[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EPCA REGULATION OF PLUMBING SUPPLIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 623
__________
JULY 27, 1999
__________
Serial No. 106-76
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
58-509 WASHINGTON : 1999
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
TOM BLILEY, Virginia, Chairman
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOE BARTON, Texas RALPH M. HALL, Texas
FRED UPTON, Michigan RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania BART GORDON, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER COX, California PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma ANNA G. ESHOO, California
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina RON KLINK, Pennsylvania
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California BART STUPAK, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
GREG GANSKE, Iowa THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma GENE GREEN, Texas
RICK LAZIO, New York KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
JAMES E. ROGAN, California DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
LOIS CAPPS, California
James E. Derderian, Chief of Staff
James D. Barnette, General Counsel
Reid P.F. Stuntz, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Energy and Power
JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida RALPH M. HALL, Texas
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
Vice Chairman THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio
STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma BART GORDON, Tennessee
JAMES E. ROGAN, California BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, RON KLINK, Pennsylvania
Mississippi JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
VITO FOSSELLA, New York (Ex Officio)
ED BRYANT, Tennessee
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland
TOM BLILEY, Virginia,
(Ex Officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Testimony of:
Goike, David, Masco Corporation, representing Plumbing
Manufacturers Institute.................................... 137
Haege, Glenn, talk show host, WXYT........................... 24
Knollenberg, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.......................................... 9
Kosmensky, Gerald, President, Gerald Building Company........ 27
Lieberman, Ben, Policy Analyst, Competitive Enterprise
Institute, representing the National Consumer Coalition.... 19
Osann, Edward R., President, Potomac Resources, Inc.......... 50
Taylor, Jerome, Director of Natural Resource Studies, Cato
Institute.................................................. 30
Tippin, David L., Director, Tampa Water Department........... 44
Whalen, George V., National Association of Plumbing, Heating,
Cooling Contractors........................................ 54
Willardson, Anthony, Associate Director, Western States Water
Council.................................................... 143
Material submitted for the record by:
American Society of Plumbing Engineers, prepared statement of 157
CTSI Corporation, prepared statement of...................... 163
Williams, Harold, Jr., prepared statement on behalf of The
American Supply Association................................ 161
(iii)
EPCA REGULATION OF PLUMBING SUPPLIES
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 27, 1999
House of Representatives,
Committee on Commerce,
Subcommittee on Energy and Power,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in
room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Barton
(chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Barton, Bilirakis, Burr,
Whitfield, Norwood, Shimkus, Bryant, Hall, Sawyer, Rush, and
Dingell (ex officio).
Aslo present: Representative Bilbray.
Staff present: Amit Sachdev, majority counsel; and Rick
Kessler, minority professional staff member.
Mr. Barton. The subcommittee will come to order. We are
going to hold today a hearing on H.R. 623, introduced by
Congressman Knollenberg of Michigan, a bill to amend the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act to eliminate certain regulation of
plumbing supplies.
This is bipartisan legislation. It has 82 cosponsors,
including myself, and as I said, it has been introduced by the
gentleman before the subcommittee, Mr. Knollenberg of Michigan.
As a part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Congress created
national uniform standards regulating the amount of water that
could be used by faucets, showerheads and water closets. For
faucets and showerheads, Congress set the maximum flow rate at
2.5 gallons per minute, for water closets, which most people
know as toilets, Congess mandated that only 1.6 gallons per
flush could be used. Today we will hear testimony on H.R. 623
to consider whether to repeal these national water standards,
thereby reverting back to State and local government control to
establish such water standards as they feel are appropriate for
their regional needs.
This is an issue that is easy to make light of, obviously,
because of the subject matter, but it is important that we take
this legislation seriously. I am a cosponsor and I want to make
it perfectly clear that I support the need to conserve and not
waste the precious water resources of our Nation. In my view
the issue before us today is not whether to encourage water
conservation in the United States, but how best to do so.
Why should this legislation be taken up now. The reason is
fairly simple and straightforward. In hundreds of strongly
worded letters, e-mails and telephone calls, the public has
asked that this issue be revisited. As many of my colleagues
can attest, since passage we have heard quite literally and
vocally in our town meetings and in our districts that
consumers are not satisfied with the performance of these new
appliances. We have heard many accounts that the low flow
appliances simply do not work. They do not perform adequately.
These concerns have been raised by news programs on
television and radio and in newspapers across the country. The
principal task before us today is to determine whether the
national one size fits all standard set in Congress in 1992 is
the most effective way to achieve water conservation in the
United States. Has the Federal standard one size fits all
artificially constrained the marketplace for water conservation
products? Is this an issue that is better addressed at the
regional level where State and local governments will better
account for regional water supply and demand? Finally, is there
a win/win scenario to address the problems that we have heard,
one that ensures a true marketplace for affordable plumbing
appliances that perform better and still meet the country's
water conservation needs?
We have assembled an esteemed group of experts on both
sides of the issue to address this problem. We are going to
start by hearing from the Congressman who has introduced the
legislation, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Knollenberg. And
once he has spoken, then we will have two panels of experts,
again one panel that supports the legislation generally and one
panel that has questions about it. Seeing no member of the
minority party yet in attendance, we will recognize Mr.
Bilirakis, distinguished member of the Health and Environment
Subcommittee and a gentleman who helped pass the act back in
1992, for an opening statement. Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Norwood was here before me.
Mr. Barton. Well, you are senior and you have been a leader
on this issue.
Mr. Bilirakis. First, I would like to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for scheduling this hearing at a time I could
participate. I would also like to take a moment to welcome
David Tippin, the Director of the Tampa Water Department, here
to Washington.
The topic of today's hearing, Mr. Chairman, as you have
indicated is legislation that proposes to repeal Federal water
conservation standards enacted as part of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1992 for certain plumbing appliances.
As a representative from a State where water conservation
is an important issue, I strongly oppose this legislation. Most
of us take water for granted and we assume that we can simply
turn on the tap or a garden hose and there will be a steady
stream of cheap clean water, but in many States and localities
there is much more to it than that. In my home State of
Florida, water conservation has become a way of life. Residents
routinely experience drought conditions, water audits, state-
of-the-art leak detection methods, lawn sprinkling bans and
other measures are frequent reminders of the severity of my
State's water shortfalls.
The drought now effecting several portions of the United
States also serves to underscore the need to make more
efficient use of our water supplies. Even where water is not
scarce, new water efficient plumbing products help consumers
and communities hold down the rising costs of additional water
supply and waste water treatment infrastructure. These costs
are especially relevant in a climate where residential monthly
water and sewage charges rose by 75 percent between 1986 and
1996 for those using 1000 cubic feet of water.
Americans now spend about $50 billion each year on
residential water and sewer bills. We spend an additional $16
billion on the cost of the energy needed to heat domestic hot
water. New capital improvements will play a major role in
driving water and waste water costs up in the future. Data
published by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1997 shows
that the public water systems and waste water treatment
agencies will need to invest approximately $280 billion to
protect public health and to accommodate growth over the next
20 years. A significant portion of this investment, over $200
billion, will be for facilities and equipment.
In a typical single family home 80 percent of all indoor
water use is devoted to flushing toilets, taking showers,
washing clothes and allowing fixtures to leak. Without changing
our life-style, the volume of water committed to each of these
uses can be substantially reduced with the water efficient
plumbing appliances required by this, by EPAct. Out of all of
these fixtures, the 1.6 gallon flush toilet has received the
most attention. This is due in part to a number of poor
performing toilets being placed in the market in the early
1990's. Since the mid-1990's, my understanding is that
manufacturers have provided toilets which work well and meet
all national testing standards. Reports ranging from Consumer
Reports magazine to post-installation studies by utilities
promoting major toilet rebate and replacement programs show a
significant degree of satisfaction with the new fixtures.
For example, 90 percent of San Diego, California customers
who participated in a toilet rebate program were satisfied with
their new 1.6 gallon per flush toilets. In Austin, Texas, 95
percent of users were satisfied or very satisfied with the 1.6
gallon per flush toilets. And 91 percent of Tampa, Florida
consumers were likely to purchase another 1.6 gallon per flush
toilet in the future.
How significant are the savings from water efficient
appliances? Water conserving fixtures used in houses built in
1998 save 44 million gallons of water every day, totaling a
savings of more than $33.6 million a year. All told, water
conserving fixtures could cut demand by 30 percent, an
estimated 5.4 billion gallons per day. Moreover, the energy
savings resulting from using hot water more efficiently with
new showerheads and faucets is expected to reach $1.9 billion
per year by 2010 for the residential sector alone.
The positive impact of water conservation can be dramatic.
The population of Los Angeles has risen by nearly 1 million
since 1970, an increase of 32 percent. Yet residential and
business customers last year used virtually the same amount of
water as they used 29 years ago. How is this possible? By low
flow toilets saving the city 9 billion gallons of water each
year.
In 1997 Tampa bay water completed its regional demand
management plan. This plan estimated that by the year 2000,
approximately 5.25 million gallons per day will be saved by
EPAct's water conserving plumbing fixture requirements. The
plan estimates the savings will increase to 15.5 million
gallons per day by 2010 and to over 20 million gallons per day
by 2015.
When the House of Representatives debated EPAct, it
overwhelming approved uniform national efficiency standards for
faucets, water closets, urinals and showerheads to conserve
both energy and water by a vote of 328 to 79, and I repeat 328
to 79.
H.R. 623 would repeal these uniform national standards, the
very standards that are broadly supported by manufacturers,
plumbing contractors and wholesalers, water and waste water
utilities, and environmental organizations. If enacted, this
measure would increase the burden on States and communities
seeking to enforce our water efficiency standards, and it would
also force U.S. Manufacturers to commit time and money
designing products for differing flush volumes, flow rates,
test procedures and labeling requirements, all of which could
vary by State and local jurisdiction if uniform national
standards are repealed.
Plumbing suppliers and wholesalers are primarily small
independent businesses who are in the unique position of owning
their inventory. Enactment of H.R. 623 could render portions of
this stock obsolete and unmarketable which could have a
devastating impact on these small businesses. H.R. 623 injects
a measure of uncertainty into the planning for billions of
dollars of water supply and waste water treatment
infrastructure nationwide.
Water efficiency, as you said right at the outset, Mr.
Chairman, is no joke. A consistent and stable regulatory
environment as provided by current law is a critical ingredient
for new investment competition and product development in the
plumbing industry. Water conservation is the easiest and most
cost effective strategy we can use to combat present and
projected water supply shortfalls, and repealing the 1992
conservation standards is in my strong opinion bad policy.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I look forward to
hearing from our witnesses, and I appreciate your indulgence.
Thank you.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Congressman Bilirakis. We will put
you down as undecided on this legislation.
The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Norwood, is now recognized
for an opening statement.
Mr. Norwood. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you very much for holding this hearing which on the face of it
tends to make it grin, but it is truly a serious matter. My
State of Georgia is surrounded by water. We are surrounded by
rivers except on our north end, and water conservation is
extremely important to us. We take that very seriously. On the
other hand, I am a very proud cosponsor of Mr. Knollenberg's
bill and hope that we can reverse the 1992 water conservation
standards, at least on the Federal level, as soon as possible.
At home I am in difficulty with my sons, both of whom are
building houses and they are old enough to be men, and I have
to sit there and plead with them please don't go to the black
market. That doesn't play very well in the 10th District if my
sons were to do that. However, they are not satisfied with the
1.6 gallon flushers that don't work. We do need to conserve
water, but we don't have a vehicle that does that. When you
turn around and flush that same toilet twice, you really
haven't saved a lot.
I find myself in an interesting position in that I am
renovating a building which has a great number of 20-year-old
toilets that I am told by the local inspector, he doesn't blame
it on the Georgia law, he blames it on the Federal law, that I
have to rip them all out and put in new units. Well, I can
catch on why some folks who make toilets might think that is a
good idea. That doesn't go over my head at all.
But interestingly enough in my district the plumbing
contractors and suppliers are very much against the 1992 water
conservation standard. They didn't feel like people in
Washington, DC. In their normal effort to have one size fits
all really need to tell them exactly how they want to do that.
So I applaud Mr. Knollenberg and look forward to this
hearing today, and I hope we will all take this as a very
serious matter because I certainly do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barton. Thank you Congressman Norwood. We would now
like to recognize the distinguished ranking member of the full
committee, Mr. Dingell, for an opening statement.
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your kindness
and recognition. I want to welcome my dear friend, Mr.
