Turn on the Tap

According to the Think Outside the Bottle campaign, Americans are the world’s top consumers of bottled water while, ironically, the U.S. has one of the safest public water systems on the planet. So, why did the bottled water craze take the nation by storm? Some experts say it began as small status symbol, mimicking the bottled waters popular in France and Italy. But, as the sources of water changed and companies such as Coca Cola and Nestle entered the game, bottled water spilled over from simply posh to popular.

Too popular, according to nonprofit groups and environmental organizations. Americans spend a combined $11.7 billion annually on bottled water. The Container Recycling Institute (CRI) estimates that every person in the U.S. tosses 160 plastic bottles in the trash each year – or 8 out of every 10 bottles purchased. Given the preciousness of oil in the current economic climate, it’s also important to note that CRI says it takes 15 million barrels of oil per year to make plastic bottles for America’s bottled water addiction.

The Cost of Convenience

The convenience of bottled water has certainly added to its popularity. Think of Little League games, public events, road trips and that handy bottle at your desk. But now, as people become more aware of the environmental downsides of plastic containers and the questionable value of bottled water compared to tap water or filtered tap water, the tide may be turning.

A number of cities have ceased the once popular practice of providing bottled water for employees. In San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsom observed World Water Day in 2007 by canceling all the city’s bottled water contracts. Chicago and Salt Lake City followed suit. The popular Austin City Limits Music Festival stopped providing bottled water to its legion of volunteers and rewarded patrons who recycled bottles with a special T-shirt.

The world renown Chez Panisse in Berkeley calculated the carbon footprint of the bottles of sparkling water it imported from Italy and removed the bubbly from the menu. And, in Canada, a movement is sweeping the land. Students in colleges and high schools are protesting contracts with Coca-Cola and Pepsi for their bottled waters. The students are lapping up free, fresh water from school drinking fountains instead.

Questions of Quality

As bottled waters attract increased scrutiny, public water systems are measured against them for both cost and water quality. The cost factor is extremely compelling. A bottle of water costs a dollar and often more, depending upon the brand. Water from the tap costs about $0.00002 per ounce. If a city’s tap water is unpalatable due to chlorine treatment or other sanitizing chemicals, even the addition of a water filter to a faucet gets gallons of water for pennies a day.

Water quality is also variable in both bottled waters and public water supplies. According to the EPA, bottled water is not necessarily safer than water that flows from the tap. In fact, some bottled water is no more than treated (or untreated) tap water. Consumers are advised to read the label on bottled waters to learn the source and the method of treatment. More in-depth questions have to be addressed to the manufacturer. In contrast, specific information about public water systems, water quality and treatment are publicly available on the EPA’s website. The Environmental Working Group also has a tap water database where people can look up water quality and content by zip code.

Well Into the Future

But, the most compelling concern about water in plastic bottles is environmental. The Container Recycling institute says the amount of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic bottles being recycled reached 1,170 million pounds in 2005 while the amount of PET bottles ending up in landfills reached 3,900 million pounds. That number includes some other beverages in PET containers but the institute says water bottles are the biggest problem. Many states offer no redemption incentives on water bottles and the plain, usually sugarless drink is just so popular.

Plastic water bottles in landfills do not rest in peace. They drift or are blown into other areas such as the Pacific Ocean where, according to CRI, they form a messy, toxic mass that is twice the size of Texas. It takes about 1,000 years for a plastic bottle to degrade into tiny pieces that, to fish and birds, often look like food. There is also increasing evidence that PET bottles and other plastic bottles may be a threat to human health.

Consumer Choice

So, what is a water-lover to do? First, the EPA and other experts advise giving your tap water a try. Some municipal systems, such as the one serving San Francisco, pour forth with crystal clear water from the High Sierra. Other communities, where there is heavy agricultural or industrial activity, may not be so fortunate. When contaminants and lead might be present, public systems use a variety of techniques to make drinking water safe. They are regulated by the EPA and frequent testing is federally mandated. That is to say the tap water is safe, but may not be taste tempting.

There are many effective filtering products on the market from faucet mounted filters to pitchers and filtered water dispensers. These devices remove contaminants and pollutants while improving the taste of water. They are quite affordable and provide families with assurance about the quality of water they use for drinking and cooking.

Once the source issue is solved, people will still want the convenience of portability. There is an increasing marketplace of containers for water, from personal water bottles made of reusable aluminum, stainless steel, ceramic and traditional glass. As awareness of the health dangers and environmental downside of plastic bottles spreads, a market-driven demand will result in even more choices for people who want fresh water at their side, wherever they may roam.

The most important factor to keep in mind is window maintenance. Windows are the main source of cool air leakages during the summer and let in heat during the day. One should always check their windows to make sure the panes don’t have any rotten or damaged wood, cracked glass or missing putty. Where there are no problems with the windows, it is always a better idea to seal it with caulk or weather stripping material. When the homeowner’s budget allows for it, new and better windows should be purchased to replace the existing ones. This way the homeowner can choose energy efficient windows that reduce the amount of heat entering the house.

Another option for keeping costs down is by purchasing energy efficient products and appliances for the house. This single cost will reduce all future costs in electricity and cooling bills. This is especially true for kitchen remodeling where eco-friendly kitchens are featured. The appliances should be checked for efficiency settings as they are the best measure of how much the client will save on costs.

One of the top trends in Utah for home improvement is insulation. From the bathrooms to the attic, this is the one service which ensures lower energy costs in the future. When renovating the attic, a foot of fiberglass or cellulose insulation in the attic floor is recommended. A home remodeling expert of contractor can also help point out all the parts of the house that require repair and additions in order to cut down costs.

Energy costs, being one of the most important costs to be dealt with, should be adjusted, and a lot of money can be saved by doing that. In the Salt Lake City many houses are opting for better windows and insulation techniques that would help reduce the expenses and bills for a more comfortable future.

Residents and state representatives of Salt Lake City Schools are engaged in a heated dialogue regarding the accuracy of that number. The study claims that educating a Salt Lake City Schools’ students who is undocumented costs $100-$400 more annually due to the need for special language and low-income programs. This matter is of special interest to the Salt Lake City Schools because administrators have been trying to use available funds to meet rising standards in cost-efficient and effective ways. A look at the recent initiatives in Salt Lake City Schools reveals numerous efforts like vouchers, school choice and charter schools in the city’s attempt to improve education. Many representatives of Salt Lake City Schools interpret the audit to show that educating undocumented students comes at the detriment of the rest of the population.

Others, like House Minority Leader Ralph Becker, D-Salt Lake City, feel that the audit is giving an unbalanced view of the big picture. Salt Lake City Schools have residents who feel that undocumented workers still pay taxes and contribute to the thriving economy of the region. The Salt Lake Tribune recently issued an editorial that questioned the statistics used in creating the audit. The editorial claims that that estimates of the 75,000-100,000 undocumented immigrants were used to make guesses as to the number of K-12 students. The paper calls this bad reporting.

What do the residents of Salt Lake City Schools need to know? It seems to be undisputed that educating Salt Lake City Schools’ undocumented immigrant population does require some special teaching skills to address language and economic barriers. But does it necessarily follow that the end result will be to refuse to educate those Salt Lake City Schools’ students? And is that really want anybody wants?

Senator Margaret Dayton, R-OremA, who originally requested the audit, has indicated that her main concern is that state and local governments are paying for the federal government’s failed immigration policy. However, the end result of all this political posturing will have a huge affect on families of Salt Lake City Schools. The big question remains: Does the additional cost of educating the undocumented children of Salt Lake City Schools eliminate the requirement to provide those students with tax-funded education?