It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Your Money Down The Drain. Literally. House Urged to Cut Back After Bottled-Water Tab Nears $1 Milli

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:23 PM

Outrageous. Whether you are republican, democrat, or independent this should make you fume. This crosses all party lines and lands right in the middle of idiocy.

If the Potomac River, which supplies water to the nation's capital, had run dry, Congress might be able to explain itself. But it hasn't.

And that has left one group calling out the U.S. House for spending $860,000 last year on bottled water -- money it says could have gone toward installing fountains of perfectly potable water.

A report from the nonprofit Corporate Accountability International found that between April 2009 and March 2010, House lawmakers spent an average of $2,000 per member on bottled water.

You have got to be kidding me! $2,000 per member for water? Really? They love to talk about how clean the citizen's water supplies are... Why don't they drink it and save the taxpayers some money? Are they scared to drink it? Does it not taste like pure mountain spring water?

About 70 percent of the water-bottle cost on the Hill went toward Nestle water products, mostly Deer Park.

In advance of the report, Nestle sent a letter Monday to congressional lawmakers urging them not to cut out bottled water, arguing that doing so will not improve water conservation or fund public water infrastructure.

Way to go Nestle! Geez. Special interest much?

Corporate Accountability International estimated that with the amount of money spent on bottled water, the House could have installed more than 1,500 basic water fountains, or more than 900 fountains using refrigerated, filtered water.

But of course that would have been too easy. That is the decision most of us would have made.. It's called common sense. Learn it. Use it.

Bottled-water consumption varied significantly among different offices on the Hill, according to figures released in the report. The House Information Resources office racked up a nearly $13,000 bill, followed closely by the House Appropriations Committee's $12,500 water tab.

Following closely behind was the office of the speaker, then Rep. Nancy Pelosi, with about $8,800 in bottled-water costs.

Does anyone here drink $8,800 worth of bottled water in this amount of time? I guess we wouldn't mind spending that if someone else was footing the bill.

"Congress is spending almost a million dollars annually on bottled water for itself that often carries misleading claims of purity, when water of equal or better quality is available through the public drinking water system installed here in the House," she said in a statement.

I am really just sick of hearing how in debt we are, then reading things like this. This is corrupt highway robbery. People are all cutting back to stay afloat while our government is taking our money and literally pissing it away.

Maybe I am over reacting. Does anyone here think we should be eating the cost of their bottled water?
edit on 2/9/2011 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 11:58 PM
No surprise of the tab there... I imagine a great deal of THEM know what's IN IT. (the water... [for your slower-folk]

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:09 AM
A couple of things of note in the last few weeks. The new term for fracked gas is 'unconventioal gas'. This term was spotted on a bbc news tab which hands out the daily tripe. A week or two before this, another story by the bbc stated that UK may ban fracking (unconventional gas', in newspeak). The first story tells of the water poisoning involved. The second boasts about how much more gas there is available using 'unconventional gas' recovery methods (fracking), and makes no mention of water contamination; makes no use of the F word. None at all.

To cap it off, New Mexico runs out of gas (supplies dwindled thanks to demand because of globalwarming™) but it was presented as though the state had depleted it's natural 'reserves'. Even here at ats the thread was titled in a way that was alarmist~as though reserves were kaput. To counter the 'shortage', commercials are popping up like mushrooms on the telescreen, showing energy companies (halliburton perhaps~can't remember) drilling lines sideways under your land, in neat little diagrams making it look like it's a model of efficiency, handing out jobs, creating communities, when, in fact, it's FRACKING. I can't prove this: my suspicion is that by fracking, they may get access to a lot of 'unconventional gas', but possibly blow a whole lot of it into the sky. As such, this data may be used to aid Father al gore with his carbon scams. I get this image of the land just dropping down a few hundred feet, in response to sloppy mining. Is it supposed to stay up by magic? They are laying down a thinly veiled threat. Let us do as we wish, or ELSE. But I fail to see how much more damage they could possibly inflict on us, on a personal level such as poisoned water, that touches water, that touches us. Unless that by fracking, they too are destroying the ecosystem in ways we may be unaware even to perceive, or even to conceive of, such as disruptions in magnetism, earth's engine? Who can tell? Typically, corporations work in teams. Shattering the shale structures, as part of a more elaborate plan, may be deliberate sabotage. It may be an effect that nasa, or haarp, or raytheon need. Putting poison in that water that goes in the ground, most certainly is.

These bastards in the government legislate for every corporate whore that darkens their door, and by enabling undisclosed manifests for halliburton in their little frackfest, have flung the final turd in our face, that of poisoning the ground water like a radioactive cloud. How dare they. Think of how much water kucinich will be able to afford if he wins his chipped tooth lawsuit!

Just more grease on our swords.
edit on 10-2-2011 by starless and bible black because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-2-2011 by starless and bible black because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:10 AM
Step One: Install filtered water faucet.
Step Two: Buy glasses
Step Three (pretentious step): Hire waitress

You still save money. No public enterprise seeking to obtain a profit would be as wreckless as them.

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:12 AM
If anyone cares to research this issue, it's a real eye opener, and in the end I truly believe that the world bankers are in the process of setting up water resources to fill the niche that oil does today.

Most bottled water is simply municipal sourced water that has gone through a basic filtration process. These multinational bottling corporations (which most in the market are) roll into town, bribe/entice the local government, and rape the area's water for pennies on the dollar compared to citizen's costs.

