SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An Anonymous Coward writes in with this story from the Press Examiner:
In the state's latest drought-conservation measure, California regulators Wednesday adopted stricter low-flow standards for showerheads in a move designed to save billions of gallons of water annually.
Standards adopted today require that all showerheads sold not exceed 2.0 gallons per minute maximum flow rate as of July 2016.
The commission predicts that the new standards will save more than 2.4 billion gallons of water in the first year and 38 billion gallons after full stock turnover in 10 years. The California Energy Commission voted Wednesday to phase in shower-head efficiency standards, limiting them to just 1.8 gallons a minute after July 2018.
In related news, the San Diego Metropolitan Water District is thanking San Diegans for saving so much water during the shortage that they will need to raise water rates:
San Diego water customers could see their bills climb about 17 percent in the next year under a proposal that would raise rates.
A proposal that city utility officials presented Monday to the Independent Rates Oversight Committee called for overall rate increases of 9.8 percent on Jan. 1, 2016, and another 6.9 percent on July 1, 2016. The increases will cover costs including the increasing price of imported water, and lower sales expected as customers slash water use 16 percent.
Original Submission
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 18 2015, @06:38AM
> "Minimum performance standards" are pretty much exactly what I'd call micromanagement.
If that's micromanagement, then what would you call requiring specific brands and models?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 18 2015, @08:07AM
Corruption?
Note that we are talking about performance here, not safety(*), the limit is placed on a specific detail that affects it rather than overall result as a whole and that this isn't about which brand of faucets are installed on government's own facilities but is something that everyone has to abide by. We are dealing with an engineering decision that may very well cause increase in consumption if the reasoning is boneheaded enough, although it seems unlikely in this instance.
The reason why I'd rather label it with a pejorative is that "do this or else"-type regulation shouldn't really be the default solution, but more like a last resort measure. If there's a list of bullet points why it's required in this specific case, then ok. Just remember to check them regularly whether they still apply since this kind of crap is known to be left in lawbooks for hundreds of years. Also, those probably point at other issues that should be fixed. (eg. "hey wait a minute, if we are at situation where either some people die in thirst or the majority gets to spend water without any regard, could this be an indicator of something worse than water shortage?")
*) in safety, minimum standards are justified since the point is in preventing the worst case and bad engineers do exist (especially in opportunistic free market) even though on average they are better at their job than managers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 18 2015, @10:51AM
> Corruption?
Congratulations on your pedantry. It has enabled you to have such great insight into the world of your imagination. Too bad its useless in the real world.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 18 2015, @11:49AM
Thanks. I'm doing pretty well in my imaginary software world.
Now, this post is useless due to me being an AC since there's no way for you or anyone else to verify whether there's any truth in what I'm saying. Coincidentally, the same holds for pure opinion pieces devoid of any reasoning whatsoever. Keeping in line with the current standard of conversation, I'm not going to explain why that is so.
Your turn.