Originally posted by Malacasta
... But are you saying that using bottled water for drinking water is less resource heavy than using tap water for drinking water even when you're using tap water for showers, toilets, washing, watering gardens etc? (And you're not taking into account the companies that bottle tap water)
Personally I don't think that we should have just one or the other, but rather both underground infrastructure and bottled water, because that's the only reasonable way to do it. I could probably make the case that if people were to exclusively drink bottled water, then the reduced capacity requirement on the water system could allow for smaller diameter pipes, and so on, which could yield a net energy savings. But my primary point is that work is needed to transport water from wherever it is produced to the drinker's mouth, and that transportation (energy) cost for tap water isn't zero, nor is it conclusively better than for bottled water; indeed it could be worse.

In addition to my initial reasons for supporting the availability of bottled water that I made in my first post, I should also point out that without bottled water people become entirely dependent on the underground water distribution system, which is not entirely reliable. Where I live in Canada, there are rare days in which the city issues an advisory urging citizens to boil their water before drinking it, which isn't always practical. For another example, during the large blackout of 2003 my house lost water pressure entirely. During this type of semi-emergency, availability of bottled water throughout the city is more than a luxury.