Chapel Hill Herald, Saturday September 03, 2005
Thursday night, the OWASA board of directors will consider a proposal to launch a campaign promoting OWASA water as an alternative to imported bottled water. As well as highlighting the value of low-cost, high-quality OWASA water, the project also could involve educating residents on the global problems of water privatization as well as the solid waste, transportation and other environmental costs stemming from the bottled water industry.
The upcoming discussion is in response to a petition from the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom and the Peace & Justice Committee of the Community Church.
According to WILPF, "Water is the earth's most precious resource. Access to safe and affordable water is a human right. Local, democratic control of water is essential for food security and peace. Everywhere accelerating privatization threatens public control over access to water while scarcity looms from overuse and pollution."
As an international women's organization, WILPF is particularly sensitive to the impact of water shortages and privatization on the lives of women, especially in developing nations.
Here in the OWASA service area, however, we are fortunate to have an abundant source of fresh, healthful water. This is because several generations of leaders have developed our reservoirs and protected the surrounding watersheds. Although we can always do better, Orange County governments have some of the best water protection regulations anywhere in the state. A major foundation of these efforts has been the election to public office of watershed activists like Ellie Kinnaird, Allen Spalt and Margaret Brown.
It is only occasionally in today's news, but there will be a water crisis facing humanity in the not too distant future. And in many places it is already here. Many nations face problems with their water supply, with tragic consequences for public health.
It is estimated that more than a billion people do not have a source for clean water within a 15-minute walk. Control of water is creating tension between states and among nations. Wars over water may become one characteristic of the 21st century.
In the United States, many consumers are not aware that tap water must conform to Environmental Protection Agency regulations, while bottled water is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. A 2001 study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund found that FDA rules for bottled water were less stringent than EPA rules for tap water -- bottled water regulations called for less-frequent testing and didn't ban phthalates -- a liquid compound -- or fecal coliforms.
Studies have found that as much as 40 percent of bottled water is actually tap water, sometimes with additional treatment, sometimes not. In a four-year study published in 1999, the Natural Resources Defense Council tested 103 brands of bottled water and found that one-third had levels of chemical or bacterial contaminants that exceeded state or industry standards.
Many may ask why this is OWASA's business. Shouldn't it focus on the job of providing local drinking water? The answer has both a practical and a moral component.
If southern Orange County is committed philosophically and practically to maintaining a public water supply then it behooves us to encourage a national and global economy of water that supports that decision. Promoting its product over alternatives is a standard business practice.
From a moral standpoint, safeguarding public water supplies is rapidly taking on a global dimension comparable to the struggles to ban landmines, outlaw child labor or end apartheid. Take South Africa as an example.
There, according to waterjustice.org, "the collective impact of water privatization has been devastating. The desperate search for any available source of water has resulted in cholera outbreaks that have claimed the lives of hundreds and sickened hundreds of thousands more. Additionally, inadequate hygiene has led to continuous exposure to preventable diseases. There has been an increase in environmental pollution and degradation arising from uncontrolled effluent discharges and scarcity of water for food production. And, the human dignity of entire communities has been ripped apart, as the right to the most basic of human needs, water, has been turned into a restricted privilege available only to those who can afford it."
When we buy bottled water, not only are we paying several dollars per gallon for a product OWASA makes available for around a penny a gallon, we are complicit in the privatization of water supplies in unknown and distant communities, often those that desperately need it for their own use.
Add to this the fact that numerous studies have shown that the quality of bottled water is unreliable, and drinking Dasani, Aquafina and the like becomes nonsensical wherever OWASA is available as an alternative.
OWASA is perfectly positioned to lead our community to "think globally and drink [water] locally." Kudos to WILPF and the Community Church for initiating this effort.
Issues:
Comments
I haven't read this thread,
I haven't read this thread, but I'm in a two cents mood.
OWASA chlorinates--- correct? Should I be worried about the carcinogenic substances being created when chlorine combines with the organics?
My point is that there are advantages to drinking bottled water from a deep, clean water supply... but, of course, someone will most surely caution me about radon...
Will, I know you biked
Will,
I know you biked through campus today....did you forget to drink from the Old Well?
LC
Of course! Quite possibly
Of course! Quite possibly the sweetest water in Town. And UNC has the best water fountain in Town. It's located in the ground floor stairwell below the Morehead Planetarium gift shop. The absolutely coldest drink, a delight in the summer and quenched my thirst for 26 years.
I hope it doesn't get futzed up on the Morehead remodel - is there anything you can do about that?
Mary, OWASA switched to
Mary,
OWASA switched to chloramines a few years ago.
http://www.owasa.org/pages/chloramination.pdf
Thanks Mark, I'm sure
Thanks Mark,
I'm sure chloramines have more problems associated with them than your link can get into, but from your link, using chloramines eliminates some serious problems associated with chlorine--- and that is good.
