TL;DR - The pandemic has meant that this necessary move should be delayed.

Among the main [benefits] (https://www.procon.org/headlines/should-bottled-water-be-banned-top-4-pros-and-cons/) is the environmental impact. Bottled water contributes to large quantities of global waste and so simply stopping the sale of them is a simple way to reducing the environmental impact of waste bottles. Likewise, banning bottled water would save people money and require tap water to be better regulated.

These simple facts remain true today. However, they do not account for life during a pandemic. As has been repeatedly stressed in the government's rhetoric on Covid-19, it is essential to avoid non-essential contact. This has seen coffee shops refuse keep-cups and also say no to refilling reusable water bottles. This is by no means a popular development but it is needed at this time.

By no means is this a declaration that bottled water must stay. Rather, it is an attempt to illustrate how the present world situation means that banning bottled water right now is not feasible.

The act of banning bottled water seems simple enough, but there are instances where this simply is not possible. In the UK, it seems a simple enough task as the drinking water here is of an excellent standard, and you can buy water filters if you still aren't comfortable with the quality of water.

But if we ban bottled water, what does this mean for people who have limited access? For example, people who are homeless and do not have access to tap water, and rely on bottled water to get by? If we are to ban water, we need to make it accessible to everyone first, meaning we need to have more water fountains available, or perhaps places that people can travel to to access clean tap water, if they don't have access to it.

Although I don't think bottled water should be banned it should be heavily discouraged and is only necessary in a few, specific circumstances as it can make water accessible.

Pros

• "Single use water bottles create huge amounts of unnecessary plastic waste, much of which ends up in landfill and also takes huge amounts of water to produce, estimated around 8.23litres"
• Instead there should be more sustainable solutions such as water fountains to refill water bottles, they should be accessible everywhere
  Cons
• They should not be banned because if people do not have access to a reusable water bottle this may encourage increased buying and consumption of other bottled drinks such as bottled sugary drinks which is detrimental to public health
• Bottled water provides a good, clean emergency supply of water such as for remote areas and in disaster zones however although in absolute emergency. Instead water supply systems should be heavily invested in to ensure that clean water is accessible to all.

The bottled water industry is a hazard to local freshwater sources, which are otherwise optimal sources of safe, plastic-free, low-emission water.

Water bottle companies in the United States have been under fire for depleting local water sources and shipping their packaged products across the country. This arrangement involves minimal compensation to the small communities surrounding the aquifers, with large conglomerates such as Nestlé paying a meagre $524 per annum on their pumping rights and raking profits from consumers across the continent.

As of February 2020, states Washington, Maine, and Michigan are either considering or already have anti-bottled water legislation in the pipeline. Washington may be the first to ban companies from tapping into spring-fed water bodies, while the latter states may seek taxation and/or similar restrictions. While these aren't plastic water bottle bans in themselves, the circumstance itself propels the case for this stronger measure.

Water policy specialist at Food and Water Watch Mary Grant succinctly frames the argument: "As water scarcity is becoming a deeper crisis, you want to protect your local water supply so it goes for local purposes. [Bottled water] is not an industry that needs to exist."

A change in how we acquire out water is already necessary given the impacts of plastics, production, and transportation associated with bottled options. This particular concern, regarding small community water bodies, highlights the potential to couple the ban with the empowerment and encouragement of local sourcing initiatives.

• An argument against the plastic water ban is the increase in emissions that would accompany increased purchases of alternative plastic beverages. However, the ban would reduce the industrial and transportation emissions associated with the sale of locally sourced water at a national, plastic-encased level.
• Engaging with city planners on improving public water access and compelling institutions to provide filtered water taps at offices, schools, and other buildings may help curb a sway towards unhealthier bottled beverages, while preventing the increase in emissions anticipated to accompany the increase in the number of hands reaching for sugary alternatives.
• It is also argued that fresh water sources are as safe, if not safer, than bottled water given the enforcement of regulations on the part of the United States' Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). There have been reports of dangerous levels of microplastic content and antimony.
• Finally, establishing a greater awareness and sense of community connection surrounding local sources will better ensure their protection as critical sources of drinkable water. To argue further, an improved connection between a community and its local, natural resources can improve attitudes towards environmental and sustainable living itself as people are more cognizant of the source and its preservation.

I don't believe it should be banned I would hope for more sustainable bottles and a less exploitative way if doing it than buying up a whole local water supply it's should also be rationed by necessity since most people have a tap these days

tbh a bottle is the best container for most liquids.