1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/11375/the-relentless-misery-of-1-6-gallons/

The Relentless Misery of 1.6 Gallons

January 5, 2010 by

The law, passed during an environmentalist hysteria, mandated that all toilets sold in the U.S. use no more than 1.6 gallons of water per flush. This was a devastating setback in the progress of civilization. FULL ARTICLE by Jeffrey Tucker


greg January 6, 2010 at 3:40 pm


You really need to get rid of your Kohler toilet. It is not the quality unit it once was. Craine, which is half the cost of Kohler is a better unit! But there are toilets on the market that perform much better.

Also, you may want to add more fiber to your diet!

jeffrey January 6, 2010 at 3:40 pm

Let me ask rironin a very plain question: how do you know that water is underpriced relative to what it would be in a free market?

Magnus January 6, 2010 at 3:52 pm

Magnus, you miss the point entirely. Without such an article, Mr. Tucker’s opinions on toilets are worthless.

I grasp the point perfectly. If Mr. Tucker’s article is incomplete, all the more reason for you to enlighten us, rironin! Please, shed the light of your brilliance on the raw sewage of opinion you find here. Since you find this article to be incomplete, show us what a complete rendering on the topic looks like!

Otherwise, we will just have to conclude that you are a peanut-gallery loser who likes to sit back and take pot shots at things other people have created, but are too timid and unskilled to do what you claim others should be doing.

Remember to post the link back here so we can all find your vastly improved article on the subject.

rironin January 6, 2010 at 3:52 pm

jeffrey, I don’t know what the price would be and I’m sure it would fluctuate. However, the example I cited earlier is one where I think it is clear the price would’ve been higher. When supplies of water run low, the government enforces a lawn watering ban and forces people to water their lawns on certain days of the week in order to preserve the supply. If supply and demand really held sway in such a scenario, no one would be forced to ration the water; those who wanted their lawns to be greener would’ve paid more for it, and those who were unwilling to spend the money would’ve gone without.

I also take into account what I feel is the prevailing American attitude toward water. I believe most Americans don’t think much of their water bill, and that it isn’t generally a prohibitive cost of living. Further, I think that most Americans see water as almost a right – I assume that the government is under general pressure from the populace to ensure that the poorest among us can afford enough water to live. The problem with water is that it has so many uses and you can’t price them differently. If you price water so that a poor family can buy enough to eat, use the bathroom, and wash their clothes, it seems inevitable that that price will be sufficiently low that wealthier individuals won’t think twice about keeping the pool topped off or watering the lawn everyday.

matt January 6, 2010 at 3:54 pm

“Each of these innovations is patented — meaning that a successful project cannot be copied and improved by other companies. So even if these are improvements, their distribution is limited and the successful aspects of them are not extended by others, for fear of patent lawsuits. The entire market is hobbled.”

Hey, patents are just as much personal property as one’s real estate. Are you suggesting that we allow theft of personal intellectual property?

Furthermore, patents stimulate markets and inovation as opposed to “hobbling” them.

Also, US Constitution article 1, section 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries i.e. Patents.

Russ Nelson March 7, 2011 at 10:47 am

So conversely, if patents fail to promote the useful arts, we can get them declared unconstitutional, right?

Hittman January 6, 2010 at 4:08 pm

I think the most important point of this article is how people just adapt, shrug it off, and eventually forget it. If the citizens of the US had any real love of freedom they’d react to this kind of nonsense by voting out everyone congress weasel who voted for it. But no, we just bitch and moan and then pull the lever for the incumbent who created the problem.

Here’s my take on it from ten years ago – and nothing has changed:


Jeffrey Tucker January 6, 2010 at 4:45 pm

matt, I am indeed “suggesting that we allow theft of personal intellectual property”

rironin, you make an interesting point about rationing on lawns. In my own community, whenever there is a lack of rain, the local bureaucrats lick their chops at the chance to tell everyone what to do. They announce that “if present trends continue, we’ll all die” and then enforce the rationing. Then of course rain eventually comes and the bureaucrats are deeply disappointed.

I do think you raise a very interesting question about what water distribution would be like in a free market. I really don’t have the answer. We would be more or less careful with watering our lawns or filling our swimming pools? Hard to say. After all, if there were a vibrant free market, we might in fact find competition driving down the price and driving up supplies. That is possible. I really don’t have the answer.