I am so glad that we have someone like you who is obviously invested in water issues working with OWASA. Thanks again!
Mary-- Some of the
Mary--
Some of the POTENTIAL problems associated with chloramines are detailed here: http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/chloraminated_water.html
Now, I'm not saying that this isn't an alarmist view. But it is an ALTERNATE view.
Interestingly, chloramines have been implicated in increased lead in water supplies--at least in homes/supplies with older pipes. http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/2417113p-8794959c.html
and another news story:
http://www.roanoke.com/printer/printpage.aspx?arcID=26148
In my research I discovered why the water I fill my tub with, or shower in, smells more strongly of chlorine than it did a few years ago--even though chloramine disinfection is supposed to yield water that smells LESS of chlorine. According to the Metropolitan Utilities District of Omaha's web site:
"Chlorine is driven off during the heating of hot water. Does chloramine stay in the water better?
Chloramine residual does not dissipate as readily as free chlorine. Chloramine does not dissipate from boiling. Therefore, it stays in the water longer."
So that explains THAT. Note to Owasa--I found the MUS site much easier to navigate than Owasa--and their HTML documents were easier to read than OWASA's PDF files.
For your perusal:
http://www.mudomaha.com/water/chloramines.html#chlorine
Not saying we should switch back to the former chlorine disinfection system-just saying that the newer chloramine disinfection system is not without its detractors and challenges, and isn't QUITE as rosy as the OWASA website would have one believe.
melanie
OOPs--- unless you are a
OOPs--- unless you are a kidney dialysis patient or a fish...
Mary-- I wasn't arguing that
Mary--
I wasn't arguing that surface water didn't need disinfection. NOR was I saying that chloramine was an inferior way of disinfecting water. What I was trying to point out was that there ARE reasons people might be wary of OWASA water...and choose to drink bottled. Also--SOME municipal websites discuss the concerns--whereas OWASA's doesn't even mention them. While I don't believe this lack of information is "malicious", there are certainly folks out there that would look at such ommisions as intentional and suspect.
Me? I drink tap water and bottled water. Mostly tap. I believe the water is safe--though I do let the water run in the morning before I make my cofee, so I'm not drinking water that's been sitting in the pipes all night. Just in case my circa 1967 plumbing IS leaching something. But then, I work on the assumption that all paint in older homes has lead in it, and encapsulate with laquer based primer before I paint.
melanie
Mary-- Actually--kidney
Mary--
Actually--kidney dialysis patients can DRINK the water--they just can't use it in their dialysis machines. (Looks like youwere posting while I was typing.)
melanie
Thanks for the clarification
Thanks for the clarification on dialysis patients. The OWASA brochure was cut off on my screen-- bad assumption on my part.
Jim, thanks for pointing out
Jim, thanks for pointing out that there are other ways to secure Town services other than increasing taxes. Maybe Frank has missed the discussion of the Town's $70+ million redevelopment plan. I've suggested making these accommodations required elements of those projects design when the incremental costs, if any, are negligible. Delay will certainly cost.
And more directly, if we can not accommodate the "costs of peeing" in that plan, we flat out shouldn't be doing it. How can we claim public necessity and not deal with one of the few basics, public health, that most of us (even Frank?) agree the government should have some small role in?
It seems like to me, a citizen that's spent a huge chunk of his recent life downtown, that it's a given a decent bathroom, some modern drinking fountains, a place for parents (like myself) to let their kids safely blow off some energy, would boost Downtown's viability. But maybe I'm wrong.
How do we tell if Frank is right? Should we shun our Downtown visitors and encourage more yellow puddles in the alleys because we fear facing the "risk" of "expensive" failures.
Fail how? Maybe Frank's fear is the wrong kind of folk will be afforded too much common decency. Maybe Frank thinks folk won't feel the "urge" Downtown. Maybe Frank thinks the current commercial establishments won't mind non-customers taking a pit stop.
It would definitely be a failure if no one felt the urge to go, would rather urinate in public or always have a friendly commercial locale (how is your bathroom Frank?) to drop into and do some "business".
Getting folk off campus is one of Downtown's woes. Top-of-the-Hill's Mr. Maitland thinks that patrons of the Art Commons will spillover to his establishment - but he's "inches" from UNC and UNC's public accommodations. What about West End? What about West Rosemary? Like the Pied Piper will water fountains every couple blocks, a clean - easy to find - public bathroom (or two), a world-class play structure in a prominent location lead folk from Campus to what might appear to be the depths of Town? Frank, it's a risk but I'll bet these traditional amenities will win out over doing nada.
