List of Figures and Tables
1. U.S. consumption of bottled water and carbonated soft drinks, gallons per capita, 1999–2021 2
2. Worldwide packaged beverage consumption volume, 2021 3
3. Share of U.S. bottled water, by source, 2000–2017 33
4. Microtreatment business (purificadora), San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico 41
5. Customer at purificadora, San Cristóbal de las Casas 42
6. U.S. bottled water market: category share by volume, 2022 47
7. U.S. bottled water market: company share by volume, 2022 48
8. Global bottled water market: company share by volume, 2022 49
9. Percent change in U.S. per capita consumption of bottled water and tap water, 2001–18 56
10. Bottle refilling station, Manly, Australia 125
11. Free refill logos on café door, Dunedin, New Zealand 137
12. Oxbow Springs, Columbia Gorge, Oregon 146
13. Tribal salmon fishing scaffold, Cascade Locks, Oregon 167
14. Rally against Nestlé proposal, Oregon State Capitol, Salem, September 2015 168
x | List of Figures and Tables
15. Rally against Nestlé proposal, Salem, September 2015 169
16. Anna Mae Leonard speaking to rally at Oregon State Capitol, September 2015 169
17. Local Water Alliance members submit ballot measure signatures, Hood River, December 2015 172
18. Yes on Measure 14-55 campaign mailer, 2016 176
19. Yes on Measure 14-55 rally, Hood River, spring 2016 181
20. Warm Springs and Yakama tribal members rally to support ballot measure, Cascade Locks, April 2016 182
21. Cascade Locks City Council meeting, April 2016 182
22. Warm Springs and Yakama tribal members rally, Cascade Locks, April 2016 183
23. Columbia River tribal members and supporters at state capitol rally, September 2016 186
24. JoDe Goudy, chairman of Yakama Tribal Council, at state capitol rally, September 2016 186
25. Grand River in Elora Gorge, Ontario, August 2015 206
26. Save Our Water members at Middlebrook Well, Elora, November 2018 223
27. Save Our Water contingent, Dominion Day Parade, Elora, July 2019 223
28. Wellington Water Watchers flyer, 2019 224
29. March to Nestlé Aberfoyle plant led by Six Nations youth activists, November 2018 231
30. Six Nations community members deliver cease-and-desist letter from Haudenosaunee Confederacy Council, BlueTriton headquarters, September 2021 232
31. Reneé-Lise Rothiot and Bernard Schmitt, Collectif Eau 88, November 2019 252
1. Major still and sparkling bottled water brands and parent companies, U.S. and Canada 34
2. Top ten nations in total bottled water consumption, 2020, and growth rate, 2015–20 50
3. Top nations in per capita bottled water consumption, 2012 and 2020, and consumption growth 50
List of Figures and Tables | xi
4. Retail price of selected bottled water brands, cost for average annual U.S. bottled water consumption, and cost of equivalent tap water volume, 2022 64
5. Major North American organizations with bottled water campaigns 115
6. Largest cities adopting policies banning bottled water 130
Preface
flint, michigan
The lines began to form every day before dawn—long lines of cars, backed up for over a mile, their engines running in the winter cold for hours. Waiting for bottled water. For several years, this was the primary source of drinking water for most of the ninety-five thousand residents of Flint, who were exposed to toxic lead- and bacteria-laden tap water in an egregious case of environmental injustice. Today, thousands of people in Flint still rely on bottled water. “Why make Flint residents wait four hours in line for two cases of water?” Gina Luster, organizer and cofounder of the group Flint Rising, asks me rhetorically. “I have video and pictures where literally, if the water giveaway starts at 10, there’s people already in line at 5 a.m. for two cases of water. All they want to do is rinse their fruits and vegetables off, cook, brush their teeth and bathe. Oh yeah, people are still bathing in bottled water.”1 Luster began experiencing severe health problems shortly after Flint’s stateappointed emergency manager approved a switch to the polluted Flint River as the city’s water source in April 2014, but it was nearly a year before she discovered the cause was her own tap water.
