1.6 Gallon, Low-consumption Toilets

continued ...

A Look Back

The following is a collection of articles that have been published since H.R. 776 went into effect in 1995:

According to the The Washington Post for 28 May 1996 (page A1) supplies of the old toilets are nearly depleted, and frustrated flushers are now living with the reality of H.R. 776. While manufacturers are insisting they have resolved many of the early problems with the low-consumption in their new models; the consumer is left to decide for themselves how to cope with the problems associated with the early low-consumption models. Marjorie Johnson, spokesperson for the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, the water company in Montgomery and Prince George's counties, Maryland says, "I simply double-flush, and that's not conservation." Some areas have put real teeth into implementing this law. In Fairfax County, Virginia willful violation can result in criminal misdemeanor charges and fines of up to $2500 a year. Craig Simounet, vice president of Atlas Plumbing in Manassas, Virginia says there is only one thing to tell people. "Flush again!"

Christine Gorman writing in Time Magazine for 1 July 1996 in an article titled "Toilet Wars, Big flushers Circumvent New Environmental Laws" reported that homeowners are picking up large-capacity models at yard sales. She quoted toilet manufacturers as admitting that they were slow to find good low-consumption designs. But their latest models use various tricks such as wider pipes and extra air pressure-to make up in flush power what they lack in volume. That, say bowl-makers, should eliminate most complaints.

THE DEBATE LIVES ON

In spite of improvements in design and operation, there are still many opponents of low-consumption toilets. The Washington Post for 21 March 1997 (page G1) reported that Rep. Joe Knollenberg, Republican from Michigan, has proposed changes to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1992 that mandates the 1.6 toilets. Knollenberg is responding to a torrent of complaints about backed-up and overflowing toilets. Knollenberg considers the mandate and the rules that go with it government meddling into people´s private affairs. He thinks states and municipalities should be allowed to set their own limits, depending on their local water problems. The proposal has been referred to the Commerce Committee for further consideration.

The toilet debate flows on. As reported in The Washington Post for 2 April 1998, a new study shows that tiny toilets are fine and people like them. The report is titled, "Saving Water, Saving Dollars -- Efficient Plumbing Products and the Protection of America's Waters." This new report claims flushers registered overwhelming satisfaction with the new toilets.

But the credibility of this report is a bit suspect when the article points out that the author of the new 69 page report, Ed Osann, is a Washington consultant paid by the lobbyists and advocates who wrote the law -- a toilet consortium of interest groups, including the California Urban Water Conservation Council, made up of 100 California public utilities; the Water Conservation Council of Puget Sound, 17 towns and utilities in Washington state; and the Plumbing Manufacturers Institute, 45 plumbing fixture companies.

It has been a number of years since the 1992 Energy Policy Act went into effect. In the meantime, manufacturers have gone through as many as four generations of designs to meet the new standards. Needless to say, a manufacturer would not have to redesign if the previous model was satisfactory. So one wonders who were all the "flushers" who registered such overwhelming satisfaction; only those who owned the latest models?

In response to the report, Glenn Haege, host of Ask the Handyman, wrote to the editors of The Washington Post suggesting that if Congress were to replace the vacuum-flush style toilets in use at the Capitol with the 1.6 gallon gravity feed toilets, elected officials might better appreciate the gravity of the problem. Haege claims that each week on his radio program, he hears cries of dissatisfaction with the performance of the 1.6 gallon toilets.

Another response came from Ben Lieberman, Research Associate at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington. Lieberman says the conclusion of the study about the misguided and unpopular legislation is strongly contradicted by the opinions of many low-consumption toilet owners. If the water-stingy models really are as good as the study indicates, they should dominate a free market without the need to legislate their use. The fact that the proponents of low-consumption toilets are so reluctant to allow choice in the marketplace reveals much more than their study does.

A MORE OBJECTIVE STUDY ...

was completed in August 2000 by the General Accounting Office. At the request of Rep. Michael Bilirakis and Rep. Sherwood L. Boehlert, the GAO made an assessment of the costs of repealing the water use standards contained in the 1992 Energy Policy Act. That report is dated August 31, 2000 and is GAO/RCED-00-232. You can download a copy of the 45-page report in Acrobat Reader *.pdf format from the GAO site at: http://www.gao.gov.

