Take Back the Tap

Lead Author: Schuyler Kraus

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

Acknowledgements: Melanie Funk, Casey Vogt, Xiaoyi Zhang

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

Contents

Executive Summary

Introduction

A Sustainable Tradition 5

Why Take Back the Tap? 6

The Plan

Data Acquisition and Assessment 11

Community Education & Outreach 15

Implementation 16

Additional Future Considerations

KU Community 21

Lawrence Community 21

2

Executive Summary

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).

3

Figure 1: Universities With Bottled Water Initiatives

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

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.

4

Introduction 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.

5

6

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.

7 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

8

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

REGULAR-GRADE BOTTLED WATER USE TAP WATER GASOLINE (16.9OZ PET BOTTLES

1 Gallon $0.004 $3.86 $9.47

5 Gallons $0.02 $19.30 $47.34

10 Gallons $0.04 $36.60 $94.67

20 Gallons $0.08 $77.20 $189.35

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

9 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 Figure 2: Global Consumption of Bottled Water in 2011 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 Source: http://www.bottledwater.org/files/2011BWstats.pdf 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

10 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

xxxvi that resulting emissions average 6.8 million tons of CO2 every year. 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 xxxvii CO2 eq. 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

11 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

12 The Plan

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.

13 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.

Table 2: Hydration Station & Campus Building Compatibility

HALSEY-TAYLOR ELKAY HALSEY-TAYLOR RETROFIT RETROFIT REPLACEMENT Haworth Green Anchutz Watkins Snow Budig Murphy Learned JRP Lindley

Results from survey conducted week of 3/3/14

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

14 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 15 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 Table 3: Bottled Water Sales Data employs over 5,000 people, not including student employees.xlix MONTH UNITS SOLD Assuming 20,000 people on campus in September 2013 60,336 a given day and that only half of the bottled water needs are met through October 2013 51,504 on-campus purchases, this initial figure is 92% lower than anticipated, November 2013 31,848 according to the national per capita December 2013 18,864 consumption average.l After requesting the number be represented in month- January 2014 41,688 to-month increments and articulating February 2014 39,072 concern regarding the perceived inaccuracy, Mr. Mucci provided the TOTAL: 243,312 data represented in Table 3. Source: David Mucci, Director of KU Memorial Union

16

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

17 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.

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.

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

18 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.

Table 4: Year One Implementation Budget

COST PER UNIT QUANTITY TOTAL

HYDRATION STATION Halsey-Taylor Retrofit $503 4 $2,012.00 MODEL ELKAY Retrofit $433 3 $1,299.00

Halsey-Taylor Replacement $933 3 $2,979.00

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

TOTAL: $21,679.48 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.

19 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 Table 5: Projected Annual Budget

COST PER UNIT QUANTITY TOTAL

Filter Replacements $73.95 120 $8,874.00 22 oz. Glass Water Bottles $2.35 6000 $15,389.48

TOTAL: $24,263.48

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.

20 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 21 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.

22 Additional Future Considerations

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.

23 References

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.

24 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.”

25