The most salient public image of the Flint water crisis has been plastic water bottles: hundreds of millions of them, donated by celebrities, bottling firms, and individuals—and from 2016 to 2018, distributed free to residents by the state of Michigan. “All of the water being pro-
xiv | Preface
vided by the state was Nestlé water,” says Luster. Nestlé also faced heavy criticism for pumping hundreds of millions of gallons of Michigan groundwater per year for its Ice Mountain spring water brand, for most of which it paid only an annual permit fee of $200.2 “So we found out that this company was really banking on the Flint water crisis, and making a profit off of it. . . . Mind you, this water was coming from [springs] one hour away from us. . . . So that’s why I would say, we were buying our own water back!” As of late 2022, Flint residents continued to line up for bottled water, much of it donated by Nestlé’s successor firm, BlueTriton.3
“If you go to the emergency room and you’re sick, you’re in triage,” Luster continues. “That’s [how] I look at this bottled water. . . . It’s a triage kind of thing. It’s not going to heal us. It’s not going to make us necessarily better. It’s just something to hold us captive, basically, until we figure this out. But there was nothing to figure out—fix the damn pipes and the infrastructure, and we won’t need this bottled water.”
brasilia, brazil
A rock band has been playing for at least half an hour in the enormous pavilion located on the edge of Brasilia’s main city park. Thousands of empty white plastic chairs sit in long orderly rows, facing a massive stage lined with amplifiers and two huge video screens. Overhead hang bright cloth banners painted with messages including the forum’s slogan, “Agua É Direito, Não Mercadoría” (Water Is a Right, Not a Commodity). A large crowd makes its way toward the seats, some playing batucada drums and many waving big flags identifying the mass social movements they represent—the most visible the Landless Workers’ Movement (MST), the Movement of Dam-Affected People (MAB), and the Brazilian Federation of Agricultural Workers’ Unions (CONTAG). I follow them to find a colorful ocean of people dancing energetically in the midday heat. This is the opening ceremony of the Forum Alternativo Mundial da Agua (FAMA)—the Alternative World Water Forum, which has gathered over seven thousand attendees, including grassroots peasant, urban, labor, environmental, and water justice activists from Brazil, Latin America, and the rest of the world. Suddenly the music and dancing stop. All eyes turn to a theatrical event down in front of the stage, magnified on the monitors overhead. Two four-meter-high puppets with huge painted papier-maché heads and cloth bodies stand in the wings: one with a twisted face and pursed lips,
Preface | xv
representing Brazilian president Michel Temer, and the other with the face and hat of Uncle Sam, a blue tie, and a white suit emblazoned with the logos of Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Nestlé, and Danone—the four biggest global bottled water and beverage corporations. Three groups of people in costumes stroll into view, representing indigenous people, quilombo dwellers of African descent, and peasant farmers. An upbeat samba tune plays as they walk and dance around a raised, winding river of blue fabric signifying water. Suddenly the music turns dark and threatening. The monster puppets move inward, swaying and circling around each other, as the actors huddle on the ground in fear, trying to protect their water. Ten minutes later, the performance ends with the people rising up in victory over the forces that attempted to take their water. The music returns to a major key, and the huge puppets disappear.
This is a mística—a ritualized theater performance typically used to open meetings of the MST and other Brazilian activist groups, drawing on the movement’s roots in radical liberation theology. The effect is powerful, and it leaves the crowd buzzing with energy.
At the same time, only a few kilometers north in the heart of this planned city but encircled by a tight security cordon with heavy police and military presence, the Eighth World Water Forum is meeting in a large convention center and a former Olympic stadium. This “official forum” is attended by about ten thousand representatives of private water corporations, bottled water and beverage firms, the World Bank and other international financial bodies, UN agencies, national and local government officials, academics, and representatives of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) from around the world. Military helicopters hover overhead. Limousine caravans with police escorts, sirens blaring, announce the arrival and departure of several heads of state, grinding city traffic to a halt. After passing through police lines and two security checks, I enter the convention center, turn down a long crowded hallway, and encounter a large sign displaying the logos of the Forum’s top financial sponsors, which include Coca-Cola, Nestlé, and AmBev, the Brazil-based Latin American bottler of Pepsi. The World Water Forum—which the activists at FAMA refer to as the “corporate forum”—has been held every three years around the world since its first public meeting in The Hague in 2000. At nearly every World Water Forum since then, groups representing the global water justice movement, who oppose water privatization, have staged a simultaneous alternative gathering in the same city. The juxtaposition between these two opposing events in Brasilia could not be more stark.