Knollenberg. He is a valuable member of the Michigan
delegation. He and I work together on many things that are
important to our State. He is wisely and properly respected and
I am happy to see him here. I would observe that I do have an
opening statement which I would ask unanimous consent to put in
the record.
Mr. Barton. Without objection.
Mr. Dingell. My good friend from Michigan and I do not
agree on this legislation, and I would just make the
observation that despite the concerns that have been expressed
outside this committee, water consumption has dropped at the
same time the population has significantly increased. A lot of
this is due to reduction in interior residential water use and
most of this has been as a result of the 1.6 gallon per flush
toilets.
Water pollution is a growing problem in this country. We
are not addressing it because we are not putting money into the
construction of waste water treatment works and sewer
construction. This is having a terrible impact on waters in
areas that are served by my good friend from Michigan and I.
The result of this is that we are now seeing terrible pressure
on the communities that he and I serve to spend enormous sums
of money to clean up waters, rivers that he and I are well
familiar with. The Huron, the Clinton, the Rouge, and the
Raisin in southeast Michigan are all being afflicted with
terrible problems of pollution.
And with the figures that I am getting on satisfaction, for
example in Denver, the satisfaction was 87 percent. 9 percent
of the people registered an unhappy experience. Obviously we
are going to have to perfect these kinds of toilets, but
hopefully these kinds of toilets do offer us a chance, until
the replacement of the old ones has been completed, of
significantly bettering not only our water use but reducing the
amount of money that the country has to spend on waste
treatment.
And I would note that in 1992 when this legislation was
passed out of this committee which established the standards,
it was as a result of an unusual coalition: industry,
environmentalists, small businesses and the States. Those
provisions passed the House 328 to 79 and they were viewed
widely as being useful, necessary and good, and I believe the
result--a reduction in needs for waste treatment, water
savings, a saving of taxpayer dollars--has been very, very
good.
I say these things with respect for my friend. He is a very
fine person and a valuable member of the delegation and a great
public servant. I am sorry we differ, but we will try and do so
with respect and affection. But I do want him to know that I am
going to do the best that I can to beat this legislation.
Mr. Barton. Well, that is two undecideds. The gentleman
from North Carolina, Mr. Burr, is recognized for a brief
opening statement.
Mr. Burr. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome my good
friend and former neighbor in the Longworth Building, Mr.
Knollenberg, as well as our other panelists who are here to
testify today about plumbing standards enacted by the Energy
Policy Act.
Mr. Barton. Are you reading off of what I think you are
reading off of?
Mr. Burr. Would the gentleman like some time?
Mr. Barton. I am just observing what you are reading off
of.
Mr. Burr. Mr. Chairman, the 1992 Energy Act enacted
burdensome and frivolous regulations on the sizes of toilets
and showerheads. Specifically new toilets manufactured in the
United States can only use 1.6 gallons per flush. And
showerheads are permitted to use only 2.5 gallons per minute.
Of course the average American might take these regulations as
another urban myth, much like the baby alligator who was
flushed down the toilet into the sewer and grew to terrorize
the city's water works. Of course under the 1992 EPAct, that
alligator probably couldn't have been flushed on the first or
the second or the third try in a low flow, 1.6 gallon per flush
toilet. It would have taken 2 or 3 flushes.
Seriously, these regulations have cost home owners and home
builders adding as much as $200 to the cost of installing a new
toilet in the home. These regulations also strain the
relationship between homeowner and home builder. As we will
hear later, home builders often receive complaints about the
operation of their toilets. When the contractor responds that
the faulty toilet is the result of a mandate from Washington,
the homeowner blames the contractor for making excuses for poor
professionalism.
These numbers are backed up by the fact that in 1998 the
National Association of Home Builders survey found that 72
percent of home builders consider the 1.6 gallon toilet to be a
problem.
It should be noted, Mr. Chairman, that the NAHB has
recently taken a neutral stance on my colleague Mr.
Knollenberg's legislation. Also, how is the goal of water
conservation achieved when a toilet must be flushed more than
once to remove waste or a person has to take a 10-minute shower
instead of a 5-minute shower because of the weak water pressure
produced from a low-volume showerhead.
H.R. 623, Mr. Chairman, does not impose any new mandates or
any new Federal regulations on plumbing manufacturers who
currently oppose this bill. This bill does not outlaw low flush
toilets or low volume water heads. In fact I am a little
confused as to why those manufacturers don't want to put the
best product that they can make on the market.
Mr. Chairman, I used to joke with my colleagues about the
legislation that he proposed when his office was located next
door to mine until I made a trip to Wilmington, North Carolina.
After a long day of work, I returned to my hotel hoping to
relax from a day of discussing real problems that Congress
should be dealing with. I made my way to the hotel bathroom
only to find a sign next to the toilet stating that because of
Federal regulations limiting the size of the toilet, it was
necessary for me to flush at least twice. If that was
unsuccessful, to call the front desk.
I felt personally offended by the idea that the Federal
Government feels it has the right to regulate how many times I
am required to flush.
Mr. Chairman, if we allow these regulations to stay in
place, we in effect put our stamp of approval on an intrusive
and burdensome Federal Government. If States and localities are
responsible for zoning laws and building codes, I think it is
time we return the right of choosing the size of toilet and of
showerheads back to the governments as well.
Again, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your insight
to hold these hearings and welcome my dear friend Congressman
Flush and thank him for H.R. 623, and with that I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. Barton. We will not put the gentleman's statement in
its current configuration in the record. He will have to
conform to normal standards of statements in terms of what is
put in the record. We appreciate----
Mr. Burr. Mr. Chairman, in a quick calculation that I have
made with the 1.6 gallon toilet, this last Friday, I believe,
the Vice President with his trip down the Connecticut River
cost us 6 billion flushes.
Mr. Barton. Who stayed up all night making that
calculation?
Mr. Burr. Mr. Norwood and I between the powers of North
Carolina and Georgia came up with that calculation.
Mr. Barton. I see.
Mr. Burr. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Barton. The gentleman from Texas, the distinguished
ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Hall, is recognized for
an opening statement.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I don't really have an opening
statement, but I am sure interested in this bill. I think I ran
into Joe on the floor last year when he introduced it and he
was so persuasive that I immediately signed on.
When I got back to my district I found out that one of the
major manufacturers gives X number of people jobs in my
district and they were very opposed to this common sense pro
consumer legislation. And while I have not signed on this year,
I was just thinking in the Congressman's presentation, I didn't
get to hear it but I have read it, it says, ``In fact, the
situation has gotten so bad that many individuals are traveling
out of the country just to pick up a toilet that works. This is
a common occurrence at the Detroit-Canadian border,'' and I was
just think how if my wife called here and they said Ralph is
out looking for a potty that works, I don't know but what she
would believe it.
It is a pretty common sense bill, and I am going to take
another look at maybe coming on it. I don't think that we have
any business telling them--invading their private areas as much
as they are with this kind of legislation.
And the gentleman mentioned alligators. I remember an old
story about they sent one of the waiters out to the spring to
get a bucket of water on one of the hunting mesas, and he
pulled up the bucket and he saw an alligator, and he came
running back in. He said there was an alligator out there. They
said did you bring the water? He said, yeah, but if that
alligator is as scared as I am, that water ain't fit to drink.
Mr. Barton. We really appreciate that story.
Mr. Hall. You can erase that one with one of those Nixon
erasers. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Barton. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Bryant, is
recognized for an opening statement.
Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for having
this hearing and Mr. Knollenberg, a good friend from Michigan.
I thank him for his bill. So far from what I have heard, we
have said all that we can say from this end. I know there are
some other folks that have some additional things to make in
their statements. I am not going to add any more to the level
of this debate so far, but I am looking forward eagerly to
hearing from Congressman Knollenberg and the others on the
following panels who have firsthand knowledge in many cases and
can tell us the pluses and the minuses of this legislation. I
look forward to hearing this and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Barton. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, is
recognized for an opening statement.
Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend you
for this hearing, and I want to commend the author of H.R. 623
for this bill. We are here today to look at an issue that quite
honestly has two viable sides. Certainly there are complaints
regarding how the current water flow standards effect the
quality of living. On the other hand, the benefits of the
current standards cannot be denied. A savings of 44 million
gallons of water a day with a dollar savings of $33.6 million a
year. Let us make no mistake, water is a resource, which means,
at times, if not all the time, it can be scarce.
We as Members of Congress have a duty to provide standards
which encourage conservation. Having said that, Mr. Chairman,
the means we apply to achieve conservation should not, if not
necessary, be so overburdensome that the conservation
regulations totally handicap water usage.
I look forward to this afternoon's discussion on this
issue. I hope that we can find a solution which conserves water
and provides consumers with effective water usage. What I do
not recommend is that we simply toss out effective conservation
regulation without being sure of the effect of any replacement.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Congressman Rush. The gentleman from
the great State of Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield, is recognized for
an opening statement.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to see
you, Mr. Knollenberg, and I really appreciate your bringing
this issue to our attention. I look forward to your testimony.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Barton. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Sawyer, is
recognized for an opening statement.
Mr. Sawyer. Let me say thank you to you and to Mr.
Knollenberg for his tenacity and to Mr. Rush for his carefully
stated words.
[Additional statement submitted for the record follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tom Bliley, Chairman, Committee on Commerce
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This afternoon, we are here for a
Subcommittee hearing on H.R. 623, legislation to amend the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 to repeal the national uniform standards for certain
types of plumbing appliances, including showerheads and water closets.
In 1992, Congress set the maximum flow rate at 2.5 gallons per
minute for faucets and showerheads and at 1.6 gallons per flush for
water closets.
I strongly support the need to conserve, and not waste, the
precious water resources available in our country. The issue before the
Subcommittee today is whether it is more appropriate to establish water
standards for plumbing appliances using a uniform federal standard, or
whether it makes more sense to allow state and local governments to
establish standards that are tailored to their regional needs.
Since passage of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, we have heard from
consumers and groups urging us to revisit this issue. In doing so
today, I hope our invited experts can offer insights that will ensure a
winning solution that provides affordable and effective plumbing
appliances that meet this Country's water conservation goals.
I look forward to the testimony of our esteemed witnesses.
Mr. Barton. The gentleman from Michigan, the sponsor of the
bill, is recognized for such time as you may consume. I
understand you also have a short video. We are not going to put
the clock on you, Congressman, but we hope that you manage your
time well.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOE KNOLLENBERG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Knollenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am very appreciative of the comment and opening
statements, et cetera. I think you have all done a good job in
presenting both sides of this issue and I am delighted to have
the opportunity now to address you with some thoughts that
pertain to H.R. 623, the Plumbing Standards Improvement Act of
1999. As you know, Mr. Chairman, back in 1992 the 102d Congress
and President Bush enacted amendments to the Energy Policy Act.
Tucked inside this large bill was a little-noticed provision
that vastly expanded the reach of the Federal Government by
imposing new, overreaching mandates on plumbing products
manufactured in the United States.
Specifically, under this new law the Federal Government now
regulates the flow of water in American toilets and
showerheads. Since 1994, new toilets manufactured in the United
States can only use 1.6 gallons of water per flush and
showerheads are permitted to use only 2.5 gallons of water per
minute.
Under the guise of improving the Nation's energy policy and
conserving water, these burdensome regulations have created an
unnecessary headache for the American people who have been
saddled with toilets and showers that in many cases do not work
properly.
In the view of millions of American consumers, the Federal
Government has no business engaging in this type of unnecessary
and counterproductive regulation. Therefore, in the 105th
Congress I first introduced legislation to repeal these
ridiculous mandates. Since that time, my office has received
not hundreds but thousands of phone calls, letters and e-mails
from disgruntled consumers who are angry that their new toilets
repeatedly clog, require multiple flushing, and do not save
water.
Their message is clear and straightforward. Get the Federal
Government out of my bathroom.
At this time, I request the committee's permission to show
a segment from the ABC news program 20/20. I believe that this
footage clearly outlines the issues at hand and offers
testimonials from several Americans who are unhappy with the
quality of the 1.6 gallon toilets.
Mr. Barton. If we can turn the monitor so that the audience
has a fighting chance to see it in addition to the members.
People on this side may have to move over temporarily.
[Videotape shown.]
Mr. Knollenberg. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your indulgence
and the committee's indulgence to hear that short tape. I think
that this tape makes a very compelling case that there is no
legitimate reason for the Federal Government to be in the
business of regulating the American people's toilets.
