EVRN 460: CAPSTONE | Dr. Kelly Kindscher | May 8, 2014

Lead Author: Schuyler Kraus

Co-Authors: Faith Bitterman, Autumn Stroble, Kourtney Welsh

Acknowledgements: Melanie Funk, Casey Vogt, Xiaoyi Zhang

Take Back the Tap

    2

   

   

Executive Summary

Introduction

A Sustainable Tradition

Why Take Back the Tap?

The Plan

Data Acquisition and Assessment

Community Education & Outreach

Implementation

Additional Future Considerations

KU Community

Lawrence Community

Contents

5

6

11

15

16

21

21

     3

The bottled water industry negatively affects local water systems, public health, the environment,

and people, resulting in multiple complex and far-reaching environmental injustices. Private bottled

water manufacturers, such as Pepsi and Coca-Cola, often invade small communities (unannounced)

and harvest municipal water resources at a cost of less than one cent per gallon. Simultaneously,

they propagate the idea that municipal water systems are inferior and impure. As a result of their

clever marketing schemes, bottled water is widely misperceived as cleaner, safer, and healthier than

tap water, when in fact the water bottle industry is largely unregulated, and damaging to the

environment and public health.i That the public holds false beliefs about the superior nature of

bottled water is a lifeline for the industry; it is the sole reason private companies are still able to

exploit local water resources and sell them back to consumers, albeit in an individualized, fancy

bottle, but degraded and at up to 10,000 times the price compared to tap water.ii

Take Back the Tap is a national campaign by Food and Water Watch seeking to undermine the

bottled water industry by assisting students in efforts to ban the bottle on their respective campuses.

Though our name is inspired by the national campaign, we do not use their campaign materials, nor

are we advocating for a campus-wide bottled water ban at this time. Our campaign’s goal is to reduce

the overall sales of bottled water on campus by restoring consumer confidence and investment in our

local municipal water system. Our objectives include [1] educating the University of Kansas (KU)

community about issues of sustainability regarding bottled water and the differences between

bottled and tap water and [2] providing an accessible, sustainable alternative to bottled water on

campus. We propose establishing a network of hydration stations that fill bottles with filtered tap

water that students and faculty can plug into with a reusable Take Back the Tap water bottle. As a

holistic campaign, Take Back the Tap facilitates education, engages a diverse group of stakeholders

and provides tangible, sustainable solutions for all those who seek to hydrate on campus grounds.

Take Back the Tap at the University of Kansas is not alone. There are many universities with

similar student-led campaigns that have successfully provided safe and accessible tap water across

campuses, increased student and faculty awareness on the environmental and social consequences

of the bottled water industry. Over 125 universities have initiated such campaigns. Of these, 84 have

prohibited sales of bottled water, including Washington University in St. Louis, Drake University

(Iowa), Oberlin College (Ohio), Harvard, Stanford, and Brown (see Figure 1).

 

Executive Summary

    4

   

 

 

 

Due to the initiative’s popularity, The Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in

Higher Education (AASHE) now awards points for bottled water bans under “Water Initiatives”

in their Sustainability Tracking, Assessment, and Rating System (STARS). Adopting Take Back

the Tap will benefit the university in a multitude of ways. It will increase the university’s

recognition as a sustainable institution of higher learning, contribute to the overall

sustainability literacy on campus, enable students from a wide variety of departments to

engage in sustainable behavior on a daily basis, save students, faculty, and staff money, and

ensure that everyone on campus has access to filtered water, regardless of their ability to pay

for it.

Figure 1: Universities With Bottled Water Initiatives

Caption: Red – Bottled water initiatives; Green – Partial ban on sales; Blue – Campus-wide ban on sales.

     5

 

A Sustainable Tradition

In keeping with KU’s “Building Sustainable Traditions” (July 2011), Take Back the Tap is a comprehensive,

multidisciplinary way to integrate social, environmental, and economic sustainability into our campus

environment. Our objectives (education and the installation of a network of hydration stations) engage students

in sustainable practices on a daily basis, thereby increasing sustainability literacy and sustainable behavior on

campus. Educational materials illustrate all three dimensions of sustainability by explaining equity,

environmental, and economic aspects of bottled water. Hydration stations provide an opportunity for KU to start

reducing and reusing before recycling, thereby decreasing the amount of waste produced on campus. Take Back

the Tap (TBTT) is an opportunity for KU to model sustainable behavior to other universities and communities

across the state. It fulfills key objectives of “Building Sustainable Traditions” in the following ways:

Administrative, Development, and Planning Objective 1.2: Sustainable drinking water infrastructure integrates sustainability into physical development. Objective 1.4: Take Back the Tap cultivates a broad understanding of sustainability among the KU community. Objective 3.1: Students, faculty, and staff can engage in sustainable behavior on a daily basis by filling a reusable bottle at a hydration station, seeing a visual of the impacts of bottled water while doing so.

Curriculum and Research Objective 2.1: Students from all disciplines are exposed to the campaign; it serves as a multidisciplinary sustainability educational opportunity. Objective 2.2: Revenue from selling water bottles can be put toward sustainability scholarships (see “Implementation”). Objective 3.2: This program can serve as a model to other campuses and communities interested in sustainability throughout Kansas.

Student Life Objective 1.1: During orientation, students will be introduced to the campaign and receive a reusable water bottle, a map of hydration stations, and an information pamphlet on sustainability and water. Objective 1.2: This is a student group that is trying to implement a campus sustainability effort. If adopted, it can communicate the importance of cultivating and maintaining student passion behind sustainability initiatives to bring about positive change. Objective 1.4: As part of the KU experience, TBTT will be an informal opportunity for students to learn “sustainable life skills … outside the classroom.”

Built Environment Objective 1.1: Including a minimum amount of hydration stations per building is a standard that would support a “more sustainable built environment.” Objective 1.3: By directing individuals to municipal water sources, the inclusion of hydration stations in the built environment results in a smaller physical footprint in terms of water and energy consumption.

