That's an excellent point. And I wonder where the outlawed water bottles will come from, if there is an emergency and they're needed.

Water comes out of the tap, soda does not. Shipping water to places where it flows freely is a waste of money and fuel. However the problem here isn't about beverage choice or any nonsense notion about freedom and the stars and stripes - you can still buy water if someone wants to sell it in another format, the problem here is about plastic waste and landfill usage.

Plastic water bottles are an easier target for a ban than bottles for soda, because a case can be made that this product is wasteful, pointless, and terrible in landfills. Soda, sports drinks - these things have to be sold in bottles, but perhaps this lays the groundwork for bans on plastics in the packaging of other products too.

Concord is a city, it's not exactly going to take weeks to get water from the outskirts to the city center. I'm sure that if there is an emergency need for water that water will be delivered as it always is - by truck.

Max,

Where have you seen a house where you can have soda coming out of a faucet? I'd kill to have a Mountain Dew Throwback faucet in my kitchen.

Shipping water to places where it flows freely is a waste of money and fuel

I have the right to waste my money if I want to. Shipping companies have the right to decide if they want to spend fuel and truck time to ship something. This is America not Soviet Russia.

the problem here is about plastic waste and landfill usage.

Most water bottles are made with biodegradable plastic these days. Also, plastic water bottles can easily be recycled. Maybe instead of trying to impose her will on people, the woman behind this ban should sponsor better waste education and encourage her fellow residents to recycle?

I am going to buy a van and sell my black market liquid supplement (I wont call it bottled water) in an alley. :)

You're right this isn't Soviet Russia - that's why they held a vote.

You talk about rights as though everyone has the right to do anything they want. Nobody has the right to sell their products anywhere they want. Ever here of a gated community where solicitation is prohibited? I don't see the nation's door to door salesmen suing neighborhoods over the squashing of their right to ring doorbells!

In America the right to swing one's arms ends at the point that your fist hit another person's nose. In this case the people of Concord voted that their nose was being hit by plastic waste. They weren't comfortable with being forced to deal with a waste product that most of them didn't want. What about their freedom to choose whether or not they want the product on their streets?

Gain some perspective. Knee jerk retreats into the American flag make you only appear childish and unwilling to consider the situation as a whole.

Biodegradable plastics is a misnomer. These plastics are not biodegradable - except after 100's of years. I'm sure that the waste management people at the landfills would know best. And I'm sure that many people are encouraged to recycle, but even with the current effort to recycle, there is still way too much plastic in landfills for the people of Concord. And lets' face it, recycling still takes energy and still produces wastes. Reducing the amount of waste upfront is better than recycling.

Bottom line is: if you want to cut the waste and recycle more you can't just ban plastic water bottles. That is a feel-good pseudo solution of a typical government mentality. You have to create an environment where recycling is economically viable and people have an incentive to recycle.

Max^108

Bottom line is: if you want to cut the waste and recycle more you can't just ban plastic water bottles. That is a feel-good pseudo solution of a typical government mentality. You have to create an environment where recycling is economically viable and people have an incentive to recycle.

So, banning plastic is a "feel-good pseudo solution", but "creating an environment" isn't? I

Paying for water is dumb.... end of story.

A fine for being caught putting it in the trash rather than the recycle bin would be perfectly acceptable. The outright sale of it is a kneejerk overreaction.

The water from the extremely low level lakes where I live tastes horrible and the only way to make it tolerable is to double filter it on the sink faucet filter through a Brita pitcher. That's not an option when I'm at work or on the road though. When I can get 4 boxes of 32 bottles of water for $9, it's not wasted money, it's healthier than soda, and it's better for me.

Shosyn

Paying for water is dumb.... end of story.

For those of us who like indoor plumbing and bathing without having to haul our own in buckets and purifying/filtering it ourselves, I respectfully disagree.

So, banning plastic is a "feel-good pseudo solution", but "creating an environment" isn't?

That depends on whether you're talking about creating an environment via the carrot or the stick. If it's the stick, it's forcing people to do what you believe. If you offer them incentive, it's ok as long as it's not sucking more taxpayer funds in. Take for instance recycled aluminum. I have a can crusher on the wall in the pantry and store them full bags in the garage. About once every 6 months I haul them all in and get around $20. That has me in an environment to make me want to recycle while, at the same time, encouraging free enterprise for the people working at the aluminum recycle collection centers.

Shosyn,

You dont have a water bill????? Unless you are getting your water from awell you are certainly paying for water. Alot of people would say that paying for tv service is dumb or perhaps paying for a house phone and a cell phone is dumb. It is all about convenience and if they are wanting to get rid of the waste then re-enact the bottle deposits we used to have on Soda bottles. I even see them still on aluminum cans and looking at my green tea bottle here it states that folks in ME and HI get 5 cents for every bottle returned. If the government does not want to do this than I believe they should ban ALL plastic products from the market.

I guess it is either let plastic sit in the landfills or start cutting trees down in a massive way to start doing paper products again. Either way the environment will and is affected.

economykiller

Max,

Where have you seen a house where you can have soda coming out of a faucet? I'd kill to have a Mountain Dew Throwback faucet in my kitchen.

Pick a flavor. http://www.sodastreamusa.com/

I live in MA, and a super majority of residents in Concord are far from being unable to pay for the cost of bottled water... bit of a strange ban if you ask me, but hey the town voted for it, than that should be their right.

This does go to show the mentality of libs. Only the leaders are wise enough to make decisions and the rest should shut up and do as they are told. Why anyone gave this 84 year old the time of day is beyond me. If she feels it's a waste of money then she doesn't have to buy it. But, to tell everyone else who disagrees with her it is a waste of money is....well...... If I lived in the town and liked my bottled water I'd follow her around and find out what it is that she likes and try to get the council to ban everything she likes. After all, it's a waste of money. Good grief, no wonder we are in such trouble in this country. Freedom means nothing to so many people.

Most water bottles are made with biodegradable plastic these days.

Uhmm...yeah, as are those 6-month degradable diapers that are now found in pristine condition, 30 years after being put in the dump.

Also, plastic water bottles can easily be recycled

(operative word being CAN)

Not trying to pick on ya, just can't believe that people actually believe what companies spew out as 'fact'.

Personally I agree with the posters that 'can't believe that people actually PAY for a single serving of water' .. wow.

But then that's just me, I don't buy single servings of soda either.

I always thought putting water in plastic bottles and selling it for at least 200,000 times what it would cost a person to get it out of the faucet on his or her kitchen sink was a gimmick anyway. I think it's about time they banned the practice of ripping people off.

"It will also deprive the town of needed tax revenue and harm local businesses that rely on bottled water sales."

Ah yes the old scare tactic, threats of financial hardships, loss of jobs etc etc etc! Why does everything have to revolve around money and profit (yeah I know, biting my tongue). When it comes to Mother Earth, all of that should be secondary if not even a consideration. I know that it cost more to recycle but saving the planet we live on and its resources should NEVER be about profit, dollars and cents... you cant eat/drink/breath money! AND, if the government would stop wasting our tax dollars, there would be the need for so many of them!

witchrunner- witchrunner..

that goes to show the mentality of repubs. they cant READ and take FACTS before making an educated opinion on a case. What part of the town took a vote did you not get befiore you bashed an 84 year old woman for something she believed in.