There are many challenges that face this Nation, such as
securing the future of Social Security, cutting taxes for
working Americans, improving the quality of our schools, et
cetera. Clearly, the Federal Government has more important
things to do than regulating the amount of water used to flush
a toilet.
This regulation offers a vivid example of why the American
people believe the Federal Government is too large and too
intrusive. H.R. 623 responds to these concerns. This bill does
not impose any new mandates on plumbing manufacturers. I
repeat, this bill does not impose any new mandates on plumbing
manufacturers. It provides them with the opportunity to make a
product the American people will want to buy.
Strangely enough, the Plumbing Manufacturers Institute has
led the opposition to this common sense pro consumer
legislation, and I am still perplexed by their opposition.
In conversations with representatives from the industry, I
have been told that the 1.6 gallon toilets work and consumers
are happy with them.
This is contrary to the messages I have received from angry
individuals from every region of the country. But for the sake
of argument, let's concede their point. This raises a very
interesting question. Given the fact that my bill simply ends
the Federal Government's regulation of toilets and does not
require the plumbing manufacturers to meet any new Federal
requirements, why are they so worried? If the 1.6 gallon
toilets work, consumers will buy them and the plumbing
manufacturers will continue to make money. And, if States and
localities believe that regulation of this type is vital to
their well-being, H.R. 623 does nothing to prevent them from
adopting these kinds of standards at the State and local level.
In reality, consumers are not happy with the performance of
the 1.6 gallons toilets, and the plumbing manufacturers know
that if the Federal standard is eliminated, someone will enter
the market and produce a product that consumers want to buy at
a reasonable price.
This is not something for the narrow special interests to
be afraid of. It is called capitalism, and it has served the
American people well for over 200 years.
Mr. Chairman, while there is no question that this issue
registers on the giggle meter, it is no laughing matter,
particularly not for the individuals who have been forced by
politicians in Washington to use inferior products. Make no
mistake, the American people are upset, and they are demanding
that Congress do something about this egregious intrusion of
the Federal Government into their daily lives. In fact, the
situation has gotten so bad that many individuals are traveling
out of the country just to pick up a toilet that works. As has
been noted, this is a common occurrence at the Detroit-Canadian
border.
Clearly the time has come for Washington to get out of
American people's bathrooms. It is time for us to correct this
overzealous Federal regulation. It is time to get back to some
common sense. It is time for this Congress to say to the
American people, we understand the difference between
appropriate regulation and just plain bad regulation. This is
bad regulation and it needs to be repealed now.
I want to thank the chairman and the members of this
committee for your indulgence. I look forward to working with
you to resolve this problem once and for all. Again, I would be
happy to respond to any questions.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Joe Knollenberg follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Joe Knollenberg, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Michigan
Chairman Barton, members of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, I
want to thank you for holding this important hearing on H.R. 623, the
Plumbing Standards Improvement Act of 1999.
Mr. Chairman, in 1992, the 102nd Congress and President Bush
enacted the Energy and Policy Act. Tucked inside this large bill was a
little noticed provision that vastly expanded the reach of the federal
government by imposing new, overreaching mandates on plumbing products
manufactured in the United States.
Specifically, under this new law, the federal government now
regulates the flow of water in American toilets and showerheads.
Specifically, new toilets manufactured in the United States can only
use 1.6 gallons of water per flush, and showerheads are permitted to
use only 2.5 gallons of water per minute.
Under the guise of improving the nation's energy policy and
conserving water, these burdensome regulations have created a
unnecessary headache for the American people who have been saddled with
toilets and showers that in many cases do not work properly.
In the view of millions of American consumers, the federal
government has no business engaging in this type of unnecessary and
counterproductive regulation. Therefore, in the 105th Congress, I first
introduced legislation to repeal these ridiculous mandates. Since that
time, my office has received thousands of phone calls, letters, and e-
mails from disgruntled consumers who are angry that their new toilets
repeatedly clog, require multiple flushing, and do not save water.
Their message is clear and straightforward: Get the federal
government out of my bathroom.
At this time, I request the committee's permission to show a
segment from the ABC News' program, 20-20. This footage clearly
outlines the issues at hand and offers testimonials from several
Americans who are unhappy with the quality of the 1.6 gallon toilets.
Thank you Mr. Chairman for your indulgence.
Ladies and gentlemen on the committee, this tape makes a compelling
case that there is no legitimate reason for the federal government to
be in the business of regulating the American people's toilets.
There are many challenges that face our nation, i.e. securing the
future of Social Security, cutting taxes for working Americans,
improving the quality of our schools, etc.
Clearly, the federal government has more important things to do
than regulating the amount of water used to flush a toilet.
This regulation offers a vivid example of why the American people
believe their federal government is too large and too intrusive. H.R.
623 responds to these concerns. This bill does not impose any new
mandates on plumbing manufacturers. It simply provides them with the
opportunity to make a product that the American people will want to
buy.
Strangely enough, the Plumbing Manufacturers Institute has led the
opposition to this common-sense, pro-consumer legislation, and I am
still perplexed by their opposition.
In conversations with representatives from the industry, I have
been told that the 1.6 gallon toilets work and that consumers are happy
with them.
This is contrary to the messages I have received from angry
individuals from every region of the country, but for the sake of
argument, let's concede their point.
This raises an interesting question: Given the fact that my bill
simply ends the federal government's regulation of toilets and does not
require the plumbing manufacturers to meet any new federal
requirements, why are they so worried?
If the 1.6 gallon toilets work, consumers will buy them, and the
plumbing manufacturers will continue to make money. And, if states and
localities believe that regulation of this type is vital to their well-
being, H.R. 623 does nothing to prevent them from adopting these kinds
of standards at the state and local level.
In reality, consumers are not happy with the performance of the 1.6
gallon toilets, and the plumbing manufacturers know that if the federal
standard is eliminated someone will enter the market and produce a
product that consumers want to buy at a reasonable price.
This is not something to for the narrow, special interests to be
afraid of. It's capitalism, and it has served the American people well
for over two hundred years.
Mr. Chairman, while there is no question that this issue registers
on the giggle meter, it's no laughing matter for the individuals who
have been forced by politicians in Washington to use an inferior
product.
Make no mistake, the American people are upset, and they are
demanding that Congress do something about this egregious intrusion of
the federal government into their daily lives.
In fact, the situation has gotten so bad that many individuals are
traveling out of the country just to pick up a toilet that works. This
is a common occurrence at the Detroit/Canadian border.
Clearly, the time has come for Washington to get out of the
American people's bathrooms. It's time for us to correct this
overzealous federal regulation. It's time to get back to a little
common sense.
And it's time for this Congress to say to the American people, we
understand the difference between appropriate regulation and just plain
bad regulation. This is bad regulation, and it needs to be repealed
now.
I want to thank the members of the committee for your consideration
of this issue, and I look forward to working with you to resolve this
problem once and for all.
Mr. Barton. Is that your opening statement?
Mr. Knollenberg. That is. In fact, if I can submit for the
record some additional materials, but that is the statement.
Mr. Barton. The Chair is going to recognize himself for the
first 5 minutes. If we have a speedy member, we will try to
keep the hearing going if we can get somebody to go vote and
come back. We will suspend briefly if we have to.
My first question is the individuals that go to Canada or
Mexico and bring a higher capacity device back into the
country, they are not violating any law by doing that, are
they?
Mr. Knollenberg. They are not. The toilets are actually
exported to Canada, and in effect they are imported by
Americans going over the line and back into the U.S.
Mr. Barton. So a U.S. manufacturer can manufacture the
higher capacity equipment and export it legally and then
American citizens can go to foreign countries, purchase it
legally and bring it back into the country legally?
Mr. Knollenberg. Individuals can do that on an individual
basis.
Mr. Barton. And the current Federal standards that are on
the books today, are those for individual homes or do they also
encompass hotels and apartments?
Mr. Knollenberg. They apply to both individual residences
and commercial. That law went into effect a little later, but
it has come on line now so it does impact the commercial
products as well.
Mr. Barton. So if we pass your legislation, we are not
repealing the State and community right in a community setting
to impose a standard, if they so wish?
Mr. Knollenberg. They can do whatever they are doing now.
This bill does nothing to intervene or involve itself with
current law or practice. And what we literally are doing is
saying if you love the 1.6 gallon toilets, you can have them.
And in those areas that choose to take that type of device,
they are certainly able to do so. But we don't have any
movement or any opposition to that.
Mr. Barton. Has any consumer group, Consumer Reports
Magazine, Good Housekeeping, has anybody done any studies to
verify the anecdotal evidence that the lower capacity toilets
don't work as well?
Mr. Knollenberg. Others will comment on that, Mr. Chairman,
but yes, there have been those kinds of reports. And I would
simply say, why am I hearing from thousands and thousands of
people if these products work so well? And I would just tell
you that people are not happy with the performance. They are
not happy with the quality of performance. And if they choose
to buy one that does work, they may find that it is going to
cost substantially more than the typical standard regular
toilet they have been used to. It is only when you get into
changing or remodeling your bathroom or new home that you have
this problem. So we have touched a small percentage of
American's households, and I think that is why this flame has
gotten pretty high with respect to irritation.
Mr. Barton. What is your answer to the concern raised by
the supporters of the existing law, Mr. Bilirakis and others,
who say that water consumption has actually declined because of
this new equipment, and that is a noble goal and if we repeal
it, water consumption usage would go back up?
Mr. Knollenberg. I don't believe that they will go back up.
But let me just say that the studies that have been done only
have a small percentage of American households that have had to
make that conversion from the old to the new. The data is
pretty much limited. It is very small.
And I would tell you that I personally would like to see
water consumption reduced because I think we do have an
obligation to consider that. If they can do it with 1.6 gallon
toilets, great. If they can do it with 1 gallon, great. There
is technology perhaps that is on the cusp of coming into being,
but it is not here yet. What we have seen is they have slid a
product into our face that is a one size fits all that may or
may not work. Americans are not used to that. They are unhappy
and frustrated about it. So in the end I think we are on the
same side of the fence but all of those communities that want
to continue the water conservation problems that they have,
even if they want to double flush, can do so.
Mr. Barton. Assuming that we find support to mark this up
in subcommittee and pass it at full committee, and that is an
assumption, what is your view of how many votes this
legislation might get as a stand-alone bill out on the floor?
Do you believe that you have got sufficient support to pass
it on the House floor if we can get it through subcommittee and
full committee?
Mr. Knollenberg. I believe we can do that. Let me say also
that the reason for this hearing is to bring this out in the
open so we do have a chance to let the sun shine in and show
members of the committee what is taking place here, that the
mandate is not something that is going to hurt the existing law
or the existing situation.
So I believe we will have a better opportunity after this
hearing is concluded, and thank you for bringing about a
successful move in the direction of bringing it to closure.
I would just tell you that any optimism is there, but I am
only going to make a judgment on this after the hearing is
over. I think that will help us a great deal.
Mr. Barton. It just dawned on the chairman that the witness
has to vote also. I can't continue the hearing because you
would miss the vote. So we are going to recess but we are going
to go vote and come back ASAP. I am not going to give a time.
But as soon as the last vote is over, we will be reconvening
within 10 minutes of the last vote on the House floor. So we
are in recess very briefly.
[Brief recess.]
Mr. Barton. The committee will come back to order.
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, will be recognized
for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am eager to unplug
this process here.
Mr. Barton. That is a mild way to put it.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Knollenberg, there is a minimum standard
right now of 1.6 gallons, I believe it is.
Mr. Knollenberg. That's right.
Mr. Rush. If you were going to raise the standard, what is
your recommendation?
Mr. Knollenberg. I have no recommendation. The bill speaks
to no recommendation. It merely says let's get away from the
1.6 gallon toilets. Now that might generate through technology
a toilet that works and performs because we are really looking
at performance. That is our goal. It could be that they could
work on a gallon. I don't have any higher level in mind, and
the bill does not speak to any.
Mr. Rush. Your bill has been around for a couple of years.
Are there different States, Governors, or legislative bodies
that have endorsed your bill?
Mr. Knollenberg. We have not gone after Governors or
legislative bodies, but what we have done is within the
membership of Congress we have concentrated on getting their
endorsement and we have 85 Members of the House that have
supported it openly.
What we do get of course, as you will find from these other
gentleman who will testify, is support from a variety of arenas
that are from people all over the country. The folks we are
hearing from are from California and Maine and Michigan, Texas,
all of them. I can't tell you that it has been anything but a
panorama of response.
