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: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 17 2015, @10:35AM
> Is it really useful for the government to micromanage things like this?
Specifying minimum performance standards is not micromanagement. The market is free to take any path it wants as long as it meets or exceeds the standard.
Your example of ineffective toilets is actually informative - the first implementations were pretty crappy. But modern 1.6 gallon per flush toilets, basically anything sold in the last decade and a half, work just as well as the older 5 gallon toilets. If anything, the 1.6 gallon mandate accelerated the improvements because nobody could 'cheat' and keep selling the 5 gallon models - everybody had to compete from an equal starting point so the only option was to improve the technology.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 17 2015, @10:41AM
No, I don't believe you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 17 2015, @11:22AM
Read for yourself [map-testing.com] — for over a decade the average toilet has been able to dispose of 675g in a single flush, while the 99th percentile for size of one man shit is just 350g.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 17 2015, @11:57AM
I'm not sure that's accounting for the presence a large fireman's blanket of toilet paper (as most modern western designs still don't prevent splashback) plus more toilet paper for wiping plus, in the case of public toilets, yet more toilet paper to cover the seat. Whilst being relatively light, toilet paper is fairly buoyant and may not flush well with a small volume of water.
I've not personally used many US toilets but there are plenty elsewhere in the world that won't flush properly on the first go.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 17 2015, @12:29PM
> a large fireman's blanket of toilet paper
> plus more toilet paper for wiping
> yet more toilet paper to cover the seat.
If you are using that much TP you are definitely beyond the 99th percentile.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday August 17 2015, @01:08PM
I don't blame you -- what is the obsession with US public toilets having gaps down the sides of the doors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 17 2015, @07:50PM
I'm guessing my adult son is an outlier. Have you ever tried to flush a 2x4?
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday August 18 2015, @02:44AM
And one of the expensive lessons you learn if you have a 1.6gallon toilet is to always flush twice if you took a dump, because otherwise sooner or later that line to the sewer or septic tank is going to need roto-rootering. 1.6gal may be enough to make the toilet work, but it's not enough to consistently keep the pipe flowing.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday August 17 2015, @12:22PM
Those pressure assisted super flush toilets are pretty effective. They are a little loud but for a 1.6 gallon flush, it is pretty intense. Saw them in a Disney bathroom and it flushed a hefty log down like it was piss.
The real troubling issue with low flow is the lethargic whirl pool which flops the turd around like a giant crayon leaving massive skid marks all over the bowl. So that white toilet is now painted brown and you look like a filthy jerk if you leave it. Most public bathrooms don't have toilet wands, nor would you want to use a public toilet wand. So you flush the damn thing half a dozen times to wash away your brown paint job. Even at home you have to flush twice as you have to pull the toilet wand, scrub and then flush again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 17 2015, @12:39PM
Again, stop eating 20 pounds of groceries every day. You CAN survive on much less than that. Just put the fork down, and step away from the table.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 17 2015, @01:35PM
"Minimum performance standards" are pretty much exactly what I'd call micromanagement. A non-micromanaging solution would be where the resource would be priced correctly and people can work out whether it's worth their dollars to risk floaters. (duh, all hail the invisible hand)
The real question is, is this justified micromanagement.
(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.