xvi | Preface
The next morning, I learn that overnight, six hundred women from the Landless Workers’ Movement, their faces covered by bandanas, and clad in the MST’s trademark red baseball caps and shirts, have seized a controversial Nestlé water bottling plant one thousand kilometers away in São Lourenço, in protest of the World Water Forum and in support of FAMA. Their press statement accuses President Temer of allowing Nestlé to exploit Brazil’s groundwater, pointing to alleged meetings between Temer and company officials to discuss exploration of the enormous Guaraní Aquifer.4 The occupiers are detained by military police but released a few hours later.
cape town, south africa
The municipal authorities in Cape Town made a stunning announcement: by April 12, 2018, the city would reach “Day Zero”—the moment its public water supply would effectively run dry and water service would be cut off to over one million homes, making it the world’s first major city to run out of drinking water.5 After three years of extreme drought, the city’s reservoir had been virtually depleted. Officials implemented severe water rationing—with residents waiting hours to fill containers at two hundred collective taps with a maximum of twenty-five liters (6.6 gallons) per person per day—but acknowledged they were preparing for “anarchy” if the taps ran dry. In this quasi-apocalyptic context, the wealthy dug personal wells and built water storage tanks, while many residents attempted to stock up on bottled water to fill the void.6 Members of the Cape Town Water Crisis Coalition protested outside Coca-Cola Peninsula Beverages, the region’s leading bottler of water and soft drinks, which draws 530 million liters annually from the municipal water supply. Accusing the company of exploiting the crisis for profit, the activists demanded that Coke cut its water extraction by half immediately and provide free water to Capetonians. “The water they have access to should be made available to the communities where water has been limited unfairly,” argued the Coalition’s Shaheed Mohamed.7 While poor households faced substantial debt from soaring water rates and heavy fines for excessive water use, Coca-Cola was allowed to continue pumping unrestricted.8 Although heavy rains postponed Cape Town’s reckoning at the last minute, in 2022 the Eastern Cape city of Gqeberha, population one million, was on the verge of its own Day Zero, with those able to afford it buying bottled water and a member of the local Water Crisis Committee calling the situation a case
Preface | xvii of “water apartheid.” Other large cities across the global South, including Monterrey, Mexico, and Delhi and Chennai, India, are now also facing similar fates.9
In the space of only four decades, bottled water has transformed from a luxury niche item into a ubiquitous global consumer good. This relatively new commodity sits at the convergence of at least three major struggles: a mounting social crisis of affordable access to safe drinking water; a severe ecological crisis of plastic waste, climate change, and increasing fresh water scarcity; and a battle over the future of our public water systems. The snapshots above embody the tensions that arise between the goal of ensuring public access to drinking water—a substance essential for life—and the private provision of water for profit, in the form of bottled water. These tensions map onto a long-standing clash between two opposing visions of water: on the one hand, as an economic good, a commodity that should be provided by the market in order to ensure its efficient use; and on the other, as a public good, a public trust, and a human right. Bottled water represents a newer, underemphasized front in this ongoing conflict.
Consumption of bottled water has grown with startling speed in the rich nations of the global North and is now expanding even faster in the global South, where access to clean drinking water is not as widespread. In the United States, bottled water surpassed soft drinks in 2016 to become the nation’s most consumed beverage. Nearly nine in ten consumers now buy some bottled water, four in ten drink mostly or entirely bottled water, and one-sixth consume it exclusively, shunning the tap for drinking altogether.10 Yet the United States is only fourth in per capita consumption of bottled water, behind Mexico, Thailand, and Italy. Worldwide bottled water consumption surpassed 120 billion gallons in 2021, two-thirds of it in single-serving plastic containers.11 The worldwide bottled water market—with revenues of $300 billion in 2021 and projected to reach $509 billion by 2030—has long been led by four global food and beverage corporations: Nestlé, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Danone Group.12
Several forces have combined to drive this dramatic growth in bottled water consumption. In the global North, an increased focus on health, fitness, diet, and obesity, the advent of lightweight plastic bottles, and a desire to consume “on the go” have hastened a shift away from soft drink consumption, but also away from tap water. The result
xviii | Preface
has been the normalization of bottled water across society in a remarkably short period of time. The bottled water industry argues that it is in competition not with tap water but rather with soft drinks and other packaged beverages. Critics respond that the industry’s implicit or explicit disparagement of the quality of public tap water has stoked distrust and played a major role in altering public perceptions and behavior.13 Ironically, in the United States almost two-thirds of bottled water is now actually filtered tap water, drawn from already treated municipal water supplies, rather than springs or groundwater.14
But it is bottled water’s environmental footprint that has generated the greatest negative publicity, particularly the global plastic waste crisis created by the disposal of over six hundred billion single-use plastic beverage bottles every year—a problem described by The Guardian as being “as dangerous as climate change.”15 Fewer than 27 percent of the singleuse plastic bottles consumed in the United States are recycled, and the global recycling rate is a mere 7 percent.16 Since China halted the importation of most recyclables in 2018, wealthy nations have been swamped by their own accumulating plastic waste, forcing local governments to grapple with the by-products of overconsumption in new ways.