Mr. Rush. My final question, Mr. Chairman, I just
recently--just this year, moved from the Cannon Building to the
Rayburn Building and I have noticed a difference in the way the
toilets flush in the Rayburn Building versus the Cannon
Building. Is the Federal Government, has the Congress--are our
toilets----
Mr. Barton. It is hard to phrase it properly.
Mr. Rush. It is. Are we at the same standard? Does this
law--are we adhering to the law?
Mr. Knollenberg. The law comes into focus whenever there is
a remodeling process or if there is a new building and they
need to change the old toilets. So I couldn't tell you if we
are or not. Honestly, you would have to ask somebody frankly
who--perhaps the Architect would know the specifics of that. I
can't even tell you whether it is a 1 gallon urinal. I can tell
you about the 1.6 gallon toilet, and I can tell by the way it
works or doesn't work.
Mr. Barton. We are not subject to the specific law because
the building was constructed before 1992.
Mr. Knollenberg. There is no mandate that says you have to
change tomorrow. You can last for 50 years. If the thing works,
you can keep it. I am just not aware of what that status is.
Mr. Rush. I am sure that this law is not--that this
standard is not operational for the Members of Congress because
we don't hear the same outcries that we hear from consumers. So
I am sure that it is not the same standard.
I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barton. I now recognize Congressman Bilirakis for 5
minutes of questions only.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Joe, and I want to
commend you and compliment you for your presentation.
Mr. Knollenberg. Thank you.
Mr. Bilirakis. I am not belittling this issue, but we have
had some high powered health care hearings and things of that
nature, and we never can get any media, and you somehow managed
to get the media here today. Maybe I can learn from you in that
regard.
Mr. Barton. It is just his smiling face that they like to
cover.
Mr. Bilirakis. And my not smiling face, I guess.
The gentleman from Illinois just said that he has not had
an avalanche of indications here on this legislation. We have
received 5 letters over 3 years since you first introduced your
legislation in support of your legislation, and I am advised by
my staff we have about a half foot high pieces of
communication, principally I will admit from suppliers and
plumbers and whatnot, who are very much against the
legislation, Joe.
Again, I want to repeat because the chairman and I spoke
about this on the way back from the vote, the 328 to 79 vote
that a couple of us have mentioned previously, that was not a
vote on the omnibus piece of legislation, the water bill. That
was a vote on adding this amendment, to the omnibus bill back
in May 1992. So we had 328 members who at that time felt very
strong about this issue. Obviously an awful lot of those 328
felt, including myself, are very much for States rights and
generally against more government regulations and things of
that nature. Yet Congress felt awfully strongly back in those
days that it was necessary to do something here. The State of
Pennsylvania is going through drought problems, as are so many
other parts of the country.
I am also advised that Consumer Reports tells us that their
post-installation studies promoting major toilet rebate and
replacement program show a significant degree of satisfaction
with the new fixtures.
San Diego consumers who participated in a toilet rebate
replacement program were satisfied with their new 1.6 gallon
per flush toilets. In Austin 95 percent of users were
satisfied; and Tampa, Florida, 91 percent were satisfied. And
Joe, on the double flushing situation I am also told, and this
will be testified to later on by our Tampa representative, in a
soon to be released study, AWWA Research Foundation has found
that even in instances of double flushing, the slightly higher
flushes per day did not offset the volume of water used by the
larger volume flush toilets. And further, the study stated that
on average double flushing of low flush toilets does not appear
to happen any more often than double flushing of nonlow-flush
toilets.
So we have talked about customer satisfaction and the
double flushing. We have talked about the strong support for
this legislation on this particular amendment, if you will,
adding it to the overall bill. We have talked about the
nonavalanche of letters that I have received. What I have
received have been against your legislation. With all due
respect, we had good reasons to do it back at that time. You
have good reasons, I am sure, to come in with your piece of
legislation. I can ask you maybe a question and that sort of
thing, but I don't know that we really ought to be doing that.
Mr. Knollenberg. Could I respond.
Mr. Barton. I didn't hear a question.
Mr. Knollenberg. I think you brought up a good point, if
you would indulge. You are right about that vote, it was on the
amendment.
Mr. Barton. Let the record show that I voted against it,
though.
Mr. Knollenberg. I want to remind you the limited amount of
debate was probably 10 to 15 minutes. You also remember this
was an amendment to a much larger bill. And it was done in a
very sped-up fashion. Some of the folks that voted for that
particular amendment the last time are on my bill. So I think
you have to also realize that it was probably done in----
Mr. Bilirakis. They are going to have to answer to that.
Mr. Knollenberg. I know about Consumers Reports and the
studies which have been done. You can get them. But I can tell
you if you only had five, I have tens of thousands. Well over
10,000 responses, I can tell you for sure. We have those locked
in a room. Perhaps you are on a closed circuit. We are not and
we got tons of them.
Mr. Barton. The Chair will stipulate that there are members
that try to be on both sides of an issue. I know that is a
revelation. I can see how people would vote for the amendment
that Congressman Bilirakis supported and then be on your bill.
It would not be the first time that a member has tried to
placate both sides of an issue.
The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Norwood, is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Norwood. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Knollenberg, as you know, the 103d Congress made a lot
of votes. One of them was this amendment, and then the 104th
Congress really changed a great deal. Are there any studies
showing that great big change in Congress from the 103d to the
104th might have been related to the 328 votes that voted for
this Federal Government controlling our bathrooms.
Mr. Barton. It was the 102d Congress. There was a change
between the 102d and 104th.
Mr. Knollenberg. We have not analyzed that.
Mr. Norwood. I would if I were you.
Mr. Knollenberg. That bill in its original form wasn't
effective overnight. The trigger was forward on both
residential and commercial. So if you are talking commercial,
they were not affected until a couple of years later. So I
think it had a future effective date. It didn't appear to be a
problem of immediate concern, and it wasn't. It has only been
when you remodel or only when you build a new house you have to
deal with the problem.
Mr. Norwood. Are you familiar, Mr. Knollenberg, with the
studies I keep hearing thrown out saying since we have gone to
the 1.6 gallon per flush toilet, such and such community saved
X amount of water? Do you know how they determine that?
Mr. Knollenberg. I am familiar with several of those
studies. In fact, I think they are all flawed. Keep in mind
that everybody in a given community has not made the
conversion. In fact, in some communities very few have made the
conversion from the old to the 1.6. I think you can infer a lot
of things from an investigation or survey, but quite honestly,
I think they are all flawed. I would even tell you that
Consumers Report, if you read that one, cover to cover, I would
challenge some of the comments made by recommendations that are
made by Consumers Report. Incidentally, in the end they did not
exactly really come down totally in favor of the idea, it was
sort of the lukewarm endorsements.
Mr. Norwood. How do they measure the amount of water saved
at the wastewater treatment plant unless you can isolate the
amount of water coming from the toilet to the wastewater
treatment plant? How do you do this?
Mr. Knollenberg. I think that is a good question. Frankly,
I don't know how to do that. I recognize that is a problem
though. I think some of the people that are going to appear on
the next panel will be in a position to give you some insight
there. In certain localities where they have not mandated,
actually converted everything to the 1.6, they probably can
draw from that conclusion that there is--that would be
something I think that might be readable as maybe more factual.
On the other hand, what was there before? Who knows? Was it
a building that, frankly, had some ill working plumbing to
begin with? Did they convert from that to the 1.6? The consumer
will not know any difference.
Mr. Barton. If the gentleman would yield quickly, what was
the traditional standard toilet size before we went to 1.6?
Mr. Knollenberg. It is interesting, I heard a comment here,
I don't know who made it, that in 1970, some study, you could
have had a 5 gallon, one bigger than that. I can't tell you
exactly the date, perhaps others can, when they went to a 3.5,
but you have--remember the older closets up on top? Those held
some pretty substantial volumes of water.
Mr. Barton. Is it fair to say that we cut it in half at a
minimum?
Mr. Knollenberg. I think you can say that, yes. The 1.6's
did not just come out in 1992. They have been around for some
time. Of course, the magic of 1.6 is that it is 6 liters. Where
does that come from? We are not on the metric standard.
Mr. Bilbray. Will the gentleman yield further? Isn't it
true that prior to 1992, there are a number of States that
already established 1.6 standards?
Mr. Knollenberg. That is right. And, you know, Mr.
Bilirakis, they can still do that. If they wanted that kind of
system, they can still have it. My bill does not prevent that.
Mr. Bilbray. I guess the point is there must have been some
magic to the 1.6 for them to do it, 17 to do it, either prior
or even having thought of it.
Mr. Knollenberg. Certain communities across the country,
and you know where they are, obviously, did go to a water
conservation method that included the 1.6's. I don't know if
that was a central mandate within that particular governmental
entity, but I do know that they have done that.
How, all I can say is they choose to do that. If their
happiness in performance is satisfactory, if their performance
is satisfactory, and they are happy about it, then I would say
that they have nothing to worry about. We are not going to
touch that. This bill does not get into that. We just do not
think that a one size fits all is good for the entire country.
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you. I apologize.
Mr. Norwood. No problem. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
In conclusion, and perhaps this question is directed to
counsel or you, but I understood you to say that the reason we
really don't have any trouble with any of this in Washington,
or at least in the Federal buildings, is that none of this
applies to any of the Federal buildings built prior to 1992.
Mr. Barton. That is correct, unless we were to do a massive
remodeling program. Then I think it would apply. I am not even
sure it would apply in that case. It would be interesting. It
could be argued it would apply.
Mr. Norwood. Would it apply if you simply wanted to repaint
the inside of Rayburn? Does that mean you would also have to
change the toilets?
Mr. Barton. No.
Mr. Norwood. Is that true in the private sector?
Mr. Barton. I think you can repaint without having to redo
toilets in the private sector. I am speaking like I really know
what I am saying here. So far the experts are nodding their
heads.
Mr. Norwood. Well, part of what you said was it really
costs a lot of money if we had to do it at this level up here.
It would be very----
Mr. Barton. Actually Mr. Rush said that.
Mr. Norwood. Well, I presume it would take a lot of money
to redo all of these buildings. But, you know, it takes a lot
of money for a little individual to have to redo their building
too, to replace perfectly good toilets, to put in new toilets
because 328 people up here debated 10 minutes they ought to
have to do it. So I encourage you, Mr. Knollenberg, we will get
there.
Mr. Barton. I believe the next gentleman who was here at
the time would be the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Bryant, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would still have an
interest in hearing from other panel members, and I appreciate
very much Mr. Knollenberg's very fine presentation. In light of
our time constraints, I would like to go ahead and move forward
and yield back my time.
Mr. Barton. The gentleman from Illinois, I would encourage
you to follow the standard just set by the gentleman from
Tennessee.
Mr. Shimkus. I have great respect for my friend and
colleague from Tennessee and I follow the same standard.
Mr. Barton. Thank you. I see no other member present who
has not had an opportunity. We will hold the record open for
any questions members wish to forward to you. We thank you for
your persistence in this, Congressman. I think based on the
next two panels, we will see if there is a consensus on whether
to move forward or not. We appreciate your testimony, but you
are excused at this point in time.
Mr. Knollenberg. Mr. Chairman, members, thank you. I
greatly appreciate you being willing to listen to all this.
Mr. Barton. We would now like the second panel to come
forward. We have Mr. Ben Lieberman, who is representing the
National Consumer Coalition. We have Mr. Glenn Haege, who is a
talk show host in Michigan. We have Mr. Gerald Kosmensky, who
is the President of Gerald building company, a construction
company, and Mr. Jerome Taylor, who is the Director of Natural
Resource Studies for the Cato Institute.
Gentleman, welcome to the committee. Your statements are in
the record in their entirety. We are going to start with Mr.
Lieberman and go right down the line and give you each 5
minutes to summarize. Then we will have questions.
STATEMENTS OF BEN LIEBERMAN, POLICY ANALYST, COMPETITIVE
ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL CONSUMER
COALITION; GLENN HAEGE, TALK SHOW HOST, WXYT; GERALD KOSMENSKY,
PRESIDENT, GERALD BUILDING COMPANY; AND JEROME TAYLOR, DIRECTOR
OF NATURAL RESOURCE STUDIES, CATO INSTITUTE
Mr. Lieberman. Good afternoon. My name is Ben Lieberman and
I am a policy analyst with the Competitive Enterprise
Institute.
Mr. Barton. You need to put the microphone close to you,
Mr. Lieberman.
