By Environmental Staff
May 19, 2008

The U.S. Conference of Mayors convened a joint meeting of the Mayors Water Council (MWC) and the Municipal Waste Management Association (MWMA), an environmental affiliate of the Conference, to examine new information on the economic and public health benefits from local government investment in municipal water and sewer infrastructure and services. Albuquerque (NM) Mayor Martin J. Chávez, and Fayetteville (AR) Mayor Dan Coody, Co-Chairs of the Mayors Water Council, were joined by Cuyahoga Falls (OH) Mayor Don Robart in leading the discussion. Other local officials participating in the meeting included Environmental, Sanitation and Water Commissioners who form the Executive Board of the MWMA.

Coody opened the meeting with welcoming remarks and brief review of Resolution 90, adopted by the Conference of Mayors at the Annual Meeting in June of 2007, entitled “The Importance of Municipal Water.” Coody reminded the meeting participants that Conference staff was directed to compile information on the importance of municipal water and the impact of bottled water on the municipal solid waste stream. The purpose of the meeting in New York City was to brief mayors on staff progress on the compilation of information regarding the resolution; collect information from industry leaders and their technical experts; and to seek input from municipal sector field practitioners including Environmental, Sanitation and Water Commissioners. The proceedings are meant to inform the mayors in preparation for the Conference of Mayors 76th Annual Meeting this June in Miami.

G. Tracy Mehan III, a Principal with The Cadmus Group, Inc. an environmental consulting firm, was the first panelist. The Cadmus Group was retained by the Conference of Mayors to prepare a White Paper on “The Economic Impact of Local Investment in Water and Sewer Infrastructure and Service.” Mehan commented that there are obvious public health, aesthetic and environmental benefits that citizens enjoy when local government provides water and sewer services; and there are economic benefits that are both local and national in scope. He reported preliminary conclusions from a literature search that indicate investing in drinking water and sewer systems bring positive returns; and the nature and extent of those returns depend on the type and amount of infrastructure already in place.

Mehan stated that the preliminary findings show support in the literature that a $1 increase in local government spending on water and sewer infrastructure and operations and maintenance (O&M) increases total local economic activity by $2.62. Further, adding one new job in water or sewer at the local level creates 3.68 jobs in the national economy to support that new job. He said there is considerable variation in, as well as, realistic limits to the return on investment. For example, returns vary by state because local economies differ from state-to-state. Mehan stated that, “The greater the value of existing infrastructure, the lower the value-added of additional investment.” He also said that the literature supports the notion that water infrastructure contributes more to economic output than transportation, electric, communication, and other types of infrastructure.

John Cromwell, of Stratus Consulting Group, presented asset management information he developed for the American Water Works Association. Cromwell addressed the enormous task that cities are constantly involved with in repairing and replacing drinking water and sewer pipes. This has fast become one of the leading costs involved with rehabilitating the aging water infrastructure.

Cromwell described pipe “rehab” as an asset management activity that can be either rote or enlightened. The difference being that rote rehab is a process that incorporates pipe rehab at so many miles per year at such and such a cost. Whereas, enlightened rehab is more like municipal fleet management where the pipes are prioritized for rehab based on materials use and the historical record of performance for the particular pipe in question. Cromwell said that using the historical record and experience with different types of pipe made in different years to plan the rehab program can save money, target problem areas, save water and save energy.

Conference staff reported the literature also supports the notion that investments in water infrastructure and treatment yields significant public health benefits that can be quantified in both extended life span and dollar value. A 2005 Harvard University research project published in the journal Demography*, authored by D. Cutler and G. Miller looked at the improvements in mortality rates related to waterborne infectious diseases from 1900 to 1940. During this period significant investments were made by major cities to combat what was known as the “Urban Penalty” (excessively high mortality rates in densely populated centers lacking in health care and public sanitation). The public investment that had perhaps the greatest positive effect was in filtration and chlorination of drinking water. The researchers stated “We found that clean water was responsible for nearly half the total mortality reduction in major cities, three quarters of the infant mortality reduction, and nearly two thirds of the child mortality reduction.” The researchers also placed a dollar value on these mortality reductions and the extension of life span: among the cities studied there was a social rate of return from stemming death by way of water filtration and chlorination ranging from $7 to $40 for every dollar of investment. The researchers estimated that an average rate of return is about $23 for every $1 invested: and they also valued the public health gains in terms of $500 per person year saved (in 2003 dollars).

Conference staff reported findings on the effects bottled water have on municipal waste streams. The key findings addressed consumption and demand, recycling opportunities and challenges, solid waste collection and disposal, and other environmental concerns.

Domestic bottled water demand has experienced phenomenal growth over the past decade. As the second most consumed type of beverage, behind carbonated soft drinks, sales, availability and product diversity have kept pace with demand. In 2006, Americans bought 8.3 billion gallons of bottled water; sold in a variety of styles and containers. Of this amount, non-carbonated water totaled 7.3 billion gallons, or 88 percent of the total bottled water market. Individual polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic containers accounted for 4.7 billion gallons; that is, 57 percent of the bottled water market. According to the Container Recycling Institute, Americans buy an estimated 25 billion single-serving, plastic water bottles each year. Another source estimates that Americans went through about 50 billion plastic water bottles last year, about 167 per person.

