Taxpayers Pay for Failed Waterless Urinal Experiment at Environmental
Protection Agency. In 2007,
a spokeswoman for the California Environmental Protection Agency told The Sacramento Bee that the EPA
building's waterless urinals were a major success, because they saved millions
of gallons of water per year, and saved energy that otherwise would be needed
to pump that water around the 25-floor building. The Bee reported that the spokeswoman explained
that "there's very little odor, since there's no smell-causing bacteria
that are created by the urine and water mixing."
Flush forward to this month, when the agency quietly removed
the 56 waterless urinals due to complaints about odor and cleanliness.
Sacramento's KXTV
was the first to report on the removal of the fixtures, and it interviewed
another EPA spokeswoman who said there were hundreds of complaints about strong
odors and floors wet with splashed urine. The TV station also interviewed male CalEPA employees, including one who said of the urinals,
"They were nasty."
The total cost to taxpayers for this failed experiment is
not known. The agency spent $25,000 to replace the waterless urinals with new
ones that use a half gallon of water per flush, and the agency acknowledged
that it had been spending the equivalent of $50,000 a year on the extra
cleaning needed for the floors around the waterless urinals.
Presumably, the agency also will spend tax dollars to
replace the large sign near the men's restroom on the second floor, since the
sign still brags about the benefits of waterless urinals and describes them as
using the same technology developed by NASA for spacecraft. (Sources: KXTV Channel 10, February 23; The Sacramento Bee, May 14, 2007.)
(Cal-Tax recommendation: The agency claims that the $25,000 spent
on replacing the urinals will be recouped within six months in decreased
cleaning costs, which indicates that its cleaning budget should be reduced by
at least $50,000 per year after these six months are up. Also, the state should
do more homework before implementing changes – or ordering private businesses
to implement changes – based on claimed benefits that have not been proven.)
Cal-TaxReports, March 1, 2010
© 2010 California Taxpayers'
Association.
All Rights Reserved.