Groundbreaking Bottled Water Tax Raises Dustup in Chicago
In 2007, the image of bottled water in the public consciousness underwent a huge shift. What had been largely seen as a healthy lifestyle choice had, in just a matter of months, become recognized by many consumers as an eco-sin. (Click here for a Green Options post detailing the ways bottled water is costly, wasteful, and bad for public health.) Now, a controversial new eco-sin tax, the first of its kind, has shined an even bigger spotlight on the ubiquitous bottled water.
As the New Year begins, Chicagoans are getting some direct encouragement to forgo buying disposable bottled water and switch to reusable bottles filled with fresh, clean water from the tap. In November, Chicago became the first city in the U.S. to pass a tax on bottled water sold within the city limits. The 5 cents per bottle tax went into effect on Jan. 1, and is expected to raise $10.5 million for the city this year.
In addition to producing revenue that can be used to maintain the city’s water infrastructure, the tax is designed to encourage citizens to shift their hydration habits from bottled to tap water, which is essentially the same thing you get when you buy most bottled water brands. (Filtration with a charcoal filter such as Brita or Pur is a common step taken to remove any chlorine aftertaste, though it I think it tastes fine straight from the faucet.) The tax will also help reduce the number of the plastic containers that wind up in landfills (less than 20% of plastic water bottles in this country are ever recycled) and reduce the greenhouse gas and other pollution created by trucking all that water to retail sites.
Of course, the new tax is meeting some resistance from businesses with an interest in the wasteful status quo. In addition to news reports of grumbling from some consumers who are used to buying their water bottles by the case, the tax now faces a legal challenge from some industry trade groups. Yep, it turns out that a lot of the folks who profit from selling tap water are willing to sue to protect their share of this huge-margin business. Real shocker, right? Actually, the lawsuit isn’t really surprising when you consider the racket that bottled water has become. The fact is, consumers regularly pay more per ounce for bottled water than they do for gasoline—and it’s much easier to manufacture.
The city has responded to the suit by saying it is prepared to defend the tax in court. One argument that the suit makes is that the new tax is unfair because it doesn’t apply to other non-carbonated bottled beverages, such as milk, teas, coffees, and sports drinks. Chicago Law Department spokesman Jenny Hoyle responded by pointing out that, “unlike these other beverages, tap water is a generally available, safe alternative in the city of Chicago.” That’s a crucial difference, and one that makes intuitive sense. In other words, the taxing rules don’t need to be the same for Gatorade and water because the city isn’t already in the business of providing an alternative to Gatorade through its infrastructure. Essentially, the city is taxing consumers for the convenience of the bottle, because the same thing is available in every working faucet in town.
Time will tell if Chicago’s bottled water tax survives this legal challenge, but I sure hope it does. This kind of eco-sin tax seems like a smart way to spread the true economic costs to those who benefit from them. Sure, it’s convenient to buy a chilled bottle of water sometimes, and I’ll gladly pay a nickel extra for those times when I forget to bring my refillable bottle or it’s not immediately convenient to find tap water or I just really want an ice-cold bottle of Evian with my lunch. What’s good about this tax is that it creates a concrete financial incentive to switch your everyday, habitual water consumption to the sustainable model of refillable bottles rather than throwaway plastics. It gets people to take another look at that plastic bottle and assess the relative merits of its convenience versus the real economic price of its disposability.
My guess is that the bottled water tax will be upheld and that after a few months of trying to get around the tax by driving outside the city limits to buy in bulk, many consumers here in Chicago will just make the switch to refillable bottles. In a year, the tax will go unnoticed by most people, just like the most people have no idea how much taxes increase the price of cigarettes. If other communities follow suit with their own bottled water taxes (and it seems this may be a trend), they’ll probably be smart to charge 10 cents a bottle and really send a strong signal that provides the most revenue buck for the taxation bang.
