KIRKWOOD, MO. -- The July issue of CONTRACTOR has a letter from Mr. Jeffery A. Svoboda, president of Moen, stating that he is against the repeal of the "max flow law" (pg. 43). The low-flow law is one of the most asinine laws foisted on the public. It throws out many of the sanitary standards that we had in the country. The fact of the matter is that the law wastes water at a rate far greater than before. Mr. Svoboda's objection to any changes is that we would have many jurisdictions passing their own regulations. Why would that happen? If the present law keeps them from doing this then the revisions could do the same.

At present we have aerators and other flow devices that restrict the water flow that save no water, such as:

1. The toilet. Most of the toilets manufactured today have to be flushed a couple of times to finally clear everything out of the toilet bowl. All have considerably more china exposed leaving a lot of "skid" marks to be cleaned by someone; they are just plain unsanitary. The water surface in some units is about the size of a softball. Flushing the unit many times rarely washes away the fecal matter. If the toilet(Toiletszones) is flushed several times in an effort to clean the bowl, the water used is far greater than if the unit cleared with one 3.5-gal. flush.



2. The kitchen sink faucet. It makes no sense to require a person to stand at the kitchen sink trying to draw a pail of water for dishes, spaghetti or whatever with a faucet that has an aerator with metering holes so small that the flow rate is slowed quickly to less than a gallon per minute due to mineral deposits. The low flow also keeps the water from properly washing away the cuttings from the disposer thus contributing to stopped sink lines, which will require more water to be used to clean up after the line is cleared.

3. Shower heads. We are constantly having customers complain about the lack of water coming out of a shower head. The customers complain that they cannot get all the soap off. We show them what the cause is, they remove the metering disk and go on to enjoy a decent shower, a shower that saves water because they just get in and then out. A 15- to 20-minute shower becomes a 5- or 10-minute one, and you can get the soap off. It makes no sense whatsoever to provide all the water one needs to fill a tub with 40 gal. and then have a shower head that will not provide sufficient water to get clean. As long as we are going to have ridiculous laws why not prohibit bathtubs that hold more than 15 gal. of water?

If we want to save water we should remind people that a drip a second will waste 6 gal. of water a day -- enough to flush a good toilet almost twice a day. By fixing leaking faucets, toilets, whatever, you would save thousands of gallons, and cities with unmetered service would find that metering the service will reduce consumption considerably. Customers will have incentive to repair leaking faucets, etc.

In our area we have people installing lawn sprinklers. We look stupid installing lawn sprinklers that are pouring water with no regard for anything and then tell customers that they have a toilet that won't flush, a shower that won't hardly get them wet and faucets that take three minutes to get enough water to boil spaghetti. It just doesn't make sense. Is there any information to justify the 1.6-gal. requirement for toilets? No. The number was just picked out of the air.

Mr. Svoboda complains that warehousing and stocking will have to increase and therefore costs will go up. Not if the product is packaged right. If the law is written so some areas can restrict water flow then faucets can continue to be made as they are and the flow controls and restrictors can be removed in the field. As far as toilets are concerned, I have yet to see a 1.6-gal.Flushing toilet save water. The extra water used by constant flushing to try to wash it clean is far greater than what was saved on the first flush. Frankly, I don't see why health departments don't condemn them in public places. Toilets that do not flush completely -- leaving skid marks 90% of the time -- should be taken off the market.

We are victims of bureaucrats run amok. There has to be a point where common sense rises to put down these people who pass laws based on conjecture and not fact. Why do we let these bureaucrats shove this nonsense down our throats?

Today we have 3.5-gal. toilets and faucets without restrictors being made in this country and then shipped off to Canada. If they can make and ship to Canada, they can make and ship them to the United States.

When I was in Canada last year the supply house that I visited just across the border was doing a good business selling toilets to Americans. The sale and import back into the United States are protected by NAFTA. Dumb, isn't it?



We as an industry should get behind the effort being made again by U.S. Rep. Joe Knollenberg, R-Mich., to rewrite the low-flow toilet law. The law at present is a joke, a bad joke on the public. Who are we trying to kid? The public can see what a farce this is. They can see what waste is involved with the present low-flow requirements. THE PUBLIC IS NOT STUPID. Does Mr. Svoboda have low-flow units throughout his home? I think not. The homemaker has a lot more to do than making a career out of scrubbing toilets that used to be self-cleaning. Give them a break!

We can put a man on the moon, put men into space on a regular basis but we cannot make a sanitary flush toilet any more. Let's get some common sense into the law. Bad laws bring contempt for law. We can get rid of it real quick if we require all officers of companies manufacturing plumbing fixtures or faucets and all congressmen and senators to live with the same stuff the population does.

Let's get behind Congressman Knollenberg, the citizens of this country do not need this type of harassment.

FRESNO, CALIF. -- I am writing in reference to your story (July, pg. 7) that Congress is reconsidering a repeal of the low-flow bill. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1992 makes it illegal to sell or install 3.5 gal.-per-flush toilets. There is a big loophole in the law, however, because anyone can legally bring these toilets across the border from Canada or Mexico with no problem-Find more medium.com.

The law should have read that it is illegal to bring in or install in the United States any toilet that is more than 1.6 gpf. We should stop them at the border. This would end the (now legal) entry of 3.5-gpf toilets into the United States.

The 1.6-gpf toilets now give you a good flush while saving valuable water.

