Premium brand water might be $2/bottle (let's forget luxury brands that might be $4+) but you can get store brands in 24/48 packs for $2.99/$3.99 at large retailers.

Even some brands like Dasani or Deja Blue are 1/$2 at gas stations

All of the major bottled water brands are owned by companies that also make sugar beverages, so there's no reason for them to sell it for less.

Also there's probably not a big price difference on their end. Bottled water is usually purified then remineralized to get a consistent product.

I think my local supermarket sells bottled water for as little as 19p (29c) for 2 litres, as as much as about £2 ($3) so I think you are mistaken.

That stuff is probably more or less tap water:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/tesco-and-as...

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Actual spring water is uniformly 45p for two litres:

http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=258016736

http://www.sainsburys.co.uk/shop/gb/groceries/sparkling-wate...

http://groceries.asda.com/product/sparkling-water/asda-eden-...

https://groceries.morrisons.com/webshop/product/Morrisons-Pe...

That said, i imagine kevin_thibedeau was referring to the situation in the US. Perhaps bottled water is more expensive there. Or perhaps sugar water is cheaper.

> That stuff is probably more or less tap water

Is that bad? People buy bottled water for the convenience, and because it's filtered tap water which tastes better than regular tap water.

If you want to reduce bottled water purchases you should advocate for a law requiring water fountains to have carbon filters for taste. (Although I kinda like knowing there is chlorine in there when I drink from one.)

Bottled water is dirt cheap in the US.

I pay $4-$5 for 24 to 32 packs for Deer Park Water, which isn't tap water (but is owned by Nestle). $0.16 per bottle for spring water is incredibly cheap.

Bottled water prices are usually regionally-defined and bulk prices vary from excellent to horrendous.

I'm fairly certain the parent was referring to the 24-unit packs of water, where each bottle is ~500ml.

Well, you don't always have a water bottle and a place to fill it up from. That said, I agree that general societal pressure to reduce the number of pint/quart-size throwaway bottles is desirable in the same vein as reducing the use of throwaway plastic grocery bags. At the same time, given the choice between people buying bottles of water and bottles of soda, the former counts as progress in general and I'm not sure we want to discourage it.

If you work in retail then you are interested in profit, not making a good deal for your customers. If the proper branded product gives you a nice 37% margin (with that being 37% of a proper price), what is the incentive for selling something with a lower margin at a lower price?

The proper branded products have some distribution arrangements that mean you cannot sell their stuff at a low price, i.e. lower than everyone else. This is not 'price fixing' in a way the government can outlaw. Salesman from brand simply phones retailer's buyer and has a few words, implicit being the threat not to re-supply them. Large buyers will have negotiated a better price so long as they sell at the agreed price, clearly this privilege goes if they break their part of the deal, so next time they will have to buy at the official trade price, which is higher than what they need to make a profit.

Ma and Pa stores don't have the bargaining position - they buy from a 'cash 'n' carry' that might be supplied by another distributor (and an importer) all levels taking a percentage. They can stock 'off brand' products, but, even in a Ma and Pa store every square foot has to pay for itself, so why sell a low value, low margin, low $$$ turnover product?

Supermarkets sell own brand alongside branded products to present choice so you can buy big bottles of water at a price you would think does not make it worth them to stock. But check out the lunch purchases aisle, we are back to branded products at normal retail prices.

There is no conspiracy just capitalism and 'free market' practices. Having said that, water does have competition from a) the tap and b) the natural world. If you really wanted cheap water you could always run a tap (in the first world) or even collect your own rain water, filtering accordingly.

Oh yes, this can certainly be effectively outlawed. Create a barebones agency that manages a eBay like site for wholesalers. If Coca cola ever declines to sell to someone or offers preferential prices, then that's price collusion.

The article states that the industry is fearful of water as as substitute because brand preference is not as strong and there are plenty of cheap competitors.

What I love is that the gallon jug costs the same, or less, than the 12 oz bottle. The cost is all in the packaging.

I don't really mind if "big water" is a thing, but I'd like to see better packaging for it. It's amazing how many people regularly drink bottled water instead of tap water.

We purchase from a locally purified water distributor and use large reusable containers.

Makes a big difference. When we got our plumbing replaced I might get a whole house filter as well.

Why do you need a whole house filter? They are expensive, reduce water flow, and don't work very well because they try not to reduce water flow.

They rarely make any sense.

Just water a water filter for drinking water, with an extra faucet in the sink.

How frequently would you need to change the whole house filter in your house?

Read "Evian" backwards and you have all you need to know about the bottled water industry.