Mr. Lieberman. The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a
public policy organization committed to advancing the
principles of free enterprise and limited government. Today I
represent 9 member organizations of the National Consumer
Coalition, with a total of more than 3 million members. None of
the groups I am representing today receive Federal funding
relevant to the subject of these hearings, and none have a
financial stake in this matter. My remarks will focus on the
consumer perspective on the Federal law mandating low flush
toilets. I believe that consumers have been harmed by this law
and that passage of H.R. 623, which would repeal it, is in the
best interests of the American people.
In 1992, several conservation and environmental lobbyists
were successful in adding language to the Energy Policy Act
requiring that toilets use no more than 1.6 gallons per flush,
less than half the water of most existing models. At the time,
the general public had virtually no idea what was being done to
them. However, since the mandate took effect in 1994, millions
of Americans, whether buying a new house or just replacing an
old toilet, have had bad experiences with these water stingy
models.
Simply put, these new toilets do not perform as well as
their higher flush predecessors, yet cost considerably more.
Many complain that the new toilets require increased cleaning
and clog up more frequently. Others complain of the need to
flush more than once, which in addition to being annoying and
unpleasant, cuts into the amount of water that is actually
conserved.
Some insist that these problems are few and far between, or
only apply to the earliest of the low flush models, but such is
not the case. Quite the contrary, I have never seen a stronger
grassroots backlash against a product than the one against low
flush toilets. And although some of the newest 1.6 gallons per
flush models are improvements over previous low flush versions,
they are still not as good as the higher flush models, and the
best of them cost considerably more. Indeed, a 1998 National
Association of Home Builders survey found that 72 percent of
homebuilders consider the 1.6 gallon toilets to be a problem.
I think it is clear that there is widespread consumer
dissatisfaction with these toilets. Nonetheless, I am sure we
will hear arguments to the contrary from plumbing fixture
manufacturers who currently enjoy a guaranteed market for these
expensive low flush toilets that would never be able to compete
in the absence of a mandate. We will probably hear similar
arguments from various bureaucrats and activists who have been
involved in this issue over the years. But before we get bogged
down in the debate over which kind of toilet is best, let's not
forget what the real controversy is: The issue is not whether
low flush toilets are better or worse than high flush toilets;
the real issue is who should get to decide such things,
individual consumers, or special interests. Clearly, this is a
choice best left to the consumer, and that is what H.R. 623
would do.
Proponents of low flush toilets have implied that H.R. 623
would somehow restrict the availability of low flush toilets,
but nothing could be further from the truth. This bill in no
way stops anyone who wishes to continue selling 1.6 gallon per
flush toilets from doing so. It also in no way restricts
consumers from buying low flush toilets, if that is what they
really want. H.R. 623 would only serve to expand consumer
choice by making the sale of higher flush toilets legal once
again.
By the way, this is why I find it so hard to believe the
critics of H.R. 623, who insist that the new low flush toilets
are as good or even better than the old style toilets. Assuming
the 1.6 gallons per flush toilets are as good as their
proponents say, then why are they so afraid of a little
competition from the higher flush models?
Looking into the future, if the low flush mandate is not
repealed, the situation will likely get worse, not better, in
the years ahead. Keep in mind that the 1.6 gallons per flush
figure is just the starting point. The language in the statute
delegates to the Department of Energy the authority to set even
tighter standards in the future. And, as anyone familiar with
Federal agencies knows, bureaucrats rarely pass up such
opportunities, especially when pressured by special interests,
some of whom are already hinting that more needs to be done.
If H.R. 623 does not pass and the current law remains in
place, expect a future push for 1.4 or 1.2, or maybe even 1.0
gallons per flush toilets standards, the result of which could
be even bigger problems for consumers.
Although my remarks today focus on the consumer impact of
the low flow toilet mandate, I would like to briefly address
the conservation arguments put forward to justify this costly
and intrusive measure.
The claim made by the supporters of low flush toilets is
that we need nationwide conservation measures to avert the
coming national water crisis.
Mr. Barton. You can at least finish your sentence.
Mr. Lieberman. Let me go right to the end.
Mr. Barton. Get to the bottom line here.
Mr. Lieberman. The bottom line. In conclusion, I would like
to try to put this issue in a broader context, especially since
some in Congress may not see this as terribly important.
Underperforming toilets, after all, are not as serious as
most issues you deal with. But in a larger sense, the low flush
toilet controversy and its resolution could be a signal for
Washington's future direction.
A Federal Government that believes it has the right, the
need, and, quite frankly, the competence to set design
standards for toilets is a government losing sight of its
limits and its limitations. And if our government is so
beholden to special interests that it will continue to foist a
clearly unwanted choice on the American people, then there are
few constraints on the damage it can inflict.
On the other hand, a Congress that truly listens to the
people, admits its mistake, and gets itself out of the plumbing
business by passing H.R. 623 would be taking a very important
step toward sensibility.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ben Lieberman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ben Lieberman, Policy Analyst, The Competitive
Enterprise Institute Representing Nine Members of the National Consumer
Coalition
Good afternoon. My name is Ben Lieberman and I am a policy analyst
with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a public policy organization
committed to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited
government. Today, I represent 9 member organizations of the National
Consumer Coalition, with a total of more than 3 million
members.1 None of the groups I am representing today receive
federal funding relevant to the subject of these hearings, and none
have a financial stake in this matter. My remarks will focus on the
consumer perspective on the federal law mandating low flush toilets. I
believe that consumers have been harmed by this law, and that passage
of HR 623, which would repeal it, is in the best interests of the
American people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 60 Plus Association, Americans for Tax Reform, Association of
Concerned Taxpayers, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Competitive
Enterprise Institute, Consumer Alert, Frontiers of Freedom, Heartland
Institute, Seniors Coalition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a bad idea with no public support
In 1992, several conservation and environmental lobbyists were
successful in adding language to the Energy Policy Act requiring that
toilets use no more than 1.6 gallons per flush, less that half the
water of most existing models. At the time, the general public had
virtually no idea what was being done to them. However, since the
mandate took effect in 1994, millions of Americans, whether buying a
new house or just replacing an old toilet, have had bad experiences
with these water stingy models.
Simply put, these new toilets do not perform as well as their
higher flush predecessors, yet cost considerably more. Many complain
that the new toilets require increased cleaning, and clog up more
frequently. Others complain of the need to flush more than once, which
in addition to being annoying and unpleasant, cuts into the amount of
water that is actually conserved.
a widespread consumer backlash against an unwanted and poorly
performing product
Some insist that these problems are few and far between, or only
apply to the earliest of the low flush models, but such is not the
case. Quite the contrary, I have never seen a stronger grassroots
backlash against a product than the one against low flush toilets. And,
although some of the newest 1.6 gallons per flush models are
improvements over previous low flush versions, they are still not
nearly as good as the higher flush models, and the best of them cost
considerably more. Indeed, a 1998 National Association of Homebuilders
survey found that 72 percent of homebuilders consider the 1.6 gallon
toilets to be a problem.
consumers have a right to choose for themselves
I think its clear that there is widespread consumer dissatisfaction
with these toilets. Nonetheless, I am sure we will hear arguments to
the contrary from plumbing fixture manufacturers, who currently enjoy a
guaranteed market for these expensive low flush toilets that would
never be able to compete in the absence of a mandate. We will probably
also hear similar arguments from various bureaucrats and activists who
have been involved in this issue over the years. But before we get
bogged down in the debate over which kind of toilet is best, lets not
forget what the real controversy is. The issue is not whether low flush
toilets are better or worse than high flush toilets; the real issue is
who should get to decide such things, individual consumers, or special
interests. Clearly, this is a choice best left to the consumer, and
that is what HR 623 would do.
hr 623 would serve to expand consumer choice
Proponents of low flush toilets have implied that HR 623 would
somehow restrict the availability of low flush toilets, but nothing
could be further from the truth. This bill in no way stops anyone who
wishes to continue selling 1.6 gallons per flush toilets from doing so.
It also in no way restricts consumers from buying low flush toilets, if
that's what they really want. HR 623 would only serve to expand
consumer choice by making the sale of higher flush toilets legal once
again. By the way, this is why I find it so hard to believe the critics
of HR 623 who insist that the new low flush toilets are as good or even
better than the old style toilets. Assuming the 1.6 gallons per flush
toilets are as good as their proponents say, then why are they so
afraid of a little competition from the higher flush models?
as bad as things are, regulators could make them worse
Looking into the future, if the low flush mandate is not repealed,
the situation will likely get worse, not better, in the years ahead.
Keep in mind that the 1.6 gallons per flush figure is just the starting
point. The language in the statute delegates to the Department of
Energy the authority to set even tighter standards in the future. And,
as anyone familiar with federal agencies knows, bureaucrats rarely pass
up such opportunities, especially when pressured by special interests,
some of whom are already hinting that more needs to be done. If HR 623
does not pass and the current law remains in place, expect a future
push for 1.4, or 1.2, or maybe even 1.0 gallons per flush toilets
standards, the result of which would be even bigger problems for
consumers.
the conservation rationale behind this measure does not make sense
Although my remarks focus on the consumer impact of the low flow
toilet mandate, I would briefly like to address the conservation
arguments put forward to justify this costly and intrusive measure. The
claim made by the supporters of the low flush toilet mandate is that we
need nationwide water conservation measures to avert the coming
national water crisis. This argument greatly exaggerates the problem,
and is but the latest in a long line of resource depletion doomsday
scenarios, virtually none of which has ever come true. In fact, take
out the word water, put in the word energy, and we've been through all
this before with the energy crisis of the 1970s. If you remember back
then, the self-proclaimed experts insisted that the world was going to
run out of oil, by some estimates as soon as the 1980s or 1990s. They
argued that federal conservation measures were the only way to prevent
a very bleak future. Unfortunately, Congress believed them and enacted
laws that burdened consumers with gas rationing and wasted billions of
tax dollars on synthetic fuels research and other boondoggles. And of
course, the energy crisis turned out to be a complete dud. Today, we're
hearing the very same arguments (and in a few cases, the very same
people making those arguments) in regards to the supposed water crisis.
But the doomsayers track record indicates that we should be skeptical.
The reality is that water is cheap and plentiful for the majority
of Americans. Personally, I live in the Washington, DC metro area and
pay about $4 and change for every thousand gallons, and that's water
and sewer combined. Now I'm not a water policy expert, but $4 for a
thousand gallons doesn't sound like a crisis to me. And what is true
for this area is true for most of the nation. Now granted, there are
parts of the country where water is more scarce or where sewage
treatment facilities are bumping up against capacity, and we will hear
from water officials representing those areas. However, these are local
problems that can best be dealt with at the state or local level, and
most likely in smarter ways than low flush toilet mandates. The current
law simply forces a costly and intrusive solution on all Americans for
something that simply is not a problem for most of them.
there is no need for a federal one-size-fits-all toilet standard
Defenders of the status quo have also made the argument that if the
federal low flush law is repealed, it will just be replaced by a
patchwork of conflicting state standards. Thus they argue, we are
better off with a uniform federal low flush statute. This argument
fails for several reasons.
First of all, low flush toilet mandates are a very unpopular idea,
and that is just as true at the state level as it is at the federal
level. If the 1.6 mandate is killed by Congress, it probably will die
out at the state level as well. Granted, there were some states that
enacted low flush standards just prior to the Energy Policy Act, but
these laws were passed in much the same way as the federal law--by
special interests, working behind the scenes, with little if any public
awareness, let alone public support. But today, the cat is out of the
bag, the public has had to deal with the new toilets for several years,
and they clearly don't like this mandate, no matter what level of
government is trying to impose it. At this point, I find it hard to
believe that the citizens of any state would put up with a low flush
toilet standard that uniquely burdens them. But even if I am wrong and
a few state governments try to retain the 1.6 gallons per flush
standard, so be it. That is hardly an excuse to burden the citizens of
all the other states as well. Again, the argument that we need a heavy
handed, one-size-fits-all federal standard in order to usurp the states
simply does not make sense.
conclusion
In conclusion, I would like to try to put this issue in a broader
context, especially since some in Congress may not see this issue as
terribly important. Underperforming toilets, after all, are not as
serious as most issues you deal with. But in a larger sense, the low
flush toilet controversy and its resolution could be signal for
Washington's future direction. A federal government that believes it
has the right, the need, and quite frankly the competence to set design
standards for toilets, is a government losing sight of its limits, and
its limitations. And if our government is so beholden to special
interests that it will continue to foist a clearly unwanted choice on
the American people, then there are few constraints on the damage it
can inflict.