These impacts of bottled water have not gone uncontested. Since the turn of the century, they have spawned oppositional social movements around the world that are challenging both the need for this commodity and the local effects of the water extraction it entails. At the consumer end, a growing number of campaigns by NGOs, city governments, and others are reasserting the value and purity of tap water and the public infrastructure that delivers it and are questioning the necessity of bottled water in places where access to safe, virtually free water is almost universal. Vehement struggles are also being waged at the source, by residents angry at the bottled water industry’s efforts to extract water from local springs and groundwater, which have often divided neighbors and public officials alike.
While a good deal of media coverage has examined the rapid growth of bottled water as a consumer good, the cultural changes it has produced, and the major plastic waste problems it has created, there is far more to the story. The intense and persistent conflicts over bottled water suggest that this commodity is linked to much broader struggles over human rights and social justice, the question of who owns nature, and the future of the public sphere.
Unbottled examines both the causes and the environmental, social, cultural, and political consequences of the proliferation of bottled water,
with an emphasis on the vibrant opposition movements it has generated at both ends of the commodity chain: where the water is extracted, and where it is consumed. The latter part of the book centers on two indepth case studies of conflict over groundwater extraction by global beverage firms in the United States and Canada. These contentious struggles involve sustained opposition by coalitions of community residents and activists, supported by national and international advocacy groups. The book draws on an extensive set of interviews with local residents, public officials, activists, bottling firm staff, water experts, and a wide range of other participants on all sides of the controversies around the role and impacts of bottled water in and on society.
In analyzing these issues and conflicts, I attempt to answer a series of thorny questions. Is the continued expansion of bottled water compatible with the human right to water, a right codified by the United Nations in 2010? Is bottled water an important part of the solution to the global crisis of water access, as the industry and even some international institutions claim, or is it a dire threat to water justice, as numerous critics and opponents insist? What does the growth of this commodity—in places both with and without widespread access to safe tap water— mean for ecological sustainability and social inequality? What are, and what will be, the effects of bottled water’s massive growth on our vital but increasingly underfunded public water systems?
The book also poses a broader question: Should access to sufficient safe, affordable, and reliable drinking water for all people—a key element of what some term water justice17—be an inviolable part of the social contract? If so, what does the continued expansion of bottled water as a market commodity mean for the possibility of fulfilling that contract?
Introduction
It’s a question of whether we should privatize the normal water supply for the population. . . . The NGOs . . . bang on about declaring water a public right. That means that as a human being you should have a right to water. That’s an extreme solution. And the other view says that water is a foodstuff like any other, and like any other foodstuff it should have a market value. Personally I believe it’s better to give a foodstuff a value so that we’re all aware that it has its price.
—Nestlé CEO Peter Brabeck, 2005
Forty years ago, when I was in grade school, the prospect of a large segment of the population shunning tap water, or families spending hundreds or even thousands of dollars per year on heavy multipacks of plastic water bottles for drinking, which they would lug from the store to the car to the kitchen, would have struck virtually everyone as a ludicrous vision or perhaps a dystopian fantasy.