But really the point of my piece is that government cannot rationally ration. I mean, of all things water is good for, it is to assure a sanity disposal of human waste. In the name of conservation, these people are spreading terrible things. I have my own theories about why: I think it has to do with the general desire on the part of bureaucrats and environmentalists to lower our standard of living.

In any case, I know you disagree with me strongly, so I appreciate your civility here. I’m sorry that I was so inflammatory on the Reddit thread.

matt January 6, 2010 at 5:11 pm

Mr. Tucker,

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you on many gov’t regs and their unintended (or possibly intended) consequenses. But I don’t understand condoning theft of intellectual property.

Does Mises/Austrians support this? I have never read any theory in detail, would you be able to provide such references? thanks.

Jeffrey Tucker January 6, 2010 at 5:22 pm

sure, see http://mises.org/books/against.pdf but give it a few years to sink in. It is shocking material.

rironin January 6, 2010 at 5:40 pm

Mr. Tucker,

I don’t know what free market water would be like either. There are some worrying bits: given the myriad uses for water, would wealthier people demand it enough that they would effectively raise the price beyond the means of the lower class, especially in desert areas like Los Angeles? This is the primary argument I see opponents of such a scheme raising, rightly or wrongly. One also wonders what happens to the supply and demand graph when the good in question is absolutely indispensable. When you’re dying of thirst, demand is as high as it can be – would a profiteering water salesman be wrong to simply set the price at “all the money you have”?

Of course, there’s the other side: if our currently limited supply necessitated higher prices, it would encourage new suppliers to enter the market and new innovations to increase and cheapen the supply. As it is, the government is free to expand the supply or invest in cheaper technology, or it can just keep rationing the supplies we have. One could certainly argue the a free market would react more quickly and efficiently.

It’s impossible to say with certainty how it would wash out, but there is one interesting and very important side effect to market driven water that others have already pointed out: if the market correctly valued water at a higher price than it currently sells for, things might not be so rosy in that restaurant bathroom after all. In a world where every glass of water will cost you, public restrooms and drinking fountains might disappear altogether, or see significant reductions in their water usage. No matter how you slice it, TINSTAAFP will prevail. And I think you know what the P stands for.

Martin OB January 6, 2010 at 6:45 pm

Spot-on, Mr Tucker! A spade is preferable to poorly designed indoor plumbing. My list of items to be found in a civilized bathroom also includes forced ventilation, the noisier, the better.

ray January 6, 2010 at 7:19 pm

This is obviously anecdotal, but I’ve done some traveling in China and in the area that I was they most certainly did NOT have better toilets. There were very few toilets I encountered like the ones back home. One was in the 4 star hotel we were staying at (didn’t think to check how much water it used). The airport of course, and some nicer restaurants or franchises (McDonald’s, Pizza Hut; we got tired of Chinese :) Most of the rest were more like indoor outhouses i.e., a hole in the ground. ;) Great article regardless, thanks Jeff, keep it up.

Shay January 6, 2010 at 7:28 pm

rironin wrote, “If you price water so that a poor family can buy enough to eat, use the bathroom, and wash their clothes, it seems inevitable that that price will be sufficiently low that wealthier individuals won’t think twice about keeping the pool topped off or watering the lawn everyday.”

In Austin, Texas, they have tiered pricing: $0.001 per gallon for the first 2000 gallons, then around $0.0026 per gallon thereafter. They could of course add more tiers if necessary. Many months I never go beyond the first tier, and I take a shower every day.

When you’re dying of thirst, demand is as high as it can be – ‘would a profiteering water salesman be wrong to simply set the price at “all the money you have”?’

No, but a second water salesman would offer a lower price.

rironin January 6, 2010 at 8:29 pm


Tiered pricing is a good option for controlling for that, even in a market where the traded price was far more fluid (har har). Seems like a good policy.

As for the second water salesman, that leads into an area of Austrian economics that I know little about – that is, how one deals with monopolies. Especially with a commodity like water that has such huge infrastructure investments, how could a free market offer consumers the mobility to choose one company over another? How would such companies deliver their goods when so much of the delivery infrastructure is fixed and shared? That seems like a difficult impediment to the market’s functioning.