On the other hand, a Congress that truly listens to the people,
admits its mistake, and gets itself out of the plumbing business by
passing HR 623 would be taking a very important step towards
sensibility. Thank you.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Lieberman.
Mr. Haege, your statement is in the record. We would ask
you to try to summarize in 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF GLENN HAEGE
Mr. Haege. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to speak with you and the committee today regarding
this important bill under consideration, namely, the Plumbing
Standards Improvement Act of 1999.
This is a very important issue that affects every American
in a very personal way. I would also like to thank Congressman
Joe Knollenberg for introducing this bill.
Mr. Chairman, first I feel that it is important to
establish my background for you and the other members and why I
feel very qualified to speak as an expert on home improvement
and on the behalf of a great number of American homeowners
across this country.
My name is Glen Haege. I am known professionally as
America's Master Handyman. Over 30 years ago I began my
professional career working as a retail store manager and
trainer for one of the country's leading paint manufacturers;
namely, the Sherwin Williams Paint Company.
After 8 years, I then began working in the retail hardware
industry as the general merchandise manager for ACO Hardware,
the largest independent hardware store chain in the country,
and served as one of their directors.
Eighteen years ago I began making appearances on various
radio and television programs on behalf of the hardware store
chain to present advice and answer home improvement questions
from listeners. In 1983, I began hosting my own radio call-in
program called the ``Ask the Handy Man'' with Glen Haege show,
on weekends on CBS owned WXYT radio in Detroit. The program was
expanded over the years and now airs for 8 hours every weekend.
Starting in October 1996, a 2-hour portion of my program
has been nationally syndicated across the entire country. My
show airs on stations in 48 States and on close to 200 radio
stations. It is the most popular home improvement radio show in
the Nation. It is estimated that over the years I have answered
over 50,000 home improvement questions from listeners and at
personal appearances.
Fellow broadcast industry executives have also recognized
my talents and I have recently been named as one of the 100
most important radio talk show hosts in America. In addition, I
write a weekly newspaper article for the Detroit News, which is
syndicated around the country by Gannett Newspapers. I am also
the author of 8 books on the subject of home improvement.
Mr. Barton. We will stipulate you are an expert.
Mr. Haege. Thank you. From these conversations, I can tell
you without a doubt that there is a major problem in the
bathrooms across America. It is just beginning to become
apparent to most people. Basically, people everywhere complain
their newer, low flush toilets just don't work.
They don't know what is causing the problem, but they
constantly complain about the toilets do not function properly
to remove waste from the bowl and they have to flush repeatedly
to get the job done.
I have attended numerous trade industry shows and have
discovered an interesting fact. Many plumbing manufacturers
have boasted proudly that they are on their fourth or fifth
generation design for their toilet bowls in a period of only 3
years. Why are they having to keep spending their research and
development dollars to keep redesigning 1.6 gallon flush
toilets so often in such a short period of time?
The passing of the amendments to the Energy Policy Act in
1992 that mandated these new low flush toilets have spawned the
growth of a new industry product called vacuum assisted flush
systems. These are what you gentleman use in the building that
you are talking about. They have added an average of $200 to
the cost of a toilet. You may not know, but these vacuum flush
systems have been installed in most new commercial buildings,
such as the one in the Capitol. I know that many Members of
Congress have received calls and letters from their
constituents written on toilet paper. I started that in March
1997.
I have also been the recipient of thousands of notes and
letters complaining. Many of them paid for plumbing
professionals to come to their home and fix their toilet, only
to be told that you should keep a yardstick next to their
toilet to break up the waste so it would go down.
It has gotten to the point that many Americans are crossing
the border to Canada and Mexico to purchase these now illegal
toilets, bringing them back over the border. This is not the
way to handle this situation.
Who is complaining about the 3.5 gallon toilets? Not the
homeowners, gentleman. They were very satisfied with a system
that has worked well for years. What measures of conservation
are served when the homeowners have to flush several times?
Nothing is saved. More resources are wasted.
It is not a safety issue, it is not a cosmetic issue, it is
a real pain in the bathroom that needs a second look. All we
are saying is give people a choice. I know that you all know
the old adage of if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Well, in my
opinion and the opinion of thousands of people across America
that call in to my radio program, the old 3.5 gallon flush
toilets were not broken and the fix that was passed in 1992 by
the U.S. Congress that mandates 1.6 gallon flush toilets is
just not working, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Glenn Haege follows:]
Prepared Statement of Glenn Haege, Talk Show Host, WXYT
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak with
you, and the Committee, today regarding this important bill under
consideration, namely, the Plumbing Standards Improvement Act of 1999.
This is a very important issue that affects every American in a
very personal way.
I would also like to thank Congressman Joe Knollenberg for
introducing this Bill.
Mr. Chairman, first I feel that it is important to establish my
background for you and the other members of the committee and why I
feel very qualified to speak as an expert on home improvement and on
the behalf of a great number of American homeowners across the country.
My name is Glenn Haege. I am known professionally as America's
Master Handyman.
Over 30 years ago, I began my professional career working as a
retail store manager and trainer for one of the country's leading paint
manufacturers, namely, the Sherwin Williams Paint Company.
After 8 years, I then began working in the retail hardware industry
as the General Merchandise Manager for ACO Hardware, the largest
independent hardware store chain in the country, and served as one of
their Directors.
18 years ago I began making appearances on various radio and
television programs, on behalf of the hardware store chain, to present
advice and answer home improvement questions from listeners. In 1983, I
began hosting my own radio call-in program, called the ``Ask the
Handyman'' with Glenn Haege show, on weekends, on CBS-owned, WXYT-AM
radio in Detroit.
This program was expanded over the years and now airs for eight
hours, live, every weekend.
Starting in October 1996, a two-hour portion of my program has been
nationally syndicated across the entire country. My show airs on
stations in 48 states and on close to 200 radio stations. It is the
most popular home improvement radio show in the nation.
It is estimated, that over the years, I have answered over 50,000
home improvement questions from listeners and at personal appearances.
Fellow broadcast industry executives have also recognized my
talents and I have recently been named as ``One of the 100 Most
Important Radio Talk Show Hosts in America'' for the second year in a
row by Talkers Magazine, a leading trade publication.
In addition, I write a weekly newspaper article for The Detroit
News, which is syndicated around the country by Gannett Newspapers. I
also am the author of 8 books on the subject of home improvement. I
have been quoted in major newspapers, such as The New York Times, The
Washington Post, and The Boston Globe, regarding home improvement and
this important issue.
Based on length of my program, the number of stations that carry my
show, audience ratings, newspaper articles and books, I can tell you,
without doubt, that I speak to more people about home improvement,
every weekend, than anyone else in America.
This large audience reach gives me access to a great number of
people who call in to discuss their home improvement problems.
From these conversations, I can tell you without a doubt that there
is a major problem in bathrooms all across America. It is just
beginning to become apparent to most people. Basically, people
everywhere complain that their newer, low-flush, toilets just don't
work.
They don't know what is causing the problem, but they constantly
complain about the toilets do not function properly to remove waste
from the bowl and that they have to flush repeatedly to get the job
done.
I have attended numerous industry trade shows and have discovered
an interesting fact. Many plumbing manufacturers have boasted proudly
that they are on their fourth or fifth generation design for their
toilet bowls in a period of only 3 years. Why are they having to keep
spending their research and development dollars to keep redesigning 1.6
gallon flush toilets so often in such a short period of time? The
answer must be because they, too, realize that their previous designed
products just don't work.
The passing of the amendments to the Energy Policy Act in 1992 that
mandated these new low-flush toilets have spawned the growth of a new
industry product, namely, the vacuum-assisted flush systems. These are
add-on products that go inside the toilet water tank and use water
pressure to push the waste through the toilet. They have added an
average of $200 to the cost of a toilet. You may not know this, but
these vacuum flush systems have been installed in most new commercial
buildings, such as hotels, and maybe even right here in the U.S.
Capitol. Since you don't have to deal with this problem where you work,
you may not understand the gravity of this situation throughout
America.
I know that many members of Congress have received calls and
letters from their constituents regarding this problem. I, also, have
been the recipient of thousands of notes, many of them written on
toilet paper, which ask the `Government to get out of my toilet.'
I also got to read some of the horrible tales of woe from real
Americans. Many of them paid for plumbing professionals to come to
their home and fix their toilet problem only to be told that they
should keep a yardstick next to the toilet to break up the waste so
that it would go down easier.
It has gotten to the point that many Americans are crossing the
border to Canada and Mexico to purchase these now illegal toilets and
bringing them back over the border for installation in their homes.
Believe it or not, but the current law has created a Black Market in
toilet smuggling.
This is not the way to handle this situation. Who was complaining
about the 3.5 toilets? Not the homeowners. They were very satisfied
with a system that has worked well for years. What measures of
conservation are served when the homeowners have to flush several
times? Nothing is saved. More resources are wasted.
I am here today to ask that the American homeowners be given a
choice. Let the consumer decide on what size toilet that they would
like to have in their own home. Let the consumers decide what they want
and the free market will deliver the products that are preferred. If
consumers that want the 1.6-gallon toilets for their own home, let them
have them, but please don't force these toilets in everyone's bathroom.
It is not a safety issue. It is not a cosmetic issue. It is a real
pain in the bathroom that needs a second look. All we are saying is
give people a choice.
I know that you all know the old adage `if it ain't broke . . .
don't fix it.' Well, in my opinion, and the opinion of thousands of
people across America that call in to my radio program, the old 3.5
gallon flush toilets were not broken and the fix, that was passed in
1992 by the U.S. Congress that mandates 1.6 gallon flush toilets, is
just not working.
Thank you.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Haege. We are very impressed
with your background, by the way.
Mr. Haege. Thank you.
Mr. Barton. That was impressive. I was not trying to
belittle that. You obviously are an expert in that.
I would now like to hear from Mr. Kosmensky. Again, your
statement is in the record and we recognize you to summarize it
in 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF GERALD KOSMENSKY
Mr. Kosmensky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify before you today.
My name is Gerald Kosmensky. I am a home builder from
Southgate, Michigan, and I have been building houses for 40
years. I am the past President of the Building Industry
Association of Southeastern Michigan and past President of the
Michigan Home Builders Association. I am the Mayor of the city
of Orchard Lake, Michigan, and a constituent of Representative
Joe Knollenberg. I am pleased to be here to testify in support
of H.R. 623, legislation repealing federally mandated 1.6
gallon flush toilets. I applaud Representative Knollenberg for
introducing this important legislation.
I am also a Senior Life Director of the National
Association of Home Builders and a member of the NAHB's
Executive Committee. However, I am not here today testifying on
behalf of NAHB. NAHB has recently taken a neutral stance on
this legislation in the hope that the significant problems with
the manufacturing of 1.6 gallon toilets can be worked out with
the manufacturing community without further Federal Government
intervention.
Fortunately, introduction of this bill has spurred
productive discussions between the building industry and
plumbing fixture manufacturers as to what must be done
mechanically to low flow toilets so that they function
properly.
The core problem addressed by H.R. 623 is that many low
flow, 1.6 gallon toilets, just do not work. That means I have
to place a product in a new home that is not going to function
properly. This is very disturbing to a small businessman who
has to rely on good referrals in order to drum up continued
business. The bottom line is that my reputation as a builder is
negatively affected when I am installing plumbing fixtures that
do not work properly.
I hear time and time again from my colleagues all over the
country that new home buyers are dissatisfied with their
toilets. In some cases, builder friends of mine have indicated
that at least half of their call backs are due to toilets not
working properly. Every time a builder has to make this kind of
call back, it takes time away from other projects.
Oftentimes when I tell a new homeowner that the reason
their toilet doesn't work has nothing to do with the plumbing
installment, but because of a Federal mandate on low flow
toilets, they think I am joking, that I am making an excuse for
the bad plumbing in a new home. I have made it a policy to tell
my customers up front about the low flow law.
Coming from a State that borders Canada, where there is no
1.6 gallon requirement and 3.5 gallon toilets are the norm,
many customers opt to buy their toilets on the black market.
They can buy all the 3.5 gallon toilets they want with a short
trip to Windsor, Ontario. This may sound ridiculous, but it is
a fact and an issue which we address every time we build a new
home.
There are many horror stories that I could share with you.
I have heard of homeowners putting instructions on their
bathroom doors for guests instructing them how to help make the
toilet flush with plungers and extra cups of water. I submit to
you this is absurd.
NAHB's research center in Maryland recently put a survey on
their Internet site for consumers and homebuilders to comment
on the performance of low flow toilets. The responses have been
overwhelmingly negative with both consumers and builders citing
dissatisfaction with 1.6 gallon toilets.
