You are here

NPS Director Jarvis Allows Parks To Ban Disposable Plastic Bottles

Share

Those seemingly ubiquitous disposable plastic bottles, the ones that generated a storm of controversy over their proposed ban at Grand Canyon National Park, may now be banned by park superintendents nationwide.

But first superintendents must conduct a somewhat arduous series of extensive studies (see attached) that include, among other things, review of the amount of waste that could be eliminated from the park; the costs of installing and maintaining water filling stations for visitors; the resulting impact on concessionaire and cooperative association revenues, and; consultation with the Park Service's Public Health Office.

Then, too, they must consider "contractual implications" to concessionaires, the cost and availability of BPA-free reusable containers, and signage so visitors can find water filling stations. Also, they need to take into consideration safety considerations for visitors who might resort to drinking water "from surface water sources with potential exposure to disease" or who neglect to carry enough water with them on hikes.

Notice of Director Jarvis's decision on banning the bottles came Wednesday in a directive sent to all regional directors, who in turn distributed the policy memo down the line.

"Sustainability is a signature effort for the National Park Service. We must be a visible exemplar of sustainability, so it's important that we move our sustainability program forward as an organization. While superintendents need some discretion to tailor implementation to local situations, it is not the purview of any one park to set policy," wrote Director Jarvis.

The directive comes little more than a month after the director was portrayed as bowing to corporate pressure for telling Grand Canyon officials to hold off on implementing a ban on the plastic bottles. According to a string of documents and emails obtained by Public Employees For Environmental Responsibility, Director Jarvis put the ban on hold after Coca Cola officials raised concerns with the National Park Foundation, which in turn contacted the director and his staff.

At the time, Park Service officials said they weren't bowing to corporate pressure but simply conducting due diligence on the impacts of such a ban. For instance, they said at the time, how might the safety of visitors to Southwestern parks such as the Grand Canyon, Arches, and Canyonlands be impacted by a ban?

“Jon Jarvis wants to get rid of water bottles in parks. That’s the goal. We want to do this," agency spokesman David Barna told the Traveler early this month. "The issue with Grand Canyon is it’s such a big park and it sets such a big precedent."

In his directive, Director Jarvis cited the Park Service's Green Parks Plan, which has a goal of reducing waste in the parks, in part by offering water bottle refilling stations in at least 75 percent of park visitor centers by 2016, the year the agency marks its centennial. That plan currently is under final review and is expected to be released early next year, he said.

As for banning disposable plastic bottles, Director Jarvis outlined three steps superintendents must take to implement a ban:

"Complete a rigorous impact analysis including an assessment of the effects on visitor health and safety, submit a request in writing to their regional director, and receive the approval of their regional director."

In his correspondence to the field, Director Jarvis touched on the "symbolism" of banning the bottles from national parks, but also noted the potential consequences of such a move.

"Banning the sale of water bottles in national parks has great symbolism, but runs counter to our healthy food initiative as it eliminates the healthiest choice for bottled drinks, leaving sugary drinks as a primary alternative," he wrote. "A ban could pose challenges for diabetics and others with health issues who come to a park expecting bottled water to be readily available.

"For parks without access to running water, filling stations for reusable bottles are impractical. A ban could affect visitor safety; proper hydration is key to planning a safe two-hour hike or a multi-day backcountry excursion. Even reasonably priced reusable water bottles may be out of reach for some visitors, especially those with large families.

"For these reasons, the National Park Service will implement a disposable plastic water bottle recycling and reduction policy, with an option to eliminate sales on a park-by-park basis following an extensive review and with the prior approval of the regional director."

Under that policy, parks are encouraged to have "robust" recycling programs, use education to convince visitors to reduce their use of disposable plastic bottles, and, "where appropriate," institute bans on the bottles.

Operations in at least two parks, Zion and Hawaii Volcanoes, already have bottle bans in  place. At Hawaii Volcanoes, where the cooperating association decided to stop selling disposable bottles, the association estimated it will gross $80,000 a year in reusable bottle sales and will net a profit. At Zion, concessionaire Xanterra Parks & Resorts, which came up with the idea of banning disposable water bottle sales, lost $25,000 in 2009-10, according to the memo. However, the move at Zion reduced the waste stream by roughly 5,000 pounds annually and cut energy consumption in the visitor center by about 10 percent during 2009-2010.