What's another risk of not tending to some traditional Downtown amenities? Again, it's hard to measure a negative. Will less football fans come to Town? Probably not. Will more football fans avail themselves of UNC's commercial opportunities because UNC provides more than adequate public facilities? I think so.
Frank, you've explained how your Carrboro business doesn't depend on "drop ins" but Chapel Hill's Downtown commercial district is replete with businesses that do. What should we be doing, if anything, to encourage these folk to plunge into the depths of Chapel Hill?
Some recent "public toilet"
Some recent "public toilet" news. Interesting idea.
NYC toilets funded by advertisers!
It's a nice idea, and
It's a nice idea, and realistically, the cash strapped towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill should wait to see how this project plays out. I'd be very concerned that if either or both towns spent a good bit of money on things such as public toilets, and the project failed, then we'd have some very expensive eyesores to contend with. If it goes well for NYC, then the towns should definitely consider it. From what little I know about big cities, isn't this pretty novel for American cities?
I've not seen it in the US
I've not seen it in the US before . . . but it'll be interesting to watch. It would also be interesting to gauge advertising interest in places like Chapel Hill.
Chapel Hill is a notoriously inefficient market in which to buy advertising. You have everything from the Daily Tarheel and WUNC and WCHL to N&O, News, Heralds, Advocate, cable, and the Poster Guys vying to deliver the People of Chapel Hill -- and there's no good measurement about what's really going on.
My guess is we don't have enough density to sustain advertiser supported services like this. And even if we did, it's far from clear that we would want it.
One of the most attractive things about of our community is our thoughtful regulation of commercial speech. I love that we are not bombarded by billboards and large obnoxious signs. (This is one of my main objections to the lottery: its creepy intrusion into all aspect of life.)
Ah. The many costs of peeing.
Will, the problem I see is
Will, the problem I see is that there's a big disconnect between reality and fantasy (at least on this board). The reality is that bathrooms installed on the streets of Chapel Hill and Carrboro right now would be a very risky proposition. Tha fantasy that I feel you're entertaining is that it would be great to have water fountains and bathrooms every few feet on the street. It'd be great if there were grassy play areas for kids, and wireless everywhere. These are all great things, but you can't ignore reality. What happens to these bathrooms every night that school is in session and they become vomitoriums for the students. Who will clean them? Will there be a 24 hour cleaning staff? Can a "homeless" person spend a night in a bathroom? Are there time limits? Can these bathrooms be used to drug deals and take drugs? Will these bathrooms attract even more "homeless" people because, hey, it's one of the few towns in the US with public bathrooms right on the street? Where, exactly, will these bathrooms go and not obstruct the sidewalks? Will they be eyesores? What about play areas for your kids? Will the towns sieze land for that via emminent domain? If so, what businesses do we close for that or who do we kick out of their house? With this massive influx of shiny, happy people wanting to use downtown, where do they park? It looks like Franklin Street has a 25% vacancy rate right now. Will that necessarily improve? If it doesn't, what will be the draw to downtown Chapel Hill? If rents continue to rise, will there be any independent (hell or even corporate) businesses left? If not, then why bathrooms? Will the town be able to afford the liability insurance for said bathrooms? How will graffitti and vandalism inside these bathrooms be dealt with? .... ad infinitum
These are REAL WORLD questions that everybody is simply ignoring because the idealistic utopia of fantastic public facilities all through downtown is just too nice to ignore. Sure, what you're describing is great, but even your kids should be able to point out the gaping holes in the fantasy downtown you're describing.
I've said in other threads that to improve the downtowns, there are several *realistic* things that can be done today. But Will, I'm not running for office. It's up to those such as yourself that want to govern to address *real* issues, not this fantasy utopia you're describing.
I think pUblic toilets are a
I think pUblic toilets are a good idea--IF (and it's a big if) they get cleaned regularly. And have flushable paper liners for the seats.
When I visited my sister in SF years ago there were such facilities --it was great. And you'd be hard-pressed to find a larger homeless population than SF 10 years ago. Yet the public facilities were clean and safe---in the daytime, at least. We weren't out at night...
AND--I'd like year-round bathrooms at the public parks with playgrounds. Our weather is such that we can USE our playgrounds for at least PART of the month every month of the year. Nothing worse than being at the playground with a newly potty trained kid...and a closed bathroom. (NOTE--I haven't had this experience for awhile, so if y'all have FIXED this problem in the last 14 years--good !)
melanie
New Orleans had public
New Orleans had public restrooms right across from Cafe du Monde. They also have (had?) street people, bars open until 2-3 am every day of the week, and many more downtown visitors than Chapel Hill or Carrboro would ever hope to attract. There is always a means to any end with enough creativity. In this case, I believe the 'end' Will is suggesting is a friendly, welcoming environment in the town's most prominent public space==downtown.
