my water usage is absolutely down
But was there a shortage of water to begin with? HELL NO! We did not need more regulation in this area.
Although recently manufactured low-flush units perform better than the earlier models, many builders said, the NAHB survey found that 60 percent of builders and 28 percent of homeowners experienced so much trouble that they contacted plumbers in what they described as futile attempts to solve the problems. While many of the reported service calls were under $200, about 9 percent cost up to $500 and more to deal with damage from overflows.
Data collected on a sample of 1,188 North American single-family homes last year by the American Water Works Association found significantly less water use in homes with low-flush toilets and other conserving fixtures such as low-flow shower heads than in homes without these fixtures. The non-conserving homes used 73 gallons per capita per day, with 20 gallons, or 26 percent of the total, for toilets. The homes with water-conserving fixtures used 50 gallons per capita per day, with 10 gallons, or 20 percent of the total, for toilets. Replacing conventional toilets with low-flow models has the potential to save up to 12,000 gallons a year in a typical household. But the savings can be accompanied by ongoing aggravation and recurring expenses from stoppages and overflows. And in practice, given the widespread practice of double flushing, the savings are likely to be less dramatic.
The bottom line is that the savings is marginal due to multiple-flushing, the headache is substantial (and it is -- during a remodel several years ago we took extraordinary measures to get standard, old-fashioned toilets that work properly). Other costs to the consumer are substantial. And there was no problem in the first place.
The simple truth is we don't need this kind of idiocy for solutions to non-problems. |
