The Student Senate has formally urged the Student Fee Committee to amend its current guidelines in order to seriously discourage the allocation of student fees for the purchase of bottled water.
The Senate resolution to restrict bottled water use in SFC-funded areas was sponsored by senator and ASPSU President-elect Adam Rahmlow at the request of the Portland State student group Take Back the Tap.
The resolution has already been passed once by the Senate, and was then sent to the SFC for approval. Since the SFC passed its version of the resolution, the legislation has returned to the Senate and a final vote will be taken later this month.
SFC Chair Krystine McCants said that, while not unanimous, there was overall support for the resolution among members of the SFC. According to McCants, the SFC altered the original wording of the Senate’s resolution, adopting “less strict” language that the SFC believed would have the same effect.
This wording made the resolution non-binding, meaning that there will be no outright ban of bottled water, only that its purchase with student fees will be seriously discouraged within the SFC’s guidelines.
McCants claimed that, because of the SFC’s budget structure, amendments made to their guidelines allow the SFC to influence the Organization Budget Council and the Rec Clubs Council (RCC). These two bodies deal more directly with the student groups that could potentially buy bottled water for their events.
“The OBC and RCC are much more able to enforce [the resolution’s] policy, and we felt that the recommendation within our guidelines gave them the leverage to do so,” McCants said.
According to Take Back the Tap member Andy Eiden, the formulation of the Senate resolution was spurred by a petition with over 1,000 PSU student, faculty and staff signatures that voiced support for eliminating the use of student fees for the purchase of bottled water.
Eiden believes that this resolution is especially legitimate because the impetus for change was born of solely student support. In his mind, the success of this resolution proves that there is student demand to stop the allocation of student fees for bottled water.
Eiden claimed that using student fees to purchase bottled water—which is estimated to cost over $9 more per gallon than tap water—seems superfluous at a time when anger over tuition increases is at a fever pitch.
Eiden also claimed that PSU’s dining and catering provider, Aramark Dining Services, doesn’t list tap water as an option available for purchase on its catering menu.
Take Back the Tap’s Senate-sponsored resolution argues that the student fees saved from the elimination of bottled water could be spent more effectively and that the hydration stations installed on campus erase the need for bottled water.
Eiden said that Take Back the Tap surveyed PSU students about their reasons for purchasing bottled water over drinking tap water. Three causes were identified: lack of availability, fear of impurity and general inconvenience.
According to Eiden, the nine hydration stations installed on campus by Take Back the Tap, in partnership with PSU Facilities and Planning, resolve all of the student-identified issues with tap water. In addition, Facilities and Planning liked the hydration stations so much that it is planning to install 14 more around campus.
The Senate resolution also highlights the fact that the University of Seattle, University of Portland, Oregon State University and the University of Oregon have all pursued policy that seeks to limit the purchase of bottled water, and that the practice of this policy would align PSU more closely to its own mission of supporting sustainability-related values.
“My hope is that Portland State can become the MIT of sustainability, leading the way for other schools and students,” said Take Back the Tap member Taryn Ralph, who worked on formulating the Senate legislation.
Eiden said that Take Back the Tap’s future plans include a May 21 informational meeting with PSU President Wim Wiewel, who has expressed serious interest in the goals of the group. ?