The Fells Point neighborhood
The Fells Point neighborhood in Baltimore, down by the harbor, has a park, an outdoor market, lots of bums lounging & milling around, and a fine public bathroom facility nearby that everybody uses.
I kind of like the notion of
I kind of like the notion of striving for utopia. Sure beats the alternative.
The truth is, any extraordinary idea -- and most hum-drum ideas as well -- will be viewed as unrealistic and/or unattainable by many. Fare-free busses used to be in that category. So did curb-side recycling.
But James, even with those
But James, even with those ideas, there has to be some kind of method for reaching those goals. Right now, we have candidates that are just throwing ideas out there with no idea as far as feasability, costs, etc.
To me, a responsbile canidadate would say, "I propose we have public toilets in downtown Chapel Hill. Let me tell you my detailed plan to get there and how it'll be handled on a day-to-day basis once it's in place. This is based on an existing system in New Orleans and Baltimore. " Anybody can just throw out ideas. They can just as well say, "I, as a candidate for Town Council, will end homelessness, hunger, and poverty. Vote for me." I'm saying let's get some people in office with real, actual, feasable ideas for improving our towns, not people making vague, empty promises.
Frank. My experience is that
Frank.
My experience is that election cycles are filled with ideas (not quite promises) that candidates float to distinguish themselves from others. The ideas are often half-baked and sketchy -- but they can also be inspiring and provocative.
It may be worth trying to divorce the strength of the idea (wi-fi or toilets or whatever) from the political posturing.
I'd worry less about what candidates are saying and more about the substance of their ideas. Just because a candidate doesn't know how toilets might be cleaned, doesn't mean the idea of having toilets doesn't have merit.
Am I making any sense?
You are making sense, Jim.
You are making sense, Jim. But on the flip side, do you remember the "heat" Moses Carey took a few years ago when he initiated the discussion on merger? Some residents were really upset with him because he didn't include it in his prior reelection campaign so that voters could "vote" their opinion. Good strategy?
Maybe some enterprising
Maybe some enterprising candidate in the upcoming local elections will push this community a little closer toward environmental sustainability and social justice......
San Francisco Mayor Bans Bottled Water at City Agencies
SAN FRANCISCO, California, June 26, 2007 (ENS) - Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco Monday issued an order to permanently phase out the purchase of bottled water by the City and County of San Francisco.
Beginning July 1, there will be a ban on any city department or agency purchasing single serving bottles of water using city funds, unless an employee contract specifies usage. This prohibition will apply to city contractors and city funded and/or sponsored events. There will be no waivers from this prohibition, the mayor said.
By September 30, all city departments and agencies occupying either city or rental properties will have completed an audit to determine the viability of switching from bottled water dispensers to bottle-less water dispensers that utilize Hetch Hetchy supplied water.
City departments will work with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Department of Real Estate and the City Purchaser to conduct the audit.
By December 1, 2007 all city departments and agencies occupying either city or rental properties will have installed bottle-less water dispensers that utilize Hetch Hetchy supplied water. Waivers will only be granted by the Public Utilities Commission based on legitimate engineering, health and fiscal concerns, the mayor ordered.
Mayor Newsom said the environmental impact of the bottled water industry has been "profound."
He cited figures from the Container Recycling Institute, supplying the plastic water bottles that American consumers purchase in one year requires more than 47 million gallons of oil, the equivalent of one billion pounds of carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere.
More than one billion plastic water bottles end up in California's landfills each year, taking 1,000 years to biodegrade and leaking toxic additives such as phthalates into the groundwater, Newsom said.
Water diverted from local aquifers for the bottled water industry can strain surrounding ecosystems, he said, adding that "transporting bottled water by boat, truck and train involves burning massive quantities of fossil fuels."
"All of this waste and pollution is generated by a product that by objective standards is often inferior to the quality of San Francisco's pristine tap water," the mayor said.
The International Bottled Water Association IBAW, was critical of the move, saying that the Mayor's comments and actions only encourage an unnecessary and confusing "bottled water versus tap water" debate.
Plastic beverage bottles are among the most recycled packaging in this country and beverage companies continue to reduce the amount of plastic used in their packaging, said the Association, adding that "Rather than focusing on one beverage choice, it would make more sense for our government officials to focus on improving recycling rates for all consumer packaging."
Thanks for this, Terri. I
Thanks for this, Terri. I continue to fuss at people at events for serving bottled water rather than the fine, low-cost OWASA offering. Last time was at the Green Building conference back in April. Carrboro can certainly follow SF's lead on this.
The SF story does not mention the international issues that I raised in the 2005 column above. If you get Sierra magazine, check out a harrowing graphic of world water supply by continent on page 11 of the July/August issue.
Pages