Environmental Issues > Water Main Page > All Water Documents
Bottled Water
Pure Drink or Pure Hype?
Appendix C
Summary: State Bottled Water Programsa
| Survey Questions | State Staff or Budget Dedicated to Bottled Water Program? | Bottled Water Survey? | Regs. More/Less Strict vs. FDA? | State Regulates BW Not Reg’d by FDA? | Additional Labeling Requirements? (FDA +) | Enforcement Actions Reported? | Violations Data Reported? | Illness Reported? | Testing & Source Certification Requirements? | State Permit Program? | Contaminant Posing Most Threat? | State Recommended Changes Needed? | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | < 1 FTE | No | = FDA | No | No | No. Two voluntary recalls | No | No | =FDA | Yes | No comment | No recommendations at this time. | |
| Alaska | None | No | =EPA IBWA, & FDA Codes; Alaska does not require annual testing for chemicals & radioactive contaminants | Intrastate, carbonated, flavored waters regulated under same standards as bottled water | No | No | No | No | =Fed.; Must comply with Class A drinking water reqts per SDWA | Yes | Microbiological | FDA needs definition of "glacier water"; Annual chemical & radiological contaminants testing should be eliminated: tests are expensive and not necessary. | |
| Arizona | 1/2 FTE | No | =+IBWA Code; = FDA | Intrastate regulated same as interstate | No | No | No | No | =FDA; Require chemical, radiological and microbial testing; verified by twice-yearly inspections | State Certification | Known carcinogens, bacteria | Annual inspections; Need more regional approach to chemical & biological testing b/c not all contaminants found in all areas. | |
| Arkansas | None | Yes; Data more like lists of lab results | = FDA | Arkansas regulates all bottled water within state | No | No | No | No | =FDA; Bottlers must get approval on water source, filtration & chlorination (or other sanitation method) | Yes; Renewed yearly | Coliform bacteria, giardia, other bacteria | Biennial inspection (contact with FDA). | |
| California | 2 FTE; 9 investigators state-wide | Not in last 11/2 years | Stricter (THHM, disinfection rules) | No comment from state (but regulations appear to cover such waters) | Must list source, including municipal; Labeling must agree with source listed | State has separate investigative arm; Fines have been imposed; No shutdowns or recalls | No access to specific violations | Yes[b] | Stricter than FDA; Water analysis required to renew annual license; Licenses for plants and source are site-specific; Any changes must be submitted and approved by state | Yes; Renewed annually; Water analysis must be submitted each year | Parasites, cryptosporidium | No comment | IBWA Code Stricter standards & warning labels for many contaminants |
| Colorado | < 1 FTE | No | = FDA, EPA drinking water; Bottlers must keep records of required lab analysis; Records must meet EPA drinking water requirements | No | No | Yes; Regulatory action mostly for heavy metal or THMs; No "serious" enforcement actions taken; No shutdowns or recalls | Small # of violations; Data not available | No | Bottlers must meet state reqts, almost identical to EPA drinking water standards for source water (includes well and spring construction) | Yes | Nitrates | Many of our concerns were addressed w/passage of latest FDA labeling regs; Before that, misbranding on labels was a concern | |
| Connecticut | $50,000 | No | = FDA +IBWA Code; State code based on Fed. Standards (21 CFR 129, 103) and EPA | CT licenses & regs all manufacturers of non- alcoholic beverages sold in state | Separate state regs | Must request specific information and companies using freedom of information law | Same as above | No response | No response | No response | VOCs from underground fuel tanks | None | |
| Delaware | None | No | No active regulatory oversight or permit program; No separate state code | Delaware does not have a state program for bottled water | No | No | No; Any violations would be recorded in home state | No | No state requirements | No | No comment | Pending the start up of in-state bottlers, the state would need to develop & implement a state BWP | No bottlers in DE |
| District of Columbia | None | No | =FDA | No | No | No | No | No | DC reqs bottlers to send copy of most recent inspections of water source in DC; Agency is new, but will eventually adopt FDA inspection policies | No | Chemicals, bacteria, waste contaminants | Proper labeling so that labels are accurate, not misleading; Bottled water used for babies & other at-risk groups should be clearly labeled | |
