Environmental Issues > Water Main Page > All Water Documents

Report page

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 FTENo= FDANoNoNo. Two voluntary recallsNoNo=FDAYesNo commentNo recommendations at this time.
AlaskaNoneNo=EPA IBWA, & FDA Codes; Alaska does not require annual testing for chemicals & radioactive contaminantsIntrastate, carbonated, flavored waters regulated under same standards as bottled waterNoNoNoNo=Fed.; Must comply with Class A drinking water reqts per SDWAYesMicrobiologicalFDA needs definition of "glacier water"; Annual chemical & radiological contaminants testing should be eliminated: tests are expensive and not necessary.
Arizona1/2 FTENo=+IBWA Code; = FDAIntrastate regulated same as interstateNoNoNoNo=FDA; Require chemical, radiological and microbial testing; verified by twice-yearly inspectionsState CertificationKnown carcinogens, bacteriaAnnual inspections; Need more regional approach to chemical & biological testing b/c not all contaminants found in all areas.
ArkansasNoneYes; Data more like lists of lab results= FDAArkansas regulates all bottled water within stateNoNoNoNo=FDA; Bottlers must get approval on water source, filtration & chlorination (or other sanitation method)Yes; Renewed yearlyColiform bacteria, giardia, other bacteriaBiennial inspection (contact with FDA).
California2 FTE; 9 investigators state-wideNot in last 11/2 yearsStricter (THHM, disinfection rules)No comment from state (but regulations appear to cover such waters)Must list source, including municipal; Labeling must agree with source listedState has separate investigative arm; Fines have been imposed; No shutdowns or recallsNo access to specific violationsYes[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 stateYes; Renewed annually; Water analysis must be submitted each yearParasites, cryptosporidiumNo commentIBWA Code Stricter standards & warning labels for many contaminants
Colorado< 1 FTENo= FDA, EPA drinking water; Bottlers must keep records of required lab analysis; Records must meet EPA drinking water requirementsNoNoYes; Regulatory action mostly for heavy metal or THMs; No "serious" enforcement actions taken; No shutdowns or recallsSmall # of violations; Data not availableNoBottlers must meet state reqts, almost identical to EPA drinking water standards for source water (includes well and spring construction)YesNitratesMany of our concerns were addressed w/passage of latest FDA labeling regs; Before that, misbranding on labels was a concern
Connecticut$50,000No= FDA +IBWA Code; State code based on Fed. Standards (21 CFR 129, 103) and EPACT licenses & regs all manufacturers of non- alcoholic beverages sold in stateSeparate state regsMust request specific information and companies using freedom of information lawSame as aboveNo responseNo responseNo responseVOCs from underground fuel tanksNone
DelawareNoneNoNo active regulatory oversight or permit program; No separate state codeDelaware does not have a state program for bottled waterNoNoNo; Any violations would be recorded in home stateNoNo state requirementsNoNo commentPending the start up of in-state bottlers, the state would need to develop & implement a state BWPNo bottlers in DE
District of ColumbiaNoneNo=FDANoNoNoNoNoDC reqs bottlers to send copy of most recent inspections of water source in DC; Agency is new, but will eventually adopt FDA inspection policiesNoChemicals, bacteria, waste contaminantsProper labeling so that labels are accurate, not misleading; Bottled water used for babies & other at-risk groups should be clearly labeled
Florida2 FTEFood Lab. collects random samples from food shelves=FDAIntrastate salesNoNoListed in records at Dept. of Agric.; No databaseNo=FDA; Inspections and analytical results conducted in fieldYes; Renewable annuallyNo commentNoneIBWA Code
GeorgiaNone dedicated specifically to BWPPesticide analysis on end-product on random basis=+FDA; GA regs used to be much more stringentGA regulates all bottled, flavored, carbonated waterNoYes; Some springs have exceeded radioactive limits: use denied or shutdownGA working on database for sampling results; Summary of violations not feasible at this timeNo answerGA issues starter kits for bottlersNo answerNo problems w/chemical; Some bacteriologicalNone; "Bottled water as a food is probably one of the safest items on the market"
Hawaii<1/5 FTEYes; Hawaii samples bottled water product on regular basis; Test for bacteria & chemicals=FDA; Used to have stricter laws than FDA (IBWA Code)NoYes (not specified)Not in past 4 yrs; Recalls in past b/c of too much coliform bacteria & "filth"Info available through FOI requestNoSource must be approved, then license/ permit issuedYes; Renewable every 2 yrs; Sample end-productMicrobiological contamination in sourceNo comment at this time<10 bottlers in state
IdahoNoneNo=but cover intrastate; Must comply with Idaho drinking water regulationsIdaho regulates intrastate bottlers only; FDA handles all interstateIntrastate labeling law prohibits misbranding NoNo; Only regulate intrastate bottled water sales; Non-critical violations not recorded; Sanitation violations not includedNoMust apply w/ plan review, pre-operational inspections; Must qualify under HACCP prior to getting license; Must meet labeling requirementsYes; License renewable annuallyNo commentNone
IllinoisNone; No separate state BWPYes; 2 surveys on water bottlers in past 5 yrs; Report available through FOI request=FDA, except 1 gal+ must add safety sealIntrastate bottlers regulatedNoYes; Most enforcement actions in form of letterscProbably available, but would require great deal of resources to get info.No answerNo state certification process; Source only inspected upon requestNo state certification process; Inspections of bottlers conducted annuallyMicrobiologicalState should adopt licensing process, providing more control & leverage
IndianaNoneNo=FDA; State does not have separate codeIntrastate sales of bottled waterNoNoInspection reports made, but not gathered in database; Would require extensive time & labor to compileYes[d]Testing =FDA; State does not certify source; Private source needs satisfactory bacteria/radiological physical & chemical analysis of source by state lab before approvalNo state permit, license or certification processNo commentNone