"Wednesday signed off after it was revised last year and it was approved last April by town residents in a 403-364 vote. "

@denver bill - no, BANNING plastic WATER bottles is not a good solution for society because it does not offer a practical alternative to a popular product... but of course it is an EASY option that shows that you supposedly care about the environment. Plastic bottles can and should be recycled, and that is a REAL solution, proven all over the world. But of course that real solution requires a lot of work and costs some money, so the feel-good-do-nothing crowd rarely even considers it. I have been working with plastic recyclers for many years and they could definitely use more feed stock.

Read the article. It doesn't ban water in plastic bottles completely, only those in one liter or less.

...the law bans the sale of single-serving PET water bottles of one liter or less...

Plastic is made from oil, which is a limited resource, and lasts (as far we we're concerned) forever in a landfill.

I say it makes sense and let's use what precious resources we have left in a smarter way than selling water for a higher price than gasoline.

this is just pure retarded if u think its a waste of money dont buy it but if im on a trip cross country and my kid or grandkid wants a drink and i want to spend my money on a bottle of water thats my choice and that is what the usa needs to get a hold of it is our choice all of us, not just the people that live there their decisions affect everyone.what choice will be taken from us next

In spite of my feeling that buying small bottles of water is silly (most people do because they think the water is significantly "better"...usually based on preception, not science), I think the ban is a bit higher on the silly meter. I'd rather see them ban disposal, and enforce it, or better yet, 10% tax and the money goes to hire people to sort them back out of the trash and incinerate them for the energy content (or recycle...take your pick)

I do have a couple of the PET bottles in my car...I fill them up using the tap so I have water when I excercise. So thanks for the free bottles anyway :)

I do like the comment one person made that you pay more for the bottle of water, than you do for an equivalent amount of gas....kind of put it in perspective.

bigpicture: My mistake on that part. I used to live in MA years ago and for some reason it stuck in my mind that a referendum had to pass the city council to get on the ballot. That being said, it behooves me to think that anyone thinks it's a great idea for anyone else to determine whether or not they can sell a perfectly legal, harmless product like water. Is this really the libs' idea of a free America? No wonder we are in such a mess. You obviously have no problem being a business owner and having everyone else tell you what you can and can't sell as you objected to only one small part of my statement.

If I made money selling the bottled water and now couldn't sell it I'd be putting up signs directing them to Jean Hill's house advising that they can fill their water bottles up for free! And I'd organize a campaign to see about getting people to knock on her door 24 hours a day, assuming 24 hour convenience shops exist in Concord. It would serve her right for pursuing such a stupid idea and allow her to feel the consequences of feeling so high and mighty.

Well, I do not buy bottled water because it is a waste of money. It's the same water that comes out of the tap. I do buy lots of Diet Coke though. I get it in aluminum cans.

I still think this is extreme. I understand the waste issue, but there must be a more agreeable solution than forcing one person's (plus the 400 that voted for it) desires on the community at large. Why not recycle?

What will the water companies do now? Put it in cans, probably. Then you will have to deal with the cans.

@bigpicture

re. witchrunner...hey picture person, just because you disagree with one person who touts republican, don't put all republicans in the same trash can.

I have views that lean more toward the conservative agenda or Republicans than toward the liberals or Democrats...but when you categorically group all into one pigeon hole then it shows your own mockery of your liberal stance.

If you choose to disagree with a fool, that is your choice, but to make such a "STUPID" comment as to group all Republicans into the same pigeon hole shows a massive myopic perspective. Would you like it if every time some foolish idiot made a comment that even you did not agree with, but even though you both held the Democratic banner, you got grouped in with that idiot? i didn't think so...so then how about not doing it yourself.

Oh, witchrunner, I was in no way calling or referring to you as a fool or idiot, please don't take my comments that way. The big picture used you as his example so i followed suit to show how foolish his own views were. We all have the right to our opinions, it is just a shame when people can't read one opinion without grouping millions of people together and degrading them to make themselves feel less inadequate than they know themselves to be.

somebefuddledperson,

"Well, I do not buy bottled water because it is a waste of money. It's the same water that comes out of the tap."

That's right. And if you must have bottled water, what is wrong with just filling a thermos bottle with water from the tap? A thermos will keep the water cold a lot longer than a plastic bottle will, and it can be used for all sorts of other liquids as well, both hot and cold.

Refillable water bottles are only good as long as you have a source of tap water. I have a Brita pitcher at home and work, and reusable water bottle (with a built in filter) for on the go. But without a source of water, they become absolutely useless.

What would you do if a disaster occurs which causes the water to get shut off? I keep several cases of bottled water which I don't touch. Even a case in the car. That way I know that if something happens, I know I will have access to drinkable water. And a lot of it.

Read the article. It doesn't ban water in plastic bottles completely, only those in one liter or less.

Read that. When was the last time you saw someone exercising and carrying a water bottle larger than one liter?

Unless Concord is banning all plastic containers then this really is just a "feel good" law. Put a nickle refund on the bottles and you won't see them in the landfill, it's just that simple. There are plenty of good reasons to buy single serving bottles of water this is a foolish law.

You realize of course that the Concord residents are simply going to shop in the next town over. It's not like Concord is an island.

@tonya morgan

tonya, the first 'bottled water' ever sold was supposedly from France. It was bottle under the name EVIAN...spell it backward...NAIVE, they knew from the start that people would drink it because of their naivety, simple put, the desire to think some product or action is 'cool' because they are told it is.

Retarded? So, because you think their "choice" is retarded it somehow takes away your choice? How retarded is that? I guess it is only when your view or choice is challenged, it becomes retarded, but when you want or desire your choice then all is well...then by that view the town should consider you retarded for wanting to deprive them of their choice.

They voted on it...you know...VOTE...that is what towns and counties and states and federal governments do. VOTE. But just because you disagree that doesn't make it retarded. If anything it shows how retarded you and the others were for not gathering enough votes so the results swing the other way...simple isn't it...

...maybe you should take the time to look up the definition of retarded: "a person or idea who is stupid, obtuse, or ineffective in some way."...hmmmm, sound familiar?

@witchrunner, no worries. but, see I lean left though I don't consider myself a liberal. I think its a strange ban too, as noted in my first post, almost just as crazy as Bloomberg outlawing how much soda you can drink. However, if the town wants it that way, and most people agree that they can or want to make a difference in the envioronment or their pockets (which I doubt since its uppity concord) they should be allowed to do so. The companies who bottle the water can take their business elsewhere, and residents can still buy 1 liter and up.

The party of choice continues to take away choice from people unless it comes to abortion. Good logic there.

sami,

"I keep several cases of bottled water which I don't touch."

That sounds like a good idea. I don't usually drink water myself, because it has no taste unless you live in San Angelo, Texas, in which case it has a nasty taste (at least it used to when I was there back in the 1970's). I usually drink ice tea and keep about 15 gallons of it on hand. So I suppose I could drink that in case of a water outage. My apologies to any San Angelinos who may be on here. Maybe it was just the water on Goodfellow AFB that tasted so nasty or hopefully your water supply has improved over the past 30 years.