The vast majority of single use bottled water products come in containers made of a recyclable plastic material known as PET because of its strength, thermostability and transparency. It is inexpensive, lightweight, reusable and shatterresistant.

PET can be source-separated from municipal waste systems and recycled to make many new products, including fiber for polyester carpet; fabric for T-shirts, long underwear, athletic shoes, luggage, upholstery and sweaters; fiberfill for sleeping bags and winter coats; industrial strapping, sheet and film; automotive parts, such as luggage racks, headliners, fuse boxes, bumpers, grilles and door panels; and new PET containers for both food and non-food products.

Despite the ever growing consumption of bottled water products, the International Bottled Water Association, in a recent report states “At present, the market for post-consumer PET bottles (including plastic bottled water containers) in the United States is strong. However, there is a growing gap between the demand for post-consumer bottles and the available supply. Simply put, there are not enough postconsumer bottles in the recycling system to satisfy the demands of the domestic PET reclaimers.”

The IBWA says that international demand for post-consumer PET containers collected by local recycling programs have made it difficult for domestic materials reclaimers to compete and has led to much consolidation throughout the industry. All the while, more beverage containers enter the waste stream.

Industry sources put the PET recycling rate at 24 to 26 percent. Several environmental advocacy groups cite PET recycling rates below 15 percent. It is safe to say that the overall PET recycling rate is below 30 percent. In 1995, PET recycling reached 39.7 percent.

Nationwide, there are at least eleven state bottle bill programs (although most do not accept bottled water containers) and thousands of curbside recycling programs. Nonetheless, one of the larger issues looming with regard to recycling PET and other containers is the fact that there are often not widespread opportunities to do anything with bottles other than throw them in the trash (or litter). Plastic bottles are extremely portable and are therefore used outside the home in places where there are not always easily accessible recycling drop-off points or facilities. While many communities have extensive education programs to encourage recycling during sporting events and at other public venues, and numerous institutions often offer containers for recycling, such opportunities are not as prevalent as they could be.

Bottles that are not recycled either end up in landfills or as litter in our cities, lakes and rivers. Certainly, individuals bear a great deal of responsibility for how they dispose of their trash, and the bottled water industry cannot be singled out as the only responsible party in reducing landfill capacity or increasing litter.

According to beverage industry data, in 2006, PET bottled water containers produced totaled 827,000 tons of PET. By weight, this amounts to 3/10 of one percent of all municipal solid waste generated in 2006; 5.8 percent of all plastic packaging produced; and 2.8 percent of all plastics entering the waste stream each year. The steps involved in producing bottled water include considerable energy and resource intensity; the effects of the pollution from producing bottled water, as with most consumer products, are borne by society as a whole. Compared to tap water, bottled water products of various sorts have far more impact when it comes to environmental indicators such as cumulative energy consumption, in terms of the petroleum or natural gas used as a feedstock in bottles or the power necessary to produce the bottles and fill them with water; greenhouse gas emissions stem from production and transportation; and other measures. Specialized mineral waters fair very poorly against tap water in these terms, but even municipal water that is filtered, bottled and transported to points of sale or use is 25 to 50 percent higher in terms of overall environmental impact.

and transportation; and other measures. Specialized mineral waters fair very poorly against tap water in these terms, but even municipal water that is filtered, bottled and transported to points of sale or use is 25 to 50 percent higher in terms of overall environmental impact.

Information from the industry perspective was provided by Susan Neely, President and CEO of the American Beverage Association (ABA); Chris Saxman, Chairman of the Board – International Bottled Water Association (IBWA); and, Kevin Dietly, an industry expert with Northbridge Environmental Consultants. Neely described efforts to reduce inputs required for production. She stated that container materials research has resulted in development of a lighter material container that will save over 100 million pounds of material in 2008. The industry has adopted a “continuous quality improvement” approach that is designed to reduce the amount of energy and water used to produce bottled water products for consumers. Industry efforts to improve water efficiencies in the production process between 2004 and 2006 have conserved roughly 9 billion liters of water: this is equivalent to the annual water consumption of 65,000 households. Also, the industry supports community based efforts to recycle used plastic water bottles.

Saxman serves as Chair of the IBWA, and is also the General Manager of a family-run water business that produces and distributes bottled water products. Saxman pointed out that the bottled water companies have been labeled a “model industry” by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a result of their compliance with FDA regulations. He also said that his company takes great pride in how it contribute to the local economy and treats its employees with competitive salaries and benefits such as health care insurance. Saxman also pointed out the critical role bottled water plays in modern day emergency disaster relief, such as Hurricane Katrina. He stated that his company, and many other bottled water companies came to the aid of the stricken population by providing free bottled water and its transportation to afflicted areas.