Yet here we are. In 1980, U.S. consumption of bottled water barely reached two gallons per person per year, mainly imported Perrier in heavy glass bottles. In 2016, bottled water surpassed soft drinks to become the most consumed beverage in the United States, and by the end of 2021 Americans were swilling 47 gallons per year of it on average, for a total of 15.7 billion gallons, 70 percent of that in single-use plastic bottles (see figure 1).1 One study found that among U.S. adults, bottled water accounted for a stunning 44 percent of total drinking water intake.2 The bottled water industry’s annual sales in 2021 reached $40 billion in the United States and $300 billion worldwide.3 As figure 2 shows, it is far and away the world’s most consumed packaged drink. China is now the biggest consumer of bottled water, guzzling one-fourth of the global total of 120 billion gallons in 2021. That total has increased
figure 1. U.S. consumption of bottled water and carbonated soft drinks, gallons per capita, 1999–2021. Sources: Rodwan 2019; Beverage Marketing Corporation 2013, 2017, 2021; IBWA 2022; Statista 2022b.
by an average of 6 to 7 percent per year, with the fastest growth in East and Southeast Asia.4 Clearly this is no minor phenomenon.
All of this water has to come from somewhere. Just under half of bottled water worldwide is extracted from groundwater, via natural springs, boreholes, or wells.5 This requires gaining access to those sources, which in many cases are already in use by local communities and farmers, and certainly by natural ecosystems.6 Much of the remainder—including nearly two-thirds of the bottled water sold in the United States—is instead drawn from public tap water supplies, a process that is ironically far less visible to the public.
Who is selling us this water? The biggest players in the bottled water industry are four huge multinational corporations: two of the largest food giants, Nestlé and Danone Group, and the two top beverage behemoths, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo. These companies went on a worldwide buying spree after the turn of the century, snapping up regional and
national bottlers along with their water sources and bottling plants. Most of these firms (which also use enormous quantities of water in their food products) work to influence global water policy as well, either through involvement in the World Water Forum and its sponsor the World Water Council or via the 2030 Water Resources Group, an industry-dominated body created by the World Bank to advise the United Nations, whose governing board includes the chairman of Nestlé and the CEO of Coca-Cola.7 At the same time, many smaller water bottlers continue to survive and thrive, especially across the global South.
The vignettes in the preface, and Peter Brabeck’s quote in the epigraph above, are scenes from a particular kind of war over water. This is a conflict in which bottled water and beverage firms are squaring off not only against many residents of communities whose water they are extracting or want to bottle, but also, it would seem, against public tap water itself—or at least our reliance on the tap as a trustworthy source of drinking water. This raises challenging issues for public water utilities, whose central purpose is to provide the very same substance— drinking water—which they do for an infinitesimally small fraction of the cost and environmental impact of bottled water. The bottled water industry, however, insists that its product is in competition not with tap water but rather with soft drinks, beer, and other beverages.8
figure 2. Worldwide packaged beverage consumption volume, 2021 (in billions of liters). Source: Adapted from Statista 2022a.
But this battle over bottled water is only one facet of a much larger global conflict that has been raging in its current form since at least the 1980s: the struggle over whether water should be primarily a market commodity or a public good. These linked conflicts revolve around a simple truth: in a highly unequal world, when access to safe drinking water is premised on the ability to pay, some people will inevitably go without. This obvious yet fundamental fact lies at the root of the deep objections by critics to both the privatization of tap water systems and the commodity of bottled water. It also explains why the tensions over bottled water—a substance dramatically more expensive per unit volume than tap water—are closely related to, and often as intense as, the major battles over water utility privatization that have erupted around the world in recent decades.
Unbottled examines the social movements that are increasingly contesting the commodity of bottled water and the social, cultural and environmental consequences of its growth, both in North America and worldwide. It explores the implications of a profound and ongoing shift, in which the world’s people are getting an increasing share of the water they drink from private corporations in plastic containers, rather than from a household or shared faucet served by a public water utility. It addresses the fraught question of where our next drink of water should come from—a tap or a bottle—and what the answer means for human rights, the natural environment, and the future of public water systems.
