Politics in play on lead bill, waterless urinals

YORBA LINDA, CALIF. You are probably tired of hearing from me with opinions on items in CONTRACTOR magazine, but the August issue again stimulates me to write to you on two topics: While I disagreed very strongly with your Editorial in June on California's AB2496 regarding toilets (" Highefficiency toilets answer questions," September, pg. 34), I fully agree with your recent editorial on the California

YORBA LINDA, CALIF. — You are probably tired of hearing from me with opinions on items in CONTRACTOR magazine, but the August issue again stimulates me to write to you on two topics:

  1. While I disagreed very strongly with your Editorial in June on California's AB2496 regarding toilets (" Highefficiency toilets answer questions," September, pg. 34), I fully agree with your recent editorial on the California lead bill, AB1953 ("California lead bill should be erased," August, pg. 84). The California Urban Water Conservation Council has not taken a position on 1953 so this is my own personal position.
  2. With respect to the news story, "Army changes spec to waterless urinals" (August, pg. 7), those of us practicing in the field of water efficiency and water conservation know full well that this decision on the part of the Army was a purely political one. With Al Gore on the advisory board of Falcon Waterfree Technologies, it was just a matter of time before politics took over for science.

On at least two occasions long before this "weighty decision," Annette L. Stumpf of the U.S. Army Research and Development Center was contacted by myself and others regarding the investigations that yet needed to be completed with these products, particularly as they relate to buildup of solids in the drainline. We even offered participation in the comprehensive urinal study currently underway and funded by various water utilities in the United States and Canada. Ms. Stumpf never replied to our concerns and invitation.

JOHN KOELLER, P.E.
KOELLER AND CO.

TAGS: Bath/Kitchen