Cal H January 6, 2010 at 9:19 pm

Having worked in water and wastewater treatment for more than 25 years, I agree with Mr. Tucker in that regulation of toilets is ridiculous. The real problem lies in inflow and infiltration into the failing wastewater collection systems, hydraulically overloading the collection and treatment systems during wet weather events, thus leading to raw wastewater being discharged to the waterways.

If the state doesn’t get out of the way and let the free market develop on-site treatment and recirculation systems, we face a real potable water crisis in the near future.

J.D. January 7, 2010 at 2:29 am

It seems to me that the gist of this article could be that while water consumption is an extreme concern in some areas, (And while my educational background is in Economics, Finance, Marketing, and Philosophy, I have taken a Graduate Course at Harvard on the Subject; which is only to say, I did not come to this statement lightly, and furthermore, for the record, in terms of domestic security, this particular area of environmental management, concerns me far more than the debate concerning global climate shifting/instability, or what is euphemistically, often referred to as “warming.”) it can almost be blatantly disregarded, for most practical purposes, as to quantity, at this time in our lives, in others; as such, instantiating a law on a federal level to regulate behavior, that if necessary, should be monitored on a local level, is irresponsible. Preventing overarching legislation, if possible from a pragmatic perspective, in the case of water, in my opinion would facilitate our federal government, assumptions provided, in instances where it is going to insist on making its presence known in regional affairs (in instances where water crosses State boundaries, and based on historical interventions) from having to not only consider local needs more carefully, but also respect local controls, and or influence, much more stridently. That said, I’m not big on holding my breathe at this time in my life.

newson January 7, 2010 at 5:21 am

water totalitarianism is far closer in australia. apart from the ridiculous toy-toilets (dual flush by mandate), various states data-match number of home-occupants against water consumption, and alert you to how much over the target you are straying. in victoria, the objective is 155L/day per person. you want to wash dog-crap off your drive, ring up and get a one-off, official clearance (ok, if you present it as a public health issue).

what’s worse, the authorities have encouraged snitching. dob in that neighbour who’s watering the lawn (evil), and not the flower-bed (apparently benign, legal). there are specific time brackets, dictated also by age (socialists love old folks and allow them a tiny bit of leeway in choosing the watering-time-window). try and imagine what an outlet for interpersonal conflict this one is.

water is totally monopolized by state governments in australia, and the results are water rationing and bizarre behavioural control (low flush toilets please, so as we can authorize your backyard pool, which doesn’t get touched because of potential voter backlash).

jeffrey January 7, 2010 at 6:06 am

J.D., and I’m not holding my breath while reading that epic sentence you wrote.

Phil January 7, 2010 at 8:19 am

It’s ironic that here in Uganda, those places which enjoy flushing toilets nearly always opt for stainless steel tanks holding in about 3 gallons or so. Add to this a 1.5 meter or so gravity assist, and you have a no fail approach to the disposal of, ahem, waste. Thus if we look at the US in comparison, one might almost be tempted to assert that it’s toilets are inferior to those found in one of the poorest countries in the world… “Step backwards” indeed.

Phil January 7, 2010 at 8:32 am

P.S. Magnus: Also we have SUGAR in our Coke…

Tom January 7, 2010 at 9:41 am

Having escaped the rath of the implementation of the water saver toilet by moving to Asia in 1994, I can say with a lot of experience that toilets here work well with nary a plunger in site! While the public toilets in Asia vary in their cleanliness( Singapore has the cleanest) and odor, they are very effective in their ability to evacuate the deposit-whether it be the “Western” toilet or the local “squat” version. I loved the use of the toilet as a vehicle for how government has ‘solved ‘ another nonproblem using force to control the market and creating another problem in the process. However, the quip about Chinese toilets is WAY off the mark. As far as toilets in restaurants and pubs are concerned, in Beijing, where I lived for three years, there were signs next to the toilets in English and Chinese instructing depositors to NOT put USED toilet paper in the bowl, but in the rubbish bin next to the toilet. Talk about spreading disease! YUK. Loved the article.

Sandra MacGregor January 7, 2010 at 10:23 pm

Dear Mr. Tucker,

The low-flush toilet does indeed cause health problems. But you missed a big part of the story. This environmental solution to a environmental problem also causes further environmental problems.

Trot down to your local sewage plant and talk to the manager, or anyone else. Perhaps this part is more true in the west than in the east, I’m not sure. But it’s a big problem in the west.