IowaNoneNo=FDAState does not directly regulate end-product from out of stateNoEnforcement actions for food safety, labeling violations; No shut-downs or recallsNo summarized statistical data available; Info not stored in databaseNoTesting=FDA; Bottlers must sample end-product before license issued; Only private sources must sampleYes; License renewable annuallyMicrobiologicalNeed more sampling for chemical residues on national level by FDA & it should do more actual testing
Kansas<1 FTENoLess stringent; No separate state regulationsYes; Bottled water is "food" & subject to Kansas Food & Drug Act=FDA; General labeling requirements of Kansas F & D ActNoCurrent computer system could not pull out this infoNo answerKansas hasno statutory authorization to issue permits, licenses, or certificates for BW processors, plants, or distributorsNoNo commentWould like to update state code to similar to industry model code or FDA’s regs
KentuckyNoneNo=FDAIntrastate; Out-of-state bottlers submit most recent water analysis, permit & label for review prior to distribution in KY=FDAYes; Warning letters issuedOnly in inspection resultsNo answerIntrastate source certified by Natural Resources & Environmental Protection Cabinet; No out-of-state source certification YesChemicalSpecific bottled water regulation
Louisiana1/3 FTEState samples end-product every 3 months, from both in- & out-of-state=FDAIntrastate must get permit; Out-of-state must register with state, send water & plant approval, labels, lab analysis=FDAViolations listed from routine inspections; No shutdowns, recallsNoNoStricter than FDA; Out-of-state must register; In-state must apply for & obtain permitYesMicrobiological, carcinogensNo comment
Maine<1/2 FTENo=EPAIntrastate sales; In-state bottler inspections annuallyYes; If source or end-product exceed MCLs, must be listed on label; optional listing of analytical results; must list altered water qualityNoneListed in database; Take 1/2 hour to gather; Sorted by water systemsNoneMust submit test results, site map, copies of labels, inspection reports prior to state certificationYes; does not need to be renewedMicrobiological, nitrate/nitriteEqualize drinking & bottled water regulations; Source listing on labels
MarylandNoneNo, but bottlers required to conduct sampling through state-certified lab=FDAIntrastate salesYes; Source of water must be listed on labels; Labels must meet Nutrition Labeling Act requirementsYes[e]DatabaseNoneStricter than FDA; Bottlers required to do EPA primary drinking water analysis of source; Bottlers must pass sanitation inspectionYesBacteriologicalHas requested funding & staff be increased to add 2 FTE; EPA should add cryptosporidium to drinking water checklistTHHM=10ppb, IBWA code, 100ppb chlorine; disinfection
Massachusetts1/3 FTEYes, annually= FDA +IBWA CodeIntrastate, carbonated, all nonalcoholic beveragesYes. Source must be listedDenials of applicationsNoNoMust get Dept. Envtl Protection (DEP) approvalNo responseVOCsNoneIBWA Code
MichiganNo responseState samples bottled water on routine basis, at least once/year=FDA & SDWAIntrastate sales, carbonated, unprocessed public drinking water, water dispensing machinesDeclaration of identity, name & address of bottler, and declaration regarding carbon dioxide"No legal actions" 4 yearsNo (will provide for $200/year)NoEssentially=FDA; Annual inspection by independent 3rd partyAnnual registration for each brandNo responseNo response
MinnesotaNoneYes; Currently sampling 459 samples of bottled water for metals; Samples taken from retail stores=FDASeparate state codeYes; State rules & CFR requirementsNoNoNo responseState does not certify source; License firms located in state; No longer issue permits to out-of-state firmsYes; See aboveNitrites & pesticides (spring water)State rules need updating (from 1993)
Mississippi3 FTE for all state bottling facilitiesTry to sample each bottled water product sold in state on monthly basis for E. coli & bacteria=FDAIntrastate regulated same as interstateNoBottled water products not meeting standards will be withdrawn (done in past)NoNo answerMust submit testing, geological survey, engineer certification & report, preliminary site inspections; If approved, state issues source certificationYes; See above; re-cert every 3 yearsNo responseMore FDA oversight needed; FDA program analysis of state’s bottled water program & assist it as necessary
Missouri<1 FTEYes; Annual survey[f]=FDA, except state requires pseudomonas testingIntrastate; Seltzer water; All bottled waters regulated same as all other beverages=FDANoNo; Currently working on databaseNo answerPrivate source only;[g] Spring source must get private lab chemical & bacteriological analysis testing; Source must be protected from surface contaminants Yes; See aboveNo responseNone
Montana1/20 FTERandom monitoring program at plant for finished product every 2–3 yearsMore stringent; State monitors water quality more closely; Stricter definiton of & spring water& All bottlers regulated under licensing programs as food processorsIn-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 shutdownsNoNoIn-state bottlers apply to DEQ & meet EPA standards; Out-of-state bottlers must provide certification from source state public health agencyOut-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 publicFDA’s honesty in labeling should extend to artesian, spring, and other definitions of bottled watersAll in-state bottlers must become Public Water Systems (PWS) & meet EPA drinking water standards
NebraskaNoneNo (last bottled water survey done in 1991)=FDAIntrastate bottlers must follow same guidelines as interstateNoNoYes, but data available would have more to do with sanitation violations rather than analytical resultsNoneTesting =FDA; Source does not have to be certified, but bottlers must supply satisfactory analytical results before processing beginsYes, 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 basisTesting & analytical process is effective at preventing contaminationReduce testing for unlikely contaminants; FDA requirements should not be made any more stringent