I always thought putting water in plastic bottles and selling it for at least 200,000 times what it would cost a person to get it out of the faucet on his or her kitchen sink was a gimmick anyway. I think it's about time they banned the practice of ripping people off.

You're not really paying for water, you're paying for convenience. The 2 or 3 times a year when I need to buy a bottle of water, I'm glad it's in the cooler at chevron.

Spencer,

"You're not really paying for water, you're paying for convenience."

Unfortunately, convenience can be hideously expensive!

Unfortunately, convenience can be hideously expensive!

I dunno. A buck so I don't have to drive 15 minutes back to my house to fill the camel pack that I forgot, (then 15 minutes back to where I started) is well worth it in my mind.

Think I will just break out a nice quart of plastic water bottle.

some municipalities simply have horrible tasting water. one place I lived at had water that stank from all the dissolved alkali minerals in it. another place wasn't too bad in the winter, but the water always tasted like algae in the summer.

where I'm at now, I refill my "disposable" water bottles from the wonderful water that comes from my tap.

The bottled water industry is one of the biggest scams in America. Water costs around .002 cents a gallon, yet, put it in an 8oz bottle and it is sold anywhere from $2 - $5 a bottle! The water in these bottles have been tested again and again and often shown to contain more toxic substances than tap water. Why? Because there's no regulations on bottled water! So, if you wish to pay 1000's of times the price of water to have your water come in a shiny plastic bottle knowing that the water from your faucet is probably safer and knowing that once your done drinking your water, the bottle is going to end up in some landfill to pollute the planet for a few hundred years - go ahead!

Like most people, the water from my tap doesn't taste the best, so for drinking water, I use a Mavea water filter picher and the water then tastes great. Saves me mega tons of dollars on the cost of bottled water too!

TheKhanKubla,

"The water in these bottles have been tested again and again and often shown to contain more toxic substances than tap water. Why? Because there's no regulations on bottled water!"

Right on there, buddy! They could have scooped that bottled water right out of their own toilet for all we know.

Max this wasn't about the waste bottles of water caused though it could have been since there aren't bottle deposits on water it was about the fact that it is a waste of money to sell tap water. Nearly all bottled water companies are selling tap water for the same price as a soda for any idiot willing to pay for it. She's right and I hope this spreads.

This has nothing to do with plastic bottles but was what I thought of when reading about bottled water. They had a water filling station in front of a super market some years ago with a name that included spring, don't recall exactly but I did notice looking behind the machine was a hose hooked to the water faucet. Thought it funny people were paying 50 cents a gallon thinking they were getting a premium water.

Not sure what the water tastes like in Concord but I just moved from a small town that had the absolute worst tasing water i have ever had. I could drink it. I was so putred . My wife couldn't drink I either. I am not a real fussy person butthis was really bad. anyway what about people who don't like the tase of city water and are out and about ? Are the to got thirsty or have to resort to buying soda ? From what I gathered the suit was based on an opinion that bottle water was a waste of money. There has to be more to this story than that. If not the court sure got this one wrong.

If there was a critical water emergency you could always lift the ban temporarily.

.

The municipal water within fifty miles of where I live is terrible. It smells either of algae or chlorine depending on what time of year. I buy purified bottled water to drink at work, and yes I can tell the difference between tap water and bottled water by taste. It is not a waste of MY money to buy it.

Will the people who voted against the ban now buy more soda and other soft drinks in plastic bottles as an alternative to the bottled water? This is ONE of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.

I live in MA, and personally I think the idea of spending a dollar or more for a serving of water that would cost me .003 out of the tap is absolutely ridiculous. I see people doing it all the time and I think it's downright stupid. I don't understand why there isn't a .05 deposit on these bottles as they have for Soda. Maybe more would recycle if they did.

I have some of the reusable plastic Bottles and if I were to buy water I would buy it by the gallon and refill it at the store. They sell the individual bottles at my gym, and I see people buying them all the time, although there they DO have a recycle bin which I see is used.

I understand the thought behind such a ban, but I don't believe it will accomplish much. Will it stop the people who buy the 24bottle case lots of water at the grocery store?

For such a ban to work ALL bottled water other than perhaps the gal size or larger should be banned. What about the flavored drinks like the power drinks and flavored teas?

And to those who feel that the state will lose out on taxes..MA doesn't charge sales tax on food, so.

I LOVE the bottled water invention! I drink more water now than I ever did, which is good for my health. I commute 1 hour to and from work each way, am on the go constantly, and would never fill up a thermos to bring. Not only because of the time and inconvenience factor, but also because I'd have fill up 5 thermoses to hold all the water I drink! And when our house was hit by a hurricane last year, it was a godsend to have had 50 bottles of water ready to drink when our electricity (which runs the pump) went out. No, I'm sorry, I don't own 50 thermoses! And for those of you buying up gallon plastic bottles to refill--hello! That's still a lot of plastic

I would be hoppin' mad if my town pulled that stunt of banning water bottles.

I'm going to have to write you up son.

But officer, I crossed the road in a legal crosswalk.

Yeah, I know, but you're in possession of illegal contraband.

But officer, I'm a Boy Scout, and I've never had anything to do with drugs or anything illegal.

Yeah, I can tell, but it's that 16 ounce water bottle, it's illegal.

But officer, I didn't know water bottles are illegal. I've been delivering them all over town to the elderly, during our power outage.

Now, that's something I didn't know. Now I have to run you in and book you.

But officer, why am I being arrested?

Simple son, possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute.

Why doesn't someone invent a way to pipe fresh drinking water into people's homes?

That would be a novel idea!

This is absolutely ridiculous. We have numerous health organizations, not to mention a number of federal agencies, that are running ads encouraging people to drink water instead of soda and other sweetened, bottled drinks. Now we have a town that is going to make it far more difficult for people to make this healthy choice. I do not think that this law is going to stand up to a challenge because it singles out a particular legal beverage with a rationale that is not unique to that beverage. To ban the sale of water in bottles these sizes while continuing to allow the sale of soda, sports drinks, iced tea, etc. in the same bottles would seem to be an illegal targeting of a specific industry. Plastic bottles have the same impact on landfills regardless of what is in them to start with. If they want to keep the bottles out of landfills, push for higher deposits on the bottles so that people will have an incentive to recycle them instead of throwing them in the trash. The argument that people can have reusable bottles and fill them at home can apply equally to soda and other beverages. You can buy larger bottles of soda to fill your less than one liter reusable bottle from the same way you can refill a water bottle. Water is also not always available for people to refill their bottles when they are out in public in all locations. In addition, people who would rather drink water should not be forced to carry a reusable bottle around with them all the time in case they get thirsty. Plus, in some locations there are impurities in the tap water that some people may not want to drink or may cause tap water to not taste very good and tap water is rarely very cold, particularly in the summer time. This law unfairly targets people who are trying to make a healthier choice and drink water instead of other sugar laden beverages. Just because some people think it is dumb to pay for bottled water does not make it illegal or any worse for the environment than other soft drink bottles of the same size. I just do not see this law standing up to a legal challenge. The only way this would stand up to a legal challenge would be to ban all plastic bottles of this size.

