More and more parks are installing water-filling stations, such as this one at Arches National Park/Kurt Repanshek
Nearly two dozen units of the National Park System have instituted bans against the sale of disposable water bottles, a move proponents say will greatly reduce trash.
For most parks, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, disposable plastic water bottles represent the biggest source of trash that parks must pay to haul away, averaging nearly one-third of all solid waste in parks surveyed.
"Ending sales of plastic bottles in national parks has gotten off to a slow start due to the influence of Coca-Cola, whose Dasani bottled water is one of the top sellers, on top National Park Service officials," PEER maintains. "In 2010, just days before a long-planned plastic bottle ban at Grand Canyon National Park was to take effect, NPS Director Jon Jarvis blocked it at the company's behest. Even more significantly, NPS abandoned its plan to end disposable water product sales in 75 percent of all visitor facilities by 2016."
However, after the matter gained public attention the Park Service director relented, though he issued a directive that required parks to extensively study the impacts of instituting such a ban before they would be permitted to do so.
The analysis required elaborate assessments that included a 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.
The analysis also dictated the consideration of "contractual implications" to concessionaires, the cost and availability of BPA-free reusable containers, and signage so visitors could find water filling stations.
Perhaps due to the controversy, only a handful of national parks adopted bans under the new policy in 2012, its first full year. In 2013, records obtained by PEER indicate that no park that sought a bottle sale ban was turned down and another six parks went bottle-free:
* Colorado National Monument;
* In Texas, Pecos and San Antonio Missions national historic parks;
* In North Carolina, the Outer Banks Group; and
* In Utah, Natural Bridges and Hovenweep national monuments.
Beyond the 23 parks in 10 states that already do not sell plastic water bottles, California's Golden Gate National Recreational Area, the most heavily visited national park, and Florida's Biscayne Bay National Park, are both installing water 'filling stations' to provide free water to visitors. In addition, Washington's Mount Rainier National Park indicates it is working on a ban, according to PEER.
"From desert to ocean parks, from remote wilderness to urban enclaves, the drive to remove the blanket of discarded plastic bottles appears to be slowly regaining momentum," said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that NPS replaced its goal of a ban on bottle sales at 75 percent of facilities with a vaguer target that parks cut solid waste streams by half by 2016, the year of the NPS Centennial.
"National Parks will be hard pressed to meet the goal of cutting their expensive and un-ecological solid waste load by half without addressing plastic bottles -- the single largest source of trash in most parks," said Mr. Ruch.
Word that nearly two dozen parks had banned the sale of the plastic bottle was praised by Corporate Accountability International, which long has lobbied for the ban.
"We applaud the more than 20 national parks that have ended the sale of bottled water on park lands, taking a critical step towards reducing waste and standing up as leaders within the park service by protecting water as a public good," said Erin Diaz, director of the Think Outside the Bottle campaign at the organization.
'With the support of our members, allies, and hundreds of small businesses, organizations and park partners, Corporate Accountability International is calling on the the National Park Service to end the sale of bottled water."
Comments
Not at all. But so far, all your "solutions" have required some large stretches of the imagination.
Profitability is increasing in the recycling business and will hopefully lead to greater use of recycling. But that still may not be a mitigating factor in wastefulness. Do we REALLY need throw away bottles, cups, and other containers? Americans have been hoodwinked by clever advertising into seeking convenience -- usually at greater expense to all of us.
What percentage of the prices of many common products is tied up in packaging that will be thrown away within thirty seconds of trying to get the item blasted loose from its plastic fortification? Could gasoline prices be reduced if the oil consumed by packaging were being used for fuel instead? Would air quality -- and atmospheric warming -- be helped by production of less plastic? How many unexpected consequences are we purchasing for this battered old world in our mad culture of consumption?
Perhaps we need to start asking ourselves, "Is this REALLY necessary?"
I realize we're endulging ec in this banter, but I couldn't resist responding to this one:
"I have complete faith in mans ability to address any of these issues - as long as he is allowed to."
In this particular case, one way "man" is addressing these issues is by providing a cost-effective alternative to throw-away water bottles, and making it easy to use them.
Are the parks listed above trying to encourage people to move in that direction by banning throw-away sales? Yes, but they aren't forcing people to do so, since anyone is welcome to purchase such bottles outside the parks and bring them along during a park visit.
In my case, some years ago a family member encouraged my wife and I to give reusable water bottles a try. We did, made the switch, and have happily saved a lot of money as a result.
A key reason for all this discussion is that there's disagreement among those commenting about what consititues the "issues." In ec's case, unlimited use of plastic throw-away bottles isn't an issue. Others here have pointed out the broader "cost" of those bottles, and take the opposite view.
Some minds aren't easily changed, or they just enjoy the debate.
Not me. Give them a cut of the deposit and they will be more than happy to accommodate.
Once again you represent the epitome of negativism.
Forcing an inconvenience is hardly progress.
Who are you to decide what someone needs? What does "need" have to do with anything. Are we to live in caves and hunt with spears because in reality we don't "need" anything more than that?
I am far from "stretching imagination" but you don't appear to have any. Why are you so pessimistic? Why do you see everything as evil? Why can't you take any joy in man's accomplishments and progress.
ec--I hardly think the use and discarding of plastic bottles is mark of man's "accomplishments and progress".
Rick
Well given that 50 billion are sold in the US every year, I would say there are millions of people that would disagree with you.
Forcing an inconvenience is hardly progress.
EC, How is your suggestion not forcing an inconvenience. It's just forcing it on another group.