Products, Vendors, CAD Files, Spec Sheets and More...
Sign up for LAWeekly newsletter
Re: ?EUR??,,????'?????<????????EPA to Ban Water Fetures?!??EUR??,,????'?????<????????, LASN publisher?EUR??,,????'?????<????????????EUR??,,??s commentary, July issue, Jon Mitovich, president and GM of Roman Fountains Corp. responded (edited for length):
Good grief! Just when I thought it was safe to go back into the water…!
Imagine my surprise when I turned the page our ad appears on to read George?EUR??,,????'?????<????????????EUR??,,??s commentary on EPA considering a ban on ornamental water features.
I guess all the pollution at America?EUR??,,????'?????<????????????EUR??,,??s industrial waste sites has been cleaned up and now it?EUR??,,????'?????<????????????EUR??,,??s time for EPA to clean up America?EUR??,,????'?????<????????????EUR??,,??s dangerous, toxic backyard waste dumps … and now we are compelled to fight for the right to landscape our backyards.
George is ?EUR??,,????'?????<????????right on?EUR??,,????'?????<???????? when he says that it?EUR??,,????'?????<????????????EUR??,,??s all about perception. Facts are beside the point. Make no mistake, the politics of water are real and it?EUR??,,????'?????<????????????EUR??,,??s coming to a neighborhood near you! The perception is that fountains are a frivolous use of a precious natural resource and provide no tangible benefit to the environment. Has the head of EPA run his car through a carwash lately (conservatively, 500,000 gallons ?EUR??,,????'?????<????????wasted?EUR??,,????'?????<?????????EUR??,,????'?????<????????????EUR??,,?? per year)? Has the head of EPA flushed his toilet recently? (conservatively 15,000 gallons a year ?EUR??,,????'?????<????????wasted?EUR??,,????'?????<????????). Has the head of EPA watered his lawn recently? (conservatively 60,000 gallons a year ?EUR??,,????'?????<????????wasted?EUR??,,????'?????<????????). How about the outing to the local country club golf course to entertain the latest group of corporate lobbyists from the oil, gas, coal and chemical industries? (untold millions of gallons ?EUR??,,????'?????<????????wasted?EUR??,,????'?????<???????? per year).
I have a small ornamental fountain in my back yard in Albuquerque that I run for a few hours after work a few months out of the year while I enjoy a dry martini and watch the sun set after a day of selling my soon to be illegal wares. It holds about 50 gallons. Definitely a serious environmental threat ?EUR??,,????'?????<?????????????(R)? wouldn?EUR??,,????'?????<????????????EUR??,,??t you agree?
All modern water features recirculate the same water. In fact, based on NOAA evaporative loss averages a properly designed water feature uses less water than if the same space was landscaped and irrigated.
Other ?EUR??,,????'?????<????????toxic hazards?EUR??,,????'?????<???????? of ornamental water features include: improved water quality through aeration and oxygenation.
Improved air quality, as water features filter and scrub the air we breathe (you remember all the dirty air the EPA has apparently cleaned up since they now have time to go after water features as the next great environmental battleground) removing dust, dirt, allergens and other airborne pollutants.
Water features can serve as screens for noise pollution.
Water features enhance the urban environment and convey a positive quality of life in the community.
What next? A warning label on every fountain?
WARNING: This ornamental fountain contains clean, recirculated water that may be hazardous to your health.
Come on EPA! Don?EUR??,,????'?????<????????????EUR??,,??t you have another Love Canal disaster you should be investigating? Don?EUR??,,????'?????<????????????EUR??,,??t tread on my backyard!
Well, thanks for listening. Its time for me to go home and enjoy my fountain before the ornamental fountain agents come knocking.
Jon Mitovich, President & General Manager Roman Fountains Corp. Albuquerque, New Mexico
Editor?EUR??,,????'?????<????????????EUR??,,??s note: When our product editor wrote an item titled ?EUR??,,????'?????<????????Galvanizing or Zinc,?EUR??,,????'?????<???????? which was posted to our website www.landscapearchitect.com/research/article/11026, the American Galvanizers Association was quick to respond (edited for length):
Contrary to the tone of the article, zinc-rich paints are not a more environmentally-friendly coating nor superior to galvanizing. Zinc-rich paints provide barrier protection, but there is great concern whether they provide any cathodic protection ?EUR??,,????'?????<?????????????(R)? (i.e.) if ?EUR??,,????'?????<?????????????(R)? the zinc-rich paint coating is scratched, the barrier has been breached and corrosion will start. Hot-dip galvanizing provides barrier and cathodic protection, and the metallurgical bond between the zinc in the kettle and iron in the steel is around 3,600 psi, compared to a bond strength of 300-600 psi with zinc-rich paint.
The American Galvanizers Association (and) the International Zinc Association is completing a life-cycle inventory test on hot-dip galvanized steel ?EUR??,,????'?????<?????????????(R)? considerating the environmental impact of galvanized steel from cradle to grave (including mining of the zinc, producing the steel, coating it and recycling). The study shows galvanizing has a minimal impact on the environment compared to painted steel. Additionally, galvanizers recycle all the materials used in their plants, and many of them use bag houses and other means to create a zero emissions footprint. It is true the coating can contain small amounts of lead, but it is not bioavailable material and has no effect on the environmental profile of the galvanized zinc coating. The quench tank does contain chrome 6+ ions, but during passivation of the zinc surface, the chrome 6+ ions convert to nonharmful chrome 3+ ions, so there is no environmental impact.
?EUR??,,????'?????<?????????????(R)? your article fails to mention the main environmental impact of paints, volatile organic chemicals (VOCs). All paints have VOCs, which are extremely harmful to the environment. Hot-dip galvanizing contains no VOCs . (The) coatings will provide over 75 years of maintenance-free service, whereas the zinc-rich paint coating will need to be completely repainted in approximately 25 years. This is a huge (cost) concern, but also environmentally. When you repaint the part, it is in the field, and the preparation for repainting, e.g. sand-blasting, will leave contaminants in the environment (and) direct exposure of VOCs to the environment during the repaint. (It) is a waste of more raw materials and energy to repaint the same structure at least three times when using hot-dip galvanized steel would require no maintenance, no new materials and no new energy for 75 years, or in most cases, the life of the project.
Two casinos are courted by Philadelphia to locate there. I think this was most likely a lengthy and public process. The two casinos are approved and locations decided. The developers have spent a considerable amount of money and are ready to go. Then a new administration, not a direct part of this process, decides against the approved locations citing a study done by PennPraxis. The study, after at least six public forums, determines the locations do not fit in with the redevelopment of the waterfront. The new administration then requests PennPraxis does another study. Anyone want to guess the result of this new study? Isn?EUR??,,????'?????<????????????EUR??,,??t the new mayor stacking the deck in his favor just a little bit? The money wasted and about to be wasted could have been spent on programs that could have benefited the citizens of Philadelphia.
Raleigh, North Carolina
Francisco Uviña, University of New Mexico
Hardscape Oasis in Litchfield Park
Ash Nochian, Ph.D. Landscape Architect
Sign up to receive Landscape Architect and Specifier News Magazine, LA Weekly and More...
Invalid Verification Code
Please enter the Verification Code below
You are now subcribed to LASN. You can also search and download CAD files and spec sheets from LADetails.