@Khankhubla where are you getting your prices. Go to any walmart or grocery store, I've never seen them more than $4 for a 20 pack or 99 cents for a single serve. And even though they did vote on this it is a stupid law. Just because some people think it's a waste of money, it isn't to others. Bottled water doesn't do us any harm, and if they were worried about landfills,why didn't they pass some sort of law to recycle more. It could even create a few jobs. Also to those sticking it to liberals, why is it a liberals fault? I tend to lean liberal and I think this is a ridiculous law.

Our city water smells and tastes like crap. I buy bottled water because it does smell and taste like crap. I don't particularly care if it is artisan water from the French Alps. I just don't want it to taste like S$$$. I don't mind paying for it but I don't spend a ton on it either. I can buy water at Costco and get a 36 pack for 3.79 if I run out I can always find a case at a local grocery store for under 4 dollars. It's my money I think I ought to be able to spend it the way I want. Plus it comes in handy when the unexpected disaster hits.

This isn't about conservation or about money, it's about some wealthy retired people with to much time on their hands. It's a shame that effort couldn't have went to a more worthy cause. Cocord must be the most "together" place in the US, as their "list of concerns" ended with a ban on bottle water, nothing left after that by god.

Jahmecan is going to sell it out of his van in a dark alley . ..... There you go !!!!! All you naysayers . You can get it from him . I can see you all lined up now for the black market water . Rather than using your own faucets .

OMG !!! and he got 21 thumbs up for that . they lining up already for Black market water !!

Americans are overweight! I think bottled water is a better deal than buying high fructose corn syrup, a little caffeine, and flavoring (AKA soda pop) in a plastic bottle. Bottled water is not fating and you can get a FREE refill from the local water cooler.

"I feel bottled water is a waste of money."

Good. Selling bottled water is the greatest scam since organized religion

Who is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to buy bottled water? If you think it is a waste of money then don't buy it. If enough people stop buying it it will go away. It should be left up to the consumer. I have the right to waste my money buying bottles of water if I want to. What gives the government the right to say how when or where you can purchase water? Just when I thought crazy things like this were isolated to San Fransisco and that the nanny state BS couldn't get any more ridiculous...

Oh and FYI - I recycle aluminum cans and plastic bottles so don't bring up the waste argument...

Recycling will only do so much.

I don't like the idea that change can only happen by banning something,however I also don't want to wait until the plastic bottles are up to our eyeballs.Just because there is a part of the population that feels like you-" I have the right to waste my money buying bottles of water if I want to."-doesn't mean that they are in the right.Packaging is something that should be considered and if necessary,regulated.

Bad Animal

Good. Selling bottled water is the greatest scam since organized religion

Yep. It's the first thing the French have gotten right in a century. What is "Evian" spelled backwards?

my2fish -

Agreed, it SHOULD be regulated; but fairly and across the board to include ALL plastic bottle sales. To single out water because that happens to be the most popular drink this year is biased and illegal; I would be truly surprised if this makes it past the AG. But then again, it IS Massachussetts (where I am from by the way:-)

(LOL - I had to write out the "Evian" to see it - ha ha - funny! Clever)

Here's something to consider when purchasing any item that has packaging. Do we have any real choice in the matter?

No, it's what makes money. I'd love to buy soda in returnable bottles but that would cut out the profits to the Plastics Industry. Next time you're shopping for food, look at the packaging it's in.

Would we buy products that are 100% recyclable? YES but like many things here, we don't have choice because big business made it that way.

We can send Curiosity to Mars but we're still swilling fossil fuels? Incredible.

It's also incredible that Dole is using plastic to pack ONE banana.

So what are we supposed to use for packaging water? Glass or milk carton type paper? How is that better? You're right back to a container that needs to be dumped in a recycle bin.

Bad Animal

Good. Selling bottled water is the greatest scam since organized religion

Let me guess, you're one of those who hates religion because you feel they're trying to force it on you or you are exposed to it in too many places, yet do the same thing promoting your beliefs to others even when the topic is plastic bottles?

TAP WATER???? That stuff??? Heavy metals, pesticides, chemical and manufacturing effluence, agriculture fertilizer runoffs and carcinogens???? EVERYONE knows tap water is one of the most unsafe substances to drink, ever. Some 84-year-old moron who doesn't care if SHE gets cancer can CHOOSE to not buy bottled water, but how about the rest of us with some life ahead of us??? Oh, and what happened to recycling the bottles?

Bad Animal, I have to disagree with you on that one. Organized religion is still a bigger scam. Where do you go to sit on a wooden bench for an hour, be ripped a new a$$hole up and down, told you'll never amount to or accomplish anything without some kind of divine intervention, then be asked for ten percent of your paycheck? Answer: a Catholic church.

Now, for a more relevant subject, namely bottled water. Requiring bottle deposits on all bottled water would have been a more practical option. Maine and Connecticut already have deposits on water, and Massachusetts already has deposits on beer and carbonated beverages, so it's not a real big stretch in terms of legislation. The ironic part is that Concord enacted the ban and not Wellesley or Brookline. The emergency exception makes me laugh because EMAs in New England quite frankly are not up to the job; Irene proved New England is in deep doo-doo if December 21st turns out to be the real deal or the area sees a disaster comparable to 1938. What I see here is a town full of people who will have to travel in order to acquire adequate emergency supplies; you'll always have the people who do not understand that the time to plan for an emergency is not when it is already on top of you or are totally clueless as to how to put a supply kit together. The only other option they're presented with is to sit and wait for EMAs, who are not up to the job, to deliver emergency water supplies in bottle sizes which make sense for survival. Whoever thought up this legislation forgot one of the most basic rules of emergency survival: humans become increasingly irrational in their thought process or begin reverting to feral behavior once they are four days past exhausting their hydration supply.

On the survival food chain, man-portable water purification systems are at the top of the food chain, followed by bottled water. My rules for hydration in your survival kit: it must be able to manufacture water quickly and efficiently, be man-portable or both. That's why only man-portable systems and bottled water make the cut; bottled water is the Plan B if you don't have a Kat. Boiling is the court of last resort; you do it when you have no other sensible options, making it the first choice of dummies. Not speedy or efficient, requires too many containers and coffee filters, along with leaving you a sitting duck for someone who will bring hostile intent your way to take your water supply.

In pure utilitarian and survival terms, this kind of legislation makes absolutely no sense; it's actually a threat to public safety.

Stupid imho. The old lady has too much time on her hands. If you are going to ban water bottles, then ALL plastic bottles need to be banned also.

Also, I don't trust the tap water in my house. I drink bottled water. Do a google search on the water in Crestwood, IL . They had dry cleaning chemicals in there tap water for the last 15 years. I'm sure Concord will "guarantee" there water is safe too? Just like Crestwood, IL did too.

I would counter sue in Federal court.

That all depends on where you are. Such as, in my neck of the woods the water tastes awful and smells like sulfur. We are always in a drought and bottled water tastes much better. Even if we filter the tap water here, it is hideous. Double osmosis water machines are everywhere around here, where you can fill your water cooler bottles for about a buck. But as far as bottled water, yeah, when I'm out and about and it's insanely hot out, I will buy bottled water. My choices go from cheap to "they want how much?" While soda fountains are in every shop, you don't find water fountains around here. Especially not in the middle of Main Street. So while it may be dumb to pay for bottled water where you are, it's not dumb around here.

