We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
This may not be the most earthshattering stories reported in
this space, but it is a Massachusetts story, and the rhetoric
surrounding the issue is sufficiently noteworthy that I thought I
would, er, note it. Concord, Massachusetts, has apparently
become the first community in the nation to ban the sale of certain
plastic water bottles.
According to the Boston Globe, the ban was
championed by Concord resident Jean Hill, who was quoted as saying
"I hope other towns will follow. I feel bottled water is
a waste of money." Actually agree with Ms. Hill that
bottled water is a waste of money. I also agree that the sale
of bottled water creates externalities (e.g., carbon emissions from
transporting the bottles and the cost of disposal or recycling)
that aren't captured in the price. However, to the best of
my knowledge, we do not traditionally ban the sale of products that
are a waste of money. That is about as slippery a slope as one
could imagine.
On the other hand, according to NBCNews.com, the International
Bottled Water Association used some fairly purple prose in its
statement opposing the ban.
"This ban deprives residents of the option to choose their
choice of beverage and visitors, who come to this birthplace of
American independence, a basic freedom gifted to them by the
actions in this town more than 200 years ago."
Little did the famous Minutemen of 1776 know that more than 200
years after the shots heard round the world, their efforts to throw
off the yoke of King George and protect Americans' freedom to
drink bottled water would be so casually tossed aside by later
generations in the birthplace of freedom.
The silliness of proponents and opponents aside, the ban raises
issues worth discussion. One is whether these issues should be
decided at a local level. Another is whether such bans make
any sense. As noted above, I hate bottled water. (I
should acknowledge that our firm represents the MWRA, purveyor of
one of the finest products of any public drinking water supplier in
the US). Its use does impose externalities. However, we
don't normally ban products unless/until they impose
substantially more costs than small plastic water
bottles. Why couldn't we just impose a tax to reflect the
externalities? What a thought! If it works on plastic water
bottles, we could then try it on carbon emissions.
To view Foley Hoag's Law and the Environment Blog
please click
here
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The Fifth Circuit recently handed down an important decision, Louisiana Generating LLC v. Illinois Union Insurance Company, clarifying the scope of coverage under a Premises Pollution Liability Insurance Policy.
It is proving very difficult for plaintiffs to survive a motion to dismiss, let alone obtain judicial relief associated with the alleged results of climate change.
On May 24, 2013, the Bureau of Land Management published a revised set of proposed regulations pertaining to hydraulic fracturing on Federal and Indian lands.
Surprise, Surprise, Surprise: An Agency Cannot Revise Regulations In A Consent Decree (Video Content)
