Grantee Research Project Results
Final Report: “From the Source – Tap Water as a Sustainable Alternative”
EPA Grant Number: SU833937Title: “From the Source – Tap Water as a Sustainable Alternative”
Investigators: Cousineau, Randy , Riley, Melinda
Institution: Butte College
EPA Project Officer: Page, Angela
Phase: I
Project Period: August 31, 2008 through July 31, 2009
Project Amount: $9,995
RFA: P3 Awards: A National Student Design Competition for Sustainability Focusing on People, Prosperity and the Planet (2008) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: P3 Challenge Area - Safe and Sustainable Water Resources , Pollution Prevention/Sustainable Development , P3 Awards , Sustainable and Healthy Communities
Objective:
Butte Community College location is rather unique. The main campus is situated at the foot of the Sierra Nevada foothills, and is remote in relation to any major urban area. The largest service area is Chico 15 miles to the northwest. Butte College, for that reason, operates the largest bussing system of any community college. While that helps reduce the carbon footprint of the college, supplies and materials must travel that distance for delivery to the campus. Water supply for the college consists of wells located on the campus. This water is tested monthly and is found to be of better quality than water found in the City of Chico. Unfortunately, the students, staff, and faculty continue to consume a significant amount of bottled water, in both the individual serving size and in the 5 gallon bottles delivered separately. The object is to educate the students, staff, and faculty that not only is the water on campus free, but of good quality, and that consuming bottled water is expensive, detrimental to the environment, and not sustainable.The major technical challenge to sustainability is reducing the use of bottled water. The students of the Fall 2008 Economic Geography class at Butte Community College administered a water use survey of the students, staff, and faculty concerning their use of bottled water to determine the reasons behind this type of water consumption. This is combined with a public education campaign on campus extolling the benefits of utilizing tap water and the waste generated using the normally sold single serving bottles. Another way to take this information to the community is to include a flyer inserted into the bills of the major waste management company. Finally, onsite water filtration vending machines will be installed on campus that will utilize reusable containers for those individuals who cannot bring themselves to consume water directly from the tap. A key objective was to understand the costs of transporting bottled water and the overall carbon footprint of the college. The waste generated from the consumption also is a major concern, for the vast majority of bottles (three-quarters of all bottles consumed) are not recycled, but enter into the waste management system and finally into landfill.
Certainly, the relationship to consumption of something as common and necessary as water is critical to the concept of sustainability. Water is a major issue in the State of California, now entering the third year of drought. Understanding where their water comes from and that it is safe, is the step that the Butte Community College is taking in that direction of sustainability.
Summary/Accomplishments (Outputs/Outcomes):
A survey of students, staff, and faculty was performed during the second week in November 2008, during the Fall Semester in association with the Economic Geography students. At total of 306 were surveyed.Question #1 concerned the consumer’s preference: “Which is your preference when you have a choice?” Sixty-two percent answered “Bottled”; 32 percent answered “Tap”; 6 percent did not answer.
Question #2 addressed concerns of safety concerning drinking water: “Do you feel that drinking bottled water is safer than tap water?” Thirty-five percent answered “Yes”; 37 percent answered “No”; 18 percent answered “Don’t know”; 10 percent did not answer.
Question #3 addressed the amount of consumption: “On average, how many bottles of water do you drink in a week?” Seventeen percent answered “0”; 35 percent answered “1-5”; 22 percent answered “6-10”; 5 percent answered “11-15”; 10 percent answered “15+”; 11 percent did not answer.
Question #4 concerned disposal of the single serving units: “Do you recycle, reuse, or dispose of your plastic water bottle?” Fifty-nine percent answered “Recycle”; 34 percent answered “Reuse”; 6 percent answered “Dispose”; 1 percent did not answer.
Question #5 concerned the cost of bottled water: “Are you concerned about the cost of bottled water when purchasing?” Fifty-four percent answered “Yes”; 35 percent answered “No”; 11 percent did not answer.
The water filtration machines are not yet installed, but they will be installed in the Dining Hall and the new Administrative Building, which is nearing completion.
Conclusions:
The conclusions to the water use survey may be considered a microcosm of the communities served by the college and to a certain degree of the results from other similar surveys.Take the response to Question #1. By a 2:1 margin, people prefer bottled water. This is not dissimilar to responses from other surveys. Where the response from this survey differs greatly is the response to Question #2. The number of individuals answering that they did not believe bottled water was any safer than tap water was greater than those who felt that bottled water was safer. The majority of those surveyed did drink bottled water on a consistent basis (Question #3), even though more than one-third did not believe it was any safer.
Taking the response to Question #1 and #2, and the reaction to Question #5, the price concern, our group determined that drinking bottled water is an issue of convenience and not that of safety. Therefore, we concluded that the amount of bottled water consumed on campus could be reduced by making available conveniently placed water fountains along with access (through purchase) to reusable containers. These actions might work to wean individuals from bottled water.
Proposed Phase II Objectives and Strategies:
Butte Community College location is rather unique. The main campus is situated at the foot of the Sierra Nevada foothills, and is remote in relation to any major urban area. The largest service area is Chico, which is 15 miles to the northwest. Butte College, for that reason, operates the largest bussing system of any community college. Although that helps reduce the carbon footprint of the college, supplies and materials must travel that distance for delivery to the campus. Water supply for the college consists of wells located on the campus. This water is tested monthly and is found to be of better quality than water found in the City of Chico. The amount of money spent by the college and separately amongst faculty and staff is in the thousands of dollars a month. This does not include the externality cost of transportation and the carbon footprint from delivering that water from such distances.
The objective of the proposed Phase II is to determine the viability of a bottling facility on the main campus to serve the main campus. By providing the campus with reusable five-gallon containers of campus bottled water a significant amount of the transportation costs could be saved.
The strategy would be to develop facilities to fill bottles, transport them on campus, and deliver the containers in the same fashion that currently is being performed by a private water company. These facilities would be required to maintain cleanliness and remain sanitary under the requirements of federal, state, and local agencies. The day-to-day operations could be performed by students thereby providing employment on campus that would be self sufficient considering the proper revenue stream. This would be an additional step increasing the sustainability of Butte Community College.
Supplemental Keywords:
Bottled Water, Drinking Water, Tap WaterRelevant Websites:
The perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.