People, people, people!

Check scientific studies. The water in the bottles is coming from the tap. Seriously.

@ wonderful9845

"fating"...water is not fating? fating:something that unavoidably befalls a person...in other words fate...? Well being overweight is a lot better than being illiterate and not knowing how to do something as simple as spelling the word "fattening".

Oh, and just how ridiculous is it to take the time to buy bottled water because you think it is better than faucet water or colas and then refill the container from a water fountain? Doesn't that oppose the whole idea about buying the bottled water in the first place. Or do you buy bottled water for the container only? You do know that dollar stores and the like, sell empty containers...

One last thing...I am 57, 6'-2', weigh 180lbs, drink soda or high fructose and have NEVER been overweight...but then I was never silly enough to buy water at $8 a gallon!

Plastic is made from petrolium.Petrolium is being wasted by making plastic bottles for water!The water bottling companies have a big portion of people BRAIN WASHED into thinking bottled water is healthier than tap water! It is STUPID to waste petrolium for this perpose,plus wasting fuel to ship it! Milk use to come in glass bottles.Then in the 1950s,the cardboard carton was invented.When you opened it,it formed a spout to pour the milk without spilling it. This worked GREAT for many decades untill some IDIOT decided to put the milk in plastic bottles about 20 years ago."WHY" that never made sence!Since then millions of gallons of petrolium have been WASTED!! And to make matters worst, they put the spout in the MIDDLE of the bottle instead off to one side. This would have made it EASIER to pour the milk so it wouldn't SPILL!!

This is democracy in action. They voted for a ban. Deal with it.

This is democracy in action. They voted for a ban. Deal with it.

Yep, people voting their freedom and rights away... cool, huh? Deal with it? Sure. Accept it? No.

Yes, less than 800 people in a town of 18,000 voted - that sounds like a fair "representation". Dollars to donuts, the item on the agenda wasn't well advertised or the turnout may have been MUCH larger. As it was, the motion passed with a mere 36 votes.

Voting their rights away??

Hyperbole much? God damn, you people wrap every issue up so tightly in a flag that it seems the blood gets cut off on the way to your brains. Voting away your rights means that you vote to never vote again. It doesn't mean voting to set rules for your community. Argue one way or the other about the necessity, feasibility, or impact of the vote, but do it within the framework of reality and leave the pseudo patriotism out of it.

We could go back to reusable glass bottles. A lot of Coca-Cola was sold when I was a kid and it was all in glass bottles which were returned, cleaned, and refilled with soda pop.

Thank you! We had recycling programs and we went to schools to teach about them. It didn't have as big of an impact. Now we have to take more extreme measures and its like .... well you should have listened in the first place! Same thing with global warming. We've been warning people all along and when it gets to 2050 and people are still heavily relying on cars and a measure is passed to take more extreme measures to stop it, people will start complaining again about their rights being stripped away. Do it right the first time and the government won't HAVE to take extreme measures.

Highway - Plastic bottles aren't biodegradable but they sure as hell are recyclable. Ever live in an area where the tap water is horrible????

Put the stars and stripes nonsense to bed. If that is how you frame every waking thought that you have then you have missed the point. This is about landfill usage and a city has a right to ban the import of products that pollute their landfills. If the water industry wants to sell water they can do it in another format. And every citizen of Concord still has water coming out of their taps. It's not like water has been banned.

Taxes on bottles would not have stopped the flow of plastic waste into Concord's landfills. Perhaps it would slow it a little, but that was deemed to be ineffective as a solution for their problem. The ban was deemed the only effective solution. Besides this was a democratic decision not some tyrannical despotic ruler forcing the peasants to abide by his will. Get some perspective. This is what the people of Concord want. They voted - deal with it.

radagast-Excellent reply!

I don't see how the 'fight for Independence' gave you or any other person the right to trash this place.I'd like to leave it in better shape to my kids and grand kids----though with people like you I hardly see how that would ever be possible.

Radagast--if you don't understand how silly it is to get the government involved in such small choices, then you miss the point. Is it silly purchase water in a small plastic bottle? sure. I can definitely see where, on an individual level, making that decision doesn't make a lot of sense. But is that fact that it's wasteful decision for an individual to make sufficient justification for the government step in? Hardly. I think it's incredibly silly and stupid to spend more than $30 on pair of jeans, but people routinely drop $200 on "high end denim" simply because of the brand name. Would we ban that as well because, as Ms. Hill asserts, it's a waste of money?

As to your assertion that this will somehow have an impact on landfill volumes, that's simply foolish. The bulk of bottled water sales in the <1L category come from single sales at grocery and convenience stores. Basically thirsty people looking for something drink that they can grab and take with them, and not care about the container when they are done. You think those folks, once they can't buy bottle water, will simply stop purchasing single-serve drink containers at those locations? No, they will, instead, buy all the products they used to buy before bottled water was also on the shelves. They'll buy cokes and pepsis and snapples and vitaminwaters and whatever else happens to sound like a good idea at the time and throw away just as many bottles in to the landfill as they did yesterday, only after consuming a drink with calories and flavors over water, simply because some folks think paying for water is a "waste of money." What you are doing is imposing your tastes and preferences without making any real impact.

Lastly, on your 6th grade understanding of democracy. It's kind of silly that this "well, if the people voted for it, that's democracy" brain-deadness continues to circulate even after 200+ years of history arguing that American democracy is not unconstrained majority rule. But hey, I guess not everyone paid attention in high school civics, so I guess it will have to be trotted again here. Democracy is not merely majority rule, it is majority rule restrained by the idea of individual freedom. Majorities are not permitted to vote in laws that take away individual choices and freedoms without a just cause. Your taste in beverages does not constitute a just a cause, regardless of whether you are in the majority.

Sorry that is a poor argument. Plastic is recyclable. Every bottle of water that comes through my home is recycled. Judging my the flotsam on the local lake, I cant say the same for every soda bottle.

Also, will that stop the balls, furniture, toys, and other garbage I see floating in the lake every day? How about we fight the true issue which is PEOPLE who litter. They are still going to litter.

Those that think tap water is just as good, maybe you need to come to my town a bit and taste the wondrous metallic crud that comes out of our aging infrastructure. Sorry but this is just a dumb law.

OK, so when communities vote to outlaw gay marriage... deal with it. when they vote to restrict a women's rights... deal with it. when then vote to take someones land away and give it to someone else..... deal with it.

I agree that in a democracy, people need to vote, and those votes are law. BUT... The idiots should not vote for less freedom, or for restricting minorities based on their own biased views. Deal with it.

It's not about how YOU waste your money. It's about the impact is has on OUR environment. Stop being so selfish and accept that you are a part of a larger whole. Kudos for you if you do recycle but not enough people are doing that and that's the reason for such extreme measures.

mindyabusiness--No, this law is strictly about how individuals choose to waste their money. It's not about the impact it has on the environment. I'm still free to waste my money on a plastic bottle filled flavored water, juice, cola, etc., and throw that bottle in an approved waste or recycling container (or litter and accept the low risk of a ticket). My need (or the average consumer's need) to consume some form of hydration while not at home and not near a faucet with a cup in hand will not decrease, and will merely shift to different products.