Here is a brief summary of that report:

No studies estimating the impact of the national water efficiency standards on water consumption or wastewater flows nationwide have been completed so far. However, studies designed to measure the impacts of using water-efficient plumbing fixtures in specific locations have shown that, compared with their less efficient counterparts, low-flow fixtures conserve water, particularly in the case of toilets. The best example is a comprehensive study of water use in nearly 1,200 homes at 12 study sites that determined, among other things, that homes with low-flow toilets used about 40 percent less water for flushing than other homes in the study.1 Estimating the impact of the national standards is difficult because some use of low-flow fixtures would likely occur for other reasons—that is, even in the absence of the standards. These reasons include (1) state and local laws that preceded the national standards and (2) incentives, such as rebate programs sponsored by local governments, that encourage the replacement of less efficient fixtures. Nevertheless, major studies initiated by the American Water Works Association and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are developing long-term projections of the nationwide impact of the water efficiency standards, using precise measurements of the water savings per fixture as a starting point and taking into consideration expected population growth, the average replacement rate for plumbing fixtures, and other data. Preliminary results indicate that by 2020, water consumption could be reduced by about 3 to 9 percent, depending on the location, and wastewater flows to publicly owned treatment works could be reduced by an estimated 13 percent nationwide by 2016.

Although their precise impact is uncertain, repealing the national standards could affect the extent to which reductions in water consumption and wastewater flows are achieved and, thus, limit the extent to which local communities’ investments in drinking water or wastewater infrastructure can be deferred or avoided. For example, an ongoing study estimates that for the 16 localities analyzed to date, the standards will cause water consumption to be reduced enough to save local water utilities from $165.7 million to $231.2 million by 2020 because planned investments to expand drinking water treatment or storage capacity can be deferred or avoided.2 1 See Residential End Uses of Water, American Water Works Association Research Foundation (1999). 2 The dollar amounts presented here represent the present value of the net savings discounted at 7 and 3 percent, respectively.

Location-specific estimates for wastewater treatment facilities indicate that reductions in wastewater flows can also lead to significant savings. For example, one regional authority estimates savings of $12 million to $14 million for each million-gallons-per-day reduction in wastewater flows. However, the estimates for both drinking water and wastewater infrastructure are only as accurate as the predictions that individual utilities are able to make about future investment decisions and, for the most part, do not account for the fact that some use of water-efficient fixtures would continue in the absence of the national standards. Repealing the national water efficiency standards could exacerbate the financial pressures facing local communities by forcing them to build or expand treatment and storage facilities sooner than planned. However, even if the standards were repealed, state and local officials told us that imposing moratoria on new residential or commercial construction would be considered only as a last resort. Background The Energy Policy Act of 1992 established water conservation standards for the manufacture of four types of plumbing fixtures: toilets, kitchen and lavatory faucets, showerheads, and urinals. With limited exceptions, the standards apply to all models of the fixtures manufactured after January 1, 1994.

they...don't get the job done.

(1 December 2006) Every time I have to flush a toilet twice, I think of Congress. No, I'm not crazy. It's actually Congress's fault. Well, I may be crazy, but in this case my point is: it really is the fault of our legislative wonders in Washington. After so many decades of we citizens taking our toilets for granted, well, Congress wandered into the toilet regulation business. And now I'm buying plungers. Back in the '90s, Congress legislated these new-fangled low-flow toilets. And like Congress, these toilets are regularly full of...well, let's just say they...don't get the job done.

This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.

A nationwide survey of 1270 builders and homeowners conducted in the summer of 1999 by the National Association of Home Builders Research Center found that roughly four out of five people experienced problems with low-flush units in the past year. A majority of the builders reported problems from more than one of their clients, and many reported hundreds of problems. Most builders surveyed also said that they receive more call-backs on low-flush toilets than on anything else.

In his article titled "An Update on Low-Flush Toilets" for The Washington Post, Mike McClintock reported that unlike other problems that turn up even in well-built houses, most builders and homeowners say that the toilet trouble can't be fixed. (14 October 1999, Page 1)

For another opinion on this subject, read "Potty Politics", The Battle for a Better Flush, By Bob Allen, a professional plumber in Houston, Texas.

	Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web www.toiletology.com