Procurement Objective 1.1: Providing students, faculty and staff with reusable bottles and access to free filtered water will result in a net decrease in the amount of bottled water sold on campus, thereby “[reducing] the use of disposable goods.” Objective 2.1: Along with increasing the amount of environmentally and socially responsible goods purchased comes decreasing the volume of unsustainable, both socially and environmentally, products purchased. Also, hydration stations qualify as a sustainable purchase.

Waste Objective 1.1: Only recycle when you have failed to both reduce and reuse. TBTT strongly emphasizes this lesson and is a way to act on it. Objective 2.1: As mentioned above, TBTT illustrates and provides a way for people to engage with the notion that the first step in managing waste is reducing consumption, providing an opportunity for the KU community to increase their education and engagement with waste issues.

Introduction

    6

   

 

     7

Why Take Back the Tap?

Lax Regulation

While Americans often perceive bottled water as safer, cleaner, and healthier than tap water, it is

estimated that 40-60% of bottled water is actually just packaged municipal tap water that escapes

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations.iii Under federal law, the EPA oversees the regulation of

tap water, but does not have authority to extend its jurisdiction to bottled water.iv Instead, the Food and

Drug Administration (FDA) is tasked with that responsibility, because bottled water is considered a

food/beverage item. However, the FDA can only regulate products that fall into the category of “interstate

commerce,” meaning that a bottle of water must cross state lines sometime between when it is bottled to

when it is sold in order for the FDA to have any jurisdiction. This occurs about 40 percent of the time, the

implication being that roughly 60 percent of bottled water sold in the U.S. is completely unregulated.v

Even for the 40% of bottled water that the FDA is charged with monitoring, the quality of the product is

questionable. Municipalities are required to test their water multiple times per day and regularly submit

test results and quality reports to the EPA. Not

only are these reports carefully reviewed by

government agencies, they are released for

public scrutiny and then archived for 5-10

years.vi The City of Lawrence, for instance,

conducts water quality tests 3 times per day

and, in 2013, reported not one violation of EPA

standards.vii On the other hand, “FDA does not

have the specific statutory authority to require

bottlers to use certified laboratories for water

quality tests or to report test results, even if

violations of the standards are found.”viii

Between 2000 and 2008, FDA district offices

conducted inspections less than 2-3 times per

year on average and 35% of the time found

potential problems, though the “FDA took little

enforcement action.”ix Product quality and

safety is thus entrusted to those who are

concerned with only one thing – profit.

    8

   

Toxicity Concerns

Unbeknownst to the

customer, studies have

shown that extremely

dangerous toxins leeched

from plastic containers

contaminate most bottled

water. Researchers at

Queen’s University Belfast

analyzed 42 samples of

bottled water for four

classes of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), 78% of which displayed “levels of hormonal activity at

low concentrations.”x In another study, researchers detected nine EDCs, including Bisphenol A (BPA) in six

popular bottled water brands, which constituted 100% of the sample. Though the detected concentrations

were low, any “chronic exposure to EDCs is toxicologically relevant.”xi EDCs bioaccumulate in body fat

deposits and significantly increase risk for diseases such as breast cancer, obesity, and diabetes, as well as

reproductive system disorders.xii Prenatal and early life exposure is especially dangerous, as EDCs impair

the development of hormonal systems and vital organs, potentially resulting in “birth defects, … infertility,

… sperm production problems, … early puberty,” and abnormal brain development.xiii To the detriment of

public health, these diseases can take decades to develop, making it near impossible to hold companies

accountable for these impacts.

Additional studies conducted on bottled water quality further reveal troubling contamination trends. In

2008, the Environmental Working Group published a report on water quality analyses of 10 bottled water

brands conducted by two separate facilities, University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory and University of

Missouri. They identified a total of 38 contaminants, including arsenic, toluene, chloroform, hexane,

methylcyclopentane, boron, radioactive pollutants (Radium-228 and Strontium-90), pharmaceuticals, and

fertilizer residue.xiv Bacteria are also quite prolific; levels in bottled water can exceed tap water averages

by up to 83 times.xv Moreover, bottled water has been confirmed as a source of antibiotic resistant bacteria,

and a possible source of commensal and pathogenic bacteria.xvi

High Economic and Energy Premiums

Though bottled water is extremely profitable for the industry (a company’s typical gross margin is

between 25% to 35%), it places an economic hardship on consumers.xvii When powerful companies, such as

Nestle or Coca-Cola, move in and begin water mining, they often pay municipalities less per gallon than

local residents, the taxes of whom are essentially subsidizing a portion of the company’s future profits.xviii

     9

Consumers then are charged up to 10,000 times the price of tap water to purchase the product (see Table

1).xix For example, to stay hydrated in New York City costs $1.75 each year, where one eight-ounce glass of

tap water is around $.0005.xx But for a year of drinking the same amount of bottled water, it can cost over

$1,400 a year, despite its comparatively inferior quality.xxi

Not only is bottled water financially expensive, its production is energy intensive. Since the water itself

does not undergo any special treatment, the majority of the energy needed for bottled water production is

consumed in the production of the bottles.xxii Based on the U.S. annual consumption of bottled water in

2007 of 33 billion liters, energy input for bottled water consumption was 32-54 million barrels of oil.xxiii

Though this figure represents a small fraction of U.S. energy consumption, it is 2,000 times the energy

associated with tap water.xxiv

Privatization and Social Equity

At present, over 3 billion people in the world lack access to potable water.xxv According to anticipated

climate change impacts, this number is expected to increase to over half of the world’s population by

2030.xxvi The United States’ vulnerability to water scarcity pales in comparison to that of countries’ in the

global south, most of which still lack comprehensive water treatment infrastructure. In fact, the US is

among the few countries that mandate all local areas have sophisticated wastewater treatment systems

that provide top quality potable water. Yet, our system’s beneficiaries often fail to acknowledge or

capitalize on the luxury of readily available potable water. In fact, the US consumes more bottled water

than any other country, which is quite impressive, considering it constitutes less than 5 percent of the

world’s population.

