Tap water follies

I heard on the news that San Francisco is banning bottled water for city employees. They won't buy the water for them any more (what is unclear is if they are going to "water police" and prevent people from bringing a supply from home - which I think would really be wrong. I'm kind of agnostic on a city buying drinking water for their employees, but if they tell them, no, you must drink the tap water and not buy your own - well, then I have a problem).

Ann Althouse has some discussion of it.

Now, I have some misgivings about this kind of legislation. I suppose it's the way it's being spun. I guess I don't have a problem with them saying, "We won't buy it for city buildings because you have a perfectly good source of water available to you near your offices." But I think the blanket ban is a problem.

Because, you know? San Francisco? Earthquakes? Wouldn't it be a good idea to keep some on hand in city buildings just in case?

I mean - I live in Podunk, USA, where our biggest risk is the occasional tornado, and I keep bottled water on hand. I don't usually drink it - it's too expensive to guzzle - but I keep it on the off case (as has happened once since I lived here) that a problem shut down the local water-treatment plant for a few hours, and they had us under a boil order for a day or two.

Now, granted, I know how to boil water. But it's easier to not have to wait 15 minutes (or however long it takes to kill Giardia) for each batch.

I normally drink filtered tap water. Filtered only because my city is overly fond of chlorine (Now With More Chlorine Taste!) and it's surface water, which means that even despite the chlorine, some times of year the water bears a faint eau de algae or Scent O Rotting Leaves.

It's true that tap water is so cheap it's almost free. And from what (little) I know about SF, their tap water is pretty darn good in terms of taste and quality. So it is kind of foolish to drink bottled water if you're near a clean tap.

But. City employees may not always BE near a clean tap. I suspect that some employees have to go out in the field, much as I do - they have to inspect things, or try to catch loose dogs, or take readings off of meters. So, if they want drinking water while they're working (And I know SF is not as hot as where I live, but still - if you're working several hours out in the sun, you need water), they'll have to either bring a supply from home, or buy Nalgene bottles and remember to fill them before heading out, or beg homeowners for a glass?

(Yeah, yeah - I know. I do that. I bring my own water when I go out in the field. But then again - my job is different than that of a city worker. Again - I'm less concerned about the "why should we buy it for you" than I am about the "let's dictate how you live and do your job.")

And, for that matter - again, I don't know the full situation - some departments may not have good water sources. I remember when I was in grad school, we had a period of about a month where the potable water system in the building essentially tanked. They told us it was okay for flushing and probably for washing hands, but not to drink it (After the first day, and many complaints, they brought in those big free-standing coolers, like you see in the old cartoons about people gossiping at the office. They hired Culligan or someone to make sure the coolers were filled until the potable water system was fixed). One of the Althouse commentators noted that in some departments, the main water-obtaining option was the taps in the restrooms.

I don't know, maybe SF has nicer restrooms than my university, but: yuck. I'd rather dehydrate than drink water out of THOSE taps.

And then there's the issue of bacteria on drinking fountains - eeep, I didn't even think about that. Something else to be all Adrian Monk about. (And I use the drinking fountain, all the time. Have even filled my big purple Nalgene bottle off of it). Now I'm not so sure I want a drink of water from it.

Also, there are some venues where a water fountain or other type of water-providing receptacle are not really practical - I wouldn't go to a 10,000 person music festival, for example, if I knew the only options for water once I got there (and knowing the way security goes at some of those events, you're sometimes better off not trying to smuggle it in) were some fountain that the other 9,999 people had been using. (And maybe not just for the intended purpose. Some of our students here use "smokeless tobacco" and more than once - more than I'd like to imagine - I've seen the spent leaf-wads just spat into the drinking fountains. And they don't go down the drain. And it very nearly makes me vomit a little to see them - not a lot of things gross me out, but that's one thing that very much does. I have walked to other BUILDINGS to get a drink when all of our fountains were so contaminated.)

So, like a lot of "blanket" laws, or zero-tolerance policies, this one has some problems with it.

I mean, I like the basic idea - the city will save money buy not purchasing what is really a luxury. However, they're spinning it the wrong way, IMHO - the spin is very much, "Bad people! You are clogging up the landfills with your evil Bottles Of Death!" I would much rather see, "In an effort to better steward the money of the taxpayers of this city, we will no longer provide unlimited bottled water for people who are within easy reach of taps or water fountains."

Or for that matter: imply that it's effete to drink bottled water. Or maybe that doesn't cut any ice in San Francisco, I don't know. I know around here I've seen attitudes like "Real men don't drink water with names like 'Aquafina'"

I also think they do need to keep some options open in case of emergencies or in case of situations where water might not be accessible. On my campus, if the water system goes out, they either cancel classes and send everyone home, or trundle out either water coolers or cases of bottled water so people can drink. If bottled water were banned, they'd just always have to send everyone home. And in an earthquake situation - going home might not be an easy option. (Maybe I'm totally wrong on this and maybe the city will keep stocking shelters. But there's no mention made of that, and it's the kind of oversight I've come to expect from the "We're saving you from yourselves!" brigade).

I guess my main problem is the demonization of bottled water. If you want to drink it, I don't particularly care. Sometimes I do. Sometimes it's safer than tap. (Anyone remember Milwaukee in about 1992? The Cryptosporidium? They got into the city water supply and some people died, whereas others had what was like the worst food poisoning of their lives). Usually it isn't. But don't close off possibilities from people in the name of being "correct."

(That's one of my big issues with the hard-core environmentalists, the ones who would take us back to the technology of 1750 or so, in the name of saving the environment: look, my ancestors worked their asses off so they didn't have to shiver in a mud house all winter and eat roots. Don't tell me I have to revert to those conditions because it's "good for the environment." If YOU want to do it, be my guest. But don't tell me I have to, too.)

I will also add, in the Strange Bedfellows department - that the irony of the Sierra Club promoting people drinking water that comes from the Hetch Hetchy reservoir, is not lost on me.