The Brief

Is bottled water really “natural” if it’s contaminated with microplastics? A series of lawsuits recently filed against six bottled water brands claim that it’s deceptive to use labels like “100 percent mountain spring water” and “natural spring water” — not because of the water’s provenance, but because it is likely tainted with tiny plastic fragments.

Reasonable consumers, the suits allege, would read those labels and assume bottled water to be totally free of contaminants; if they knew the truth, they might not have bought it. “Plaintiff would not have purchased, and/or would not have paid a price premium” for bottled water had they known it contained “dangerous substances,” reads the lawsuit filed against the bottled water company Poland Spring.

The six lawsuits target the companies that own Arrowhead, Crystal Geyser, Evian, Fiji, Ice Mountain, and Poland Spring. They are variously seeking damages for lost money, wasted time, and “stress, aggravation, frustration, loss of trust, loss of serenity, and loss of confidence in product labeling.”

Experts aren’t sure it’s a winning legal strategy, but it’s a creative new approach for consumers hoping to protect themselves against the ubiquity of microplastics. Research over the past several years has identified these particles — fragments of plastic less than 5 millimeters in diameter — just about everywhere, in nature and in people’s bodies. Studies have linked them to an array of health concerns, including heart disease, reproductive problems, metabolic disorder, and, in one recent landmark study, an increased risk of death from any cause.

Of the six class-action lawsuits, five were filed earlier this year by the law firm of Todd M. Friedman, a consumer protection and employment firm with locations in California, Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The sixth was filed by the firm Ahdoot & Wolfson on behalf of a New York City resident.

Each lawsuit uses the same general argument to make its case, beginning with research on the prevalence of microplastics in bottled water. Several of them cite a 2018 study from Orb Media and the State University of New York in Fredonia that found microplastic contamination in 93 percent of bottles tested across 11 brands in nine countries. In half of the brands tested, researchers found more than 1,000 pieces of microplastic per liter. (A standard bottle can hold about half a liter of water.) More recent research has found that typical water bottles have far higher levels: 240,000 particles per liter on average, taking into account smaller fragments known as “nanoplastics.”

The complaints then go on to argue that bottled water contaminated with microplastics cannot be “natural,” as implied by product labels like “natural artisan water” (Fiji), “100 percent natural spring water” (Poland Spring), and “natural spring water” (Evian). The suit against Poland Spring cites a dictionary definition of natural as “existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.” That lawsuit and the others also point to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which does not strictly regulate the use of the word “natural” but has “a longstanding policy” of considering the term to mean a food is free from synthetic or artificial additives “that would not normally be expected to be in that food.”.

The lawsuit against Arrowhead bottled water, advertised as “100 percent mountain spring water,” argues that it’s the “100 percent” that’s deceptive. “Reasonable consumers do not understand the term ‘100 percent’ to mean ‘99 percent,’ ‘98 percent,’ ‘97 percent,’ or any other percentage except for ‘100 percent,’” the complaint reads. In other words, consumers expect a product that’s labeled as 100 percent water to contain exactly 0 percent microplastics.

Are reasonable consumers really taking labels so literally? Jeff Sovern, a professor of consumer protection law at the University of Maryland, said it’s “plausible” that people would expect bottled water labeled as “natural” to not contain non-natural microplastics, but it’s hard to say without conducting a survey. It will be up to judges to evaluate that argument — if the cases go to trial. One of the lawsuits filed by the firm of Todd M. Friedman against the company that owns Crystal Geyser was withdrawn last month, potentially a sign that the parties reached a settlement.

“A lot of these types of cases get settled,” said Laura Smith, legal director of the nonprofit Truth in Advertising, Inc. This may reflect the strength of the plaintiffs’ arguments, or it could reflect a company’s desire to avoid the expense of going to court.

In response to Grist’s request for comment, Evian — owned by Danone — said it could not comment on active litigation, but that it “denies the allegations and will vigorously defend itself in the lawsuit.”

“Microplastics and nanoplastics are found throughout the environment in our soil, air, and water, and their presence is a complex and evolving area of science,” a spokesperson told Grist, adding that the FDA has not issued regulations for nano- or microplastic particles in food and beverage products.

The companies named in the other lawsuits — BlueTriton Brands Inc., CG Roxane LLC, and The Wonderful Co. LLC — did not respond to requests for comment.