By investing in the privatization of water, consumers are further disempowering those who are most

vulnerable to severe water scarcity. As a global commodity, nearly all of the water extracted by the bottled

water industry is consumed outside of the community where it was sourced, a quarter of this exported to

1 Gallon

5 Gallons

10 Gallons

20 Gallons

$0.004

$0.02

$0.04

$0.08

$3.86

$19.30

$36.60

$77.20

$9.47

$47.34

$94.67

$189.35

USE TAP WATERREGULAR-GRADEGASOLINE

BOTTLED WATER(16.9OZ PET BOTTLES

Table 1: Price Comparison of Tap Water, Bottled Water and Gasoline

Considering the general consensus that gas prices are outrageous, it is hard to account for consumers’ infatuation with bottled water.

    10

other countries – a permanent removal of water from the community’s surrounding watershed.xxvii When

water mining (i.e. extracting water resources), companies often withdraw water faster than it can be

replenished, an “excessive withdrawal … [that] threatens local streams and groundwater.”xxviii This even

occurs in developing countries, where 80% of diseases are caused by lack of access to safe water.xxix In

these regions, municipal water networks only serve upper income citizens, while everyone else must

harvest rainwater, collect surface water, use communal faucets (if fortunate enough to be near one), or

purchase locally bottled water, which is many times more expensive than the tap water provided to the

wealthy and often unaffordable.xxx Partly due to

these conditions, water is now seen as the

“‘blue gold’ of the 21st century,” considered a

profitable commodity rather than a basic human

right.xxxi

The private water industry’s invasion of the

global south has been largely facilitated by the

World Bank and IMF, illegitimately justified by

respective “state failures” to establish systems

to treat and distribute potable water. Though

the failures were “often more a result of the

strictures of foreign debt than of corrupt or

inefficient state management, … the ‘state

failure’ argument dovetailed well with the ideological shift toward neoliberalism in international financial

institutions, and has prevailed for [over] two decades.”xxxii As privatization of tap water has continued in

these countries, the essential resource is becoming so expensive that many are forced to drink from

contaminated sources.xxxiii The irony is that those who can afford it direct their capital toward continued

privatization rather than improvement in public municipal water supplies. As a form of water privatization,

the bottled water industry exacerbates vulnerability to water scarcity no only during its production (in

concentrated areas), but during its consumption (globally), as well.

Every instance where a consumer actively or passively enables the continued privatization of water

serves to crystalize the systems by which it will be allocated in the future and, ultimately, define who is in

control of these systems. With bottled water sales projected to surpass those of carbonated soft drinks in

the near future, the US and global markets are expected to grow to $15.5 billion and $70 billion,

respectively, by 2017.xxxiv Considering municipalities in the US already provide a superior product than

bottled water to the majority of bottled water consumers at relatively no cost, this growth represents an

enormous relinquishment to private companies by the public. Moreover, the consumers willing to make

this sacrifice for the sake of convenience are doing so at the expense of more than half of the developing

Figure 2: Global Consumption of Bottled Water in 2011

Source: http://www.bottledwater.org/files/2011BWstats.pdf

     11

world’s population, the children of whom die every day in numbers exceeding 6,000 from diseases, mostly

diarrhea and parasitic illnesses, associated with unsafe drinking water.xxxv

Environmental Concerns

As previously noted, the bottled water manufacturing industry uses a significant amount of fossil fuels

during production and transportation of the product. The International Bottled Water Association found

that resulting emissions average 6.8 million tons of CO2 every year.xxxvi Though this figure represents a mere

1% of total US emissions, that the industry itself is defensibly redundant renders any resulting negative

effects unnecessary and unacceptable. A study calculating life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions determined

that, compared to tap water’s 0.09 kg CO2 eq. global warming potential (GWP), bottled water’s is 16.20 kg

CO2 eq.xxxvii Even bottled water’s best GWP value exceeds tap water’s worst by a factor of 190. Furthermore,

as the privatization of water intensifies the potential conditions of increased water scarcity, it effectively

magnifies climate change impacts; complementing that with an instrumentality in causing the problem

appears to be quite imprudent.

Another environmental externality on the production end results from water mining by companies.

Regardless of whether companies are sourcing from surface water or groundwater, the hydrological

consequences can be severe. Nearly all water extracted by the bottled water industry is consumed outside

of the community where it was sourced, a quarter of this being exported to other countries – a permanent

removal of water from the community’s surrounding watershed.xxxviii When water mining (i.e. extracting

water resources), companies often withdraw water faster than it can be replenished, an “excessive

withdrawal … [that] threatens local streams and groundwater.”xxxix As the water table declines, water quality

suffers due to increased temperatures (as it is more shallow) and, in coastal areas, increased vulnerability

to saltwater intrusion.xl Whereas the negative impact of salinized water is readily recognized, the

consequences of warmer water temperatures are less predictable. Potentially, it can result in the dissolving

of naturally occurring chemicals (e.g. fluoride, arsenic, and radon), faster rates of evaporation, subsistence,

or the proliferation of waterborne diseases.xli The decline of the water table also amplifies water shortages,

as companies often continue to pump even during conditions of extreme drought.

What is perhaps the longest lasting environmental impact of bottled water is plastic waste. In the US,

only 23% of bottled water containers are recycled, leaving about 4 billion pounds of plastic bottles entering

municipal landfills each year, costing taxpayers an estimated $98 million dollars.xlii Inevitably, many of

these bottles bypass or are lost in recycling/waste streams, eventually making their way to the ocean.xliii

Plastic now outnumbers plankton by almost 1.5:1 and is often ingested by fish and other marine species.xliv

The resulting toxins from ingested microplastics, including Bisphenol A and polychlorinated biphenyls

(PCBs), transfer into the organism’s tissue and biomagnify through the food web, ultimately making their

way to dinner tables around the world.xlv Most of these are known carcinogens and also adversely impact

    12

the neurological system, endocrine system, reproductive system, and immune system.xlvi Experts predict

that significant quantities of this plastic debris will remain in the ocean for centuries to come.xlvii

     13

Data Acquisition and Assessment

In order to initiate Take Back the Tap,

we first needed to collect and analyze

data on the following aspects of the

campaign: prime hydration station sites,

attitudes toward bottled water on

campus, and bottled water sales on

campus. Prime hydration station sites

were necessary in order to create a

budget and comprehensive plan for

installation of sustainable drinking

water infrastructure. Understanding

student attitudes toward bottled water

helped ensure the campaign would

address stakeholder needs and

motivations for behavior change. Finally,

bottled water sales data will be necessary in monitoring progress; if sales decrease with the installation of

additional hydration stations and continued educational outreach that would indicate the campaign is

effective.