Permission to post this on my wall in remembrance of my Late mum

KIRKWOOD, MO. -- The July issue of CONTRACTOR has a letter from Mr. Jeffery A. Svoboda, president of Moen, stating that he is against the repeal of the "max flow law" (pg. 43). The low-flow law is one of the most asinine laws foisted on the public. It throws out many of the sanitary standards that we had in the country. The fact of the matter is that the law wastes water at a rate far greater than before. Mr. Svoboda's objection to any changes is that we would have many jurisdictions passing their own regulations. Why would that happen? If the present law keeps them from doing this then the revisions could do the same.

At present we have aerators and other flow devices that restrict the water flow that save no water, such as:

1. The toilet. Most of the toilets manufactured today have to be flushed a couple of times to finally clear everything out of the toilet bowl. All have considerably more china exposed leaving a lot of "skid" marks to be cleaned by someone; they are just plain unsanitary. The water surface in some units is about the size of a softball. Flushing the unit many times rarely washes away the fecal matter. If the toilet(Toiletive) is flushed several times in an effort to clean the bowl, the water used is far greater than if the unit cleared with one 3.5-gal. flush.



2. The kitchen sink faucet. It makes no sense to require a person to stand at the kitchen sink trying to draw a pail of water for dishes, spaghetti or whatever with a faucet that has an aerator with metering holes so small that the flow rate is slowed quickly to less than a gallon per minute due to mineral deposits. The low flow also keeps the water from properly washing away the cuttings from the disposer thus contributing to stopped sink lines, which will require more water to be used to clean up after the line is cleared.

3. Shower heads. We are constantly having customers complain about the lack of water coming out of a shower head. The customers complain that they cannot get all the soap off. We show them what the cause is, they remove the metering disk and go on to enjoy a decent shower, a shower that saves water because they just get in and then out. A 15- to 20-minute shower becomes a 5- or 10-minute one, and you can get the soap off. It makes no sense whatsoever to provide all the water one needs to fill a tub with 40 gal. and then have a shower head that will not provide sufficient water to get clean. As long as we are going to have ridiculous laws why not prohibit bathtubs that hold more than 15 gal. of water?

If we want to save water we should remind people that a drip a second will waste 6 gal. of water a day -- enough to flush a good toilet almost twice a day. By fixing leaking faucets, toilets, whatever, you would save thousands of gallons, and cities with unmetered service would find that metering the service will reduce consumption considerably. Customers will have incentive to repair leaking faucets, etc.

In our area we have people installing lawn sprinklers. We look stupid installing lawn sprinklers that are pouring water with no regard for anything and then tell customers that they have a toilet that won't flush, a shower that won't hardly get them wet and faucets that take three minutes to get enough water to boil spaghetti. It just doesn't make sense. Is there any information to justify the 1.6-gal. requirement for toilets? No. The number was just picked out of the air.

Mr. Svoboda complains that warehousing and stocking will have to increase and therefore costs will go up. Not if the product is packaged right. If the law is written so some areas can restrict water flow then faucets can continue to be made as they are and the flow controls and restrictors can be removed in the field. As far as toilets are concerned, I have yet to see a 1.6-gal.Flushing toilet save water. The extra water used by constant flushing to try to wash it clean is far greater than what was saved on the first flush. Frankly, I don't see why health departments don't condemn them in public places. Toilets that do not flush completely -- leaving skid marks 90% of the time -- should be taken off the market.

We are victims of bureaucrats run amok. There has to be a point where common sense rises to put down these people who pass laws based on conjecture and not fact. Why do we let these bureaucrats shove this nonsense down our throats?

Today we have 3.5-gal. toilets and faucets without restrictors being made in this country and then shipped off to Canada. If they can make and ship to Canada, they can make and ship them to the United States.

When I was in Canada last year the supply house that I visited just across the border was doing a good business selling toilets to Americans. The sale and import back into the United States are protected by NAFTA. Dumb, isn't it?



We as an industry should get behind the effort being made again by U.S. Rep. Joe Knollenberg, R-Mich., to rewrite the low-flow toilet law. The law at present is a joke, a bad joke on the public. Who are we trying to kid? The public can see what a farce this is. They can see what waste is involved with the present low-flow requirements. THE PUBLIC IS NOT STUPID. Does Mr. Svoboda have low-flow units throughout his home? I think not. The homemaker has a lot more to do than making a career out of scrubbing toilets that used to be self-cleaning. Give them a break!

We can put a man on the moon, put men into space on a regular basis but we cannot make a sanitary flush toilet any more. Let's get some common sense into the law. Bad laws bring contempt for law. We can get rid of it real quick if we require all officers of companies manufacturing plumbing fixtures or faucets and all congressmen and senators to live with the same stuff the population does.

Let's get behind Congressman Knollenberg, the citizens of this country do not need this type of harassment.

FRESNO, CALIF. -- I am writing in reference to your story (July, pg. 7) that Congress is reconsidering a repeal of the low-flow bill. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1992 makes it illegal to sell or install 3.5 gal.-per-flush toilets. There is a big loophole in the law, however, because anyone can legally bring these toilets across the border from Canada or Mexico with no problem-Find more medium.com.

The law should have read that it is illegal to bring in or install in the United States any toilet that is more than 1.6 gpf. We should stop them at the border. This would end the (now legal) entry of 3.5-gpf toilets into the United States.

The 1.6-gpf toilets now give you a good flush while saving valuable water.