Erica Cirino, a spokesperson for the nonprofit Plastic Pollution Coalition, said the new lawsuits are part of a longstanding effort to hold bottled water companies accountable not only for microplastic contamination, but also for other misleading claims about their products’ purity. A lawsuit against Nestlé in 2017 said its “Pure Life Purified” brand name and labels misrepresented the purity of its water, in violation of the California Legal Remedies Act. That case was dismissed in 2019 for a “failure to allege a cognizable legal theory”; the latest lawsuits’ “natural” claims represent a different tactic.

Evian-branded bottled water.

(

Roy Rochlin

/

Getty Images

)

Perhaps the best-known legal challenges have involved the origin of so-called “spring water.” In 2017, for example, a class-action lawsuit against Nestlé Waters North America, which owned Poland Spring at the time, said the company was fooling customers into buying “ordinary groundwater.” A U.S. district court judge dismissed that suit in 2018 on the grounds that its allegations improperly cited violations of a state law, rather than a federal one. Nestlé settled a similar lawsuit in 2003 for $10 million, though it denied that its practices had been deceptive.

More recent lawsuits have taken aim at bottled water companies’ claims that their products are “carbon neutral,” or that their bottles are “100 percent recyclable.” Only 9 percent of plastics worldwide ever get recycled.

Many of these lawsuits have yet to be evaluated by a judge, although a 2021 complaint against Niagara Bottling over “100 percent recyclable” labels was tossed out by a U.S. district court judge in New York in the following year.

According to Smith, one hurdle for these lawsuits is that they’re only able to cite research on the microplastics’ potential to damage people’s health, rather than actual damages that they’ve suffered from drinking contaminated bottled water. Even if the plaintiffs did have health problems linked to microplastics, these particles are ubiquitous; it would be nearly impossible to isolate the effects from drinking microplastics in bottled water from those of microplastics found everywhere else.

“It’s a wider systemic issue with our entire food and beverage supply,” Cirino said.

Keeping microplastics out of people’s bodies would require a similarly systemic approach, potentially involving government rules and incentives for companies to replace single-use plastics with reusables made from glass and aluminum — as well as an overall reduction in the amount of plastic the world makes. In the meantime, one recent article in The Dieline floated the idea of putting microplastics warning labels on plastic water bottles.

Of course, anyone worried about drinking plastic could turn to tap water, which typically has lower concentrations of microplastics and other contaminants, and is hundreds of times cheaper than water from a plastic bottle. Research suggests that more than 96 percent of the United States’ community water systems meet government standards for potability.

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/accountability/bottled-water-microplastics-natural-evian-poland-spring-arrowhead-crystal-geyser-fiji-lawsuit/.

Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org

Californians could get instant rebates on electric vehicle purchases under Gov. Gavin Newsom's $200 million plan, which would require automakers to match state incentives dollar-for-dollar.

The plan, which the Legislature must still approve, lays out for the first time how the governor plans to steer a California-specific rebate program to bolster a slowing electric car market after the Trump administration cancelled federal incentives last year.

The California Air Resources Board would oversee the program, offering rebates at the point of sale to lower upfront costs for buyers instead of reimbursing them later. The draft does not specify rebate amounts, which the air board will determine during program design and discuss at a public workshop this spring, said Lindsay Buckley, a spokesperson for the agency.

The proposal exempts the program from the state’s usual rule-making requirements, allowing California to design and launch the rebates more quickly than typical for new programs.

Newsom first unveiled the incentive proposal as part of his January budget plan but released few initial details. State officials cast the subsidy as a response to President Donald Trump’s dismantling of incentives and blocking of California’s clean-vehicle mandate.

How the rebates would work

Outside experts and clean vehicle advocates said the details raise new questions about how the program would work in practice and who would benefit.

Ethan Elkind, a climate law expert at UC Berkeley, said structuring the incentives as grants allows the state to set the terms automakers must meet to access the money, giving California leverage over manufacturers.

But Mars Wu, a senior program manager with the Greenlining Institute, which advocates for investments in communities of color, said the draft plans fall short on equity, arguing the proposal does little to ensure the incentives reach the Californians who need them most.

“[The] proposal sets up a first-come, first-serve free-for-all scenario, which is not a prudent use of extremely limited public dollars in a deficit year,” she wrote in an email.

How far could the money go?

The proposal limits eligibility by vehicle price, not buyer income. New passenger cars qualify only if priced at or below $55,000, while vans, SUVs and pickup trucks are capped at $80,000. Used vehicles are limited to a sales price of $25,000. All vehicles must be registered to California residents.

The newly released details also add context about the size of the program. A CalMatters estimate of the governor’s initial proposal found that the $200 million would cover rebates for only about 20% of last year’s electric vehicle sales.