Currently, there are only five buildings on campus with existing hydration stations: Budig, Wescoe,

Watson Library, Kansas Union, and Burge Union. These were installed Summer 2013 as a result of Environs’

efforts running Take Back the Tap in Spring 2013, when they were granted $3,000 from Coca-Cola to work

with Mr. David Mucci, Director of Memorial Unions, on installation. Though there are many buildings still in

need of hydration stations, we decided to only include those that are on main campus and have 10 or more

classes held in a given semester or are central libraries or health facilities. We identified a total of 26

buildings that fit these criteria. Due to budgetary constraints, we propose completing installation in all

buildings over the course of three years, averaging 9 hydration station installations per year.

ArcGIS was used to separate the buildings into 6 priority groups based on their proximity to existing

hydration station buildings. By repeatedly drawing small buffers around buildings, starting with those that

currently have hydration stations, non-intersecting buildings could be selected as a given priority group.

Then, successively incorporating the identified priority buildings into the buffer group and decreasing the

buffer amount could identify subsequent priority groups identified until all buildings were accounted for.

During this process, buildings located on Jayhawk Blvd. were weighted because it is a high traffic area.

The Plan

    14

Additionally, if two non-intersecting buildings were within the buffered distance from one another, the

building with the largest area was chosen and the other, included in the subsequent priority group. Finally,

Budig was included in the first priority group despite its proximity to Wescoe, a building with an existing

hydration station, as it is on Jayhawk, hosts extremely large classes, and is a central location for many

students.

To select prime hydration station sites in Phase One buildings, each author worked to survey respective

buildings, noting the location of existing water fountains and their compatibility with bottle filler retrofits.

ELKAY and Halsey-Taylor fountains were prioritized, as they are compatible with retrofits and eliminate the

need to purchase an entirely new fountain. Each fountain was designated a prime choice based on visibility

and its proximity to main entrances, dining facilities, and vending machines. Our results from the survey

are displayed in Table 2.

In order to better understand the needs of our target audience, and what would help encourage a

change in their behavior, we collected data pertaining to student attitudes toward bottled water by

conducting a survey. The survey was exempted from Human Subjects Committee – Lawrence approval. We

emailed professors from select 100, 300, 500, and 700 level courses in seven different majors requesting

they give their students access to our online survey at surveymonkey.com. Additional opportunities to

complete the survey were provided to attendees of our Earth Day documentary screening, where we

showed Tapped; at the Students for a Sustainable Future (SSF) table on Wescoe Beach from 4/14 to 4/18;

and via a link posted to the “Students for a Sustainable Future” and “KU Take Back the Tap” Facebook

Table 2: Hydration Station & Campus Building Compatibility

Results from survey conducted week of 3/3/14

Haworth

Watkins

Murphy

Lindley

HALSEY-TAYLOR REPLACEMENT

ELKAYRETROFIT

HALSEY-TAYLOR RETROFIT

Green

Snow

Learned

Anchutz

Budig

JRP

     15

pages. The survey included questions intended to identify what aspects of bottled water were most valued

and which issues regarding bottled water

would most impact students. We were able to

survey 66 students.

The survey analysis conveyed information

pertaining to what students most value about

bottled water, what some of their

misconceptions about bottled water are, and

which issues would be most effective in

motivating a change in behavior. Every

respondent, save one, consumed either non-

filtered or filtered water at home, and between

these was a 50-50 divide. However, rather than

this indicating that respondents do not drink

bottled water it indicates that bottled water is

considered an on-the-go item. Indeed, in rating

convenience aspects of bottled water, only

20% indicated no factors were convenient,

suggesting that, at most, 20% of respondents

never purchase bottled water. Portability was

rated as the most valuable aspect of bottled

water. Ease of obtaining the product was

second most valuable to portability. Disposability ranked the least important with 80% of respondents

indicating it is the least/not a valuable aspect, and over half of these choosing the later option. These

results indicate that so long as the hydration station network is easily accessible, it will be effective in

substituting for at least 80% of the demand for valuable convenience factors that bottled water currently

provides. In confirmation of this prediction, 92% of respondents indicated they would not purchase bottled

water if they could access filtered water on campus.

Some common misconceptions that were identified in the survey were regarding cost, the nature of

social and environmental issues associated with bottled water, and safety of bottled water. Only 12%

accurately estimated the difference in cost between bottled and tap water, with the average response

underestimating it by a factor of 100, with 15% underestimating by a factor of 1,000. In comments regarding

the social and environmental consequences of bottled water, only two mentioned water privatization while

the rest were mostly limited to discussing the lack of recycling (e.g. “I can see how it effects trash/recycling,

but no idea what it has to do with social justice.”). A couple of comments also mentioned toxicity, however

    16

later in the survey the majority of respondents indicated they were unsure about how strictly bottled water

is regulated.

Although nearly all survey participants were not aware of any social justice issues associated with

bottled water, 70% agreed that if they became aware of any, they would not purchase it. Similarly, 75% of

respondents agreed that if they knew of any environmental issues associated with bottled water, they

would not purchase it. Taking into account that 80% of the respondents had previously indicated they see a

problem with the waste produced by bottled water, it seems reasonable to conclude that the perceived

severity of the environmental impact is also a factor in motivating a behavior change. Indeed, the potential

of bottled water exacerbating the effects of climate change scored higher in terms of whether it would

deter an individual from purchasing the product than the more generally phrased “environmental issues”

response. This leads us to believe that economic, social, and environmental angles will all be effective in

decreasing bottled water sales on campus.

