Editor:

[Regarding Mark Dubois’ July 11 letter to the editor, “Water is a sustainable resource”]

I think your opinion is valid and to the point. In fact, I began to think about Poland Spring as a company, and have qualified what I believe are rumors and facts. I would be happy to help separate the two, because I think it is important that we consider each other’s views.

I would like to address your theory of sustainability. People invested in sustainability use a Life Cycle Analysis to evaluate a product’s environmental impact. I believe it is important for me to clarify the life cycle of a Poland Spring bottle, just so we can be on the same page.

A Poland Spring bottle of water begins as a spring, which has been formed through a series of fortunate hydraulic and geologic events. The water is rechanneled, then chemicals are used for purification, then it is bottled, then packaged, then delivered around the world, sold, and someone drinks it. Then the bottle is delivered to a waste or recycling facility. From there, it finally is recycled or sent to a landfill. Fortunately, though, you are invested in the reproduction of this “sustainable” practice through the monitoring of streams.

Sure, it is culturally acceptable for Poland Spring to bottle up a renewable resource and send it around the planet, using oil, creating pollution, and mass amounts of waste, but is that sustainable? The question is a valid one.

All of the above processes use large amounts of oil, which, as I will quote you, “is a non-renewable resource.” But water is. It is so renewable that it it bottled using petroleum based plastics, and then sent around the world, using oil. Then high-energy loads are used to recycle it. Or it sits in anaerobic conditions in a landfill where it does not decompose for hundreds of years. Does Poland Spring see beyond the stream in its sustainability coordination? I would guess not.

Does Poland Spring change the flow, temperatures, or chemistry of the stream when redirecting water? Yes, it does. In fact, it is impossible not to when redirecting water. The simple fact is that Poland Spring sustains the stream for one purpose: to make a profit. This is clearly a practice that disregards and damages the ecology of the stream. This is “sustainable” in a sense that it can be exploited for a period of time; the question of how long is unanswered, because Poland Spring has not been bottling forever.

I would also like to address the job issue. The owner of Poland Spring, Nestle, is not a Maine company. This means that the money made by Nestle in Maine will largely leave Maine, to go into the pockets of corporate headquarters (with the exception of money that it will donate to local causes while trying to succeed in a partnership with the people of Maine). 

Bottled water is dangerous for communities who would like to keep their resources collective. Poland Spring does not have a vested interest in our community; it has an interest in the upkeep of the resource that it is exploiting. It is interesting to hear that you monitor our tap water source and then bottle it and sell it all over the world as natural spring water from the woods of Maine. Perhaps instead of Poland Spring, a more factual name could be “Town of Kennebunk Tap Water.” The point is simple: Poland Spring is not invested in community or sustainability beyond renewing their profit source.

Ryan Wilson

Olympia, Washington