International Bottled Water Association, research shows that in the absence of bottled water products, "63 percent of people will choose soda or another sugared drink – not tap water."
In 2015, the House of Representatives approved an amendment to overturn the ban, but then the bill it was attached to, the House Interior Appropriations bill, was pulled back due to a fight over whether Confederate flags could be displayed at national cemeteries. The Bottled Water Association at the time said the House's move to overturn the ban "is a vote for public health and safety."
Then last year the funding bill for the Interior Department drafted by the House contained language that would have blocked the Park Service from using its budget to enforce the bottle ban.
And now this year, in a report that accompanied the omnibus appropriations bill, a note directed the Park Service to put a hold on the ban.
Bottled Water.-The Committees note continued expressions of concern relating to a bottled water ban implemented under Policy Memorandum 11-03. The report provided to the Committees in April 2016, in response to a directive in the explanatory statement accompanying Division G of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, did not provide sufficient data to justify the Service' s actions. The Committees understand that the Service plans to reconsider this policy and therefore directs the incoming National Park Service Director to review Policy Memorandum 11-03 and to report to the Committees on the results of this evaluation. Accordingly, the Committees direct the Service to suspend further implementation of Policy Memorandum 11-03 and urge the Service to examine opportunities to partner with non-govemmental entities in developing a comprehensive program that uniformly addresses plastic waste recycling system-wide.
Technically, though, since that language was contained in the report and not the actual legislation, it's not binding on the Park Service to follow it. That said, when a new director for the Park Service is appointed, he/she is expected to review the policy, according to agency spokesman Tom Crosson.
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
Legislation by amendment again.
Here is one more proof that industries and other monied interests can purchase anything they want from our lawmakers.
Disgusting!
The ban is what is disbusting. It is all show and accomplishes nothing.
No, the ban is necessary. I'd say drop the ban if there was a 20 dollar per bottle deposit to be paid.
https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2016/04/national-park-service-far-...
Kurt, I suggest you take a look at the source documents (from the report to Congress) and see what those numbers really reflect, rather than rely on PEER's characterization of them. They're not actual reductions. They're the estimates included in the ban requests. Very different.
Those numbers are hardly credible, Kurt. First, look at the wide variability. 40% of recycling load in one case versus 6% at the other extreme. Why would there be such a large variability? Second, claims of a 20% reduction in total waste? Do you really believe that 20% of the waste generated in Grand Canyon NP was water bottles sold in NPS stores?
Well, here's the thing EC: Those were the numbers the NPS provided Congress, and I wouldn't think the Service just made them completely up, so there must be some truth to them. And, as you might say, support your contention that they're not credible by showing us more accurate numbers.
Obviously Kurt, I don't have "the numbers" but I am smart enough to know that 20% of the waste volume at GCNP didn't come from water bottles sold in NPS stores. I also am smart enough to know that if there was indeed a correlation between a ban and waste volume, the magnitude of changes would have been far closer together and more than half the parks with a ban would not have been left off the list.
So you're saying the NPS made up numbers and lied to Congress...but you can't prove it beyond a supposition.
Come on, Kurt - we don't need numbers, we just need ec's unsubstantiated opinion because he's "smart enough".
I am saying the numbers aren't credible. Whether it is because they were made up or generated using faulty data or methodology or selectively manipulated or the result of other simultaneous initiatives, I don't know. Do you believe that 20% (or more when you account for substitution) of the volume of waste at GCNP came from NPS water bottle sales? Is that credible to you? Is it credible that 20% of GCNP's waste stream was plastic bottles sold by the NPS and it was only 3% at Zion? Is it a true picture of the effect of the ban when data for 12 of the 22 parks wasn't presented? Quoting Mark Twain ""There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
George- do you believe 20% of GCNP's waster came from water bottles sold in the NPS stores? Is that credible to you? And if so, why is Zion only 3%?
EC, when it comes to Zion and Grand Canyon, I think one thing to keep in mind is that in Zion there's only one lodge and two campgrounds in Zion Canyon, while at Grand Canyon there are six lodges and a couple campgrounds, as well as a grocery store, so you should expect more trash at Grand Canyon than Zion. And in 2015, which the waste numbers were from, I believe, Zion had 3.6 million visitors, and Grand Canyon 5.5 million.