Finally, we attempted to collected data on the bottled water sales at KU from September 2013 through

February 2014. These data were intended to inform calculations that would estimate the amount of bottled

water waste produced on campus and a way to measure the effectiveness of hydration stations at lowering

bottled water sales. Unfortunately, the data received were somewhat unreliable. In response to the first

inquiry for this information, Mr. David Mucci, Director of the Memorial Unions, provided a whole number to

represent the entire requested time period: 92,952, a number significantly lower than anticipated based on

the national average.xlviii Our campus

has over 28,000 students enrolled and

employs over 5,000 people, not

including student employees.xlix

Assuming 20,000 people on campus in

a given day and that only half of the

bottled water needs are met through

on-campus purchases, this initial

figure is 92% lower than anticipated,

according to the national per capita

consumption average.l After requesting

the number be represented in month-

to-month increments and articulating

concern regarding the perceived

inaccuracy, Mr. Mucci provided the

data represented in Table 3.

September 2013

October 2013

November 2013

December 2013

January 2014

February 2014

60,336

51,504

31,848

18,864

41,688

39,072

MONTH UNITS SOLD

Table 3: Bottled Water Sales Data

Source: David Mucci, Director of KU Memorial Union

243,312TOTAL:

     17

The total is more than double the initial figure and is still significantly lower than expected. It is unclear

whether the data are sound, therefore we determined them unfit to use as a metric for the impact providing

hydration stations has on bottled water sales.

Community Education and Outreach

Outreach is a vital

part of any campaign

that aims to change a

societal norm. Providing

educational material

and raising awareness

about the context of an

initiative is crucial to

enabling individuals to

make informed

decisions regarding the

fundamental issue

being addressed. In

cases where an individual is receptive, providing information ensures the ability to integrate long-term

changes into their lifestyle and extend related core values to other areas in life. Effective outreach also

encourages the public to take ownership of an issue by offering opportunities to engage with the issue

directly and organizing a consistent, reliable presence in the community. Take Back the Tap’s outreach

strategies are aimed at reaching all members of the KU community. As part of our efforts this semester, we

have tabled, hosted a screening of Tapped during Earth Week, and created an online presence. Moreover,

we designed T-shirts to wear during tabling and other events, so that our campaign is easily recognizable.

Another effort that we initiated but have not yet followed through is soliciting departmental pledges as part

of the Center for Sustainability’s “Green Office” program. In these ways, Take Back the Tap provides a way

for everyone at KU to engage with and become educated about the environmental, social and economic

implications of bottled water.

In celebration of Earth Month, Students for a Sustainable Future tabled on Wescoe beach from April

14th-April 17th. During tabling, we recruited students to sign our Take Back the Tap pledge. We also

displayed our Take Back the Tap poster, “the life & times of bottled water.” One of the most entertaining

activities during tabling was the water taste test, which we conducted over the course of 2 hours during

tabling. We provided 8 participants with two unmarked cups, one containing Dasani® water (as that is

    18

Coca-Cola’s brand, sold at KU) and the other containing Britta®-filtered tap water, from which the taster

selected the best tasting water. The majority chose filtered tap water, however, due to the limited number

of samples, a conclusive statement regarding student taste preferences could not be extrapolated.

Additionally, we hosted a screening of Tapped during Earth Week. Considering this is how many of our

own group members became engaged with the campaign, we expected it to make an impact on other

students, as well. About 10 students and several community members attended the screening. It was held

at the Commons in Spooner Hall on April 14th at 7pm and was advertised through the Center for

Sustainability, and on the “Students for a Sustainable Future” and “KU Take Back the Tap” Facebook pages.

As with tabling, we displayed the TBTT poster and encouraged attendees to take the pledge.

These face-to-face strategies of conducting outreach are complemented by a strong online presence.

Take Back the Tap’s online presence [facebook.com/takebackthetapKU] ensures that we have constant

connectivity with our stakeholders. Thus far, we have used our Facebook page to share pictures of TBTT

events, advertise events and tabling times, post campaign materials, and share information regarding

issues relating to bottled water. In the future, the page will also be an asset in member recruitment, as

vacancies in leadership positions can be advertised here. Overall, an active online presence has proven

beneficial not only to those of us coordinating the campaign, but to our target audience, as well, by

providing them consistent and reliable access to anything pertaining to TBTT.

To further engage faculty members, we are working on distributing a departmental pledge to

incorporate into the Center for Sustainability’s “Green Office” program. We met with Jeff Severin, Director

of the Center for Sustainability, to discuss how this could be implemented, but have yet to design a

comprehensive plan. In addition to including this in the “Green Office” program, Students for a Sustainable

Future will recognize participating departments on the Take Back the Tap Facebook page as “Blue Drop”

certified.

Implementation

A comprehensive implementation of Take Back the Tap must address all economic, environmental, and

social aspects of the campaign. Indeed, the mere presence of the hydration stations will do little to provide

Department Pledge

As  a  Green  Office  and  in  affiliation  with  the  Take  Back  the  Tap  campaign  at  the  University  of  Kansas,  this  department  pledges  refrain  from  purchasing  bottled  water  in  order  to  promote  department  sustainability.  In  signing  this  pledge,  the  department  agrees  to  remove  the  use  of  bottled  water  for  department  functions  and  events  so  as  to  reduce  waste,  

conserve  resources,  and  promote  investment  in  municipal  water  infrastructure.    This  action  will  merit  the  department  a  “Blue  Drop”  certification  issued  by  Students  for  a  Sustainable  Future,  as  well  as  contribute  toward  the  participant’s  recognition  in  the  Green  Office  program  in  such  a  way  as  yet  to  be  determined  

by  the  KU  Center  for  Sustainability.  

     19

the necessary sustainability literacy that KU community members demand as engaged and active citizens.

Therefore, to complement the comprehensive plan to acquire, install, and maintain the necessary

infrastructure (including reusable water bottles), we have delineated recommendations regarding how to

connect the physical infrastructure with students, faculty, and staff to strengthen their knowledge of

sustainability.