The proposed matching funds from auto manufacturers could allow the program to cover a larger share of buyers or provide larger point-of-sale rebates, depending on how the incentives are structured.

One clean car advocate said the details aren’t locked in yet — including how the rebates could be targeted. Wu said the state could move quickly without abandoning equity by deciding who qualifies in advance while still offering rebates at the dealership. “There is a way to balance equity and expediency,” Wu wrote.

On a clear January day about a week ago, California water resources engineer Jacob Kollen jammed a blue Mt. Rose sampler deep into the snow at Phillips Station, near Lake Tahoe in the Sierra Nevada.

The second California Department of Water Resources survey of the season showed the snow was 23 inches deep, with a snow water equivalent (the amount of water contained) of eight inches. That’s just 46% of average, an alarming fall from the 89% of average seen at the beginning of the month.

These are crucial measurements to watch, as the snowpack is California’s most important reservoir. As snow melts throughout the year, it provides residents, agriculture and the state’s vast landscapes with much-needed moisture.

Our wet season began with quite a strong showing of rain, but a dry January coupled with warm weather has set California off in the wrong direction.

“ Statewide, we were better off last year than we are at this point,” said David Ricardo, the Department of Water Resources hydrology section manager, during a news conference about the snow survey results. “Something to be cognizant of, especially if we can make up more ground in the northern and central part of the Sierra Nevada.”

California's snowpack is at 56 percent of normal as of February 3, 2026.

(

California Department of Water Resources

)

As of Tuesday, the statewide snowpack is at just 56% of normal for this date, with the southern Sierra doing the heavy lifting at 74%. The central and northern portions are at 56% and 43% respectively.

For now, California reservoirs are well stocked, and drought conditions have been rained away, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. However, our snow water totals are just about in line with what we saw in 2012, the beginning of a catastrophic drought period.

Over in the Colorado River Basin, which supplies Southern California with about 20% of its water, snowpack is at about 64% of normal.

“ There's no way to sugarcoat it,” said Kathryn Sorensen,  director of research at the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University. “ I've been doing Colorado River stuff for 25 years. This is the worst I've seen.”

In the upper basin, the snow water equivalent is lower than it was in 2002 — a period of time so alarmingly dry that seven states and Mexico came together to hash out how to manage Colorado River water. The agreement, which has been in place since 2007, is set to expire at the end of 2026.

Because California enjoys senior water rights, it’s unlikely that the state will see Colorado River cuts for the next couple of years, Sorensen said. Arizona, however, will.

The Climate Prediction Center is forecasting below average precipitation across much of California through the end of the state's rainy season.

(

Climate Prediction Center

/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

)

Where will things go from here?

Experts are eyeing April 1, which is usually when the snowpack reaches its apex. If we manage to get a few sizable snowstorms by then, we should be sitting pretty heading into the dry months.

NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center is forecasting likely above average precipitation over the next few weeks for California. Over the next several months though, forecasts are for below-normal precipitation with elevated temperatures.

Longer term, higher temperatures as a result of climate change can cause more precipitation to fall as rain rather than as snow, and for snow on the ground to melt faster. Warming air temperatures dry out soils and vegetation more quickly, too, meaning even an average amount of precipitation may not be enough for some ecosystems. Overall, snowpack could decline by more than 50% by the end of the century, according to California's Fourth Climate Change Assessment.

This story was originally published by The LA Local on Feb. 3, 2026.

An old couch, the remains of a black massage chair and a refrigerator with its door open clutter 4th Street and New Hampshire Avenue on the grassy strip between the sidewalk and the street.

On Berendo Street, two refrigerators, both full-sized, lay splayed out on the lawn on a sunny day in late January. Both were tagged with graffiti.

The items are unremarkable, but they speak to the volume of trash that falls into Koreatown — one of the hardest-hit neighborhoods for illegal dumping, according to the latest available data from the city.

“Every single person in my building — that’s their top concern,” said Tania Ramos, who was born and raised in Koreatown and serves on the Wilshire Center-Koreatown Neighborhood Council. “It’s so horrible.”

From April 1 to Dec. 31, 2025, the city received a total of 206 illegal dumping reports at 4th Street and New Hampshire in Koreatown, according to an analysis of public data by Crosstown. The next highest count in that time frame was the 117 calls on the 7300 block of Lennox Avenue in Van Nuys, which leads overall for calls for service across the city.

Los Angeles overhauled its data last March, making it difficult to compare data from previous years.