Several events are caused down-stream from the toilets now that there is less water quantity entering the sewage plants along with solid matter. More chemicals must be added to the processing, and often more water. Sewer pipes often get clogged up due to lack of water flow. Sewer line repairs, which are very costly for cities, occur much more often. Sewage plant processing takes longer, with higher labor costs. Settling beds work much more slowly.

Great Article, and a further comment. Why do environmentalists think they know more than engineers on any engineering problem?

Joe B January 8, 2010 at 12:19 am

As with many interventions, this law represents an attempt to fabricate a STATIC solution to a DYNAMIC problem.

Clean water resorvoirs and flows are in constant flux. To simply brush off the problem by stating that there is a constant water supply on earth ignores that only one form of water (clean, preferably non-flourinated) is capable of supporting human populations, and supply is not evenly distributed around the earth. Use of clean water turns it into a different, unusable good.

Even if the stock of clean water remained constant, populations are rapidly growing. This means increasing demand. The rate of recirculation to replenish reservoirs and rivers is currently beyond human control (excepting expensive processes such as desalination or those filters that let you drink your own urine).

As others have stated, price fixing (and farming allocations/subsidies) exacerbates this problem and legislated rationing doesn’t solve it. These measures are aimed at making drinking water accessible to everyone, but they really just enable a particular standard of living and unsustainable population growth.

Higher water prices wouldn’t cause people to die of thirst; they would simply cause people to cut back on unnecessary water usage as well as other expenditures to cover the additional cost. This includes welfare recipients (although they would probably just get a cost of living increase). Maybe this would reduce industrial water usage as production is cut back. If food and water become more scarce, then food and water should take up a larger chunk of peoples’ budgets, and more marginal food/water production methods will become viable. If new innovations are able to reduce prices, then people can spend more on other purposes. This is how the market quickly and dynamically adjusts to compensate for natural scarcity. Laws don’t do this.

Rather than dump on environmentalists in general, Austrians need to emphasize how the market can in fact handle dynamic environmental problems more effectively and efficiently than legislation can. The whole “economists vs. environmentalists” pseudo-debate is counterproductive on both sides. Environmentalists could devise more effective campaigns with a better understanding of economics (and praxeology in general) that would promote more voluntary conservation through lower time preferences. Likewise, economists could make more effective arguments against draconian legislation by showing a willingness to more fully understand the environmental system dynamics being discussed rather than brushing off all greens as tree-hugging nazis.

Only the Austrians maintain a respect for REAL capital and costs while other schools only see what limited nominal information the stats can show them. This understanding is crucial in considering environmental issues within an economic framework. The environmentalist cause could provide a viable and appropriate market for Austrian theory if it were presented in a palatable manner and context.

Chris January 8, 2010 at 5:56 am

well, of course the good people of the USA could always just develop better toilets … I still recall my first trip to the USA in 1979, and wondered why my Aunts toilet seemed blocked. The strange pond of water which I saw just looked odd.

Now after having lived in Japan, Korea India and European countries (as well as my native Australia) I am still left wondering “just why do you guys know how to put a guy on the moon, but not know how to make a propper dunny?”

got me stumped there

Chris January 8, 2010 at 6:01 am


ohh … sorry about the double post, but when Sandra above wrote “The low-flush toilet does indeed cause health problems. But you missed a big part of the story. This environmental solution to a environmental problem also causes further environmental problems.

she is bang on the money, in fact that’s the real issue with the low flush devices.

NicholasA January 8, 2010 at 6:34 pm

Hmmm… I think you overdid it on this one…

1) We have a Toto. They are better than any toilet I have ever used previously and yes, 1.6 gal.
2) But… perhaps our “performance” is better, BECAUSE we are EATING BETTER! High-fiber diets are probably not causing blockage, whereas most American’s are eating more and more meat, which is NOT as healthy (and probably creates, well, you know… stiffer stuff).
3) Any argument for over-consumption / waste really doesn’t fly… at least not in a world with ever increasing population. Go net neutral, show me sustainability and then you can flush more water!

Newbie January 9, 2010 at 2:23 pm

O man that was hilarious. And so true. Still got the old 3.5 gal because the house is older. Flushes just fine.

Gary January 9, 2010 at 3:13 pm

I loved it! Thank you!