This is a common sense issue. If your toilets are not doing
the job and homeowners are flushing twice or three times or
pouring extra water in the bowl, we are not saving water or
energy. If you stay in the shower for 5 or 10 minutes longer
than you normally do because the water pressure is not getting
the soap out of your hair, we are not saving water.
It is disturbing to me as a citizen of the United States
that the Federal Government is regulating the water used in my
toilet. I ask myself, what is next? I hear that there is a
movement to require all washing machines to be front loaded,
which uses less water and energy, that is true, but a front
load machine also holds a smaller load, so that means you will
have to do 4 loads instead of 2. I ask again, how are we saving
water and energy in these instances?
I like to tell my customers that this mandate is
government's version of planned obsolescence.
Once again, as a builder from Michigan who has to live with
the fact that these fixtures do not work every day, I want to
give my wholeheartedly support to H.R. 623 and Representative
Knollenberg's efforts in this regard.
I want to thank the committee for allowing me to be here
today.
[The prepared statement of Gerald Kosmensky follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gerald ``Jerry'' Kosmensky, President, Gerald
Building Company
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee for the
opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Jerry Kosmensky, I
am a home builder from Southgate, Michigan and I have been building
homes for 40 years. I am Past-President of the Building Industry
Association of Southeastern Michigan and Past-President of the Michigan
Home Builders Association. I am Mayor of the City of Orchard Lake,
Michigan and a constituent of Representative Joe Knollenberg. I am
pleased to be here to testify in support of H.R. 623; legislation
repealing federally mandated 1.6-gallon flush toilets. I applaud
Representative Knollenberg for introducing this important legislation.
I am also a Senior Life Director of the National Association of
Home Builders (NAHB) and a member of NAHB's Executive Committee.
However, I am not here today testifying on behalf of NAHB. NAHB has
recently taken a neutral stance on this legislation in the hope that
the significant problems with the manufacturing of 1.6-gallon toilets
can be worked out with the manufacturing community without further
federal government intervention. Fortunately, introduction of this bill
has spurred productive discussions between the building industry and
plumbing fixture manufacturers as to what must be done mechanically to
low flow toilets so that they function properly.
The core problem addressed by H.R. 623 is that many low flow, 1.6-
gallon toilets do not work. That means I have to place a product in a
new home that is not going to function properly. This is very
disturbing to a small businessman who has to rely on good referrals in
order to drum up continued business. The bottom line is that my
reputation as a builder is negatively effected when I am installing
plumbing fixtures that do not work.
I hear time and time again from my colleagues all over the country
that new homebuyers are dissatisfied with their toilets. In some cases,
builder friends of mine have indicated that at least half of their
callbacks are due to toilets not working properly. Every time a builder
has a callback it takes time away from other projects.
Often times when I tell a new homeowner that the reason their
toilet doesn't work has nothing to do with the plumbing installment,
but because of a federal mandate on low flow toilets, they think I am
joking--that I am making an excuse for the bad plumbing in the new
home. I have made it a policy to tell my customers up front about the
low flow law. Coming from a state that boarders Canada, where there is
no 1.6-gallon requirement and 3.5 gallon toilets are the norm, many
customers opt to buy their toilets on the black market. They can buy
all the 3.5-gallon toilets they want with a short trip to Windsor,
Ontario. This may sound ridiculous, but it is a fact and an issue with
which we address every time we build a new home.
There are many horror stories that I could share with you. I've
heard of new home owners putting instructions on their bathroom doors
for guests instructing them how to ``help the toilet flush'' with
plungers and extra cups of water. This is absurd.
NAHB's Research Center, in Maryland, recently put a survey on their
Internet sight for consumers and homebuilders to comment on the
performance of low flow toilets. The responses have been overwhelmingly
negative with both consumers and builders citing dissatisfaction with
1.6-gallon toilets.
This is a common sense issue. If your toilets are not doing the job
and homeowners are flushing twice or three times or pouring extra water
in the bowl, we are not saving water or energy. If you stay in the
shower for 5 or 10 minutes longer than you normally do because the
water pressure is not getting soap out of your hair, we are not saving
water.
It is disturbing to me, as a citizen of the United States, that the
federal government is regulating the water used in my toilet. I ask
myself what is next. I hear that there is a movement to require all
washing machines to be front loaded which uses less water and energy,
but a front load machine also holds a smaller load, so that means you
will just have to do four loads instead of two. I ask again, how are we
saving water and energy in these instances.
I like to tell customers that this mandate is the government's
version of ``planned obsolescence.''
Once again, as a builder from Michigan who has to live with the
fact that these fixtures do not work everyday, I want to give my
wholehearted support to H.R. 623 and Representative Knollenberg's
efforts in this regard. Thank you for the committee's time.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Kosmensky. We would now like to
hear from Mr. Taylor, who is representing the Cato Institute.
STATEMENT OF JEROME TAYLOR
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
the members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify
today on H.R. 623. My name is Jerry Taylor. I am Director of
Natural Resource Studies at the Cato Institute. My comments
this afternoon will attempt to put the discussion in context by
addressing the underlying realities of water markets.
In brief, while there is a legitimate concern about water
availability, overconsumption is an artificial phenomenon, a
product of misguided public policy. Appliance standards are
incapable of remedying the underlying causes of water scarcity
and, moreover, introduce further distortions and inefficiencies
in water markets. In my judgment, passage of H.R. 623 would
move policy in the right direction.
First, let us consider the anatomy of present water
markets. How much water is delivered to consumers and what
price to sell it are determined by political entities, not
market agents. Water prices have thus been kept artificially
low. Overconsumption and occasional shortages have been the
inevitable result. The government has reacted not by raising
water prices, but by mandating conservation, primarily on the
less politically influential. The plumbing fixture mandates of
the 1992 EPAct are a primary example of the kind of technical
engineering fixes employed to manage water supply and demand.
This story should sound familiar to this subcommittee. In
fact, water policy today is a virtual carbon copy of energy
policy in the 1970's. Then, as now, government rationalized
regulation on the ground that a resource was too important and
too scarce to be left to the marketplace. Then, as now,
government restrained prices and controlled resource allocation
to protect and subsidize various consumers. Then, as now,
government responded to overconsumption not by freeing prices
from government control, but by mandating conservation.
America should have learned a very few important things
about economics from the energy experience of 1970's. First,
when regulations keep pricing below market clearing levels,
shortages inevitably follow. Shortages are an artifact of
public policy, not geology.
Second, government agents cannot direct resource
production, price or allocation decisions as efficiently as can
market actors. When the tangled web of energy regulations were
relaxed and eliminated in the 1980's, scarcity vanished.
Third, mandatory conservation signals are a poor substitute
for accurate market signals. The only way to avoid shortages is
to rely on free market pricing and allocation.
Finally, government directed conservation investments are
unlikely to improve upon those that would be made if consumers
are faced with the correct market signals.
Now, would removing the mandated purchase of low flow
toilets and shower heads make matters worse in light of what I
just outlined? I don't think so. Total water consumption from
1970 through 1990 declined in this country, despite growth in
population and national GDP, and per capita use was lower in
1990 than at any time since 1965.
Absolute water consumption was about--is about in 1990
where it was in 1975. Those positive trends, I should point
out, have nothing to do with government conservation mandates.
In fact, they predate the standards we are discussing today.
But those trends continue because, one, effluent charges were
imposed on industry which provided an incentive to industry to
reduce water consumption. Two, stricter water quality
regulations provided an incentive to recycle industrial
discharges; and, three, reductions in agricultural demand
reduced irrigation needs.
Since 80 to 90 percent of all water consumption is by
agricultural businesses in the 19 western-most States, low flow
toilets or shower heads, no matter how efficient, do not have
any appreciable impact on national water consumption.
Conservationists, however, are right to fret over the
overconsumption of water in the United States. Existing
government policies are, frankly, absurd.
In parts of the West, for example, highly subsidized water
is being used in arid and desert regions to irrigate price
supported crops currently in surplus and groundwater is being
so polluted and wildlife so endangered that this irrigation has
required massive federally funded cleanup measures.
Water markets, like energy markets before them, need a dose
of market discipline. Accurate pricing will surely even induce
Americans to conserve. Some consumers may willingly install the
very low flow shower heads and toilets targeted by H.R. 623.
Others may decide that they value long, vigorous showers more
than they value green lawns or a new pool. Governments,
however, should not attempt to micromanage those decisions.
Moreover, government should not hammer residential consumers
for consumption habits that pale in comparison with the truly
prodigious volumes of water being wasted as a direct
consequence of government policy.
Americans should learn from the mistakes of the 1970's and
free water provision consumption from regulatory control.
Thank you very much for your time, and I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Jerome Taylor follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jerry Taylor, Director, Natural Resource Studies,
CATO Institute
I'd like to thank the members of the subcommittee on energy and
power for the opportunity to testify today on HR 623, ``The Plumbing
Standards Improvement Act of 1999.'' My comments this afternoon will
attempt to put the discussion in context by addressing the underlying
realities of water markets. The plumbing standards at issue are but a
small thread within the larger tapestry of national water policy, and
an understanding of that policy is necessary to judge the merits of HR
623. In brief, while there is a legitimate concern about water
availability, over-consumption is an artificial phenomenon--a product
of misguided public policy. Appliance standards--such as those targeted
for elimination by HR 623--are incapable of remedying the underlying
causes of water scarcity and, moreover, introduce further distortions
and inefficiencies in water markets. In fact, there are striking
parallels between water and energy markets (and between water and
energy policy) that serve to illuminate the underlying issues at stake
in the debate over HR 623. In my judgement, passage of ``The Plumbing
Standards Improvement Act'' would move policy in the right direction.
The Anatomy of Present Water Markets
Water is delivered to consumers either by public entities or
private companies regulated by public utility commissions. The
questions of how much water to deliver to consumers--and what price to
sell it--are likewise determined by political entities, not by market
agents. Unfortunately--perhaps inevitably--governmental agents have
directed water to politically powerful interests (primarily western
agriculture) and under-supplied water to less politically powerful
interests (urban consumers). Moreover, water prices have been kept
artificially low.1 Scarcity and shortage has been the
inevitable result.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although present water charges are on average about half what
they would be in a free market, the disparity between regulated and
market price varies by consumer. Municipalities charge about $1 per
1,000 gallons while industry and agriculture pay only 10 cents per
1,000 gallons. Contrast those prices with bottled water, which sells at
about $4,000 per 1,000 gallons. Peter Rogers, America's Water: Federal
Roles and Responsibilities (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993), pg. 1, 186.
\2\ Terry Anderson and Pamela Snyder, Water Markets: Priming the
Invisible Pump (Washington: Cato Institute, 1997), p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government has reacted--not by raising its price--but by mandating
conservation, primarily on the less politically influential (the
agricultural industry, which consumes 80-90 percent of all water
withdrawn for human use, 3 has been generally immune from
such strict conservation mandates). The plumbing fixture mandates of
the 1992 Energy Policy Act are a primary example of the kind of
technical, engineering fixes employed to manage water supply and
demand.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Ibid., p. 18.
\4\ Rogers, pp. 101-103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above story should sound familiar. In fact, water policy today
is a virtual carbon copy of energy policy in the 1970s. The water
industry, like the energy industry, is one of the nation's largest--and
most heavily regulated--businesses, delivering a life-sustaining
resource crucial to the economy.5 Then, as now, government
rationalized centralized control over the resource on the grounds that
it was too important to leave to the marketplace, too scarce to be
allocated by the cold logic of the invisible hand, and too riddled with
market failures to be efficiently traded without government
oversight.6 Then, as now, government restrained prices and
controlled resource allocation to protect and/or subsidize various
consumers. Acute scarcity was the natural result.7 Then, as
now, government responded not by freeing prices but by mandating
conservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The water industry is by far the most capital-intensive
industry in America and, in terms of annual capital expenditures, ranks
only behind electricity and petrochemicals. The federal government
alone employs over 90,000 people in ten cabinet departments, two major
independent agencies, and 34 smaller agencies to oversee 25 separate
water programs governed by more than 200 sets of federal rules,
regulations and laws. State and local governments employ and additional
50,000 regulators and consultants. Rogers, pg. 4, 15-16, 239-241.
\6\ Ibid., 49-53
\7\ Robert L. Bradley, Jr., Oil, Gas, and Government: The U.S.