Nevada$5000 or 1/10 FTENo=FDAIntrastate; All bottled waters produced in state are covered by various portions of state codeSource, 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 productYes; 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-productViolation data kept in paper files for local producers only; No data on out-of-state violationsNoneMust submit detailed chemical & bacteriological analysis on source;Testing = FDA, SDWAPermit renewed annually; Bacteriological analysis must be submitted every week if plant in "full" operationColiform; BacteriologicalsPretty happy with our regulations right now
New Hampshire<1 FTENo=FDA, +IBWAIntrastate; License other waters, such as filtered watersAccurate 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)NoNoTesting= FDA; Source certified through Dept. Environmental ServicesPermitting program for source and bottling facility; Must submit analytical & hydrogeological reports; Plant permits renewed annually & analytical reports must be resubmitted with renewal applicationNo commentMore money/ staff in some statesStrong label requirements
New Jersey1 FTEYes (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 productSource 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 statuteNoTesting = 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 pointLicense 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 labNo particular contaminants have consistently exceeded established standardsNo commentIBWA Code; Annual enforcement/ violation report mandated by state statute
New York1–11/2 FTENo (last survey in 1992)Stricter (total SOCs)Intrastate regulated same as interstate by state; Seltzer and carbonated waters not regulated under bottled water rulesMust list source, owner, certificate number & date water bottled; Nutritional claims must be consistent with FDA regs; Variances must be listed on labelYesViolation data kept in paper filesNoTesting= 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 applicationMicrobiologicalsUniform labels, FDA standards = EPA; NY’s goal is to become more consistent with national standardsStandards may be waived; IBWA Code
North CarolinaNo commentNo= FDA (adopted by reference into state code)Intrastate; Seltzer water considered a beverage & regulated under different part of state codeNoYesNoNoTesting = FDA; In-state bottlers must get source approved (one-time approval); State occasionally does unannounced inspections and samplingNo permit programNo commentNone at this timeBacterial contamination incidents reported
North Dakota<1/4 FTENo, but state is considering conducting survey ofwater vending machines if time & resources allow"much less stringent"State has jurisdiction over all water bottlers not already under FDA’s jurisdictionNoNoNoNo"Little if any testing;" Bottlers do not have to submit source analysis; Source must be "unadulterated"Licensing program for facilities; Renewable annuallyProbably nitratesShould = EPA rules; State should adopt regulatory provisions when and if the demand arises; "Little need" for an additional state regulatory scheme
OhioApprox. 1 FTEYes. Water quality survey on 5-gallon containers of bottled water, but not smaller (ice also surveyed)=FDAIntrastate regulated same as interstateMust list source if non-municipal; Any additives must be listedYes; Embargoed 5-gallon containers with high standard plate count; No recallsNoNoTesting = FDA; Source must be inspected and declared acceptable by EPALicense is renewable yearly and all data/test results must be resubmitted BacteriaNoneIBWA Code
Oklahoma1 FTENo= FDAYesYesNo responseYes; Inspection reports (not provided)No= FDA; Bottler must send chemical, radiological, & bacteriological analysis & have contaminant levels within acceptable parametersPermit renewable annually; Renewal based upon compliance with regulationsBacteriaTruth in labelingIBWA Code
Oregon1/10 FTENo= FDA; State does more inspections than FDAState regulates all water and beverage bottlersNoYes. Action against bottler claiming source water was spring water when it was notYes (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 qualityBottlers licensed as food processors; Reciprocity to bottlers to out-of-state bottlers; Licenses renewed annuallyNone; Water in compliance with standards does not pose any great risk to consumers & our program is adequate to assure complianceSupport FDA change
PennsylvaniaNoneOccasional bottled water quality surveys in 1992; Some VOC contamination foundStricterIntrastate; Waters with additives & bottled water under 1/2 gallon regulated by Dept. of AgricultureMust list source; If source is taken from "finished water source," i.e., a public water system, must list nameYes (5 permits revoked, 6 recalls); Mostly informal notices to bottlers of violations, w/set period time to correct violations; No recalls in 4 yearsYesNoEssentially = 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 coliformsYesMicrobials, especially cryptosporidium & giardiaReciprocity among states as to accepting analytical results & some sort of standardization among the different states’ labsIBWA Code
Rhode Island1/5 FTEOccasionally 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 waterState regulates all bottled water, including carbonated; If natural juices added, regulated as soft drink under different part of state codeSource must be listed unless run through a deionizer (reverse osmosis); Municipal waters without deionizaton process must list source1 recall of baby water b/c of mold contamination; Informal actions for other incidents, including chlorine contaminationiMust request from database and paper filesNo= 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’ radiusYes; Bottler must submit end-product & source samples with annual renewal applicationMicrobiologicalsMore 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 FTENoMore stringent b/c state follows EPA standards for drinking waterState regulates and permits construction of bottling & treatment facilities & monitor source & end-productNo commentYes; 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 numberNoBottler must submit plans & specifications for their design & construction for review under state code; Source must be tested for water qualityYes; State issues permit to operate; Currently, permits need not be renewed; Regulatory changes will most likely impose a periodic renewal requirement in near futureGiardia & cryptosporidium (in terms of one-time exposure health risk)Adopt model code; Need consistent standards for all statesFDA does monitoring & inspection