In his directive, Director Jarvis said that parks that already have implemented bottle bans may leave them in place, but going forward must still address in writing to their regional directors the studies into the impacts of such a ban.

Featured Article

Comments

if you were a Superintendent criticizing the NPS on a website do you really think you'd use your real name?


The lodges at Grand Canyon, North Rim, Bryce and Zion have already eliminated those little plastic shampoo and conditioner bottles from the bathrooms (going for the European style dispenser).  I suppose the little plastic shampoo bottle industry doesn't have much of a lobby.


 According to Jarvis, "Even reasonably priced reusable water bottles may be out of reach for some visitors, especially those with large families."
Hmmmm. What does that say about the practice of charging fees for backcountry permits? A 3-day 2-night backpacking permit for a family of four in Grand Canyon costs $50 - not including the $25 Entrance Fee. For families with financial challenges, the Parks have priced themselves into irrelevance, and the cost of Nalgene bottles is the least of it.


Hi-
I'm an NPS superintendent.  I think it was a good decision.
Signed, NPS superintendent


 
Acts of Reprisals are "Alive and Well" within the NPS High Command toward anyone at any level who dares to think independently or exercise their perceived "Freedom of Speech"  So, remaining Anonymous has Value for later retirement benefits; At this rate, let's acknowledge, the NPS is on the same down-sizing/extinction threat as the US Postal Service. Now, on plastic bottles or any container including aluminum, began a dime deposit program for recycling, (Yes, Xanterrible, this means You Too !) especially the basic advertising rule for any agency thinking they are a "conservation agency" or pretending to be one.


Parks have been around longer than those plastic bottles of water have been sold.  So, visitors can just go back to doing what they were before PBW existed.  Why is this a problem?


1.  The Director never said he agreed with Coca Cola and reversed the Grand Canyon bottle ban program.  He said he wanted to review it.  That seems to be exactly what happened here.

2.  The notable person who first went public on this was the former superintendent (and former NPS Dep. director) of Grand Canyon, Mr. Martin.  This website has covered numerous comments by people who complained about activities and programs of Mr. Martin before -- Hubble T-P, core mission,  and on and on -- complaining at the least that he winged it, that his programs were  not thought through.  Near the end of his superintendency, he made a presentation on a different project than this one to the NPS development projects review board, and did not have answers to most of the key questions superintendents are supposed to consider in advance before implementing development projects.  Now, with all that history, how big a surprise is it that the Director would want to examine this bottle ban before it is implemented?  The NPS deputy director responsible for the National Park Foundation programs is new to the NPS, and also may not have given this a thorough review; or even if he did to his own satisfaction, it would make sense to keep an eye on something he reviewed with huge operational implications.  Is it really implausible the Director would want  to review it?  Why shouldn't he?
 
3.  Coca Cola does not give enough money or push the NPS hard enough for  anyone to  think their funding matters very much, compared to the cost of running the parks, total donations from all sources, and the value obtained from Coke.  The National Park Foundation, the ones who actually contacted the NPS about Coke, is not considered to be highly regarded for its accomplishments by the NPS either.   It is impossible to believe Coke would want to be perceived as kicking  up this kind of fuss, considering the only reason for these small donations is to improve the image of the corporations.  There is no leverage here.  But if the NPF and Coke raise objections here, should the NPS ignore their objection, or take a look at their complaint?
 
4.  It was a fast turnaround on the review.  The issues they want superintendents to consider are not ridiculous.
   
This Director has the most active "green" practices program in NPS history.  If NPS knew the bottle ban at Grand Canyon was ready to go, fully vetted and in solid shape, and a minor donor like Coke raised an objection, NPS would not be intimidated by Coke's complaints.  But if someone with standing raised objections and sound answers were not known or immediately forthcoming, then they would do a review.  The same thing happened at Sen. Feinstein objected to ending the oyster lease.  But in neither case did the NPS just roll over to corporate or political pressure.
 


I rarely will buy an overpriced bottle of water.  I mean, really.  If you want to talk about cost.....  If you can buy a bottle,  there is likely to be running water, either in washrooms or drinking fountains.  Refill my reusable.   More cost effective for me,  better for the environment.  Win/win.  


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.