This law represents the worst form of environmentalism, needlessly impacting personal choice, setting a precedent for nanny state laws, while having no actually impact towards it's stated goals.

Voting against gay marriage is a civil rights issue. Plastic bottles is not. That argument is irreparably flawed.

We as a nation decide on how things should be done, because when you live with more than two people rules must be set. We set these rules by getting together and deciding them in the context of all the other needs we face. That's called Government and is one of the fundamental building blocks of society no matter how that government is structured. In our Government we protect individuals and minorities from being stripped of their dignity and rights by larger voting majorities. It is one of the hallmarks of American Government as has been written and decided more than 200 years ago. As a consequence of deciding the rules of how things should be done, many things have been banned, or at the very least instructions have been written on the proper way to proceed in certain events. Banning plastic bottles may not be the best solution, but it is no different than banning CFCs, pesticides, fireworks, BPA, industrial waste dumping, etc. Setting the rules in this way does not violate the rights of anyone. Voting to ban gay rights does.

Claiming that government doesn't have the right to decide the matters of how the society runs means that you also feel that the society - the very people that make it up - don't have the right to decide these things for themselves. That is because the government is where the people gather to make these decisions and I would argue very strongly for the right of people to gather to make these kinds of decisions, because that is what America gives us the freedom and right to do.

Flagged draped hyperbole is an empty argument.

Radagast--Sure, we've banned other things in the past, when we've had good cause for. Industrial waste dumping-gee, you do that in a river and suddenly no one can fish there anymore. A policy that bans industrial waste dumping can actually reduce the amount of industrial waste dumped. Liberty may be impaired, but a desired benefit is achieved, and one can rationally weigh the lost liberty against the gained benefit. You cannot simply argue "laws exist, and therefore this law is justified in it's existence." You have to put in the work to show that this law's existence is warranted on it's own.

Where you fail utterly is to show any significant justification for banning water in plastic bottles. The issue you try to confront is the problem of plastic bottles-they wind up in landfills, don't biodegrade, etc. But your policy, banning them from being filled with unadulterated water, does absolutely nothing to reduce the actual numbers of plastic bottles either consumed or disposed of. As such, it functions solely as an impairment on liberty without actually achieving any benefit to any individual or any community. People will shift from consuming water in plastic bottles to consuming juice, flavored waters, or sodas.

If we admit that liberty is a value, then we must admit that it can only be sacrificed to achieve some greater competing value. As nothing is achieved here, there is no reason to support this infringement on liberty based soley on enforcing the majority's preference about what should be drunk from plastic bottles. One might as well try to mandate that only Coke is available in town, not Pepsi, on the grounds that maybe a few Pepsi drinkers will consume less from plastic bottles due to their loyalty to the product or distaste Coke. Would you defend that infringement on liberty as justified because hey, we also stop people from pour industrial solvents in to waterways?

You're way off. First, I never argued that "laws exist therefore laws are justified." My argument about the necessity and reality of societies deciding laws was to put a sock in all the flag draped hyperbole about freedoms and such nonsense that is all over this blog. People are arguing that government doesn't have a right to decide these things. That's nonsense. That's my point.

A policy that bans industrial waste dumping can actually reduce the amount of industrial waste dumped.

But a policy banning water bottles won't reduce the number of bottles dumped?? I can't follow the logic here. Your not being consistent with your analogy.

The issue you try to confront is the problem of plastic bottles-they wind up in landfills, don't biodegrade, etc. But your policy, banning them from being filled with unadulterated water, does absolutely nothing to reduce the actual numbers of plastic bottles either consumed or disposed of.

First - not my policy - it's Concord's policy. Second - Who is banning the filling of plastic bottles with unadulterated water? If you have a plastic bottle this law doesn't ban you from using it. It only bans the sale of them. To be clear, plastic bottles by Camelback or other refillable plastic bottles are not at issue here. And again, banning the sale of these bottles will keep new bottles from entering the city so how can you argue that the number of these bottles will remain the same? Less is less no matter where it ends up. If less comes in, then less must come out the other end, right? The ban can only reduce the number of bottles as designed. If your argument is that reducing the number of bottles will result in the same number of bottles I'm afraid your argument is pretty shaky to say the least.

The bulk of plastic bottles in landfills today is not from sugary drinks, but from water bottles. The number of water bottles eclipses soda and gatorade bottles by far in landfills. Eliminating the water bottles makes the largest dent in reducing plastic waste and since everyone already has access to water this is the least restrictive policy for consumers.

People will shift from consuming water in plastic bottles to consuming juice, flavored waters, or sodas.

Speculation. I for one would not start drinking soda instead of water, I would buy a refillable container and fill it at home if I wanted portable water and I'm sure many others would do the same. If people wanted soda or juice they would be buying it now. You would need to prove that people would suddenly go from calorie free water to high fructose soda just because of convenience. That's a pretty shaky argument. Let's face it, when they started selling water in bottles it didn't exactly dent the soda market. The water drinkers are principally buying it for convenience - not as an alternative to soda so why would they suddenly drink soda if the convenience were removed?

One might as well try to mandate that only Coke is available in town, not Pepsi

A poor analogy. Banning plastic water bottles affects all suppliers equally. Banning one company's product over another is different and probably illegal on Constitutional grounds.

Come up with better arguments.

Radagast-- You simply do not understand the arguments you are trying to make. You can't even complete your first paragraph without contradicting yourself. You start out saying that saying that you never argued that the existence of laws justifies more laws, but then you turn around and say that it's nonsense to say that the government doesn't have the right to pass this sort of law. But you provide no balancing mechanism to decide which laws the government can pass and cannot. No principle by which laws should be limited. Your original argument was "we've banned other products, so let's ban this." Until you provide more complexity on why products are bannable, rather than relying on the fact that some are, your argument is simply that creation of laws in the past is sufficient reason for creating laws in the future. Your snide dismissal of that as "flag waving" does not cover for your lack of intellectual principles in your argument.

next, let's move to your first prevarication, that's is not your policy, it's Concord's. You seek to defend it here, you think it should be propagated, so for the purposes of argument, it's your's. You may not have written or been the intellectual originator, but if you support it, have the courage to claim it in argument and be honest enough to admit that when someone says "your policy" in an internet post, it's a short hand for saying "the policy propagated by a cranky old busybody in Concord which the people have been silly enough to vote for and which you are defending on this thread." If I have to type that whole string of words every I reference this ban just so that you won't try some weaselly "it's not my policy" line, this thing's gonna get tiresome quickly.

Your next prevarication was about "who's banning filling plastic bottles with unadulterated water?" and wander off into a discussion of camelbacks and other bottles. But, as you admit early, you have difficulty following logic. My reference what plastic bottles were filled with was clearly a reference to what they were filled with at point of sale, i.e. a bottle filled with a mixture of water, high fructose corn syrup, flavors, and colors is legal to sell, but a bottle filled with two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen, not so much. A disposable plastic bottle is a disposable plastic bottle, regardless what the bottler put in it to start with. You can try to confuse the issue by talking about reusables, but that doesn't change the issue about what's in the disposable bottles.