| Florida | 2 FTE | Food Lab. collects random samples from food shelves | =FDA | Intrastate sales | No | No | Listed in records at Dept. of Agric.; No database | No | =FDA; Inspections and analytical results conducted in field | Yes; Renewable annually | No comment | None | IBWA Code |
| Georgia | None dedicated specifically to BWP | Pesticide analysis on end-product on random basis | =+FDA; GA regs used to be much more stringent | GA regulates all bottled, flavored, carbonated water | No | Yes; Some springs have exceeded radioactive limits: use denied or shutdown | GA working on database for sampling results; Summary of violations not feasible at this time | No answer | GA issues starter kits for bottlers | No answer | No problems w/chemical; Some bacteriological | None; "Bottled water as a food is probably one of the safest items on the market" | |
| Hawaii | <1/5 FTE | Yes; Hawaii samples bottled water product on regular basis; Test for bacteria & chemicals | =FDA; Used to have stricter laws than FDA (IBWA Code) | No | Yes (not specified) | Not in past 4 yrs; Recalls in past b/c of too much coliform bacteria & "filth" | Info available through FOI request | No | Source must be approved, then license/ permit issued | Yes; Renewable every 2 yrs; Sample end-product | Microbiological contamination in source | No comment at this time | <10 bottlers in state |
| Idaho | None | No | =but cover intrastate; Must comply with Idaho drinking water regulations | Idaho regulates intrastate bottlers only; FDA handles all interstate | Intrastate labeling law prohibits misbranding | No | No; Only regulate intrastate bottled water sales; Non-critical violations not recorded; Sanitation violations not included | No | Must apply w/ plan review, pre-operational inspections; Must qualify under HACCP prior to getting license; Must meet labeling requirements | Yes; License renewable annually | No comment | None | |
| Illinois | None; No separate state BWP | Yes; 2 surveys on water bottlers in past 5 yrs; Report available through FOI request | =FDA, except 1 gal+ must add safety seal | Intrastate bottlers regulated | No | Yes; Most enforcement actions in form of lettersc | Probably available, but would require great deal of resources to get info. | No answer | No state certification process; Source only inspected upon request | No state certification process; Inspections of bottlers conducted annually | Microbiological | State should adopt licensing process, providing more control & leverage | |
| Indiana | None | No | =FDA; State does not have separate code | Intrastate sales of bottled water | No | No | Inspection reports made, but not gathered in database; Would require extensive time & labor to compile | Yes[d] | Testing =FDA; State does not certify source; Private source needs satisfactory bacteria/ | radiological physical & chemical analysis of source by state lab before approval | No state permit, license or certification process | No comment | None |
| Iowa | None | No | =FDA | State does not directly regulate end-product from out of state | No | Enforcement actions for food safety, labeling violations; No shut-downs or recalls | No summarized statistical data available; Info not stored in database | No | Testing=FDA; Bottlers must sample end-product before license issued; Only private sources must sample | Yes; License renewable annually | Microbiological | Need more sampling for chemical residues on national level by FDA & it should do more actual testing | |
| Kansas | <1 FTE | No | Less stringent; No separate state regulations | Yes; Bottled water is "food" & subject to Kansas Food & Drug Act | =FDA; General labeling requirements of Kansas F & D Act | No | Current computer system could not pull out this info | No answer | Kansas has | no statutory authorization to issue permits, licenses, or certificates for BW processors, plants, or distributors | No | No comment | Would like to update state code to similar to industry model code or FDA’s regs |
| Kentucky | None | No | =FDA | Intrastate; Out-of-state bottlers submit most recent water analysis, permit & label for review prior to distribution in KY | =FDA | Yes; Warning letters issued | Only in inspection results | No answer | Intrastate source certified by Natural Resources & Environmental Protection Cabinet; No out-of-state source certification | Yes | Chemical | Specific bottled water regulation | |
| Louisiana | 1/3 FTE | State samples end-product every 3 months, from both in- & out-of-state | =FDA | Intrastate must get permit; Out-of-state must register with state, send water & plant approval, labels, lab analysis | =FDA | Violations listed from routine inspections; No shutdowns, recalls | No | No | Stricter than FDA; Out-of-state must register; In-state must apply for & obtain permit | Yes | Microbiological, carcinogens | No comment | |
