Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Water

How to Know if Your Water Is Safe to Drink

By Tara Lohan, AlterNet. Posted June 4, 2008.


Author Elizabeth Royte talks about problems with bottled water, the safety of tap, concerns with drugs in the water and whether filters really work.
Advertisement

When Elizabeth Royte first began following the story of the town of Fryeburg, Maine, battling the giant multinational Nestle, it seemed like an easy David and Goliath story. But it turns out that when it comes to water issues, there is a whole lot of gray. Her new book, Bottlemania: How Water Went on Sale and Why We Bought It, is about the backlash in a rural Maine town over Nestle's bottled water business. She writes, "Incomplete knowledge drives the town's narrative. No one can say for sure how much water lies beneath Fryeburg or what removing it will do."

The story tackles the environmental costs of sucking spring water, which are still largely unknown and further complicated by each side's geologists for hire. It also deals with the backroom deals, the politicking and the legal maze as citizens get their hands dirty with democracy.

While the main narrative is about Fryeburg, the book is really about the conundrum of what to drink. If bottled water is bad, then what about our tap? Is tap water safe? Why are kids today growing up on bottled water? Why is the federal government cutting funding for public water infrastructure?

Royte addresses these issues in our interview below; you can read more about them in Bottlemania. You can also find an excerpt on our site.

Tara Lohan: The narrative of your book follows the ongoing story in Fryeburg, Maine, where residents are battling the world's largest food and beverage company, Nestle, which produces Poland Spring water. Explain what's going on in Fryeburg.

Elizabeth Royte: Right now the town is being sued by Nestle. The company drilled a well in the town of Denmark, and they have very small dirt roads and then couldn't get the water out of the town so they built a pipeline to Fryeburg, and they wanted to build a tanker station where the trucks would fill up and then they'd haul it to the bottling plant in Hollis or Poland.

First, Nestle was given a permit to operate the tanker station, but the people who live near the tanker station fought the permit, and eventually the town's appeals board denied the permit. So Nestle sued the town, and the judge sent it back to the town to hash out whether it is a permitted business in a rural residential zone. Essentially it was a zoning issue.

The planning board looked at it again and then decided no, the tanker station is not a permitted use. So, Nestle appealed, but the planning board was upheld. That was three decisions in a row that went against Nestle, so Nestle a few months ago took the town back to court again. It is costing the town a great deal of money, and there is a citizens group that has formed to fight the tanker station, and they have spent tens of thousands of dollars. And there are people in the town who aren't talking to each other, and there are lots of hurt feelings.

TL: But that's not the only issue with Nestle in Fryeburg, right?

ER: Yes, there is a well in Fryeburg also that is already pumping 180 million gallons a year of water and delivering it to Hollis and Poland. When you drink Poland Spring and it says it came from Evergreen Spring, it came from Fryeburg. An elderly man who lives on the town's pond believes the pumping is affecting his well and the pond. That is in dispute, and I talk about that in the book.

The people who are fighting the tanker situation are fighting it on the grounds that they don't want the truck traffic in this rural community. It is a zone issue for them. Others see an environmental issue with the pumping.

TL: One of things that is so interesting in the book is that this is not really black and white. It is frustrating to think that it is so hard to figure out whether there is environmental harm or not.

ER: If you've read Robert Glennon's Water Follies, which is about groundwater pumping across the country, you can see it is a really complicated issue. There are different groundwater rules in different states. It is difficult to link cause and effect with groundwater problems. He says just because you don't harm a spring or stream doesn't mean your aren't hurting the broader environment. We see harm from groundwater over-pumping with saltwater intrusion to aquifers and with sinkholes forming and with lower water tables and with wells gone dry. There are people in Michigan who are also fighting Nestle's pumping in their communities because they think that their stream levels are being affected. But no one has been able to prove this direct cause and effect in court.

TL: Why is it so difficult? If you are taking out 180 million gallons a year, as is the case in Fryeburg, there has got to be an effect, right?

ER: Nestle says that this is sustainable, that they've done all these hydrogeologic studies that say they are taking out x amount, and x plus y are replenished. So there is no net loss. They say what they're taking is extra water, and I make the point in the book that there is no such thing as extra water. The 180 million gallons used to go somewhere, and even if it wasn't staying right there around that spring it went to a pond or into the soil -- it was feeding an ecosystem. We may not know exactly what is going to happen when that's gone, but it just doesn't make sense to me that absolutely nothing would happen when you subtract those gallons.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: water, bottled water, nestle, privatization, poland spring, freyburg

Tara Lohan is a managing editor at AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Water! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
"there is no such thing as extra water"
Posted by: socialpsych on Jun 4, 2008 3:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Elizabethe Royte has captured the water problem in a few very wise words.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good interview, little information
Posted by: eksommer on Jun 4, 2008 5:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are not enough details in this interview. Anyone who has not read the book is lost. It would have been helpful if the interviewer had asked for details. For instance, what did the author find out about Brita? I am also tired of reading articles about municipal water that totally ignore the problem of chlorine and the transmission of the water through PVC pipes, see linked text.

