I’m a middle-aged man, so you can guess what this blog is about…

Yes, that’s right, bathroom fixtures!

Today we are examining the high-tech, highly political, and seriously flawed attempt at conservation by reducing the rate at which your plumbing can deliver water.

I lived in my house for over 20 years and the bathroom fixtures are showing their age.  In something resembling temporary insanity I bought a couple of new faucets.  They were chosen because they were attractive and reasonably priced.  I never even knew there was an issue with the water flow rate.  After all, we’ve been making water faucets since there has been indoor plumbing – why should they change now?

But change they have…

After installing my pretty new fixtures, I was disappointed to find water flows from them much more slowly than the originals.  My first thought was a manufacturing defect.  What’s wrong with these things, I thought?  After some inquiry I learned I must actually thank my government for this.  Since 1994 federal regulations have placed upper limits on the water flow rates of bathroom faucets.  My research led me to the EPA website (www.epa.gov) where I was disappointed to find a classic case of government Newspeak.  On this website the low-flow faucets, which I initially thought were defective, are called “High Efficiency” faucets.  They may as well be called doubleplusgood faucets!

It seems “legal” bathroom faucets must conform to the EPA WaterSense® program specified American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) A112.18.1 standard.  In brief this standard sets the maximum flow rate of 1.5 gallons per minute (gpm) for the common household water pressure of 60 pounds per square inch (psi).  This is, as Colonel Sherman Potter would say, “Horse Hockey” (if you are too young to understand this, look it up).

Don’t get me wrong.  I’m as “green” as anybody.  I conscientiously recycle and turn water off when I’m not using it.  I absolutely agree it makes sense to re-engineer the classic design of the flushing toilet.  This makes sense with a toilet because the device autonomously uses the designed amount of water.  Faucets, however, do not.  They are – oh what’s the word I’m looking for – ummm – oh yes!  Adjustable!  Legislating an upper flow rate of a trickle is not sanitation engineering, it’s social engineering.  Even worse, it is misdirected social engineering.  This was done so I would use less water but that has not been the result.  Instead of a short quick blast of water to rinse my toothbrush, I have to let the water trickle onto the brush and rub my thumb back and forth.  Cleaning my twin-blade razor is even worse.  I can’t blast it with water and rubbing my thumb on it doesn’t seem like a good idea.

The flushing toilet was designed when the world population was about 1 billion.  It seems reasonable to revisit this design now that 5 billion more people are flushing.  The inefficiency of the WC has long been recognized.  Thrifty people back in the time of your grandparents would put a brick in a toilet’s water basin so less water would be used.  However, and I’m back on my engineering quality horse again, when you ship a product it should actually work.  The first reduced water toilets were, to be frank, a piece of crap.  Many of them had to be flushed two and three times and, therefore, actually consumed more water when one considered real-world usage.

As I researched my “defective” faucets I found claims that these low-flow devices reduced water consumption by 30% or more.  Balderdash!  This isn’t about the arithmetic of comparing the maximum flow of traditional and crippled faucets.  It’s about social behavior.  I guarantee, based on my own behavior, water saving is minimal if any because the slow water jet is not strong enough to accomplish rapid rinsing.  Instead, the legislated trickle rinses and rinses and slowly does the job.

I applaud industry and government attempts to conserve our dwindling resources, but get it right and be realistic.  Don’t create some imaginary world where there is some arithmetic relation between obstructed water flow and water savings.  MP3 became a spectacular success because it was designed around the real world of human perception.  Those who legislate the behavior of our bathroom fixtures would do well to get out of their ivory towers and consider actual human usage.

Let me say again, unlike the toilet, a faucet is adjustable – ADJUSTABLE!

Do not assume I use water with malicious intent.  These low-flow and certainly not high efficiency faucets were designed with the unwarranted assumption that the government knows better than me how to save water in my bathroom.

Bad idea.  Bad, bad idea.

If you want me to save water, tell me to save water.  If I don’t save enough, penalize me in some fashion – perhaps by raising the price of water.  If water costs enough, I guarantee I can save more with personal effort than you can force me to save by crippling my faucet.

What were you guys thinking and how has this gone on for so many years?