Posted Friday, August 1, 2008, 1:45 p.m., EDT

Representatives from several industry groups met on a conference call earlier this week to discuss the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed WaterSense certification program for new home construction.

The EPA has proposed that builders not install any ornamental water feature, including fountains, ponds and waterfalls, in any new home they hope to label as WaterSense certified, a voluntary program designed to promote water efficiency and to help home buyers find water-efficient houses.

Although the proposed specification “is designed to ensure that the home’s water-using features are efficient and perform as well, or better than, standard features,” according to the government, the EPA singles out ornamental water features as inherently inefficient because they “serve no functional or practical purpose.”

The specification does not prohibit the installation of any other water-using device or element, although it restricts use of turf to 40 percent of landscapable area (excluding hardscapes) or as part of a landscape designed to be sustainable using a specified amount of water based on a formula that factors in expected rainfall during drought years. Under the proposal, water surface area of pools and spas would be deducted from the turf allowance or included as landscapable area under the formula approach.

Turf receives special treatment because “lawns require a large amount of supplemental water and generally greater maintenance than other vegetation,” the EPA wrote in its specification. “Under this specification, pools are treated as turf to account for their annual evaporation rates and water use requirements.”

The groups, including the Irrigation Association, the International Professional Pond Contractors Association, the National Association of Pond Professionals, and the American Society of Landscape Architects, believe the EPA’s stance against ornamental water features strays from the intent of the program to guide consumers to efficient water-using equipment and actually mandates lifestyle choices. Moreover, Andy Smith, IA’s external affairs director, reports the EPA has told him that the EPA made the water-feature proposal based on public perception that water features consumed a lot of water, rather than actual consumption rates.

Although WaterSense is a voluntary program, industry members are concerned that various jurisdictions could use it as a basis to form binding water codes, thus effectively banning ornamental water features.

In addition, the WaterSense label is expected to enhance the value of a home, thus, a house that did not contain the label would be at a relative disadvantage in the marketplace. Specifically, homes with ornamental water features would be worth less than homes without, reversing the past trend in which landscaping and water features have bolstered home values. That gap will widen as “green” becomes an increasingly powerful marketing buzzword, said Freddie Combas of Florida Water Gardens and an IPPCA board member.

The industry representatives plan to develop an alternative wording to the EPA’s proposed specification that would affirm ornamental water features as possible elements in a water-efficient landscape.

As a starting point, members of IPPCA suggested:

“Ornamental Water Features shall meet one or more of the following specifications: 1) incorporate a closed re-circulation system; 2) utilize a naturally occurring water source on site (i.e., spring, stream, rainwater); 3) sustain aquatic life; 4) support wildlife; or 5) utilize reclaimed water.

“Supporting statement: The above specifications were drafted to ensure that an ornamental water feature would be functional and serve a positive purpose. Ornamental water features in regards these specifications are defined as fountains, ponds, waterfalls, manmade streams and other decorative water-related constructions provided to serve a beneficial function and purpose in the landscape, environment and overall scope of real value on a site. As these ornamental water features serve an actual functional and practical purpose, their water use is considered efficient.”

The IPPCA hopes to work with other groups to agree on alternative language by Aug. 11. Individuals in helping shape the alternative language can contact Dave Jones, executive director of the IPPCA, at info@ippca.com, Smith said.

Already, the group is leaning toward eliminating the second clause (landowners in certain parts of the country may not have the legal rights to use water from springs or streams on their land) and adding information about impermeable liners.

The groups hope to agree on an alternative wording that Smith can present to EPA representatives at a meeting the IA has convened for August 14 in Washington, D.C. Smith feels confident that the EPA will be receptive to changing its language on ornamental water features.

Also playing a role in this is the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, which has worked with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and NOAA Sea Grant, to develop a water gardening code of conduct, now in final drafting, for water gardens. The code outlines standards for pond planning, construction, maintenance and for pond plants and animals in order to reduce the likelihood of introducing or spreading invasive species and presumably could be adapted to address water efficiency. PIJAC reports it has been working with NAPP on this issue.

The EPA has extended its deadline for public comments on its proposal to Sept. 4 from July 21, largely due to large number of comments it received from pond industry members. Alerts sent out by the IPPCA alone have reportedly generated hundreds of uniquely written (as opposed to form letters) responses, Smith said.

Click here to read and comment on the EPA’s specifications. <HOME>