In creating a budget, we accounted for Phase One of hydration station installation, which includes ten

hydration stations. li Any costs associated with labor were not accounted for in this budget. In addition in

installing the hydration stations, we propose distributing 6,000 reusable glass water bottles to all incoming

freshman (~4,000 according to 2013 enrollment numbers) and at random throughout the remaining

student population.

We recommend glass over plastic or stainless steel bottles because, [1] unlike plastic, it does not leech

toxic chemicals or rely on petroleum byproducts to exist; [2] unlike stainless steel, it is not energy intensive

to produce; [3] unlike stainless steel, it does not absorb odors over time, rendering a smelly container that

changes the taste of any liquid it holds for an extended period of time, and; [4] glass bottles more

aesthetically appealing than either stainless steel or plastic. Though some would argue it is dangerous, we

contend that not only has glass durability increased markedly over the years, it is highly unlikely people

will be carelessly throwing their containers around with great force. Also, if people consuming alcoholic

beverages can safely move about, and at times dance, whilst holding glass beer bottles or glasses without

being considered a hazard to the safety of themselves or others, surely sober students, faculty, and staff

can be responsible with glass water bottles.

After Phase Two and Three of installing hydration stations is complete, funding amounts will

significantly decrease, as the only items included in a budget will be hydration station maintenance and

water bottle distribution (again, labor costs are not included). Installing multiple hydration stations in a

building is not within the scope of this report at present, though would be beneficial as the network would

be more accessible.

Halsey-Taylor Retrofit

ELKAY Retrofit

Halsey-Taylor Replacement

$503

$433

$933

HYDRATION STATION MODEL

COST PER UNIT

Table 4: Year One Implementation Budget

$21,679.48TOTAL:

QUANTITY

4

3

3

TOTAL

$2,012.00

$1,299.00

$2,979.00

22 oz. Glass Water Bottles $2.35 6000 $15,389.48

    20

We will continue to account for 6,000 bottles being purchased every year. Maintenance costs will be

limited to filter replacements, and each filter can process 3000 gallons before needing to be replaced. The

water bottles we have selected for this report can hold 22 oz. each, meaning each station can fill 17,454

bottles before requiring a filter change. Assuming 20,000 persons on campus in a given day, and a total of

30 hydration stations (accounting for Phase One, Two and Three installations plus current locations), each

hydration station serves about 670 people. If a third of these people utilize the stations regularly, we

predict they will require a filter change about once every 3 months. lii

To offset these expenses, we recommend the university sell Take Back the Tap water bottles at $15

each in locations on campus, such as bookstores and “Hawk Shops.” Considering the average glass water

bottle sells for an average of $20, this is an attractive price for the consumer, and it will yield a profit of at

least $12.50 to the university. At this price, it would take less than 2,000 water bottle sales to offset the

cost of running Take Back the Tap each year. Moreover, it is highly likely the quantity sold will be many

times that amount, as there are over 28,000 students enrolled, over 5,000 faculty and staff employed, and

countless visitors looking to purchase for unique KU swag. This would create a steady source of revenue

that could be applied to fund additional sustainability related initiatives (e.g., the revolving green loan

fund) or student sustainability scholarships.

In the case the university administration declines to administer and fund Take Back the Tap, Students

for a Sustainable Future (SSF) would do well to seek out a wide variety of funding sources. Student Senate

is the obvious go-to for annual filter replacement costs and hydration stations, as senate is prohibited from

funding items for distribution (i.e. water bottles). A few other primary funding sources include the KU

Center for Sustainability and the Environmental Studies Department. External sources include grants or

donations from sustainably minded businesses, such as the Merc Co-op. To date, the only external source

of funding SSF has sought is through indigogo.com, where we posted a KU TBTT promotional video

solicited donations. Unfortunately, no funding came through this avenue. Finally, it is possible that Office

of First-Year Experience or Student Housing would be willing to fund the purchase of water bottles, as

those two entities are the most convenient vehicles for distribution.

Filter Replacements $73.95

$2.35

COST PER UNIT

Table 5: Projected Annual Budget

$24,263.48TOTAL:

QUANTITY

120

6000

TOTAL

$8,874.00

$15,389.4822 oz. Glass Water Bottles

     21

Water bottle distribution is critical for students to be motivated to utilize the hydration station network.

Accompanying each water bottle should be a map of all hydration station locations throughout the campus.

The Office of First-Year Experience is by far the most well

suited department through which the water bottles could be

distributed. Whereas not all first-year students move through

housing, all are included in orientation and other functions

coordinated by this office. The water bottles could be

included in orientation packets or distributed during Hawk

Week, among other options. Also, to increase student

awareness of the program, a presentation about

sustainability at KU highlighting TBTT and other initiatives by

Center for Sustainability could be included in these events. A

similar means of distribution could be achieved through

Student Housing by distributing the water bottles to

incoming dorm residents. To supplement either of these, the

Center for Sustainability could distribute the water bottles

during April for Earth Day.

In order to ensure the KU community is connected to the

hydration station network, the map accompanying water

bottles is not sufficient. Two types of signage will be

necessary to have at each hydration station for several

reasons. One – a large sign reading something along the lines

of “Hydrate Here!” will ensure each hydration station is

readily visible to those nearby. Two – the poster “the life &

times of bottled water” will provide ongoing education about

sustainability and water. It is also worth considering

providing information indicating how students can report a

bad filter in the case one has gone unnoticed.

Though complex, such a detailed implementation plan is

necessary to guarantee that Take Back the Tap is mindfully executed in a holistic fashion. Financial

feasibility is addressed with the inclusion of detailed and conservatively calculated budgets. We also

provided a potential way to offset the costs and create a new source of revenue, followed with suggestions

of how the revenue can be used. To increase sustainable behaviors and sustainability literacy, we provide a

way to ensure informative material on the differences between bottled water and tap water is incorporated

into the campaign. Additionally, the environment in which the infrastructure is to be placed is given careful

    22

attention by selecting prime locations for hydration station installation, providing signage to enhance

visibility, and displaying the entire network on maps near each hydration station so that the campaign will

be more likely to direct consumers away from purchasing bottled water, contributing to an overall decrease

in waste on campus. Finally, Take Back the Tap addresses issues of social equity, as it provides those who

cannot afford to spend money on bottled water access to free filtered water on campus and a bottle for

portability.