South Dakota<1 FTEState conducts yearly bottled water surveyLess stringent than FDAOnly one intrastate bottler, subject to state regulations only which are less stringent than FDANoNoYes; Computerized data base of violationsNoAll 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 NoSince all sources are municipal & must meet safe drinking water requirements anyway, there is no great risk to bottled water consumersRecommend that SD bring state regs up to FDA requirements
TennesseeNo responseNo= FDANo responseNo responseNot providedNot providedNot providedNot providedNo responseNo answerNo 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 standardsMore stringent; More frequent inspection program; Requires source labeling & certification of operators under Bottled Water Certification ProgramAll beverages manufactured, packaged and labeled in state are regulated as food; Water vending machines regulatedSource 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 misbrandingYes (not provided); State keeps copies of warning letters, but no summary reports availableNoTesting = 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 sourceBacterial contaminationMore FDA oversight where states have inadequate programs; Re-institute certification programIBWA Code; Bottled Water Certification Program
Utah<1 FTENo= FDAIntrastate bottled waters regulated same as interstateNoInformal hearing held b/c company not permitted; Bottler now bottling water from another source; No recalls, shutdowns, or other legal actionNoNoTesting = FDA; Water quality analysis of source must be submitted; Bottling facility inspected before approvalNo; State does not currently approve source, but environmental inspections required before company starts operationsPesticides, fertilizersCurrent regulations on both state & federal level adequate
Vermont<1 FTEDept. has requested random sampling, but has not occurred More stringent than FDA: State has stricter labeling requirements, chemical contaminant levels, & name of bottlerIntrastate sales of bottled water regulated same as interstate; No regulation of seltzer, carbonated, or flavored watersSource, town & state of bottler, & finished product levels of chemical contaminants of arsenic, lead, sodium, & nitratesYes; Approx. 4 years ago, bottler was fined for using unapproved sourceYes; Computer data base of violationsNoBottler 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 programMicrobiological & VOCsMore 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
Virginia1–2 FTEState samples regularly for bottled water quality, but no survey in past 5 years= FDAIntrastate; Seltzer & carbonated waters regulated same as other bottled watersNoState enforcement actions have included enforcement letters, a formal hearing, and court action which resulted temporary shutdown; Will provide for $235.80Information kept in data base; Will provide for feeWill provide for feeState 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 monthsState does not have a permitting program: State is not empowered to permit of licenseMicrobiological contaminantsAdopt state licensing or permitting program which would enable state to address food safety issues in a more timely manner
Washington1/3 FTE; $20,000Not sureWe adopt federal regulations verbatim; State inspects bottled water operations on much more frequent basis than FDAYesNo (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 bottlerNoNoBottler must go through source approval process with Dept. of Health, Division of Drinking Water, including site inspection & chemical, bacterial, and physical analysisLicensing 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) VOCsNo suggestions
West Virginia1/2 FTENo; 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 monthIntrastate; Flavored & seltzer waters currently regulated under soft drink regulationssNoYes; 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 compileYes[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 areaPermitting program for facilities; Renewed annually; Bottlers must submit chemical analysis for both source & end-product and have satisfactory physical inspection to renewWV has never really had a problem with either in-state or out-of-state contaminationState regulations need updating to meet standards of most recent CFR regulations; Currently, WV is following most recent CFR regs by interpretation onlyAnnual inspections
Wisconsin<1 FTEYes; 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 requirementsIntrastate, seltzer, carbonated, all bottled water establishments regulated under ATCP (Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection)NoState 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 contaminationkNo (stored in paper files)No answerBottles must contact DNR & have inspectors approve & verify source & construction; Source must be analyzed for contaminantsPermits renewed annually; Bottlers must maintain analysis criteria & testing schedule to renew licenseLeadRegulatory scheme of state is more than adequate to protect both consumers & bottling facilities
Wyoming<1 FTENo; 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 oftenState regulates everything manufactured in-state; Out-of-state processors must apply for distribution permit; Contractual agreement with FDA to do federal inspectionsSpecific 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 sourceYes; Violation data stored on computer data baseNoBottler must submit proof of approved source from previous testing; State inspects in-state sources & processing plants upon initial applicationState 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 resultsCryptosporidium & giardia (problems in municipal sources)Rules should be put in layman’s language to increase voluntary complianceIBWA 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.