The dynamics behind bottled water’s meteoric growth differ by world region. In significant parts of the global South (or Majority World),9 because of colonial legacies, debt, austerity, and other factors, many governments have been unable to extend tap water systems fast enough to keep pace with rapid urbanization, even where the political will exists to do so. In this context, corporations, consumers, and governments are increasingly turning to packaged water—in single-serving bottles, multigallon jugs, plastic sachets, cartons, and other forms—as a solution to the actual or perceived scarcity of safe drinking water.10 In this book I use the term packaged water to refer to this wider range of forms of commodified water, of which the various types of bottled water are the biggest subset. In most large cities in the South, there is a two-tier packaged water market: the transnational firms and their subsidiaries target middle- and upper-income consumers with higherpriced branded water, while local vendors and refillers supply poor and working-class residents with lower-cost water of often uncertain origin and quality. Yet for the poorest residents, even the cheapest options can
be prohibitively expensive, highlighting the concerning implications of this commodity for the human right to water.11
In the rich countries of the global North (or Minority World), where access to clean tap water in the home is nearly universal, the reasons for bottled water’s rise are different. Bottled water firms promote their product by appealing to consumer concerns with social status, purity, fitness, and health. Their advertising campaigns have sometimes also disparaged tap water, both capitalizing on and contributing to public fears about water quality.12 News coverage of disasters of unsafe tap water, such as in Flint, Michigan, or Walkerton, Ontario,13 further increases demand for bottled water. However, bottled water on average is no safer than tap water, is less strictly regulated, contains much higher levels of microplastics,14 and at least in the United States largely consists of refiltered municipal water—including Coke’s Dasani, Pepsi’s Aquafina, and Nestlé Pure Life brands.15
These dynamics have provoked resistance in a wide range of forms and places. The oppositional movements fall into two broad categories: those contesting bottled water consumption and those resisting the bottling industry’s water extraction. On the consumption end, campaigns to “reclaim the tap” have succeeded in pushing hundreds of city governments, schools and universities, and other institutions to promote the high quality of local tap water, reinvest in public water infrastructure including drinking fountains, and ban the purchase and sale of bottled water. One major impetus for these campaigns is bottled water’s major negative environmental effects, which include an energy footprint up to two thousand times higher than tap water, major greenhouse gas emissions, substantial water waste in manufacturing, and the immense worldwide plastic pollution problems generated by the disposal of over half a trillion plastic beverage bottles annually.16 At the extraction end, proposals to site or expand high-volume pumping and bottling facilities have generated fervent opposition, with local residents mobilizing around concerns including depletion or pollution of local groundwater, harm to fisheries, increased truck traffic, minimal water fees paid by bottlers, and negligible economic returns to communities. Drought and climate change–related water scarcity tend to supercharge these conflicts. Bottled water extraction is also a target of activism across the global South, with conflicts in Mexico, Brazil, Pakistan, Indonesia, India, and other nations.17 Many of these struggles have received support from a cluster of national and international advocacy groups, some of which also facilitate local and global campaigns against tap water privatization.
Academic attention to the riddles posed by the rapid growth of bottled water has been surprisingly sparse. A substantial body of work examines the privatization of municipal tap water, particularly the efforts by international financial institutions and the global water services industry to open public water utilities to private management and ownership, and the vibrant movements that have arisen in opposition, from Bolivia to Indonesia to Indianapolis to Italy. However, this work has largely neglected the other major avenue of drinking water commodification: the growth of bottled and packaged water and its transformation into a global industry. Much of the published research that does address bottled water places it as a minor addendum to discussions of tap water privatization, and vanishingly little centers primarily on the social movements that are contesting this commodity. Yet the bottled water industry is dominated by a different group of multinational companies, and it has generated distinct opposition movements. This industry’s continued rapid expansion, along with the explosion of public concern around the linked crises of climate change, drought, groundwater depletion, plastic waste, and decaying public infrastructure, makes a current examination of this commodity and its countermovements especially necessary.
In the following chapters I explore the causes, as well as the social, environmental, and cultural consequences, of bottled water’s dramatic growth. I examine how the soaring fortunes of bottled and packaged water are connected to the growing global crisis of fresh water access, and I assess the implications of this commodity for realizing the human right to water. I also chart a range of social movements around packaged water, considering the parallels and divergences in their tactics and strategy, and asking how they are situated in relation to the broader international water justice movement, which fights water utility privatization and defends public and community water systems. Finally, I analyze the repercussions of bottled water’s expansion for the future provision of safe public tap water—which many view as a quintessential public good18—and for social justice and sustainability more broadly.