Shay January 9, 2010 at 3:34 pm

NicholasA wrote, “But… perhaps our “performance” is better, BECAUSE we are EATING BETTER! High-fiber diets are probably not causing blockage, whereas most American’s are eating more and more meat, which is NOT as healthy (and probably creates, well, you know… stiffer stuff).”

So are you saying that it’s your business how other people eat, or how loose their stool is? If they want to pay a miniscule amount for a larger-tanked toilet and for the miniscule amount of extra water it uses, why the hell should I care? If it means I don’t have people monitoring my stool regularly, it’s worth every extra gallon of water these people use.

A. Wheeler January 9, 2010 at 7:38 pm

On the bright side, old house salvage stores still sell the older 5 gallon models. And they look better, anyway.

NicholasA January 10, 2010 at 8:39 pm

Uh Shaw… I think you are spending a bit too much on this…
1) again, there is no argument for waste of resources in a world with increasing population, regardless of how little you believe the extra water costs at this particular time; water will be the #1 resource disaster of the future; it already is in many parts of the world…
2) perhaps, if more people were advocating for healthier diet, the health care debate would not exist
3) my observation was a personal statement, not a facist concept of forcing people to be responsible

DTY January 11, 2010 at 6:06 pm

For more than ten years I have been using the federal law making it a crime to sell a toilet that uses more than 1.6 gal./flush as an example of clearly unconstitutional oppression. Try it yourself with your socialist friends: ask them to show you the clause in the Constitution that authorizes congress to pass such a law. That will put them in the position of having to admit that they believe the Constitution to be meaningless.

Several years ago a close friend worked on Johnston Island–a largely secret US base in the mid-Pacific. There was a real fresh water problem there: there was none! All potable water was produced in a distillation plant by the base management contractor. Guess what: the toilets were flushed with sea water! Seems like a good application for a gray-water system also (well maybe not so good for the family dog!).

Someone mentioned composting toilets. Have you ever actually had to use one? They’re a real pain in the ass: high maintenance, hard to use, big, ugly. And guess what: governments in many places have severe restrictions on what you can do with the compost–don’t try to put it on your garden, or dispose of it uphill from any wells, etc. (Call your local health department and ask.)

BTW, the two-button toilets are quite common in Mexico where I live now. They seem to work OK, as long as the high flush uses enough water to clear the solids.

The last place I worked in the US before retiring went through several attempts to install low-flush toilets that worked. After several disastrous floods (there were no floor drains in the bathrooms) they finally settled on some forced-flush models that used an air tank, charged by water pressure, as a jet. One of them (I think a Kohler) worked pretty well, but it seemed to require repairs rather frequently. The other toilet in the mens’ room (I don’t remember what brand) sort of worked, but still not as good as a 5 gal. flush.

Bonnie Donaldson January 13, 2010 at 2:26 pm

I just checked this article’s blog comments for the first time and am amazed at how many there are. It makes me want to add some potty humor. Maybe my comment will be the one that flushes this article down the sewer.

You people need to leave the populous areas and come out to the truly remote areas.

I live out in the middle of nowhere and there are absolutely no rules about water or waste or housing laws or anything else. I don’t think we’re allowed to kill anyone unless they break down the door, but the last word I heard was that, if you do, always drag the body inside the door if you intend to call the law. Otherwise, just bury it yourself.

B January 16, 2010 at 2:38 pm

“Toilets have always been clogged, and we’ve always been at war with Eastasia.”

Well, I for one have had problems with even what are now the old toilets. That said, the old high flow flush ones are better more times than not. And I am not getting rid of the two high-flow toilets I have unless parts become an issue.

Some low flows are miserable. Some are ok, some are pretty good. It depends. The patents make it impossible for the market to standardize on the best design for low-flow as time had accomplished for the prior toilets.

My guess is that government finds it easier to mandate how much water a toilet should use than improve waste treatment facilities and water distribution. These are systems that are often 50 to 100+ years old, at least in some critical areas.

To modernize waste treatment as the population grows would mean using tax money as the people want it used instead of what the government office holders and bureaucrats want. To avoid spending money on treatment plants they must keep the amount of water to be treated down, hence the low flow toilet mandate?

Kirk January 18, 2010 at 8:41 am

I suspected that there were some unintended problems with reducing flush size and concentrating waste. Yep, we are looking at a problem down the line. Keep in mind that diarrhea is worlds biggest killer, so waste disposal is a serious issue.

Here’s what one engineer told me:
Never wondered a bit until I worked for a while as an engineer in the wastewater industry.

