Letter to the Editor: What’s the issue?

July 12, 2013

A recent letter I received from Greg Chick, LEED Green Associate (GA).

A few months ago, we featured a Letter to the Editor in the magazine. I encouraged others to write in and we received numerous letters. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. Although we cannot print all of the letters we receive, your feedback helps us in many ways.

I would like to share a recent letter I received from Greg Chick, LEED Green Associate (GA). Greg was writing in response to our call for questions ahead of Water Technology’s first webinar on June 18, 2013.


I want to attend the webinar. I am a point-of-use (POU) proponent for all regions in U.S. that need or where the consumer is wanting a better “trust” of “potable” standards that are able or believed to be enforced. Some very large percentage of consumers buy bottled water out of worry the tap is not safe [and] this is problematic.

POU is a great answer, but the cost at utility, or should I say ability, to assure and deliver water safely to consumers is lacking — the bottled water market is proof. Quality POU systems require more than a dummy down [approach]. I suggest the trained and accredited professional plumber deliver such. As well, I suggest support from all AHJ’s, including the EPA, allowing a municipal delivery system to suggest POU is a good idea as an option to bottled water.  

If done correctly, it is, done wrong POU is no better than bottled water. Plumbers are the ones I feel are the correct people to deliver top quality water for potable use (where the “city” water is limited in space, resource or even possibility to deliver water to consumers in a way consumers feel assured it is upmost safe).  

Emerging contaminants are one concern, aka “Considered Contaminants” 200 of which are on the table. I am not suggesting AWWA lower its standards or raise them, nor suggesting we accept paranoid unproven hazards, just admit everyone has a different threshold for them.  

Infants, HIV positive people, etc., so this is why I suggest personal choice and responsibility in POU systems. This is less costly than bottles so I won’t accept the cost as a deterrent or reason to say no to my suggestion on those grounds. I have been a contractor for over 35 years. I study this issue and “we do have a problem Houston.” Who or how is the issue and ASPE, IAPMO, PHCC, etc. are one major part of solutions. The WQA is armed and willing as are others. What is the issue? Turf?  Big corporations? Resistance to change?      


Greg Chick

Editor: Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected].

Sponsored Recommendations

NFPA 70B a Step-by-Step Guide to Compliance

NFPA 70B: A Step-by-Step Guide to Compliance

How digital twins drive more environmentally conscious medium- and low-voltage equipment design

Medium- and low voltage equipment specifiers can adopt digital twin technology to adopt a circular economy approach for sustainable, low-carbon equipment design.

MV equipment sustainability depends on environmentally conscious design values

Medium- and low voltage equipment manufacturers can prepare for environmental regulations now by using innovative MV switchgear design that eliminates SF6 use.

Social Distancing from your electrical equipment?

Using digital tools and apps for nearby monitoring and control increases safety and reduces arc flash hazards since electrical equipment can be operated from a safer distance....