| Maine | <1/2 FTE | No | =EPA | Intrastate sales; In-state bottler inspections annually | Yes; If source or end-product exceed MCLs, must be listed on label; optional listing of analytical results; must list altered water quality | None | Listed in database; Take 1/2 hour to gather; Sorted by water systems | None | Must submit test results, site map, copies of labels, inspection reports prior to state certification | Yes; does not need to be renewed | Microbiological, nitrate/nitrite | Equalize drinking & bottled water regulations; Source listing on labels | |
| Maryland | None | No, but bottlers required to conduct sampling through state-certified lab | =FDA | Intrastate sales | Yes; Source of water must be listed on labels; Labels must meet Nutrition Labeling Act requirements | Yes[e] | Database | None | Stricter than FDA; Bottlers required to do EPA primary drinking water analysis of source; Bottlers must pass sanitation inspection | Yes | Bacteriological | Has requested funding & staff be increased to add 2 FTE; EPA should add cryptosporidium to drinking water checklist | THHM=10ppb, IBWA code, 100ppb chlorine; disinfection |
| Massachusetts | 1/3 FTE | Yes, annually | = FDA +IBWA Code | Intrastate, carbonated, all nonalcoholic beverages | Yes. Source must be listed | Denials of applications | No | No | Must get Dept. Envtl Protection (DEP) approval | No response | VOCs | None | IBWA Code |
| Michigan | No response | State samples bottled water on routine basis, at least once/year | =FDA & SDWA | Intrastate sales, carbonated, unprocessed public drinking water, water dispensing machines | Declaration of identity, name & address of bottler, and declaration regarding carbon dioxide | "No legal actions" 4 years | No (will provide for $200/year) | No | Essentially= | FDA; Annual inspection by independent 3rd party | Annual registration for each brand | No response | No response |
| Minnesota | None | Yes; Currently sampling 459 samples of bottled water for metals; Samples taken from retail stores | =FDA | Separate state code | Yes; State rules & CFR requirements | No | No | No response | State does not certify source; License firms located in state; No longer issue permits to out-of-state firms | Yes; See above | Nitrites & pesticides (spring water) | State rules need updating (from 1993) | |
| Mississippi | 3 FTE for all state bottling facilities | Try to sample each bottled water product sold in state on monthly basis for E. coli & bacteria | =FDA | Intrastate regulated same as interstate | No | Bottled water products not meeting standards will be withdrawn (done in past) | No | No answer | Must submit testing, geological survey, engineer certification & report, preliminary site inspections; If approved, state issues source certification | Yes; See above; re-cert every 3 years | No response | More FDA oversight needed; FDA program analysis of state’s bottled water program & assist it as necessary | |
| Missouri | <1 FTE | Yes; Annual survey[f] | =FDA, except state requires pseudomonas testing | Intrastate; Seltzer water; All bottled waters regulated same as all other beverages | =FDA | No | No; Currently working on database | No answer | Private source only;[g] Spring source must get private lab chemical & bacteriological analysis testing; Source must be protected from surface contaminants | Yes; See above | No response | None | |
| Montana | 1/20 FTE | Random monitoring program at plant for finished product every 2–3 years | More stringent; State monitors water quality more closely; Stricter definiton of & spring water& | All bottlers regulated under licensing programs as food processors | In-state labeling definitions more stringent; If labeled & organic& must be verified by 3rd party & organic certification group& | Yes; 3 recalls (2 microbial contaminations, 1 misbranding); No shutdowns | No | No | In-state bottlers apply to DEQ & meet EPA standards; Out-of-state bottlers must provide certification from source state public health agency | Out-of-state must register & obtain license (automatically renewed annually unless violations); In-state must apply to DEQ and become PWS; License issued upon approval as PWS (automatically renewed annually unless violation) | Nitrates (greatest risk to pregnant women); heavy metals & bacteriological in terms of protecting public | FDA’s honesty in labeling should extend to artesian, spring, and other definitions of bottled waters | All in-state bottlers must become Public Water Systems (PWS) & meet EPA drinking water standards |