One of the more pressing infrastructure problems in the US is the use of lower flow faucets, showerheads, toilets, etc, which lead to a more concentrated waste stream.

During the time it takes your waste to flow from your house to the treatment plant, it decomposes anaerobically (no oxygen) into – among other things – hydrogen sulfide. Aside from smelling like rotten eggs, hydrogen sulfide dissolved in water makes sulfuric acid which eats away at iron and steel pipe as well as concrete.

Since waste streams are now more concentrated, so too is the sulfuric acid, accelerating the “sewer rot”. The design life of such infrastructure is constantly being revised down – the stuff simply doesn’t last as long as it used to.

So now I am environmentally destructive both by using more water and by using less. Hooray…

Jeff Larson December 8, 2010 at 12:29 pm

Mr. Tucker, I think you have some important parts of this sad story wrong. Like so many ills in our society, this arose from an unholy collusion between big business and government.

Plumbing fixture manufacturers faced numerous local ordinances in communities where water is scarce (or environmentalists hyperactive), each requiring that a flush be no larger than X gallons, with X varying from community to community. Rather than make 20 different sizes of toilets, the fixture manufacturers banded together and lobbied for one consistant set of requirements across the whole country. Just like in Communist countries, we arrived at “one size fits all”. The proprietary designs and the research needed to produce a toilet that flushes moderately well at 1.6 gallons effectively forms a barrier to entry to the market. Before you can even think about building a factory to make new toilets, you must first have a working 1.6 gallon design that doesn’t vioate anyone else’s patents. That’s not a problem for Crane or Kohler or even Toto from overseas, but it certainly would be a problem for any new players.

This also affects showerheads, which are also flow-restricted. It’s why multiple showerheads are so popular in custom bathrooms…with enough showerheads, it doesn’t matter that each one only pumps out a tiny dribble.

There is a simple solution to the toilet problem, if your pipes can handle it. Ever notice that in places like airports and football stadiums, there is no tank on the toilets? That’s because they are connected directly to the water lines through a device called a flush-o-meter that measures out a preset amount of water whenever you throw the handle or push the button or activate the IR flush-o-meter circuit (designs vary). You would need a dedicated 3/4″ line from your main to the toilet, but given that, you could have a 3.5 gallon “blowout” toilet, just like the ones used in airports, stadiums and even prisons.

If you want water conservation, I’m a big fan of waterless urinals. True, they only affect about 50% of the population, but why waste even 1.6 gallons every time you pee? If you are building a new home, or have the space when you refit an old one, put in a urinal (of any type). You’ll be amazed at how much easier it is to keep the toilet clean and tidy, and you’ll save water whenever any male has to empty his bladder.

J. Murray December 8, 2010 at 12:41 pm

What is the comparative installation cost, maintenance cost (I find those blowout toilets to be out of order more frequently than the traditional ones), and other associated downsides? If they were so wonderful, the market would have likely moved to them already.

Jeff Larson December 8, 2010 at 1:45 pm

The cost of the toilet is on par with a conventional one. Maintenance is very easy; no one wants to have to fix dozens of toilets (they are usually only instilled where there is great “demand”). The real catches are that they require a 3/4″ service, which would be very unusual in a residential setting, they are usually wall-hung instead of free standing (which is more of a plumbing problem than a room design problem), and that they violate some housing codes (because they’re not 1.6 gallon toilets).

It is also possible to get a 1.6 flush-o-meter toilet and then refit it with a 3.5 gallon flush-o-meter after the inspector leaves. But you still need the 3/4″ service.

Bryan T March 8, 2011 at 4:35 pm

It seems to me the problem with our toilet water is the requirement that potable water be used in toilets. This really doesn’t make sense, with the exception of our dogs becoming accustomed to drinking out of them. It might be more expensive, but if we used grey water to flush our toilets, no one would be concerned about the volume used, it would be treated so it was returned to our water system without pollution (unlike some rural grey water disposal), and we’d be free to flush 5 gallons at a time. Probably a more practical solution for those of us who live in the country and already have a septic tank storing waste water, what’s one more tank?

Stainless Steel Brisbane July 27, 2011 at 1:39 am

It is so nice! Worth to read!

artificial grass California September 18, 2011 at 1:23 pm

wow.. this is really nice. thank you for sharing your post.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: