WaterSense Regulation
“WaterSense” regulation required a 20% reduction in water use on tank-type toilets compared to standards adopted in 1992.
That’s when the standard flush went from 3.5 gallons to 1.6 gallons. Smuggling toilets from Canada through Detroit soon began but eventually people were forced to accept the smaller flush.
In 2016, California set the maximum flush to 1.28 gallons. Activists want further reductions. Trump has had enough of it.
Please consider Trump Orders Toilet Rule Review, Saying People Flush 10 Times
The president on Friday said he ordered a federal review of water efficiency standards in bathroom fixtures and complained that “people are flushing toilets 10 times, 15 times as opposed to once” in homes with low-flow appliances. He said other bathroom fixtures have slowed water to a trickle.
“You can’t wash your hands practically, there’s so little water comes out of the faucet, and the end result is you leave the faucet on and it takes you much longer to wash your hands, you end up using the same amount of water,” Trump said at an event with small-business owners at the White House.
The president said it was “common sense” to review standards he said resulted in showers with water “quietly dripping out” and toilets that “end up using more water” because of repeat flushing.
While the president said the Environmental Protection Agency was looking at the standards “at my suggestion,” a review of the WaterSense program was mandated under 2018 legislation passed by Congress that said the agency should look at any regulations adopted before 2012. That means the government is forced to revisit specifications for tank-type toilets, lavatory faucets and faucet accessories, showerheads, flushing urinals, and weather-based irrigation controllers.
Orange Lights Also Questioned
Trump also want a review of light bulb energy efficiency requirements imposed under President Barack Obama.
Trump complains the new regulations make him look orange.
I am not sure where he is coming from on this, because it is the standard warm-white incandescent bulb that has an orangish tint.
Alleged Water Savings
The EPA says an average family can save $380 in water costs per year and save more than 17 gallons per day by using appliances certified to WaterSense standards.
Thanks to activists, it’s difficult get an appliance that does not meet WaterSense standards.
We have our own well and ample supply so we will not save a dime. Besides, it should be up to the individual to decide whether the savings is worth it or not, especially in places where there are no water issues.
Expect More Clogs
Amusingly, this issue came up Thursday evening in our household when a toilet clogged.
On Friday, when that article came out, we had a big “about time” laugh.
There is no way you can convince me that these damn 1.28 gallon tanks flush as well.
And now, you can find 1.1 and even 0.96 gallon per flush models which no doubt California will adopt.
More clogs coming up, especially in California.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Buy a Toto — incredible! The Japanese obsession with poop disposal has produced amazing results! Better have long sweep PVC or ABS turns with proper venting though.
All I know is that I replace light bulbs at a faster rate than I did with incandescents. The Halogens, the LEDs don’t last. They overheat and burn out quicker. More crapola in the waste fill.
Trump is right again. The 1.6 toilets work OK in most situations the 1.28 won’t flush solid waste. Even with 1.6 you still need three flushes. All this “water saving” has the city running rooter trucks flushing the sewer lines in our city. The lack of water is clogging the pipes. I see the trucks daily.
That’s fine, i’ll just go take a **** on the courthouse lawn.
“WaterSense Regulation”
During a previous drought, L.A. mayor Villaragosa got caught watering his lawn when he wasn’t supposed to be.
What kind of toilets do the California political elites have in their homes?
Historically, L.A. only has gotten about 15 inches of rain per year on average.
A lot of water usage is spent on watering lawns during the dry season. When it rains, the water flowing into the L.A. river goes right out to sea. None is used for human consumption. A local water resource wasted.
A few places in LA County have small reservoirs to catch and use rainwater now, but that makes too much sense so it probably won’t catch on.
“We have our own well and ample supply so we will not save a dime.”
And, you are only 13% of the population.
Should we make toilets for the 13%? I think not.
how about every state that does not have a water problem?
Population-wise more than half the country
I’m not sure “we”, as in you and me, should be making toilets together at all.
But if you want to produce something, you can do a lot worse than picking a market consisting of 13% of the US population.
” picking a market”? We are talking about government dictates here, not consumer choice.
I think you’re all crazy if you think the government has any business deciding on what toilets we can buy. How about letting consumers buy what they want and the market decide on what is built?