Dietly addressed the plastic bottle recycling issue. He stated that the industry would like to see 100 percent recycling of bottles because they have a significant dollar value to the companies. Currently, he said, water bottles constitute about 30 percent of the PET in the plastic bottle portion of municipal solid waste. PET water bottles have gradually increased as a percentage of the waste stream. He also stated that PET bottle recycling has not yet been exhausted in the United States. The industry is involved with a single-stream recycling demonstration project in Hartford (CT) that is intended to show how recycling rates can be substantially increased for numerous recyclable products, including PET.

As the first joint meeting between the Mayors Water Council and the MWMA, the session included practitioners in city water and solid waste operations. During this roundtable discussion, facilitated by Robart, the city sanitation and water experts provided candid insights into the importance of municipal water, some perspectives on Resolution 90, and the impacts of bottled water on municipal waste streams.

Parts of the discussions intertwined the need to recognize the availability of high quality, healthy municipal drinking water, the state of municipal water infrastructure, and whether bottled water devalues the public’s perception of municipal water supplies.

Laura Spanjian of the San Francisco Public Utility Commission began the session with a brief presentation about her city’s water supply. She noted that like many other cities, San Francisco spends a great deal of money and resources to bring high quality water to customers at very low price while maintaining an extensive infrastructure system. She voiced concerns that using bottled water at government facilities is a waste of city finances and sends the wrong message to the public.

Spanjian stated that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom plans to submit a new resolution at the Conference of Mayors 76th Annual Meeting this June in Miami to encourage city governments to phase out the use of bottled water in most municipal settings.

Spanjian’s comments elicited some discussion about how feasible such a policy would be. John Doherty, New York City’s Commissioner of Sanitation, asked whether it would be easier and more productive to provide bottled water during meetings, to which Spanjian responded that city offices could provide pitchers, glassware and other necessities, and access to kitchen facilities for washing. Doherty mentioned that not all cities and city facilities have such amenities available in close proximity to where various gatherings would occur. Urbana (IL) Mayor Laurel Prussing suggested getting up to wash glassware would encourage walking and promote healthier lifestyles.

In Detroit, according to Dr. Vincent Nathan, Director of the city’s Department of Environmental Affairs, there is a “back to the tap” campaign to educate restaurants, schools, college campuses and office building tenants about the cost, waste and environmental impacts of bottled water, and encourage tap water use. Nathan suggested that there is a broad misperception among the public that bottled water is healthier than city water and much work needs to continue to instill confidence in public water supplies.

John Spatz, the Commissioner of Chicago’s Department of Water Management, noted that in his city, Detroit, and other older cities especially, aging infrastructure is often in a critical state of disrepair. Part of instilling public confidence in city water will require additional financial resources to fix and maintain the aging infrastructure. Spatz also described Chicago’s new five-cent tax on each water bottle sold in the city; pending various legal proceedings, the city stands to gain $10.5 million in additional general revenue.

Mike Hooker, General Manager of the Onondaga County (NY) Water Authority and Chair of the American Water Works Association’s Water Utility Council, also brought up the need to better manage, repair and maintain aging water infrastructure. He suggested implementing or updating asset management programs would be able to give cities and water authorities a better grasp of their system and infrastructure needs, and direct resources accordingly. Hooker also suggested that the up to $260 per capita expenditure on bottle water would be better spent if used in community reinvestment.

Doherty, of New York City, addressed the solid waste stream. He cited some garbage facts: based on a 2006 study, total annual PET bottle waste amounts to 19,000 tons, roughly equal to one day’s worth of total waste. Of this, 43 percent is recycled, contributing to an overall diversion rate of 17 percent. He said that if the city were to ban bottle water in some capacity, the diversion rate would change by 0.25 percent; and if a bottle deposit bill passed for PET water bottles, it would actually cost the city in lost PET revenue otherwise gained from PET aftermarkets. Doherty also mentioned that if the city were to implement a bottle bill it would still need to operate two separate sanitation fleets, one for trash and one for non-PET recyclables; therefore, there would be no demonstrable savings from unnecessary waste hauling.

Frank Giordano, Executive Director of the Pollution Control Finance Authority of Camden County (NJ), noted that his jurisdiction sends its trash to waste-to-energy facility. He noted that the Authority has experienced trouble finding markets for material it picks up from its curbside recyclables collection program.

Tom Henderson, Washington DC’s Solid Waste Administrator, said that in the solid waste industry, it is volume that matters, not weight. While PET bottles only compose one third of one percent by weight of all U.S. solid waste that still amounts to a lot of volume that takes up a lot of truck space. Citing a 40 percent PET capture rate in Washington, Henderson’s fleet experiences fewer stops per crew, requires more trips, and needs for larger collection bins. Henderson said that as diesel fuel costs continue to rise, excessive trips are becoming more and more of a drain on city resources.

Chávez moderated a discussion among the participating mayors. The mayors asked a number of questions of the Commissioners and the industry representatives. Based on the information shared in the meeting, Chávez stated that the MWC will place the issue on the agenda for their meeting in conjunction with the 76th Annual Meeting of the Conference of Mayors on June 20 in Miami.

All presentations and staff reports can be found at www.usmayors.org/urbanwater