Testing has shown that bottled water is no safer than tap. In fact some argue that municipal water sources are safer, due to regular (multiple times a day) testing. If I recall bottlers are only required to test the water once in the process.

Tap water costs a fraction a cent per glass. Bottled water costs $1-$3 per glass. Name one other commodity you would pay a 1000% markup on just for convenience? The fact is we are victims of a brilliant marketing scheme. Bottlers noticed several years ago that soda sales were falling off, so they created the need for bottled water. Ads are carefully crafted (They can't disparage public water supplies) to present an issue that was never there! Now people like my wife
won't drink water, unless it comes out of a plastic bottle.

And the plastic bottles? That's a whole nother can of worms. There's a whole issue over chemical leaching from the plastics.

Finally, these SOB corporations are at their worst in 3rd world countries. In parts of Africa, Dasani (CocaCola Corp) water costs nearly twice as much as a (glass) bottle of Coke, and the coke has more volume! On top of that, Dasani is in the game of running the municipal water supply. Guess who's public water is lethal to drink, and costs so much people lock their taps when they leave the house?
Their bottling plants in 3rd world countries steal water from local agriculture as well. local wells are often shallow and hand dug. A bottling plant puts an industrial pump into a deep well, and very quickly the water table is below those hand-dug local wells.

Sorry for the rant, bottled water is a peeve of mine. It's being used as a weapon in the third world, we are being robbed through it in the 1rst world. It's water. It's a basic human right, as far as it is available. I hope there's a special place in Hell for those who extort others through water supplies.

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:18 AM

Originally posted by Kangaruex4Ewe

"Congress is spending almost a million dollars annually on bottled water for itself that often carries misleading claims of purity, when water of equal or better quality is available through the public drinking water system installed here in the House," she said in a statement.

If just a clever way of making the public think that tap water is ok to drink.

"What a waste of money it is buying bottled water!"

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 01:04 AM
reply to post by blamethegreys

Great point. I have looked into this. I strongly believe the government will corner the market on drinking water. Another way to create indentured servants. No water, no life. I feel they know how poor the tap water is, and that is why they go out of their way to not drink it.

They could take this million dollar water tab and use it to improve the quality of the rest of our drinking water.
edit on 2/10/2011 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 01:09 AM
That's like 2 to 3 bottles of water per day per member if each member drank bottled water every day, but they don't. There are also lots of administration and regular employees, not to mention guests that drink the water too.

It's hardly an issue.

I mean... really? What's next? Are they going to start getting mad about how Congress spends probably the same amount on pens every year?
edit on 10-2-2011 by RestingInPieces because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 01:11 AM
I agree with having fresh water in politics. Don't want any of them that we put in office making any rash deceisions because of the water now would we.

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 01:41 AM
reply to post by blamethegreys

That is exactly what is going on. A setting up for water reserves, where oil used to be. This model enables one to make sense of the catastrophic food and ecosystem damages being inflicted right before our eyes. Deepwater. A corexited, yet whitewashed Gulf, a huge area they wrecked, then pretended as if they managed it, and, unable to maintain control of the damage, simply skipped away. Nope, we can't look for the oil there. Aluminum in europe~ a whole mountain of it into the waterways there, the Danube. Fracking, worldwide, slow poison. We're not going to pull any water out of the ground, such as we do oil or gas. What? Did we think water was as easy to find as oil? *snickers*. I can hear them laugh, as they sign to permanently ratify the 'patriot' act, which is naught but a tip toward 'Rollerball' corporate slave/government state, while thinking 'don't you people have snow to bottle'? God ain't making any more of it.

If you are against what corporations do, you are not a patriot, you are a 'terrorist'. It's quite clear they are out of their minds, drunk with power, with some plan they must stick to like a script... how to vote, which bills to read, everything. How do they move so fast?

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 04:34 AM
While we are on putting the politicians on a diet of tap water, lets also feed them food from GM crops and just see how much they believe that this self regulated industry should be able to write its own laws and pick its own scientific papers. There will be a lot more resources and review getting put into the tap water supply if they where suddenly forced to drink it. They are only human and unless there is a personal interest at stake they find it hard to relate to the issues.

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 06:35 AM
reply to post by kwakakev

Nothing like having to consume something yourself to make you care a bit more about what is in it, and how you got it.

posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 12:06 PM
Washington DC had to start using lots of chlorine in it's water in 2000. It ate the LEAD water pipes and made the water highly toxic.

They kept quiet about it and didnt tell the public until 2002....that the water in Washington DC was highly toxic due to the LEAD in the water.

It explains the madness in Washington DC. They were drinking toxic levels of LEAD.

Google it.

posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 07:34 PM
I get a 30 pack of nestle water at Woodman's grocery store for four bucks.
Going by that, at an average of $2000 per member,
that's 15000 bottles a year.

Even if they worked 5 days a week, which they do not
that is over 57 bottles a day.

Even with 12 staff members in on the water, that's almost 5 bottles per day, every day per person.

This is difficult to swallow.

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 03:31 PM
reply to post by Oaktree

I have come to the conclusion that they are hoarding the water for a 2012 event.

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 07:42 PM
reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe

I suspect that there are quite a few cases going into the backseats of our Congress people's Mercedes'.


log in