Residents say the reporting system itself can feel ineffective.

“All the city tells us is to contact 311,” Ramos said. “They redirect you, but you have to wait and wait, and we end up being the ones that have to do neighborhood cleanups.”

The most impacted neighborhood from the 9-month period of April–December 2025 was Van Nuys, with 15,671 calls for service. Koreatown received 12,640 calls. Westlake ranked sixth, and Boyle Heights stood eighth, according to the data.

A spokesperson for Councilmember Heather Hutt, who represents part of Koreatown, did not respond to requests for comment about the long wait times and the high volume of illegal dumping.

Koreatown residents say they often report illegal dumping in their neighborhood, but often face long wait times for any type of cleanup.

(

Jon Regardie

/

The LA Local

)

Illegal dumping is a long-festering problem in Los Angeles. While in some instances it involves an individual tossing a few trash bags on a corner, it often means discarded furniture, mounds of unsold fruit or construction detritus dumped in a vacant lot or an alley at night by someone who does not want to pay a disposal fee.

Ramos said delays can stretch into weeks.

“Recently, there was a toilet in front of my building, and it took four to five weeks for it to get cleaned up,” she said.

Pablo Cardoso, director of environmental services at the Koreatown Youth and Community Center, said illegal dumping has “always been an issue.”

“For our crews, yes, there have been more requests to go and pick up bulky items,” he said.

Cardoso believes convenience and limited infrastructure both play a role.

“My personal opinion about it is that people are just lazy and the easy way to get rid of their unwanted furniture is to just dump it in front of their building,” he said. “I also don’t think that these condos or apartments where they live don’t have the dumping or trash bins for big furniture.”

Sometimes there are hazardous materials. At a Jan. 14 meeting of the City Council’s Public Works Committee, Nicholas Fuentes, with the city sanitation bureau’s Livability Services Division, said asbestos in abandoned commercial and construction material is a problem.

Los Angeles City Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez chairs the committee and said during the meeting that some residents don’t use or know about the free hazardous waste drop-offs the city offers and instead resort to dumping.

“I come across buckets full of oil in my district, like on the side of the road,” Hernandez said. “That means someone got the oil, put it in the buckets, put it in their mode of transportation, drove to this place and dropped it off.”

The city offers free bulky item pick-up for residents getting rid of that old desk or mattress (it involves lugging the item to the curb on trash day). But illegal dumping is a criminal offense, and perpetrators can be fined up to $1,000.

“Do they call 311? I hope they do,” Cardoso said. “Is 311 the best system? It’s there, but I don’t know. What I know is that they’re overwhelmed with requests.”

Awareness of the service remains low, organizers say.

“When I would promote 311, which is a free service, a majority of people do not know about it,” said Pia Cadanela of No Harm KTLA, a volunteer group that does trash pickups in the neighborhood twice a month. “Even people who volunteer with us would be surprised. They did not know that there’s a free pick-up service by the city.”

The issue is not new. In 2021, then-City Controller Ron Galperin authored a report titled “Piling Up: Addressing L.A.’s Illegal Dumping Problem.” Yet the document’s suggestions on how to combat the practice have produced few tangible results.

Fourth and New Hampshire may be a dumping destination because of one corner: While apartment buildings and the Joohyang Presbyterian Church occupy three parts of the intersection, the southeast corner holds a vacant lot, with a series of tents by a retaining wall.

It’s likely already being monitored by the city. Fuentes said his team works on problem points in each of the 15 council districts.

“We have identified with the directors of each council district those chronic locations, and we know that they need to be serviced on a regular basis,” he said at the committee meeting.

Although Fourth and New Hampshire suffered more than anywhere else in the city last year, it was not the only destination for frequent dumpers in Koreatown. There were 57 MyLA311 reports at 3525 W. Third St., a strip mall. That ranked ninth in the city.

Cardoso said dumping tends to snowball after the first items are left behind.

“I drive by the streets, and there might be one or a couple of chairs,” he said. “And then later I drive by again, and it’s like, ‘Oh, now there’s a sofa. Now there’s a fridge.’”

“People see that little pile, and they’re like, ‘Oh, let’s add to that pile,’” he continued.

Ramos said residents are left frustrated by what she sees as a lack of outreach.

“I’ve never seen a city representative go door to door with resources and inform community members,” Ramos said.

She added, “It’s a combination of a lot of things — a lack of community education, lack of city outreach, lack of getting to the complaints, long response times — which can discourage people from contacting 311 because they have to wait too long.”