Yes we are being scammed by bottled water manufacturers, particularly bottles of convenient size, but some of us are wary of a steady diet of chlorine and its metabolites and the toxins that municipal water picks up while traveling in PVC.

So I suggest that when writing about water these days, instead of simply referring to "the devil we know," the authors actually provide some useful information about coping with this dilemma.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've been testing the water . . .
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on Jun 4, 2008 7:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been testing the water I use for forty plus years. Everything the author here says is true. And more. I have just returned (yesterday) from the local newspaper, an effort to warn locals that the water coming from their faucets is highly radioactive. Because Texas is a state that will give anything to corporate America, and because corporate America follows the Ford Pinto Rule, uranium leach mining infests the South Texas area. The aquifers and streams here are contaminated just about at will, with the legislature and courts' approval, tacit or otherwise. Meanwhile, everyone pretends that strange birth defects characteristic of the area are mere coincidence. I have been striving for more than four years to get some kind of official attention to the matter - no results yet. Newspapers and the electronic media simply ignore or sluff me off. When, if, I take independent action, I will be branded a radical (just as I have been where other matter having to do with this sort of thing were involved). I'm getting old (71) now, and tired of fighting government vicious and corrupt at all levels. When do you think the rest of you will chip in a little effort?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I've been testing the water . . . Posted by: headofalfredogarcia
» RE: I've been testing the water . . . Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
» RE: I've been testing the water . . . Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
You don't!!!
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Jun 4, 2008 8:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unless you have a private well dug so deep there's no way any contaminates from industry or Ag production,you have no way of knowing how safe your water is.They won't tell you this but I will, There's no safe water in America. Industry has polluted every river and stream in this whole country, Sure there has'nt been a river set itself on fire in 30 years but that does'nt make it safe.
We need to take strong action against those who pollute our waters. If that means we revoke their operational permits,so be it. Right now we have frog deformations. Soon it will be us. In older nations,like India, the water is so bad there's more birthdefects than ever. In America 47% of the fresh water is so polluted it can't be made safe to drink.
The 'New World Order' is a world controlled by Industrial big business where we are nothing but chattle and your children are just commodities to be trained,traded and used up,spit out and poisoned....for money.
We must start looking at pure water as worth more than the GNP. Until we do that...nothing is safe anymore.
Draft Jeffrey7 for Prez '08

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ever notice that people die from water loss...
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Jun 4, 2008 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in municipalities that USED to have WATER FOUNTAINS?

... bloody BigSugar figured out the money wasn't in the slave-produced, democracy suppressed SUGAR, its in the privatization.

a privatization that only works if municipalities fail to provide water...

we're nations under siege... & vulnerable to a private or foreign agency turning off yet ANOTHER resource.


...as a Canadian... don't think we don't know what the US is capable of doing if we decide to protect vulnerable ecosystems from irreplaceable water...

I think Coulter most clearly articulated privatization & corporate corruption's motives, "Conservatives, as a general matter, take the position that you should not punish your friends and reward your enemies. And Canada has become trouble recently. ... They better hope the United States doesn't roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent.

[...]

COULTER: We could have taken them [Canada] over so easily.


yeah, like Canadians haven't noticed the Cautionary Tale that is Iraq...

if something is 'in the American interest'... prepare to capitulate or be aerial bombed...

┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄
BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian
┄┄
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
┄┄
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We need to pitch in and help, even when we don't live there
Posted by: Beck on Jun 4, 2008 9:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a group in Maine called H20 for ME that is fighting Nestle, and has a website at:

http://www.h2oforme.com/blog/

There is a "how you can help" section with ways to donate online and through the mail. There is no point in all of us bellyaching unless we help out. Nestle can fight this town as long as they care to; they have enough money. We could all give the battle quite a boost.

By the way, if you email Nestle to protest their tactics, the return email comes from "Nestle Pure Foods." Isn't that just precious, and so benign?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The problems of getting too far away from a natural life.
Posted by: nightgaunt on Jun 4, 2008 12:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't mean 18th century or even neolithic just working to maintain a close as a relation to nature without being crushed by it or we destroying it (& ourselves). Most of our problems are created by ourselves revolving around the idea of profit over life, appearence over substance. We need to rethink how our way of living is and a way to get from the over manufactured to a more simple but not simplistic ethos of life. We keep fighting against Nature instead of working to live with it. A balance must be struck or Nature will strike us down as has 99% of all life that has once existed on this lonely planet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More unreasonable focus on bottled water by Alternet
Posted by: Illiteratilumen on Jun 4, 2008 2:57 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First I'll get a few things out of the way.

1. My brother is a plant manager for Nestle.

2. I don't drink bottled water.

With those two things out of the way I find it amazing how Alternet zeroes in on bottled water so much and then distorts the issues so consistently. They liken Nestle to an operation that privatizes municipal water supplies, which Nestle is not in the business of doing. That is the province of companies like Bechtel.