last revised 7/15/2013

All Tags [ View Popular Tags ]:
bottled water
bush administration
case studies
children's health
clean water
Clean Water Act
cliamte change
climate change
coal-fired power plants
commercial real estate
conservation and restoration
crop insurance
crop loss
drinking water
energy efficiency
extreme weather
federal crop insurance
fish & fishing
global warming
global warming and health
green infrastructure
habitat loss
health effects of pollution
heat waves
hog farms
hydraulic fractring
hydraulic fracturing
livestock farms
low impact development
natural gas
New York City
oil shale development
oil shale development in colorado river basin
oil shale impact on water
oil spills
pig farms
polluted runoff
power plants
Rocky Mountains
safe drinking water
safe drinking water pollution
san joaquin
sewage water pollution
stormwater capture
stormwater runoff
tap water
United Nations
volumetric pricing
water conservation
water efficiency
water filters
water management
water pollution
Water Pollution
water preparedness
water readiness
water supplies
water supply
water sustainability
water waste
western water
western waters

Sign up for NRDC's online newsletter

See the latest issue >

Water on Switchboard

NRDC experts write about water efficiency, green infrastructure and climate on the NRDC blog.

Recent Water Posts

The Clean Water Act -- 42 Birthday Candles and Half a Million Americans Who Support It
posted by Jon Devine, 10/22/14
Groundwater experts, water law experts, and conservation groups tell the Forest Service to do more to protect groundwater
posted by Marcus Griswold, 10/14/14
New Jersey Water Infrastructure Funds: An Opportunity to Make Communities More Resilient
posted by Ben Chou, 10/9/14
Give the Gift That Will Make a Difference: A Long Cool Drink

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.

Donate now >

Share | |
Find NRDC on