A related side effect of Chicago’s tax on bottled water that I like is that it makes you take a second look at those often-neglected public water fountains (or “bubblers” as we used to call them growing up in Wisconsin). In the light of a law that says essentially, “Hey, you can get this item for free if you just walk over to the faucet,” water fountains don’t appear to be quite such outdated relics of another era. In fact, these underappreciated appliances that tend to remind many of us of elementary school start to take on a more noble appearance as a valued civic service, dispensing life-giving nourishment, free for the asking. In a world in which water resources are becoming more valuable every year, maybe the once-ubiquitous bubbler will make a comback rather than going the way of the all-but-extinct public telephone booth.
More information:
Chicago Tribune - New Year Brings Bottled Water Tax
Chicago Sun-Times - City Sued over Bottled Water Tax
The Daily Green - An Eco-Sin Tax on Bottled Water
Green Options - Daily Tip: Bottle Your Own Water
Green Options - Lighter Footstep: 5 Reasons Not to Drink Bottled Water
Photo credit: Keetsa
In finland there’s been a deposit on bottles since the 50’s and the recycling rate of them is close to 100% because of that.
Do you want to know why no one cares about your opinions? You blatant bullshit, that is why… Bottled water from the major bramnds is NOT “essentially the same” as tap water. I know you were ignorant referring to the fact that Dasani and Aquafina are bottled with municipal tap water. But that water is filtered through a MUCH better system than a piece of crap Brita filter. As for the taste…well, go ahead and make sweeping judgements about it tasting fine from the tap…as if you have tasted tap water from EVERY city. Just realize that when you do that, fewer andfewer people will ever listen to you becuase yuo prove yourself to be unwilling or unable to have an intelligent debate
I don’t think that the five cents per bottle tax will be enough to discourage the average John Smith to switch to a reusable bottle.
In South Africa, for example, a similar tax was placed on plastic shopping bags about three years ago. The amount of people since then to have actually changed their shopping routine to include their own “sustainable” shopping bags when at the till, is virtually unnoticeable. People don’t mind paying the extra 5c equivalent for convenience.
Although bottled water is not necessarily a convenience issue so much as it might be a perceived health issue, I think that the tax will have the same effect as with plastic shopping bags - that is to say almost non at all.
My guess is that for such taxes to have a meaningful impact on societies behaviour towards the environment, their impact will have to become far bigger in monetary terms - i.e. five cents is just too little.
Although I do agree that there are much better alternatives to drinking bottled water I would have to caution people as to the “safety” of our own tap water. Having been in the water filtration business for over 20 years, yes, our water is some of the safest in the country, but that is with regards to bacterial contamination. Most people do not realize that due to the chlorine content of the water and the carcinogenic byproducts it creates in the water to sanitize, over time it can be very harmful. But alas, a simple carbon filter will do the trick. Understand that most of the “bottled water” that is really tap water still goes through a reverse osmosis system and in some cases even through a hyper oxygenation process which takes care of bacteria and the byproducts found in tap water.
I don’t know about Chicago water supply but I do know about Minneapolis and their water supply. I lived there for 25 years and got sick twice from drinking the water. The worst sickness was giadiasis. I was very uncomfortable and sick and lost two weeks of work. At the time 25,000 people were affected out of a population of about 250,000. I lived three blocks from one end of the bridge that fell down and killed some people. we were told the bridge was safe and it wasn’t. We are told the public water system is safe.
Publically available water fountains are not required by law in all states.
In Louisiana, it’s almost impossible to find water fountains in any public areas. This is because water fountains impede the sale of … bottled water at exorbitant prices.
I agree that the bottled water industry is an enormous scam, but an incredibly large money making one. The soft drink companies who perpetuated this scam in the first place have significant legal wherewithal to pursue this for as long as it takes to maintain unfettered access to this market.
chris
[…] Illinois is playing host to the world’s newest tax on morality; a 5 cent tax on all bottled water. To quote this weblog post: “The tax will also help […]
[…] water tax Groundbreaking Bottled Water Tax Raises Dustup in Chicago : Sustainablog […]
Hawaii has a 6 cents bottle redemption program in which you are taxed 6 cents and given a nickel for each recycled good you bring to the redemption center.
“… has shined… “?