Chapter 1 examines struggles over public versus private provision of water, focusing on the past four decades, during which a wave of privatization of public water utilities has taken place around the world, pushed by international financial institutions and private water firms and often abetted by governments. It briefly describes the opposition movements that have arisen in response to this privatizing trend and evaluates their outcomes. This chapter also explores several conceptual
lenses for understanding privatization, commodification, and capital accumulation. It employs those ideas to develop a set of arguments about how bottled water is distinct—both in the way that it commodifies water and in the kinds of challenges it poses to the public provision of drinking water. Chapter 2 turns to the global bottled water industry, examining the reasons for its rapid growth and consolidation, and documenting how the industry has promoted its product by contrasting it with tap water. It asks why people in the United States and other wealthy nations have increasingly come to fear their tap water, explores how justified those concerns are, and traces efforts by the industry to cast doubt on the quality of public tap water. It scrutinizes the environmental, economic, and social effects of this commodity, including how the shift away from the tap and toward bottled water has exacerbated existing social inequalities and more recently has contributed to a growing backlash against single-use plastics. It also addresses the spread of bottled and packaged water in the global South, examining the role it plays in settings where tap water does not represent a safe or reliable drinking water source, and explores tensions over the role of packaged water in meeting international goals for improving clean water access.
But what are the actual practices of the movements taking on packaged water—what do they look like on the ground? Beginning with the toxic water disaster in Flint, Michigan, chapter 3 investigates the relationship between threats to tap water safety, environmental injustice, neoliberal austerity, and disinvestment in public infrastructure, and how the bottled water industry has benefited from these trends. It examines how the Flint crisis has spawned a highly diverse coalition that connects urban tap water crises with the bottled water industry’s groundwater extraction in rural communities. It also addresses the implications of packaged water’s growth for the future of municipal tap water, asking how we can restore trust in our public water infrastructure. Chapter 4 traces the history of bottled water movements in North America, focusing on a handful of key organizations and their shared roots in earlier and broader activism. It then examines the organized pushback against packaged water from the consumption side: a constellation of campaigns by city governments, public and private institutions, university students, community organizations, consumer and environmental NGOs, and others to increase tap water consumption and access, problematize the commodity of bottled water, and often ban its sale.
The following two chapters focus in depth on two major regional conflicts over bottled water extraction in North America. Chapter 5
travels to Cascade Locks, Oregon, the site of a decade-long struggle over Nestlé Waters’ proposal to pump and bottle state-owned spring water in the scenic Columbia River Gorge, which culminated in a precedent-setting vote on a ballot measure to ban water bottling. Chapter 6 moves to Canada, where an alliance of water advocacy groups and Indigenous activists in southwestern Ontario is engaged in the nation’s most sustained and visible conflict over bottled water. They have squared off against Nestlé Waters (and now its successor, BlueTriton) over its ongoing water extraction in a wholly groundwater-dependent region and its efforts to expand to new sites, substantially reshaping provincial water policy in the process.
In chapter 7, I step back to take stock of this range of oppositional efforts. This chapter assesses the parallels and divergences among the movements, communities, and organizations covered in the book, identifying the lessons they offer regarding water commodification and asking to what extent they represent an effective force for decommodification. It considers the implications of their varying degrees of success for the prospect of ensuring the human right to water and for the future of public water and public goods more broadly. Finally, the Conclusion considers where all of this leaves us and offers a series of concrete recommendations for curtailing the negative impacts of this commodity’s global spread, regulating the industry’s practices, strengthening and expanding access to public drinking water, and more.
While the book delves into a wide range of intersecting issues that lend themselves to multiple interpretations, I make five main arguments in these pages. First, the unique characteristics of bottled water differentiate it from tap water—a substance that has posed major obstacles to profitable privatization—and render it a more ideal commodity for capital accumulation. Bottled water’s plastic packaging and far greater mobility allow it to bypass costly and elaborate tap water networks, disconnecting it from any shared public endeavor and hastening the commodification of water on a global scale. Second, these traits make the growth of bottled and packaged water a threat to the future provision of high-quality drinking water by public water systems—a threat potentially even more serious than that posed by tap water privatization. As this commodity increasingly displaces water consumed from public (and community-managed) sources, it is helping to erode the century-old project of universal public provision of safe drinking water that has brought incalculable health benefits to many parts of the world. Third, bottled and packaged water both illuminate and exacerbate the
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