Next, we get in to your shaky understanding of economics. First, you assert that, for some reason, people that currently could save themselves money by carrying refillable water bottle from home but choose not for convenience's sake will reject that convenience when told to by the government. If that were the case, the market for the convenience would never have exploded in the first place. It's not like 20 years ago, before the prevalence of bottled water, you saw everybody walking around with water bottles everywhere you went. No, people bought various canned and bottled drinks while they were out and about. You want to talk about proof, I think if you want to assert that people will suddenly adopt habits of carrying around with them all day an additional 2 lbs worth of water just avoid purchasing a bottled soda, you'd better prove it.

The question is, where do you believe the bulk of bottled water sales come from? To the extent that bottle water is purchased by the flat in a grocery store or costco, then carried out of the house by people looking to take water with them, I'd argue that many residents in concord would still buy those flats at grocery stores outside city limits and still carry them. To the extent they are convenience sales, folks will still seek that convenience. Those that choose to plan ahead currently do, those that do not, are not likely to change their behavior. Let's say, for example, that you walk in to a carry-out restaurant for some lunch and you're looking at the selection of beverages to take with you. If water is removed from that mix, you will pick something else. most will not choose to exercise an option that they currently have and are not exercising just to get water.

As to the dent that bottled water made in the soda market, all it takes is the ability to study a refridgerator case in a gas station to see the dent that it's made. If people were still buying as much soda, they wouldn't have removed soda from the cases to put water in. Per capita soda consumption is down in the US over the last twenty years, due to the increase in competition--juices, flavored waters, bottle waters all compete for soda dollars. Of course, Coke and Pepsi still do just fine BECAUSE THEY OWN MANY OF THOSE competing products anyway, including many water bottlers.

Er, justross, you realize that a) people can shift to using refillable containers from home, and b) bottled water costs more per gallon than gasoline? (I tend to hear more complaints about the cost of the gas, though) Banning disposable water bottles doesn't have to mean lost revenue: Gas stations and stores could charge folks for water refills- similar to selling bottled water, but the customer brings the bottle. It won't impede anyone's access to pricey water in the least. I'm sure lots of stores will start carrying refillable water bottles in fashion colors and prints and before you know it: poof! an industry is born. Additionally, I don't want my children and grandchildren to have to deal with all the bottles that obviously don't get recycled. I'd like the planet to last longer than the time I'm on it, so the ban on disposable water bottles makes sense. Recongnize, too, that carbonated drinks need sealed containers, so the bottles for them are necessary, for now. Disposable water bottles simply have no justification to exist, period. Too many nonrenewable resources are used in their manufacture; it's time to stop catering to the masses.

WorkerBee1-

ummm, do you realize that a) people can shift to using refillable containers from home now with out this law choose not to and b) they are choosing to spend more per gallon on bottled water than they do on gas? My arguments are not about whether or not they can shift, it's about whether or not THEY WILL SHIFT. My argument is no. As you point out, bottle water costs more on a per gallon basis than gas, but no one complains about buying right now. They prefer the convenience of being able to walk in to a store or restaurant, grab a cold drink from a refrigerator, and then not have to worry about carrying around the bottle when they are done with it.

If the options in the refrigerator no longer include water, people will not start spontaneously carrying around the designer bottles that they could buy in the status quo but do not (poof, a product that currently exists that some choose to use and some do not). They will simply simply shift to other drinks bottled in plastic bottles.

Additionally, I was never concerned about stores and gas stations losing revenue. My argument was THEY WOULD SELL AS MANY PLASTIC-BOTTLED DRINKS AS BEFORE, but none of them would have water in them. My entire point is that this law simply amounts to being a pain in people's rears, and takes away a choice they have used and liked, without actually achieving the goal of having fewer plastic bottles purchased and subsequently discarded in to the waste stream. It accomplishes nothing.

Regardless of your belief in their justification for existence, in a pluralistic society, you should not be entitled to needlessly impose your preferences on me nor more than I should impose them on you. You are free to try to convince me to change my behavior and stop purchasing bottled water (a product I almost never buy, BTW) but should you fail, you are not entitle to use violent force of government action to prevent me from my preferences.

@ mindyabusiness. If you think this law is based upon enviromental factors, then why didn't they go after all products that are sold in plastic bottles, instead of just water? Even if water comes from tap like some people say, it still is a healthier choice than pepsi or coke. This law was about the lady not liking bottled water.

@ radagast How is banning bottled water any different than banning one companies product? This law at face value in this particular article seems to be illegal, based upon banning one product in a plastic bottle but not all products in a plastic bottle.

People who throw money away on bottled water won't care if part of it is a deposit. Bottled water - unless you're jogging or city service is cut off - is a stupid waste of money and resources. We import Fiji water while many Fiji residents don't have access to clean water.

If you don't trust your municipal water then complain. What do you pay taxes for?

LOL complain...seriously? Yeah cause complaining to your municipal water dept will get them right out there to change out the hundred of miles of antiquated pipes.

Be realistic - no one is going to willingly give up a saturday morning to go to a recycling program seminar. Consider it a blessing Concord took matters into their own hands and didn't ask you and your family to do that.

...and you show the precise reason the ban is needed. You don't understand the environmental impact of those billions of plastic water bottles.

...and you show the precise reason the ban is needed. You don't understand the environmental impact of those billions of plastic water bottles.

The only way the impact on the environment will ever change is if you forbid the drinking of anything in disposable beverages in any type of container while in a public setting. People will drink water when they want. The type of container you allow is not going to change that. The only thing that changes is the material of the litter. Lazy, inconsiderate people will always be lazy, inconsiderate people.

Kansas-and you don't understand economics or human nature. People buy water because they are thirsty and they do not have anything to drink with them. Ban water in plastic bottles, and people will still be thirsty, and will not have brought anything to drink with them. They will, therefore, seek to satisfy that need with whatever is available. They will still purchase beverages in plastic bottles, but those beverages will be cokes and pepsis and snapples, etc., and the plastic bottles will still wind up in the same place, only with different wrappers.

No, wait, we can ban soda now because it is making everyone fat, or so I heard. That would cure those nasty bottles. When I was young you could go anywhere, any restauraunt and ask for water and they would cheerfully give you one. Try that now. They will charge you for that "tap" water in a plastic cup, a plastic straw, a plastic cover. I am getting confused here, what exactly is the issue with water bottles as opposed to any other bottle?

Does this mean when I visit your lovely city I just stay thirsty, I don't drink soda, vitamin water, gator aid or anything but water, if I run out does that mean I have to go to another city to quench my thirst? This makes no sense at all.

Letusreason,

Maybe they should be ticketing for LITTERING then instead of banning plastic water bottles. Now there will be empty plastic soda bottles and beer cans and bottles.

BRILLIANT!

We are on a boil order right now, for who knows how long.

would that be gas guzzling suv's or fuel efficient cars? Gee, I don't like gas guzzling trucks and suv's, maybe I will have them banned in my town! Then the rest of the country will follow.