At the end of the day, while you can argue how accurate the numbers are, I don't think you can say the ban "accomplishes nothing."
Kurt, we are talking % changes. Absolute size doesn't matter although the greater number of lodges and campground at GCNP would suggest bottle water would be a lower, not higher component of the trash.
But hey, lets say the numbers are right. So what? What is the benefit?
Oh for crying out loud, no wonder nobody else wants to try commenting on these articles with their own opinions! They are all afraid they will get their heads bitten off by at least one commenter who insists on having the last damned word and believes that anything having to do with saving the environment, no matter how small, is a waste of time and an indication that the liberal Snowflakes are all at work trying to ruin America. I'm pretty tired of this, and I imagine others are, as well.
Rebecca, respectfully, I would submit I haven't bitten anyone's head off but rather am attempting a logical discussion of the issue. I didn't use the words "liberal", "snowflakes" or anything else implying the ruin of America. If you would care to submit how the bottle ban is of any material benefit to the parks or the environment I would be happy to listen to your arguments and consider them. At this point, I see the bottle ban has merely a symbolic gesture with no real postive impacts and several potentially negative ones.
Yup. It's those pesky plastic water bottles destroying our national parks. And let's not get started on the plastic straws! I beg to disagree, but the link below remains my reading of the problem. If we won't ban this--and all of the infrastructure, favoritism, and kowtowing to Industrial Tourism it requires, why are we jumping on EC for defending plastic bottles? I just thought I would ask.
http://image.trucktrend.com/f/65476871+re0+ar0+st0/grand-teton-national-...
Sigh. I rest my case. And I'm probably not the only one who feels this way. My opinion, regardless of whose links to the "truth" are posted to try and prove me wrong, is that I truly believe this water bottle ban has done some good, with fewer plastic bottles littering the parks. Alfred Runte, it's much like the article you wrote about bringing back mass transportation to the parks. It's going to take a change in the mindset of our throwaway, wasteful, litter-prone society. It will take time, and trying to get visitors to bring their own water bottles is a start. People seem to be less prone to tossing aside their own logo-du-jour-emblazoned water bottles they packed for refill than a bottle of water they purchased at the local mini-mart or park grocery store. Of course, nothing is perfect, but this ban is a start toward changing that mindset and keeping our national parks, national monuments and national seashores less littered with tossed-aside bottles that not only look shameful when seen in an otherwise pristine landscape, but also can do damage to the wildlife. Anything is better than nothing. "Jumping on EC", Alfred? Really?? I'm actually pretty tame considering some of the more contentious comments I have seen on other articles (contentious enough, I might add, to keep other Traveler readers from wanting to post their own opinions).
Stopping the sale of water bottles isn't going to do very little about the litter problem. Unfortunately too many people are pigs. Litter will continue to come from soda bottles and cans, napkins, tissues, candy wrappers and water bottles brought from outside the park. Meanwhile the Parks will have lost revenues, visitors will be inconvienced and maybe even lives put at risk. No "anything" is not better than nothing.
Rebecca is correct, ecbuck and alfred are real downers
Isn't going to do very little?
Go me anon - "Isn't going to do very much" or "Is going to do very little". Take your choice.
Is going to do some good, which is better than the naysayers, who do NO good.
So Anon - exactly what "good" does it do?
Ok, we're starting to loop back on this discussion. EC, we've already discussed/debated what good it will do. Let's move on.
While I don't have a problem with the ban of disposable water bottles I've always been of the opinion that money spent on education is far better than government mandates. Assuming that education is not politically motivated. Personally I've always thought anyone spending money in the U.S. on bottled water is rather foolish.
With some exceptions, I would generally agree. But that is what is great about America, we all get to make the decisions of what is foolish for ourselves. At least that is the way it is supposed to be.
I wouldn't have a problem with a bottle deposit to fund litter patrols. $20 is a bit steep (a big bit). But a dime or a quarter might be reasonable. Oscar, why do you believe a ban is necessary and what do you believe it accomplishes.
SJ, figures I was using come from NPS:
What do you know about that document, which seems more like PEER's characterization, rather than what NPS actually said? https://www.peer.org/assets/docs/nps/4_5_16_Waste_Reductions_from_%20Bot... Again, you should look at what was actually in that report to Congress.
it just makes sense, a real estate salesman and retired stockbroker knows as much as waste management pros about costs of waste disposal. can't you use common sense like he does?
Zardoz - I never was a stockbroker. And yes with a little research it is easy to get a general sense of the costs of waste disposal. But even more significant, with a little research one can see that it is the concessionaires and not the Parks that bear the vast majority of those costs. Ergo, reducing waste, whatever the number, provides little if any benefit.
"Ergo, reducing waste, whatever the number, provides little if any benefit."
exactly. reducing waste doesn't matter. it's common sense for contractors to maximize waste. they aren't holding the bag. why aren't people listening to this guy more?
Rick is being really unfair to old people like ecbuck!
Careful, Zardoz - he actually might be closer to it than you would think. He worked for a company that specialized in selling junk bonds. He might know something about 'waste disposal'. His WAGs expressed here may well be smarter than the people who do it for a living, although the odds are microscopic.
SJ may have a point. The NPS website stops providing Congressional Reports after 2011 and scanning the Congressional Record aournd March of 2016 I can see no such presentation.
https://www.nps.gov/nature/reportstocongress.htm
Does anyone actually have a link to the 2016 Congressional Report? The report (Centennial Report) issued at the end of the year makes no mention of the bottle ban or waste disposal.
https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/foia/upload/NPS-Response-to-Congressional-In...
Yes, if the net revenues that generate that waste exceed the cost of disposal, it makes absolute sense. Which is why the consessionaires were selling water bottles. Do you think they would sell them if they lost money?
exactly the taxpayers are already paying for disposal. it's just profit-maximizing behavior at the expense of taxpayers and what's wrong with wasting their money? nothing as long as there is profit to be had!
milo minderbinder was a hero!
No they are not. It is the concessionaires that are paying for disposal. It is part of their franchise agreement.
" It is the concessionaires that are paying for disposal. It is part of their franchise agreement. "
Really? Proof please.
Or this an example of Republican Socialism?
i didn't know that xanterra ran its own landfills. what a terrific company!
and whats good for xanterra is good for america's public lands!
Proof Lee? Its in the Franchise agreements. Go read them.
and they sell amazing bottles of water that only end up in their garbage cans! what will xanterra think of next!?!
we are blessed to have them selling keychains from china and water bottled just down the road that is the highest high tech.
why can't people other than ecbuck and me see that?!
" Its in the Franchise agreements. Go read them."
That's not proof. Provide a link.
Didn't know you were so helpless. Here is an example - the current prospectus for Lake Mead
https://concessions.nps.gov/docs/Prospectus/LAKE007-18/Draft%20Contract%...
Page B-12 Section 7A2
"The Concessioner must contract with independent suppliers to provide utility services not provided by the Service including electricity, phone, internet, propane, SOLID WASTE, and RECYCLABLES REMOVAL" (empahasis mine)
That is typical language in the consessionaire agreements.
In the Grand Teton's the concessionaire pays the Park Service for trash removal
https://concessions.nps.gov/docs/Prospectus/GRTE022-18/Prospectus%20File... - Page 7
Does that mean just at the conceessioners store or throughout the whole park where there are trash containers. Does the Park service not pay for any trash service through out the park?
The man who demands links from others hates being held to the standard. Typical.
David, I believe the concessioniares would only be responsible for the waste at their facilities - restaurants, campgrounds, hotels, marinas ..... where most the the trash would accumulate. Park facilities without concessions such as visitor centers or bathrooms the responsibility likely falls on the parks.
Wowser. Will wonders never cease?
How about this one, though? Plastic bags, bottles and other plastic products are one of the biggest and worst environmental challenges we face these days. Anything that can be done to cut it down should be applauded and supported.
https://www.banthebottle.net/bottled-water-facts/
people don't ever leave convenience stores with water bottles. the concessions did their part!
take that, libs!
Pages