When it comes to policies that make sense, California has always been full of s#%*. The unintended consequences of low-flow aren’t inconsequential.
Solution to the clogged toilets/septic systems and double/triple flush may now rest in policies that address fiber intake. Until that happens, I’m long on plungers and plumbers.
It depends on where you are and whether the government there has its head out of its ass. I would gladly pay a little more for water to get something I don’t have to plunge every other time. Maybe a happy medium, 2.5 gallons. I heard him and an inadequate shower is also defeating the purpose. To be honest, Trump is battling a bunch of borderline communist Malthusians. When was development ever sustainable? Remember, we were supposed to have used the last drop of oil by now and everyone on earth was supposed to have starved by now. The left would have us in the stone age in 20 years.
I think trump must have a dart board of topics of sacred cows that will annoy the California liberals. Triggering Gavin Newsome in 3..2..1
I had to laugh like a hyena today when I read this elsewhere, but I am still disturbed though by the image of the size of the dump he took that required 15 flushes of his toilet. I guess solid gold toilets just don’t work as well.
But in fact there is a tiny bit of truth to his complaint, local sewage workers will attest to this, it takes a certain level of water flow to push solids down the pipes to the sewage treatment plants, too little water and the sewage does not get pushed, and those systems with a steeper grade to the pipes need less water, but cities that are basically at sea level or otherwise cannot have their treatment plants at a lower elevation than the customers using the system must have higher water usage to create that flow.
And because the far fringe left who think they are well informed and know everything ALWAYS take any problem and blow it up to epic proportions then spread panic about it and demand the most absurd solutions it is obvious to me that they might as well just skip right to the absurd solution here, no water using toilets at all, but a requirement that people install composting toilets. Yes, you may say EWWWwwww! now.
“Incandescent are continuous full spectrum emitters.”
Definitely NOT
As a photographer I can tell you that is total nonsense.
I have GE full spectrum lights that are very accurate but I gave up on the things because they are damn expensive and last about 10% of the rated hours if that. Constantly burning out, sometimes after just a few weeks.
The point is moot because even if I wanted them, they are now banned.
Without a doubt, the standard “warm white” is orange-yellow, likely varying greatly by manufacturer.
Fluorescents are extremely green so LEDs are a vast improvement.
LEDs tend to be cool (blueish, not warm or orangeish). But again this varies by manufacturer.
We now have new approved LEDs.
BLUE BLUE BLUE – Not orange, regardless of manufacturer and I have pictures to prove it.
The damn things hum in the bathroom even though I paid extra for brands that supposedly won’t.
Fortunately, it is only one set of bathroom lights that don’t work. They only hum when dimmed even though I paid extra for dimmable. I have new dimmable stitches too. So I cannot figure out what is wrong.
Finally, the LEDs are way less blue than fluorescents are green, or warm whites are orange. The LED color is tolerable, similar in fact to “cool white”. But the size and the way they stick out from fixtures not designed for them is downright ugly.
I trust what my eye sees and camera records, not what Trump says.
Mish
”
“Incandescent are continuous full spectrum emitters.”
Definitely NOT
As a photographer I can tell you that is total nonsense.
“
?????????
I don’t know what kind of “incandescent” bulbs you are used to, but heating a body/wire until it glows, emits a full, continuous spectrum of “light.” (Not all visible)
At realistic light bulb temperatures, a spectrum very biased towards longer wavelengths vs the sun/daylight; but continuous and full spectrum nonetheless.
Such emitters are horribly inefficient at emitting visible light, though; since far and away most of the energy is emitted as infrared. The GE bulbs you talk about, are likely the high efficiency, high filament temperature ones, which are much more efficient at emitting visible light, and has a closer to daylight color balance. Those do move the balance further into the visible spectrum, but at the cost of much shorter filament life. They all work the same way, though. And emit a full, continuous spectrum.
Here are spectrum drawings of a very low temp/warm/red-biased incandescent:
And from a typical fluorescent:
A very different beast indeed. And if Trump’s hair falls right in that huge low-600s emissions peak…….
I have never heard of a model, make up crew, exhibition curator nor image buying client complain of weird color shifts under incandescent lighting, as long as the film/sensor white balance is adjusted to match the light source. Something which for regular, not specifically designed for photo use-, fluorescent lighting; it’s pretty much a given. There’s just no way to simply adjust the white balance to match those crazy, choppy emission spectra.
Heck, I’ve spent lots of time futzing with the darned things, and while the latest “full spectrum” leds and fluorescents are certainly workable for most things, I wouldn’t want my kids’ eyes to develop under constant exposure to nothing but such truncated and unnatural spectra.
Even the very latest “99 CRI” wonders are still rather hacked up, if you look closely. Great for commercial use in big spaces where you need lots of light. Or for portable use. But still a pretty unnatural light source, for eyes which have evolved over millions of years to respond specifically to continuous spectra.
If you live in a hotbox and run AC all the time; fine, go ahead and install professional, ultrahigh CRI photoleds. But as soon as the AC is off, I’d still say you’re better off heating your house with waste heat from filament lightbulbs, than from using dedicated heating appliances to accomplish exactly the same thing.
Today’s “white” LED lamps have much in common with fluorescents. Typically, they have a monochromatic blue LED source and phosphor is used to fluoresce the blue into other parts of the white spectrum which would be missing (similarly, fluorescent bulbs use a UV source and phosphor to produce white light). Good phosphors are relatively expensive, so cheaper LED lamps tend to look blue and have lower color rendering indexes (CRI). They also have cheaper power supplies that sometimes cause a high frequency flicker. The best LED lamps have CRIs as good as 95+ and do not flicker. Inexpensive LED lamps have CRIs of about 80 and may flicker. That said, high price is no guaranty of better phosphors or better LED driver circuits.
Many compact fluorescent lamps have a CRI of 80-85. Despite different lamps having the same CRI, I too have noticed that different fluorescent manufacturers do have unique phosphor formulas which tend to be biased toward a particular hue. Some manufactures are indeed biased toward green. I have also observed LED lamp phosphors are similarly biased toward a particular hue, but have also not seen one biased toward green.
Dimming LED lamps is tricky, since they have complex power supplies (drivers) which must electronically synthesize a dimming effect from a dimmer circuit also compatible with incandescent lamps. LED drivers are often a poor load match for dimmers, even the ones advertised as LED “compatible.” Needless to say, many combinations of LED lamps and dimmers are not truly compatible despite them being advertised as such. A slightly incompatible combination will usually behave much better if one installs a single incandescent lamp somewhere on the same circuit will all the other lamps being LED. Slight incompatibilities can also sometimes be resolved by trying a different make and model of “compatible” dimmer.
I have had good luck with certain brands, but a combination that works well is often a matter of trial and error.
“Despite different lamps having the same CRI, I too have noticed that different fluorescent manufacturers do have unique phosphor formulas which tend to be biased toward a particular hue”
Like all simplifications, the CRI is very simplified… Surprise 🙂 And like in other fields (cough “economics” cough…), many of those reporting the measures, prefer consumers of them remaining ignorant about that….
The most often reported CRI value only covers 8 narrow specific, reference hues. With the most egregious omission, for anyone interested in emulating true full visual spectrum light, being red/deep red.
Specialist lighting suppliers will list emissions in R bands beyond the base 8. In particular R9, the red one. But red is both harder to emit, ends up lowering efficiency, and doesn’t add as much to “visual acuity” as shorter wavelengths (hence isn’t as “necessary” for typical “task lighting”), so outside of photographic fields and product display lighting, it is often just brushed aside. But if you want proper skin tones, both in pictures and living humans, you need to look a bit deeper than just base CRI.
I agree CRI specification is not sufficient for photography and other demanding lighting applications. When one actually looks at the spectrum being emitted by fluorescent phosphors, there are always many weak spots and holes in the emissions compared to halogen sources. I thought Mish was lighting a bathroom (possibly for wife’s makeup use?). Anyhow, if one wants very accurate color with artificial light, halogen or some other color corrected incandescent are still the best.
Not sure what happened to the reply to you I posted last night. It posted fine yesterday, but then disappeared overnight. I don’t know if you can see it in admin accessible logs.
I actually went and dug up spectrum graph links, so the software may have flagged it as spam. They were all from Wikimedia, though. So no covert “advertising” for any product. Just basic illustrations of spectral emissions from an incandescent vs a common fluorescent.
Almost all LED bulbs are labeled “daylight” or “cool white” or “bright white”, and typically are rated 4000-6000 Kelvin. I won’t use those at home because blue light, whether from your fixtures, your phone, or your computer screen, interferes with sleep by making your body think it is sunlight. If you search enough, you can find orange tint, aka “warm white” or “antique” with a Kelvin rating from 2300-2800, but it will take some work.
Personally, I prefer 3200-3500°K lamps. This is close to the color temperature of halogen lamps which it what we replace all our traditional incandescent lamps with about 15 years ago.
I only buy lamps (bulbs) that state the color temperature on them. None of these vague descriptors for me. CRI is also important.
“Daylight” spectrum bulbs are supposed to better in a workplace however.
“because it is the standard warm-white incandescent bulb that has an orangish tint.”
Incandescent are continuous full spectrum emitters. Like black bodies. They are lower temperature than the sun, hence have their emissions skewed towards longer, redder, wavelengths. But they don’t have spikes anywhere, the way fluorescents do, so there is nothing particularly orange about them.
The most common fluorescents, do have a huge spike in the low 600 nanometer range. Right in the orange band. That narrow orange band, is where almost all the “red-tone” emissions are concentrated. Just as there is another similar spike in the middle of green, and two lower separate ones covering blue. Together adding up to RGB, but with a very choppy spectrum, which will certainly overemphasize hues which happen to be particularly reflective of exactly the same wavelengths as the spikes. Like Trump’s orange hair.
The Donald may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but he is a showman. And as such, almost certainly a very astute and self-critical observer of what makes numero uno look his best, and of what makes him look unusually silly.
Mish,
You are looking at some personal anecdotes and trying to pretend that The Dumpster® was making a rational comment. He was not. He is not rational. Notice that he complained about the light bulbs before the toilets.
But, “light bulb energy efficiency requirements imposed under President Barack Obama” is false as the Shrub was President and not Obummer.
P.S. Buy Toto toilets and you will flush just fine.
I hate the flourescent light bulbs. They are supposed to last a long time (in theory, apparently) but they don’t last as long as the old bulbs. Plus the mercury in them will end up causing pollution. Maybe they don’t last as long because they are made in China (like everything else made in China).
This from a guy who did not support Obama’s auto industry save but yet he supports Trump who has spent MORE THAN TWICE AS MUCH AS THE AUTO INDUSTRY SAVE ON (LARGELY WEALTHY CORPORATE) FARM SUBSIDY BONUSES THE LAST YEAR. And even though the huge extra farm subisidies DID NOT EVEN REQUIRE FAILED CROPS OR CROPS TO EVEN BE PLANTED. PURE WELFARE.
I think the flush authorities may be onto something with this limited volume thingy. Here in California, we’ve bankrupted our largest utility by diverting a huge chunk of it’s maintenance revenue stream to tree hugger projects for decades. The utility, in turn, has resorted to rolling blackouts in self defense against the circling army of ambulance chasers anytime there’s a rumor of a possibility of a fire, understandably.
I drove up to LA this morning and was shocked to see how third-world the Gower St. exit on the Hollywood Freeway is today; Tijuana and Olangapo’s main drags now appear prosperous by comparison.
I’m considering proposing to the tree hugger authorities that a rolling flush ban be adopted in areas afflicted with growing tent cities, with the water savings diverted into a fleet of tank trucks randomly roaming the streets and periodically flushing the whole mess to lower ground.
You’re welcome, Gavin; Don’t mention it.
LOL who do you think you are kidding? ” Here in California, we’ve bankrupted our largest utility by diverting a huge chunk of it’s maintenance revenue stream to tree hugger projects for decades.”
That maintenance money is lining the pockets of the shareholders though you do give away your biased opinion when you associate competent forest management with wasteful mismanagement. I also note you do not cite a single example of such tree hugging projects.
PG&E only resorted to blackouts with recent fire weather because they did over $13.5 billion in damage and killed a lot of people because of their shoddy and criminally negligent refusal to do proper maintenance. The company is and has always been profitable so lack of proper upkeep on transmission lines and towers is purely a function of raiding the revenue stream for the benefit of shareholders. The executives that made these decisions should be stripped of their assets and put in prison.
If PG&E was “lining the pockets of shareholders” dramatically more than other companies, it must have been a wonderful stock to hold, right? Forget Amazon. Forget Google. Those stocks have been pikers. We should have bought PG&E.
PG&E may have wasted a lot of resources on “tree hugging” projects, or it may have been charging too little for its product, or it may have been overpaying its employees. Or it may have been doing all of these and more. But establishing what’s what would be a matter of checking their books, not checking our fantasies.
Absolutely Herkie, those horrible electricity providers need to be accountable for every tree branch that falls on an electric line in high winds. (that is what caused the Thomas Fire). Most of the electric companies in CA have gone to blackout areas now when the wind picks up. The Tesla owners better make sure their cars are charged up before they have to evacuate.
I hate to go against the flow here, since I too believe we should not have this regulation in place, but I have several 1.28 gpf toilets that work great. They flush much more vigorously than the old 3+ gpf toilets at my father’s house. I think you just need to buy top quality toilets at any gpf.
Granted, I love vegetables and whole grains as much as I love meat, so YMMV.
Mish: you said you were moving to Utah? Funny story there and a great example how gubberment works (or doesn’t). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2iOQnSt8dI
So that is why there is so much poop on the sidewalks on CA – the toilets don’t flush and get clogged.
If they want, they can give an energy start rating to the current models, but these flush thrice toilets just don’t work. Trump is pro-Choice!
In other news, portland will ban Urinals since they are men only, and in no little irony you can have flushless urinals (they have a blue mineral oil or such fluid that keeps floating above the trap level
Funny, as urinals will use less water than toilets but work well for the purpose. As to flushless? They don’t really work. We had one placed 20 years ago and it finally got taken out. You need a certain level of water to keep the sewer lines clean.
The special oil that goes into the waterless urinals costs more than $300 per QUART.
My 1.6 gallon toilets actually work quite well, but they were relatively expensive. The designs of these toilets have improved significantly over the last 20 years. Regulation is apparently the new mother of invention. If these toilets can handle one of my loads they have to be good. However, I find the claim that they will save me hundreds of dollars per year in water costs to be a load rivaling one of my own.
Fortunately, the all encompassing government is there to make these difficult economic decisions for simpletons like myself.
Bureaucrats should not be regulating every single breath we take. They don’t have the authority. The extremists have extended the governments assumed (but illegal) powers to the point of total absurdity.
Enough with political correctness and enough with the nanny state.
The low flush toilets are often so bad that now you have many with dual flush for either #1 or #2. But often they don’t work well. The new lighting efficiency standards here just add quite a bit of cost.
This is how stupid it gets in California: the buildings are sealed so tight for efficiency that it is now mandated that you keep an exhaust fan on at all times to bring in fresh air.
They’re not sealed a fraction as well as they ought to be.
A Passivehaus is much, much better sealed. To the point where building one means providing people with what Trump guys would call “good jobs,” as sealing to that standard is not entirely trivial, the way slapping together junk to current California standards is.
I would personally argue even Passivehaus isn’t quite there, as I’d prefer to be able to hole up for a few months to years after an event producing lots of fine nuclear fallout, but I may have unusually high standards. Not standards which would be even remotely difficult to meet for the selling price of a house anywhere near San Francisco, though…. Assuming the money spent went towards having competent work done by competent people, that is. Instead of to feed idle idiots too incompetent to produce anything of value whatsoever, which is the current obsession.
There are really only two proper optima on the sealing curve wrt buildings: Either leaking, as in breathing, like an old log house; or sealed like a under-polar-ice nuclear sub designed for 6 month stints under. Anything in between, is just an invitation to mold growth. And not of the kind of “natural”, possibly beneficial mold which may grow on largely untreated, solid wood allowed to breathe properly.
President Trump is complaining. How unusual.
California toilets work fine if you run 40 miles per week and emphasize vegetables in the diet. Trust me!
He’s right… especially when it comes to replacing a 40+ year old toilet that was designed to flush into cast iron drains that pitch 1/4 inch per foot, with a 1.3 gallon flush that is designed for 1/8 inch per foot pitch PVC drain pipe. As far as California goes, they’re the experts at flushing all kinds of things.