When did "federal flow rate standards" become a "legal limit?" What does California prohibition have to do with Seattle?

I must chime in with Thomas' query, as well. I'm very much in support of environmental responsibility, but that must (forgive the pun) flow from free choice. "Mother May I" approaches invariably fail. Their only success is in jading the populace through ever-shifting "standards" dependent on current political climate and which special interest group can afford the most luxurious bribes, which results in far worse environmental consequences in the end.

I live in Seattle. Even more interesting is why Dietemann had to send the showerheads to California for testing. Isn't it pretty easy to stick a bucket under the water and time how full it gets in a minute? Wonder how much that study cost us taxpayers...

Maybe if they didn't subsidize water, people wouldn't waste it?
libertarianyouth dot blogspot dot com

Here we go again. An example of government regulatiing the lives of its citizens. People should and ought to have the right to use, and, yes, install whatever showerheads they would like. Federal and state regulations be damned.

It is these kind of things that really burn me up. Nevertheless, this is the society we live in today. A society where government grows and overreaches and where liberties are then taken.

Very Upsetting

maybe if there wasn't all that polluted water in the first place we would have more water.

Yuppies, greed, developers, to many people.

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/DickMorris/011106.html

Another option they didn't add, how about we get LIBERTARIANS in office.

Hmmmm, is this like the the water saving toilets that I have to flush at least twice. Will people have to take two showers in the future?

"maybe if there wasn't all that polluted water in the first place we would have more water.

Yuppies, greed, developers, to many people."

Maybe we should use environmentalism as a war against capitalism....Marxist, land takers, too many bureaucrats.

Let coke and pepsi own the water. They can add splenda to all the water. I love splenda! AquaFina is a good water also.

Ryan,I like your retort. I think you would like Reason's article on ''Corporate Environmentalism''. Also, on there being too many people: if the entire population lived with a density like NYC, the whole world could live in Texas.

The central planners are probably right; Seattle is doomed. How can it be feasible for anything other than centrally planned market for water and water delivery products exist in a costal city located in the rainiest corner of the country?

After acknowledging the sad state that statism is in I have to stop and laugh at how far the collectivists have come. As in this example they’re with me even in my morning shower, er drizzle as it may be.

Out of curiosity, has anybody seen statistical information breaking down water usage by usage type in a sample market or even nationally? What is the usage delta on the whole between a system of free-flow heads and a system of low-flow heads? It would be interesting to see the relative usage from home showers against usages such as industrial, home landscaping, etc. I have a suspicion that the statistics would show that the portion of water going to showers is a relatively small proportion. Such that I’d have to guess low-flow shower heads would not be near the top of a conservationist’s wish list.

Some research would be good. I would also bet that a shower is the least harmful activity for the environment. How many years have people and animals been washing in water and we still have potable water?

Posted by: Ryan at January 11, 2006 05:48 PM

Maybe there are good inventors out there that have ways to not only conserve this planet but ways to save cost.

The problem.
Government, cities, with their code inspections, rules and regulations.

One female in an article had a hard time trying to build a self sufficient dome house here in California because of all the beauracracy crap.

Let us make our own electric, ways to cook and have water wells, guess what, Government steps in and charge us or pentalize us by code telling us we can't do such and such.

This includes foods as well, vitamins/pills, health industries want to put more garbage in our bodies to correct the garbage we consumed that wasn't good for us in the first place because for them it means more money in health care to send us to the poor house.. Like now they are saying which I already figured eating cloned food is not good for you.

Yes lets have enviromentalist providing it not way out of line to be our allies in not only preserving our freedom but our life.

This planet will look like a city planet from starwars where we will lose the beauty if it doesn't stop.

Whatta country. I'm going to go watch "Demolition Man".

Perhaps they should make a regulation on the control of toilet paper now that would be interesing... I wonder who would study that?

103,000 voters elected me to the local Soil & Water Conservation District.
Read how I try to make it cost-effective.
http://SoilWater.homestead.com

I like the jave water effect on the website TANNER. To bad we can't have a fire Java for the torch here for the liberty.

Once again, free market mechanisms are completely ignored. Left to the free market, water companies would charge for water use instead of being supplied through tax dollars. That is the only peaceful way to regular water use, through the free market based price system. If there was a scarcity or shortage of water, it will be reflected in the price.

As always, the only response from politicians from a failed government program is...more tax money, more intrusions into your personal life, "tougher" enforcement, and less liberty and choice.

People are MUCH more likely to regulate their own water use when faced with a price system rather than through government where the water is "free" but conservation is enforced at the point of a gun.

As usual, people will reject these ridiculous regulations and buy high flow shower heads on the black market, take substantially longer showers to satisfy their needs, flush twice to properly get everything out of their toilet after use, since the water is "free" afterall. And as this government program fails, it won't be replaced, but reinforced with yet another government program.

So what's next? Car washes being shut down? A water tax (that's applied equally to everyone, and not based on use, which won't discourage heavy use)?

When did water become free? I got a bone to pick with a certain water company!

I believe the government should prohibit the sale of free-flow shower heads; not because they use so much free water, but because they are made out of so much metal. Eventually, if EVERBODY buys a free-flow shower head, the country will run out of metal and metal will need to be taken from pre-existing buildings to support the shower head frenzy. Our cities will begin collapsing, building after building, as their support beams are forged into shower heads. What comes next, you ask? Sadly, the pipes which bring water to our people - also made of metal - will become victims of our insatiable shower-head-lust, and will be stripped from beneath the ground, herded like cattle, and poured in their molten form into rainfall-effect shower heads. As the madness deepens we, as Americans, will find ourselves unable to build suitable housing with the only metal left available to us: Gold. So the government, acting as the voice of the people, will require all new homes to be built strictly out of water. As the production of water-homes increases, subsidized by the government,and our oceans drain, the people will YET AGAIN rise up in support of water usage restrictions. Millions of Americans will stand exposed, weeping, with a gold cup of government issue water in one hand, and a high flow shower head in the other.

(That the government would set shower head restrictions is both amusing and sickening. That the people would applaud such a gesture as "environmentally friendly" is thoroughly nauseating.)

Price control is not the solution. It is still control, just like someone telling you what showerhead to use.

So, either someone tells us what kind of showerhead to use or someone tells us what price to pay? These are solutions?

Either choice is coersion.

I think education is our only true solution. Continue our education on resource conservation from the time we are very young and make sure it continues thorough the rest of our lives and, hopefully, our collective responsibility will prevail.

The generations to come will give us the answer of whether or not it will work. Resource conservation education did not start in schools, at the young age, until just in the last, few decades. I'm 32 and I never had it when I was in school, especially at a young age. But, I know for a fact they get it now.

You could always increase the tax on water (and also with gasoline). That would encourage more people to conserve, and the government might be able to lower taxes elsewhere (like the estate tax).