With this plan, our objectives of [1]

educating the University of Kansas (KU)

community about issues of sustainability

regarding bottled water and the differences

between bottled and tap water and [2] providing

an accessible, sustainable alternative to bottled

water on campus are fulfilled. We expect that

these will achieve our goal of reducing the

overall sales of bottled water on campus by

restoring consumer confidence and investment

in our local municipal water system. Given all of

the recommendations provided in this plan are

followed and elaborated upon, Take Back the

Tap is sure to enhance KU’s social,

environmental, and economic sustainability.

     23

KU Community

The success of this campaign on campus is contingent on developing administrative participation. We

recommend establishing a task force similar to Portland State University’s “Sustainable Drinking Water

Task Force” to improve and integrate Take Back the Tap in the campus sustainability plan. This task force

will ideally include students and staff, especially members of prominent environmental organizations on

campus such as Environs, Students for a Sustainable Future, and the Center for Sustainability’s

Sustainability Leadership Board. The task force would play an important role in the acquisition and

analysis of KU bottled water sales information, and the coordination, funding, and installation of future

hydration stations. The task force will also be instrumental in continued community outreach necessary to

promote and sustain the campaign in the future.

Another way to increase the effectiveness of the campaign is to extend it to KU Athletics. This will

require collaborating with Sheahon Zenger, Director of Athletics, and Nicole Corcoran, Director of

Operations in Athletics. A possible obstacle will be the large profit revenue that sales of bottled water

provide. Pitching the campaign as an asset rather than a limitation to KU Athletics’ profit is critical to

overcoming this. We advise looking into the potential of selling Take Back the Tap reusable water bottles at

games for attendees to fill up at stadium hydration stations to cover for any lost revenue. Another angle is

to consider using the campaign as an advertising tool to increase ticket sales to a market that perceives

sports as generally conservative and resistant to sustainability efforts. To cultivate this mindset, we

suggest gaining the support of prominent athletes as spokespersons. This endorsement will increase

visibility of the effort and encourage student and public support.

Lawrence Community

Extending the campaign to the entire city of Lawrence is a potential way to include community

members. Collaborating with Eileen Horn, the Director of The City of Lawrence – Sustainability Department,

would be an excellent way to move forward with this partnership. A partnership with the Lawrence water

treatment plant and sustainability. Finally, local groceries such as the Merc Co-op and Checkers might also

be open to joining the campaign, as both of these provide customers with large-scale filtered water

container fillers. Reaching out to Lawrence businesses and possibly extending to them a pledge similar to

the Green Office program, and offering Blue Drop certification, would be worthwhile endeavors. Moreover,

working with local environmental groups, such as the Kansas Environmental Women’s Network could also

help promote the campaign. Perhaps in the future, Lawrence could join the list of cities that have

implemented citywide bans on the sale of single-serve bottled waters. Successfully engaging the public

will help encourage community members to value our municipality’s drinking water services and

increasingly engage in more sustainable behaviors.

Additional Future Considerations

    24

                                                                                                                 i Bottled Water: FDA Safety and Consumer Protections Are Often Less Stringent Than Comparable EPA Protections for Tap Water

(Washington, DC: United States Government Accountability Office, June 2009). ii Take Back the Tap: Bottled Water Wastes Resources and Money (foodandwaterwatch.org: Food & Water Watch, June 2013),

http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/TakeBacktheTap2013.pdf. iii Miguel F Doria, “Bottled Water versus Tap Water: Understanding Consumers’ Preferences,” Journal of Water and Health 4, no. 2 (June

2006): 271–76. iv Take Back the Tap: Bottled Water Wastes Resources and Money. v Ibid. vi Bottled Water: FDA Safety and Consumer Protections Are Often Less Stringent Than Comparable EPA Protections for Tap Water. vii Consumer Confidence Report 2014 (City of Lawrence Utilities, March 18, 2014),

http://www.lawrenceks.org/assets/utilities/documents/CCR_2014_Legal.pdf. viii Bottled Water: FDA Safety and Consumer Protections Are Often Less Stringent Than Comparable EPA Protections for Tap Water. ix Ibid. x Monika Plotan et al., “Endocrine Disruptor Activity in Bottled Mineral and Flavoured Water,” Food Chemistry, ASSET 2011, 136, no. 3–4

(February 15, 2013): 1590–96, doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.01.115. xi Diana Amiridou and Dimitra Voutsa, “Alkylphenols and Phthalates in Bottled Waters,” Journal of Hazardous Materials 185, no. 1 (January

15, 2011): 281–86. xii Evanthia Diamanti-Kandarakis et al., “Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement,” Endocrine Reviews

30, no. 4 (June 2009): 293–342. xiii US EPA, “Human Health: Early Life Exposures & Lifetime Health | Endocrine Disruptor Research | US Environmental Protection Agency,”

accessed May 3, 2014, http://www.epa.gov/research/endocrinedisruption/early-life-exp.htm. xiv “Bottled Water Quality Investigation,” Environmental Working Group, accessed May 3, 2014, http://www.ewg.org/research/bottled-

water-quality-investigation. xv Karla Gale, “Bottled Water Found Contaminated with High Levels of Bacteria,” ed. Donald Kaye, Clinical Infectious Diseases 51, no. 4

(August 15, 2010): i–ii. xvi Maria Fernanda Falcone-Dias, Ivone Vaz-Moreira, and Célia M. Manaia, “Bottled Mineral Water as a Potential Source of Antibiotic

Resistant Bacteria,” Water Research 46, no. 11 (July 2012): 3612–22. xvii Primo Water Announces Results for the Third Quarter Ended September 30, 2012 (GlobaNewswire, November 7, 2012). xviii Take Back the Tap: Bottled Water Wastes Resources and Money. xix Daniel Jaffee and Soren Newman, “A Bottle Half Empty Bottled Water, Commodification, and Contestation,” Organization &

