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.

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.

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…

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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.