| Nebraska | None | No (last bottled water survey done in 1991) | =FDA | Intrastate bottlers must follow same guidelines as interstate | No | No | Yes, but data available would have more to do with sanitation violations rather than analytical results | None | Testing =FDA; Source does not have to be certified, but bottlers must supply satisfactory analytical results before processing begins | Yes, see above; Permit renewed annually; Bottlers do not need to submit analytical results to renew permit, but must have FDA test results on hand at plant; State conducts spot-checking on random basis | Testing & analytical process is effective at preventing contamination | Reduce testing for unlikely contaminants; FDA requirements should not be made any more stringent | |
| Nevada | $5000 or 1/10 FTE | No | =FDA | Intrastate; All bottled waters produced in state are covered by various portions of state code | Source, name & address of bottler must be on label; If making any claims such as to low sodium or flouride content, must list levels found in product | Yes; Denial of permits for distribution into state without meeting chemical parameters; One local bottler had high bacteria levels found in sampling, resulting in voluntary recall of end-product | Violation data kept in paper files for local producers only; No data on out-of-state violations | None | Must submit detailed chemical & bacteriological analysis on source; | Testing = FDA, SDWA | Permit renewed annually; Bacteriological analysis must be submitted every week if plant in "full" operation | Coliform; Bacteriologicals | Pretty happy with our regulations right now |
| New Hampshire | <1 FTE | No | =FDA, +IBWA | Intrastate; License other waters, such as filtered waters | Accurate source listing (no misleading brand names) | Yes; Enforcement letters and permit actions; One recall and 2 shutdowns in last 4 years (no details available over phone) | No | No | Testing= FDA; Source certified through Dept. Environmental Services | Permitting program for source and bottling facility; Must submit analytical & hydrogeological reports; Plant permits renewed annually & analytical reports must be resubmitted with renewal application | No comment | More money/ staff in some states | Strong label requirements |
| New Jersey | 1 FTE | Yes (annual). Spot checks of bottled water sold and produced in state; State rules require periodic submission of samples for review by state health dept. lab | =FDA; Some parameters stricter than federal standards (=EPA drinking water standards) | Intrastate; Carbonated water covered under bottled water rules; Other types of waters may be classified as beverages & regulated as nonalcoholic beverage product | Source must be listed on label; Two-year expiration date (from time of bottling) | Yes; 2 recalls in 1995–96;[h] No shutdowns within last 4 years; Regulatory letters sent for various violations, primarily for unsanitary conditions; No fines or penalties assessed; No actions against in-state bottlers for violations of safe drinking water standards | Annual summary of test results to legislature mandated by state statute | No | Testing = FDA & EPA drinking water standards; Must submit analytical results of source testing showing compliance with state drinking water act standards; Spring sources must be protected from outside sources of contamination at discharge point | License must be renewed annually and bottlers subject to periodic inspections; Source and end-product subject to mandatory periodic testing at a DEP certified water testing lab | No particular contaminants have consistently exceeded established standards | No comment | IBWA Code; Annual enforcement/ violation report mandated by state statute |
| New York | 1–11/2 FTE | No (last survey in 1992) | Stricter (total SOCs) | Intrastate regulated same as interstate by state; Seltzer and carbonated waters not regulated under bottled water rules | Must list source, owner, certificate number & date water bottled; Nutritional claims must be consistent with FDA regs; Variances must be listed on label | Yes | Violation data kept in paper files | No | Testing= Stricter monitoring; Source must be certified & meet standards in building design & water quality (through certified lab) | State issues certification numbers; Renewed annually; All sampling & other requirements must be resubmitted upon renewal application | Microbiologicals | Uniform labels, FDA standards = EPA; NY’s goal is to become more consistent with national standards | Standards may be waived; IBWA Code |
| North Carolina | No comment | No | = FDA (adopted by reference into state code) | Intrastate; Seltzer water considered a beverage & regulated under different part of state code | No | Yes | No | No | Testing = FDA; In-state bottlers must get source approved (one-time approval); State occasionally does unannounced inspections and sampling | No permit program | No comment | None at this time | Bacterial contamination incidents reported |
| North Dakota | <1/4 FTE | No, but state is considering conducting survey of | water vending machines if time & resources allow | "much less stringent" | State has jurisdiction over all water bottlers not already under FDA’s jurisdiction | No | No | No | No | "Little if any testing;" Bottlers do not have to submit source analysis; Source must be "unadulterated" | Licensing program for facilities; Renewable annually | Probably nitrates | Should = EPA rules; State should adopt regulatory provisions when and if the demand arises; "Little need" for an additional state regulatory scheme |
| Ohio | Approx. 1 FTE | Yes. Water quality survey on 5-gallon containers of bottled water, but not smaller (ice also surveyed) | =FDA | Intrastate regulated same as interstate | Must list source if non-municipal; Any additives must be listed | Yes; Embargoed 5-gallon containers with high standard plate count; No recalls | No | No | Testing = FDA; Source must be inspected and declared acceptable by EPA | License is renewable yearly and all data/test results must be resubmitted | Bacteria | None | IBWA Code |
| Oklahoma | 1 FTE | No | = FDA | Yes | Yes | No response | Yes; Inspection reports (not provided) | No | = FDA; Bottler must send chemical, radiological, & bacteriological analysis & have contaminant levels within acceptable parameters | Permit renewable annually; Renewal based upon compliance with regulations | Bacteria | Truth in labeling | IBWA Code |
| Oregon | 1/10 FTE | No | = FDA; State does more inspections than FDA | State regulates all water and beverage bottlers | No | Yes. Action against bottler claiming source water was spring water when it was not | Yes (Summary report of violations for period 1/1/94–12/31/97) | "No listings available" | = FDA plus must meet state drinking water requirements for location, design, construction and water quality | Bottlers licensed as food processors; Reciprocity to bottlers to out-of-state bottlers; Licenses renewed annually | None; Water in compliance with standards does not pose any great risk to consumers & our program is adequate to assure compliance | Support FDA change | |
| Pennsylvania | None | Occasional bottled water quality surveys in 1992; Some VOC contamination found | Stricter | Intrastate; Waters with additives & bottled water under 1/2 gallon regulated by Dept. of Agriculture | Must list source; If source is taken from "finished water source," i.e., a public water system, must list name | Yes (5 permits revoked, 6 recalls); Mostly informal notices to bottlers of violations, w/set period time to correct violations; No recalls in 4 years | Yes | No | Essentially = FDA; Must submit source sampling that meets all Maximum Contaminant Levels; Once approved, source need not be monitored; Finished product must be tested weekly for coliforms | Yes | Microbials, especially cryptosporidium & giardia | Reciprocity among states as to accepting analytical results & some sort of standardization among the different states’ labs | IBWA Code |
| Rhode Island | 1/5 FTE | Occasionally RI takes random samples of end-product off retail shelves & conducts microbiological analyses | = FDA; some sections of state code more stringent, e.g., RI requires dedicated line for bottling water | State regulates all bottled water, including carbonated; If natural juices added, regulated as soft drink under different part of state code | Source must be listed unless run through a deionizer (reverse osmosis); Municipal waters without deionizaton process must list source | 1 recall of baby water b/c of mold contamination; Informal actions for other incidents, including chlorine contaminationi | Must request from database and paper files | No | = FDA & EPA; Out-of-state must send analytical report and approval letter from appropriate state agency; In-state must submit analytical report engineering drawing with location of spring source & everything within 1700’ radius | Yes; Bottler must submit end-product & source samples with annual renewal application | Microbiologicals | More stringent than FDA labeling reqts, e.g., specific location & name of water source; Shift focus away from health claims to more accurate labeling | |
| South Carolina | <1 FTE | No | More stringent b/c state follows EPA standards for drinking water | State regulates and permits construction of bottling & treatment facilities & monitor source & end-product | No comment | Yes; Enforcement actions taken over past 4 years mostly related to non-permitted construction activities & unapproved water bottling facilities | "No major violations;" All SC bottlers kept on water system inventory & assigned a water system number | No | Bottler must submit plans & specifications for their design & construction for review under state code; Source must be tested for water quality | Yes; State issues permit to operate; Currently, permits need not be renewed; Regulatory changes will most likely impose a periodic renewal requirement in near future | Giardia & cryptosporidium (in terms of one-time exposure health risk) | Adopt model code; Need consistent standards for all states | FDA does monitoring & inspection |
| South Dakota | <1 FTE | State conducts yearly bottled water survey | Less stringent than FDA | Only one intrastate bottler, subject to state regulations only which are less stringent than FDA | No | No | Yes; Computerized data base of violations | No | All sources in SD currently public water sources & are approved upon verification as municipal source after inspection(municipal sources must meet safe drinking water requirements); No natural spring sources in SD | No | Since all sources are municipal & must meet safe drinking water requirements anyway, there is no great risk to bottled water consumers | Recommend that SD bring state regs up to FDA requirements | |
| Tennessee | No response | No | = FDA | No response | No response | Not provided | Not provided | Not provided | Not provided | No response | No answer | No answer | |
| Texas | <1 FTE (300 hundred bottlers) | Yes; State inspects each firm individually & inspects at least annually; Private businesses send out their own quality control people to make sure finished product meets quality standards | More stringent; More frequent inspection program; Requires source labeling & certification of operators under Bottled Water Certification Program | All beverages manufactured, packaged and labeled in state are regulated as food; Water vending machines regulated | Source must be labeled; Chemicals or bacteria that exceed Maximum Contaminant Levels must be listed (must state on label "contains excessive bacteria") | Yes; Bottler fined approximately $1250 for operating without certification; Recall in Dallas 1–2 years ago b/c of gross misbranding | Yes (not provided); State keeps copies of warning letters, but no summary reports available | No | Testing = FDA; Source must meet non-community public water system standards & state issues "Source Certification" letter (one-time) | State licenses bottled water plants & vending machines; Renewed annually; Water quality analysis must be resubmitted annually to EPA certified lab unless city source | Bacterial contamination | More FDA oversight where states have inadequate programs; Re-institute certification program | IBWA Code; Bottled Water Certification Program |
| Utah | <1 FTE | No | = FDA | Intrastate bottled waters regulated same as interstate | No | Informal hearing held b/c company not permitted; Bottler now bottling water from another source; No recalls, shutdowns, or other legal action | No | No | Testing = FDA; Water quality analysis of source must be submitted; Bottling facility inspected before approval | No; State does not currently approve source, but environmental inspections required before company starts operations | Pesticides, fertilizers | Current regulations on both state & federal level adequate | |
| Vermont | <1 FTE | Dept. has requested random sampling, but has not occurred | More stringent than FDA: State has stricter labeling requirements, chemical contaminant levels, & name of bottler | Intrastate sales of bottled water regulated same as interstate; No regulation of seltzer, carbonated, or flavored waters | Source, town & state of bottler, & finished product levels of chemical contaminants of arsenic, lead, sodium, & nitrates | Yes; Approx. 4 years ago, bottler was fined for using unapproved source | Yes; Computer data base of violations | No | Bottler must apply for permit & submit hydrogeological info on source, schematic diagram of treatment facility & engineering facility; Copy of labels, chemical results for source & finished product, recall plan, list of foreign Country requirements. | Permit must be renewed every 5 years; Bottlers must resubmit water quality analysis & copy of most recent license & inspection program | Microbiological & VOCs | More frequent inspections of facilities, random testing of end product & active participation & support by FDA; FDA’s definition of "spring water" needs to be less ambiguous | |
| Virginia | 1–2 FTE | State samples regularly for bottled water quality, but no survey in past 5 years | = FDA | Intrastate; Seltzer & carbonated waters regulated same as other bottled waters | No | State enforcement actions have included enforcement letters, a formal hearing, and court action which resulted temporary shutdown; Will provide for $235.80 | Information kept in data base; Will provide for fee | Will provide for fee | State does not issue certification, but source needs to be tested & meet standards with respect to microbiological quality, physical turbidity, and chemical quality & radiological quality; plant inspections every 4 months | State does not have a permitting program: State is not empowered to permit of license | Microbiological contaminants | Adopt state licensing or permitting program which would enable state to address food safety issues in a more timely manner | |
| Washington | 1/3 FTE; $20,000 | Not sure | We adopt federal regulations verbatim; State inspects bottled water operations on much more frequent basis than FDA | Yes | No (same as 21 CFR 129) | Yes; Warning letters & notices of corrections issued approximately to 6–10 bottlers; License suspension/civil penalty issued against one bottler; Civil penalty action issued against one bottler | No | No | Bottler must go through source approval process with Dept. of Health, Division of Drinking Water, including site inspection & chemical, bacterial, and physical analysis | Licensing renewed annually; Water quality analysis required per CFR schedule, but not in order to renew license | (1) Bacteriological–due to post-process contamination; (2) Primary inorganics; (3) VOCs | No suggestions | |
| West Virginia | 1/2 FTE | No; State relies on bottlers to do required sampling in accordance with CFR reqts | = FDA; More stringent reporting requirements; Bottlers must test weekly for bacteriological contaminants & submit their reports to state agency by 10th of each month | Intrastate; Flavored & seltzer waters currently regulated under soft drink regulationss | No | Yes; Mainly for technical permit violations, not for quality violations; Formal notices based upon consumer complaints of mold growth; No recalls | Yes; Information stored in hard files and would require substantial resources to compile | Yes[j] | WV does not have separate permitting program for source; Chemical tests followed by on-site physical inspection of plant; Source must be protected from outside contamination at point of discharge and draw area | Permitting program for facilities; Renewed annually; Bottlers must submit chemical analysis for both source & end-product and have satisfactory physical inspection to renew | WV has never really had a problem with either in-state or out-of-state contamination | State regulations need updating to meet standards of most recent CFR regulations; Currently, WV is following most recent CFR regs by interpretation only | Annual inspections |
| Wisconsin | <1 FTE | Yes; State statute requires publication of annual bottled water quality analysis report | = FDA; Exceeds in some areas, e.g., some state bottled water plant facility regulations much more stringent than FDA requirements | Intrastate, seltzer, carbonated, all bottled water establishments regulated under ATCP (Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection) | No | State has had some regulatory dealings which have been handled by working with bottlers without further legal actions; State reports few problems with bottled water facilities; 1 problem with pre-consumer lead contaminationk | No (stored in paper files) | No answer | Bottles must contact DNR & have inspectors approve & verify source & construction; Source must be analyzed for contaminants | Permits renewed annually; Bottlers must maintain analysis criteria & testing schedule to renew license | Lead | Regulatory scheme of state is more than adequate to protect both consumers & bottling facilities | |
| Wyoming | <1 FTE | No; State goes by what bottles must sample per CFR requirements | = FDA; State code is modeled after IBWA code; Separate state code adopted in Sept. 1986 & refers to CFR often | State regulates everything manufactured in-state; Out-of-state processors must apply for distribution permit; Contractual agreement with FDA to do federal inspections | Specific source must be listed; Municipal water must be labeled as "drinking water" | No; One incident of misbranding in which source labeled as "spring" when really tap; Bottlers response was to find a spring as source | Yes; Violation data stored on computer data base | No | Bottler must submit proof of approved source from previous testing; State inspects in-state sources & processing plants upon initial application | State issues Food Handlers License; Renewed annually; Source sampling not required to renew license; Out-of-state processors must submit proof of approval by state authority, copy of labels, & last inspection results | Cryptosporidium & giardia (problems in municipal sources) | Rules should be put in layman’s language to increase voluntary compliance | IBWA Code |
|
a Information based on NRDC Survey conducted late 1995 -- early 1996, updated with information publicly available from International Bottled Water Association, 1998, regarding states which have adopted IBWA’s model code, and, most recently updated with information gathered as a result of a state-by-state telephone and fax survey conducted April–May, 1998 b While a 11/27/95 letter to NRDC from California Department of Health services indicated "no reports or listings [of illnesses or poisonings] are available at this time," the state attached a summary of numerous citizen complaints about adulterated or contaminated water, in which injuries to consumers were reported. Moreover, a 1985 California Assembly Office of Research found numerous complaints by bottled water consumers who alleged illnesses. Bottled Water & Vended Water: Are Consumers Getting Their Money’s Worth? (1985). c One incident in which firm bottled water from municipal source without boiling during boiled water order; Resulted in voluntary recall of water product involved; No injuries reported from this incident. d Indiana State Department of Health reported 3 illness incidents: (1) 1/25/95 "suspect pseudomonas," illness reported, from Anita Springs water; (2) Kroger Springdale water, 10/27/94 "off taste/not confirmed," illness reported; Hinkley & Schmidt, 12/2/93, "foreign material/not confirmed," illness reported. These statements were not independently verified by NRDC and should be viewed as unconfirmed. e Generic descriptions of enforcement actions taken by the state of Maryland over the past four years include: Detention orders, in which the state retained water bottled under questionable conditions (2–3 times in last four years); Denial of applications due to lack of or incomplete information; Detained water for failure to renew annual license (approximately 10 occurrences in last four years); Maryland has not enforced any shutdowns, brought court action, or made any recalls in the past four years. f Annual survey must include standard plate count, coliform, pseudomonas, yeast, mold, chemical, & radiological analysis. g If source is municipal, no certification or testing is required because municipal water already subject to regulatory requirements. h Recalls were based upon consumer complaints for alleged presence of mold and involved out-of-state companies. The two companies reportedly involved were Triton Water Company, Burlington, NC, and Aquapenn Spring Water Company, State College, PA. No injuries were reported as a result of either one of these incidents. i Poland Springs conducted voluntary recall after unacceptable levels of chlorine contamination found in end-product. At that time, Poland Springs did their own recall. Rhode Island officials found out about the chlorine and contamination only after the fact from state of Massachusetts. Poland Springs did not notify Rhode Island. No further action was taken by Rhode Island. j Illness of two individuals likely caused by "contamination after purchase through absorption through plastic." k State detected lead in end-product bottled water while still at bottling facility (lead exceeded Preventive Action Limits (PAL), but not enforcement standards. The result was that the bottler voluntarily replaced defective equipment and corrected the problem. There were no injuries or illnesses reported. | |||||||||||||
Bottled Water : Pure Drink or Pure Hype?. By Erik D. Olson. April 1999. Print version, $14.00. Order print copies .
last revised 9/25/2000
Sign up for NRDC's online newsletter
Water on Switchboard
NRDC experts write about water efficiency, green infrastructure and climate on the NRDC blog.
Recent Water Posts
- State's Refusal to Use Sound Science Continues to Delay the Bay Delta Conservation Plan
- posted by Doug Obegi, 4/29/13
- Floods, Droughts and Agriculture
- posted by Ben Chou, 4/29/13
- Home Run! Appeals Court Upholds EPA Action to Stop Giant, Polluting Mountaintop Removal Mine
- posted by Jon Devine, 4/25/13
NRDC Gets Top Ratings from the Charity Watchdogs
- Charity Navigator awards NRDC its 4-star top rating.
- Worth magazine named NRDC one of America's 100 best charities.
- NRDC meets the highest standards of the Wise Giving Alliance of the Better Business Bureau.