Environment 26, no. 3 (September 1, 2013): 318–35. xx Nicole Cotroneo, “Back to the Tap? How the Environmental Impact of Bottled Water Is Getting People to Give up Their Plastic,” New York

Times Upfront, September 7, 2009, Academic OneFile. xxi Ibid. xxii P. H. Gleick and H. S. Cooley, “Energy Implications of Bottled Water,” Environmental Research Letters 4, no. 1 (January 1, 2009). xxiii Ibid. xxiv Ibid. xxv “International Decade for Action ‘Water for Life’ 2005-2015. Focus Areas: Water Scarcity,” accessed April 9, 2014,

http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/scarcity.shtml. xxvi Ibid. xxvii Daniel Jaffee and Soren Newman, “A More Perfect Commodity: Bottled Water, Global Accumulation, and Local Contestation,” Rural

Sociology 78, no. 1 (March 1, 2013): 1–28. xxviii “Resource Demands of Bottled Water,” The Water Project, accessed May 4, 2014,

http://thewaterproject.org/bottled_water_resource_usage; “Bottled Water Pricey in More Ways than One,” Worldwatch Institute: Vision for a Sustainable World, accessed May 3, 2014, www.worldwatch.org.

References

     25

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           xxix “International Decade for Action ‘Water for Life’ 2005-2015. Focus Areas: Access to Sanitation. Toilets,” accessed May 4, 2014,

http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/sanitation.shtml. xxx Jaffee and Newman, “A Bottle Half Empty Bottled Water, Commodification, and Contestation.” xxxi Ibid. xxxii Ibid. xxxiii Ibid. xxxiv “Bottled Water Sales Continue to Sparkle,” Beverage Industry 104, no. 7 (July 2013): SOI–6; Bill Bruce, “Growth Potential for Bottled

Water Industry,” FoodBev.com, October 1, 2013, foodbev.com/news. xxxv “UNICEF - Press Centre - Child Survival Fact Sheet: Water and Sanitation,” UNICEF, accessed May 4, 2014,

http://www.unicef.org/media/media_21423.html. xxxvi Victoria Keener et al., Climate Change and Pacific Islands: Indicators and Impacts, Executive Summary of the 2012 Pacific Islands

Regional Climate Assessment (PIRCA) (Pacific Islands Regional Climate Assessment, 2012), http://cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/Exec-Summary-PIRCA-FINAL2.pdf.

xxxvii Valentina Fantin et al., “A Method for Improving Reliability and Relevance of LCA Reviews: The Case of Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Tap and Bottled Water,” Science of The Total Environment 476–77 (April 1, 2014): 228–41.

xxxviii Jaffee and Newman, “A More Perfect Commodity.” xxxix “Resource Demands of Bottled Water”; “Bottled Water Pricey in More Ways than One.” xl Robert Glennon, “Tales of French Fries and Bottled Water: The Environmental Consequences of Groundwater Pumping,” Environmental

Law, 2007, Academic OneFile. xli Ibid. xlii Take Back the Tap: Bottled Water Wastes Resources and Money. xliii Erik R. Zettler, Tracy J. Mincer, and Linda A. Amaral-Zettler, “Life in the ‘Plastisphere’: Microbial Communities on Plastic Marine Debris,”

Environmental Science & Technology 47, no. 13 (July 2, 2013): 7137–46. xliv Miriam C. Goldstein, Andrew J. Titmus, and Michael Ford, “Scales of Spatial Heterogeneity of Plastic Marine Debris in the Northeast

Pacific Ocean,” PLoS ONE 8, no. 11 (November 2013): 1–11. xlv Kosuke Tanaka et al., “Accumulation of Plastic-Derived Chemicals in Tissues of Seabirds Ingesting Marine Plastics,” Marine Pollution

Bulletin 69, no. 1–2 (April 15, 2013): 219–22. xlvi OSWER US EPA, “Basic Information| Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)| US EPA,” Policies & Guidance, accessed May 5, 2014,

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/pcbs/pubs/about.htm. xlvii Henry S. Carson et al., “The Plastic-Associated Microorganisms of the North Pacific Gyre,” Marine Pollution Bulletin 75, no. 1–2

(October 15, 2013): 126–32. xlviii David Mucci, “Sales Data,” February 19, 2014. xlix University of Kansas Profiles, Table 6-104 (University of Kansas, 2013), www.ku.edu; “The University of Kansas,” The University of

Kansas, accessed May 5, 2014, http://www.ku.edu/about/. l “Bottled Water Market,” International Bottled Water Association, n.d., bottledwater.org. li “Halsey Taylor Water Refilling Retrofit Kit W/Filter For HAC Series, HTHB-HAC-RF-SS,” Global Industrial, accessed April 5, 2014,

http://www.globalindustrial.com/p/plumbing/drinking-fountains/water-refilling-stations/halseytaylor-water-refilling-retrofit-kit-w-filter-for-hac-series-hthb-hac-rf-ss; “Elkay LZWSRK EZH2O Water Bottle Filling Retrofit Kit, Filtered, LZWSRK,” Global Industrial, accessed April 5, 2014, http://www.globalindustrial.com/p/plumbing/drinking-fountains/water-refilling-stations/ezh2o-wall-mount-retrofit-kit-with-filter; “Halsey Taylor Cooler W/HydroBoost Water Refilling Station Filtered, Light Gray, HTHB-HAC8-WF-PV,” Global Industrial, accessed April 5, 2014, http://www.globalindustrial.com/p/plumbing/drinking-fountains/water-refilling-stations/halseytaylor-cooler-w-hydroboost-water-refilling-station-filtered-light-gray-hthb-hac8-wf-pv; “22 Oz. Libbey Swerve Glass Water and Decanter Bottles” (DiscountMugs.com, n.d.), accessed April 5, 2013.

lii “Elkay & Halsey 3000 Gallon Water Sentry Replacement Filter, 51300C,” Global Industrial, accessed April 5, 2014, http://www.globalindustrial.com/p/plumbing/drinking-fountains/water-refilling-stations/watersentry-replacement-filter-for-ezh2o-bottle-filling-stations; “22 Oz. Libbey Swerve Glass Water and Decanter Bottles.”