Yeah and we are getting tired of you whiners. Personal responsibility in proper disposal of any form of trash is just that. Personal responsibility. I'm reasonably certain you have some annoying habits and purchase things I might consider wasteful. Calling people you do not know (or do for that matter) morons does not reflect well upon you or your argument.

@ FlaNative

WOW - way to attack people who hate to have their freedoms curtailed! You, sweetheart, are the moron if you don't think this is law is biased and unjust. And just plain UNHEALTHY!

Aside from the fact that I should have the right to buy any beverage I choose as long as it is in an approved container (plastic bottles ARE EPA approved by the way) and stores should have the right to sell whatever products it chooses; this law goes against all sorts of free market principles.

Now if they were to apply it to ALL plastic bottle sales (ie soda etc) THEN it would make more sense and be legal. As it stands it is unfailry prejudiced against water companies...

I hope the water guild sues and gets it repealed.

(Not to mention that it now encourages people to choose less healthy drink options - DUH!)

Amazing the number of morons that think that this ban will actually have any impact on the number of plastic bottles used in Concord, MA. People will still drink from plastic bottles. They will just drink different products.

Amazing at the number of morons who think this is a bad idea! These bottles have already fillled our landfills and everywhere else and we don't need a ONE of them

So I guess that means we can stop separating recyclables now since you claim landfills are full of plastic bottles. We can go back to chopping down more trees for paper bags now because those plastic bags are useless too.

Flanative,

Big SUV's that get 10 mpg dump far more toxic gases into the air than cars like the Prius and electric vehicles.

Perhaps Concord, MA should start working on banning SUV's? Drive an SUV through they city, $25 ticket. Think of the money they can raise.

So you think the city will be more successful in enforcing this law? It doesn't prevent water bottles form out of town being consumed in the township - it will do virtually NOTHING to stop the littering problem they seem to be dealing with; people who littered water bottles before will drop soda bottles now.

As far as encouraging people to use tap water or to recycle more; 1) they better make the tap water taste better because I will drive 20 miles out of my way if I have to to find DRINKABLE water and 2)how does the ban address recycling at all?!?

This law is unlawful and I wish the water companies luck in their suit.

I am just jumping in here real quick to invite whomsoever might be interested to visit this site...www.tftptf.com. As a child in 1981, I was exposed to toxic drinking water from the tap in what is now known as Historic Drinking Water at Camp Lejuene in North Carolina. It is not yet known if any of my many illnesses and maladys are directly or indirectly related. This water has been served to 30 years worth of military families. I drink bottled water. President Barack Obama signed off on this doctrine on August 6th, 2012.

Ken in CT - Thank you. You just expressed it in exactly the words I was looking for. For one person, the majority have to give in. I am disgusted with the way this once fair and beautiful country is going. I am entitled - yes, entitled - to make my own decisions and I'm tired of everyone telling me what I can and cannot do.

There's a lot of things that I find 'offensive' but I respect the rights of others to do as they choose as long as no one is hurt.

Oh, it's the water company's responsibility to come up with new packaging? If it's so easy, and so economical, why don't you be the genius that comes up with a CARDBOARD package that can hold water for several months without dissolving. Or is it simply easier to demand that someone somewhere do something about your pet peeve?

There's more plastic in paper packaging than in pure plastic packaging. Paper bags and other substitutes are one of the biggest rip-off scams ever put on "green aware" consumers. I worked for a Fortune 100 paper products and packaging manufacturing company for years. We knew all this and it's all a complete fraud by marketing and advertising to the latest consumer fad. We supplied both plastic and paper based products. Advertising and marketing agencies completely invented these differentiators to create brand images that have nothing to do with reality. Paper shopping bags must have embedded plastic to maintain strength when they get wet or damp with condensation from cold or frozen goods. Otherwise they just disintigrate and fall apart the moment you put that gallon of milk or frozen yogurt in one. They have more plastic in them than a plastic grocery sack. The plastic grocery sack uses a lot less material and energy to create. It disintigrates in a landfill faster than the paper grocery bag and takes up a LOT less space. Also, the plastic grocery sack can be used as a small trash can liner instead of buying specialty liners. The banning of the plastic grocery sack is one of the most moronic ideas ever. The use of reusable grocery bags for fresh produce and fruit is a dangerous health hazard. The organic material left behind in the bag rots, starts bacterial colonies and eventually results in salmonella contamination or worse of everything put into the bag. Fresh fruits and vegetables MUST be wrapped in disposable wrapping, such as a plastic sack, to keep you from getting ill or, as in a couple of cases, dead from reusable shopping bag contamination. I use reusable bags for everything EXCEPT fresh produce and insist on plastic sacks for them. These moronic ignoramous do-gooders are going to kill us all with their insane stupidity.

cheers Jim and Justross. How about bamboo? pretty versatile stuff, they make bicycles out of it now.

If it works, and people want to use it, great. But I wouldn't use the force of government to decide that bamboo products get to win in the marketplace and plastics have to lose.

@sparrow1 - The Japanese made portions of the Mitsubishi Zero fighter aircraft out of bamboo during WWII. It was more plentiful, light weight and very strong. Most people don't know, but a lot of private aircraft are partially wood and doped (laquer/shellac/varnish coated) canvas to save weight and are just as strong and lighter in construction than equivalent designs using all metals. But the main story in this article is what you get when marketing propaganda from the corporate greed-monster fat-cats displaces reality in the minds of bleeting-sheep consumers who believe every latest fad-pronouncement pushed through the media. Just watch. Oprah or some other TV personality will make or have some hype-marketed so-called expert celebrity will make some pronouncement about this and the US lemming-like consumers will go rush off the nearest marketing cliff to spend billions of dollars on the latest marketing produced fad frenzy. Just look at what one statement by Oprah about the Acai Berry did. What magical fruit. They come from endangered Amazon rain forests, so they must be better. In peer-reviewed controlled studies, it turns out that ordinary mangos, strawberries and grapes score much higher in anti-oxidant and related polyphenol benefits than Acai Berries. But, that doesn't stop the internet and commercial marketing hype to feed the frenzy for Acai Berrie nor the massive blizzard of SPAM in my email inbox trying to sell me all kinds of Acai Berry products from dubious and probably criminally run enterprises from Russia maifa, Chinese triads and Indian scam artists. Plentiful and cheap mix of grapes, strawberries and blueberries are far better and the latest peer-reviewed research shows that organic version have no more nutritional or health benefit than ordinary ones.

The nasty fact is that the supposed metal reusable containers breed bacteria from constant re-use, can't be adequately sterilized periodically and are lined with the same plastic that they are supposed to replace. Without the plastic lining, they would contaminate the liquids in them with metals leeched from the wall of the container and far more hazardous to your health than the plastic in the first place. That and the bio-hazard they become over time is the reason to not re-use these containers for very many uses or for a long time.

RECYCLING Is great but it takes energy to pickup the bottles, transport them, shred them, then transport them to a place where they can be used. Just get a reusable bottle and fill it up at home with your favorite water product and save money.

Where I live, they pick up the recyclables at the same time as the trash and the recycling station is at the landfill.