The plastic bottles are indeed an environmental concern but so are things like laundry detergent, household cleaners, flavored beverages, and scores of other products in PET packaging which are not singled out. A recycling program is needed which addresses all of these plastics and does not single out one individual product.

The water use is also a concern but, according to my brother, Nestle has yet to shut a factory down and many have been running for decades using the same spring sources. That by itself brings the unsustainability argument into question. Common sense would also say that a company wouldn't put up a huge capital investment if they were not going to be using it for a long, long time. I don't see articles attacking beer brewers or, lets say, manufacturers of vegan food products for their use of water. I'm sure that it takes a lot more water to manufacture a package of Boca Burgers than it does to make a case of water.

Nestle takes good care of their employees. Even the lowest-paid people at my brother's factory make close to $20 an hour and have excellent benefits including up to a month of paid vacation and a week of paid sick days per year, 401k with matching contribution and profit sharing plus medical, dental and vision insurance. It is manufacturing operations like this that help communities and families to prosper. There are virtually no factories that can set up shop in an community which don't have some negatives along with them but, all things considered, a bottled water factory seems like a pretty good thing to have in the area.

With that being said I support the efforts of people in Freyburg to make their own choices about their community. I just don't think Nestle Waters North America is the bad guy company that Tara Lohan always makes them out to be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Time & Temperature = Q of Plastic in Water
Posted by: William E. Marks on Jun 4, 2008 4:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a thought-provoking, well researched and linked interview on the subject of, who owns water, as well as the subjects of water conveyed via plastic pipes and water stored in plastic bottles.

In answering the question, “If I get my water from plastic water bottles or through PVC pipes that bring water to my property, does it really matter?”

The answer is, “Yes, it does matter.”

A large percentage of bottled water delivered in plastic bottles is sourced from water supplies that transport water via plastic pipes - therefore, your ingestion of plastic chemicals is greatly increased.

The key question is, How long does the water have contact with the plastic?

The longer water stays in contact with plastic - the more plastic molecules it will contain. Water delivered to homes via underground plastic pipes is usually constantly moving and has a relatively brief residency within the pipeline. However, water stored in plastic bottles has a relatively long residency time while sitting stationary inside the bottle.

There is also the question of temperature.

Underground plastic pipes have an in-ground temperature of about 55 degrees F. However, water stored in plastic bottles is exposed to shipping and storage temperatures oftentimes exceeding 70 degrees F.
The longer the water has contact with plastic, and the higher the temperature - the faster plastic compounds will leach into the water and at greater quantities. williamemarks@aol.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The cost of bottled water is responsible for the increase in oil & gas
Posted by: bjluchion on Jun 4, 2008 10:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since the 80s bottled water has cost $3-$6.00 a gallon. The petroleum industry did the math and got angry, recognizing that they were only getting $1.25 a gallon at the pump, they balked and set out to get more money for their product which by tradition was the case. Now we are crying about the high cost of gas, while we guzzle our faddish for water in plastic/petroleum bottles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The cost of bottled water is responsible for the cost increase in oil & gas
Posted by: bjluchion on Jun 4, 2008 10:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since the 80s bottled water has cost $3-$6.00 a gallon. The petroleum industry did the math and got angry, recognizing that they were only getting $i.25 a gallon at the pump, they balked and set out to get more money for their product which by tradition was the case. Now we are crying about the high cost of gas, while we guzzle our faddish for water in plastic/petroleum bottles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

demonizing bottled water users
Posted by: GRgal on Jun 10, 2008 6:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Funny that artificial water fluoridation is not considered a truly valid reason for rejecting tap water when demonizing those of us who choose bottled water.

Water is essential for life. I put up with plastic and expense, even paying Nestle for its water sometimes, because I do not want to suffer hypothyroid disease and chronic fluoride poisoning just for the principle of supporting public municipal water. I also do not want to waste two to five gallons of tap water for every gallon of deionized water filtered through an expensive Reverse Osmosis system that removes fluoride as well as all the natural minerals.

The same bunch of planet wreckers who make those fossil fuel based endocrine disruptor- releasing plastic bottles also make the arsenic- contaminated industrial waste fluoride acid with a carbon footprint the size of David Suzuki's ego and sell it to our public health departments to add to tap water so that it is poisonous to thirty percent of us who then need to buy water in bottles to escape the fluoride. Oh, and those same companies also set the standards that allow all the contaminants in tap water too.

It's a great racket. I don't understand why Food and Water Watch doesn't get it.

If we get rid of artificial water fluoridation, we get rid of a huge reason to drink bottled water in the first place. Want Nestle and other companies to stop mining water? Want to really take back the tap? Stop ignoring the issue of artificial water fluoridation. Start passing local laws against the addition of chemicals that are de facto drugs, that are not required for disinfection or potability. Fire your local health authorities if they won't turn off the fluoride. Stop paying your municipal tax dollars to phosphate fertilizer industries in North America and China to bury their industrial waste fluoride in your public water.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]