Experience (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1996), pg. 465-532, 629-
710, and 1605-1694.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What the Energy Experience Can Teach Us About Water Policy
America should have learned a few very important things about
economics from the energy experience of the 1970s. First, when
government regulations keep prices below market-clearing levels,
shortages inevitably follow. Shortages are an artifact of public
policy, not geology.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ M.A. Adelman, The Genie Out of the Bottle: World Oil Since 1970
(Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996, pp. 11-39). Stuart Burness and James Quirk
have likewise noted that ``Often, what appears to be a shortage of
water is actually the manifestation of restrictions on water rights
transfer.'' ``Water Laws, Water Transfers, and Economic Efficiency: The
Colorado River,'' Journal of Law and Economics 23, April 1980, p. 133.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, government agents cannot direct resource production, price,
or allocation decisions as efficiently as can market
actors.9 When the tangled web of energy regulations were
relaxed or eliminated in the 1980s, scarcity vanished. Subsequent
supply disruptions did not usher in the scarcities or inconveniences of
the 1970s even though the disruption of 1990 was as larger or larger
than those of the 1973 and 1979.10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``Price controls and allocations produced the gasoline waiting
lines which were `made in the USA,' not by the Arabs. They were made
much worse by set-asides: first for farmers, then justice required them
for truckers, etc. The result was more hoarding and less supply.'' M.A.
Adelman, ``The World Oil Market: Fact and Fiction,'' Policy Analysis,
Cato Institute, forthcoming. For an extensive treatment, see Bradley
1996, pp. 1815-1910.
\10\ Robert L. Bradley, ``What Now For U.S. Energy Policy? A Free
Market Perspective,'' Policy Analysis no. 145, Cato Institute, January
29, 1991, p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third--and most relevant to HR 623--mandatory conservation measures
are a poor substitute for accurate price signals. It was rising
prices--not mandatory conservation--which ultimately led to increases
in energy efficiency in the 1970s and 1980s.11 The only way
to avoid shortages is to rely on free-market pricing and
allocation.12 Consumers circumvent mandatory conservation
technologies by increasing consumption at the margin (the well-known
``rebound effect'' 13) or procuring through indirect
channels the resource being denied them. Their behavior seems to be in
agreement with M.A. Adelman's argument that ``energy conservation for
its own sake regardless of price is the talk of the madman in Dr.
Strangelove, obsessed with his `precious bodily fluids.' ''
14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``Energy Security White Paper: U.S. Decisions and Global
Trends,'' American Petroleum Institute, Washington, 1988, pp. 83-85.
\12\ Robert Hall and Robert Pindyck, ``What to Do When Energy
Prices Rise Again,'' The Public Interest 65, Fall 1981, pp. 59-70 and
Richard Gordon, An Economic Analysis of World Energy Problems
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 1981.
\13\ Economists are well aware of the fact that improving technical
energy efficiency reduces the cost of, and thereby tends to increase
the consumption of, goods and services that use energy. The degree to
which energy efficiency gains will lead to increases in energy
consumption depends upon the elasticity of demand for each of the
effected energy service. Unfortunately, ``the rebound effect seems
important for services with a significant conservation potential but
negligible for services with a minor conservation potential in terms of
kWhs'' (Franz Wirl, The Economics of Conservation Programs (Boston:
Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997, pg. 31, 139). The rebound effect
applies to firms as well. For empirical documentation of the rebound
effect, see David Greene and L.A. Greening, ``Energy Use, Technical
Efficiency, and the Rebound Effect: A Review of the Literature,''
Report to the Office of Policy Analysis and International Affairs, U.S.
Department of Energy, December 1997. For a review of the literature
regarding the rebound effect and automobile transportation, see David
Greene, James Kahn, and Robert Gibson, ``Fuel Economy Rebound Effect
for U.S. Household Vehicles,'' Energy Journal 20:3, 1999, pp. 6-10.
\14\ Adelman 1993, p. 495.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, government directed conservation investments are unlikely
to improve upon those that would be made if consumers were faced with
correct market signals.15 Looking back at the mandatory
energy conservation standards of the 1970s, MIT analysts observe that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ As Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek has noted, ``An economic actor on
average knows better the environment in which he is acting and the
probable consequences of his actions than does an outsider, no matter
how clever the outsider may be.'' F.A. Hayek, ``The Use of Knowledge in
Society,'' American Economic Review 35, 1945, pp. 519-530. For a review
of public versus private decision-making in the energy economy, see
generally Wirl, pp. 119-142.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An error common to the programs was the concept that it was
wrong to consume, rather than that we should consume wisely in
view of the higher price of energy. For example, a goal was
that we should consume less, even where less meant also less
comfort, less productivity, and fewer goods and services--
regardless of the cost effectiveness. The mistake was in
presuming that conserving less energy was the goal, and that
the goal had an intrinsic value. The blunder lives on today in
the mandates of virtually all state energy agencies (emphasis
in the original).16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Thomas Lee, Ben Ball, Jr., and Richard Tabors, Energy
Aftermath: How We Can Learn From the Blunders of the Past to Create a
Hopeful Energy Future (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1990), p.
61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, the energy experience indicates that conservation mandates
and subsidized efficiency will not even achieve the goal of reducing
net consumption.17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Wirl, pp. 185-206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HR 623: A First Step
Given the weak theoretical case for the plumbing standards
established in the 1992 Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPACT),
consumer complaints about mandatory low-flow toilets and showers should
be heeded by this Congress. HR 623 is indeed worthy of support.
Yet the underlying problem that motivated passage of those
standards should not be dismissed lightly. Conservationists are right
to fret over the excessive consumption of water in the United States.
Yet there is no reason for panic. Total water consumption has declined
over the past 20 years despite growth in population and national GDP,
and per capita use today is lower than at any time since 1965. Absolute
water consumption is about where it was in 1975.18 Steep
projections of future needs are flawed in that they confuse need with
demand.19 Harvard's Peter Rogers thus ``sees no water crises
at present in either water quantity or water quality.'' 20
As far as the future, Rogers notes;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Rogers, pp. 34-35. The main reason water consumption has
dropped over the past 20 years is that (1) effluent charges were
imposed on industry (providing an incentive to reduce water discharges
and thus water consumption itself), (2) stricter water quality
regulations provided an incentive to recycle discharges, and (3)
reductions in agricultural demand reduced irrigation needs. Rogers, pg.
126, 147.
\19\ ``Demand'' is a function of economics, the quantity of water
that consumers are willing to purchase at various prices. ``Need'' is a
projection of future trends based upon present price signals. Ibid.,
pp. 125-131.
\20\ Ibid., p. 199,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States could have a water crisis or just a modest
increase in demand. Which forecast should be used?--If the
regulators leave water sellers free to make water prices more
nearly represent the marginal cost of supply, and if realistic
pricing policies are pursued in cases where the supply has to
be controlled by government, then the forecast crisis will
never take place.21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Ibid., p. 131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservationists have identified a worrisome malady, yet their
diagnosis of the problem and their prescription for recovery are
incorrect.
Water markets--like the energy markets before them--need a dose of
market discipline. Water supply, allocation, and pricing decisions
should be left to market actors with limited interference from
government. The old rationales for government control over the water
industry are not persuasive either theoretically or
empirically.22 Consumers have proven quite responsive to
changes in water prices and water markets have been shown to work quite
well when released from regulatory constraints.23 This is
particularly true in acute drought conditions, when government price
controls are most counterproductive.24 While state and local
governments are primarily responsible for the municipal provision of
water, the federal government should assist by eliminating to the
greatest degree possible its own interventions in the water economy.
Greater reliance on market pricing could be introduced to federal water
project entitlements.25 Allowing water transactions between
consumer groups would also greatly facilitate the development of water
markets.26 The Commerce Clause could even be invoked to
facilitate a break-up of state regulation.27
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Anderson and Snyder, pp. 49-53.
\23\ Harvard's Peter Rogers concludes that ``First, the market
seems to work quite well in allocating scarce water, specifically in
the West. In fact, it works better than most economists themselves
would have predicted only 10 years ago. Second, water consumption is
clearly price responsive. The problem is finding some reasonable
second-or third-best pricing schemes--In sum, while economic analysis
and economic thinking by no means solve all the problems in the field,
water managers and consumers must apply them if a coherent water policy
is to emerge in the United States.'' Rogers, p. 150. See further
Anderson and Snyder, pp. 8-12.
\24\ Concludes oil economist M.A. Adelman, ``The almost
unquestioned major premise among governments that in an emergency there
has got to be a `fair allocation at reasonable prices,' is possibly the
greatest single aggravating force in making disruptions worse then they
need be.'' M.A. Adelman, The Economics of Oil Supply (Cambridge: MIT
Press, 1993), p. 516. The success of the Drought Water Bank in
California in ameliorating the worst effects of the 1987-1993 drought
are clear testaments to the dramatic gains can that can be achieved by
simply allowing market transactions in water. Rogers, pp. 8-10.
\25\ Rogers (p. 187) argues that ``federal water project
development has proceeded unevenly, inefficiently, and inequitably. It
has been driven largely by the dictates of distributive politics. The
result has been water often not available where it is most needed or
desired and wasted or abused where it is available.'' Reallocation of
water rights by the Bureau of Reclamation, the Army Corps of Engineers,
the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Soil Conservation Service would
prove a major step in the right direction.
\26\ Ibid., p. 154.
\27\ For a comprehensive federal agenda for reform, see Anderson
and Snyder. For a discussion of how the Commerce Clause might be used
to constrain state and local regulation of the industry, see Paul
Ballonoff, Energy: Ending the Never Ending Crisis (Washington: Cato
Institute, 1997), pp. 73-102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accurate price signals will surely induce Americans to conserve.
Some consumers may willingly install the very low-flow shower heads and
toilets targeted by HR 623. Others may decide that they value long,
vigorous showers more than they value green lawns. More importantly,
accurate price signals will reach the greatest sources of water waste
and over-consumption--the agricultural industry--and even modest
reductions in use would overwhelm the potential gains from residential
conservation.28 America should learn from the mistakes of
the 1970s and free water provision and consumption from regulatory
control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Rogers (pp. 31-32), notes that irrigated agriculture, located
primarily in the 19 western states, consumes four times as much water
as all other consumers combined. Anderson and Snyder (pp. 8-12)
conclude that the water inefficiency is far greater in that sector than
any other.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. The Chair would now
recognize himself for the first 5 minutes of questions.
I am going to ask the first question to Mr. Kosmensky and
to Mr. Haege, since you seem to be the technical experts in
this group. What would the traditional toilet cost, the 3.5
gallon, if it were still available in the United States? I
think, Mr. Kosmensky, you said these newer low flow toilets
cost about $200 more. If they were to still be widely
available, what would the older more traditional capacity
toilets cost today?
Mr. Kosmensky. I don't know what the toilets cost
individually. I don't believe I made that statement. But I
don't see why----
Mr. Barton. You need to put the microphone close to you,
sir.
Mr. Kosmensky. I am not familiar with the costs of the
toilet per se.
Mr. Barton. Who said that the newer ones cost $200 more?
Mr. Haege. I did, Mr. Chairman. The newer toilets that we
are talking about, 1.6 gallon toilets, you can buy one on the
market today for $79.95. You can buy a 3.5 gallon toilet, if
they were still available on the market, for the same price.
The difference is when we come to the vacuum flush. All toilets
we are talking about in the 1.6----
Mr. Barton. Stop just a second. On the market today you can
get a water gravity flow 1.6 gallon low flow toilet for about
80 bucks.
Mr. Haege. That is correct.
Mr. Barton. If they were available, you could buy the 3.5
gallon for about 80 bucks.
Mr. Haege. That is right.
Mr. Barton. But does anybody, in the next panel, will the
experts representing the manufacturers say that the water flow,
the gravity flow 1.6 gallon toilet works?
Mr. Haege. I don't know. We will ask them.
Mr. Barton. Do you think it works?
Mr. Haege. Well, my public tells me that it----
Mr. Barton. Not the fancy vacuum assisted.
Mr. Haege. We are talking about the gravity feed toilet,
1.6 gallon, what my people, my constituents across the country
tell me is no, no matter what price you pay.
Mr. Barton. Because there is just not enough force
generated by that weight of water?
Mr. Haege. In talking with the plumbers and talking with
the manufacturers across this country, and as widely as I
travel to these sites, it is a case of too soon, too quick, too
much regulation. It is like the car industry. We don't have a
choice now with this regulation, gentlemen. If we had a choice,
we would buy what we feel confident with, and maybe in the
fourth bathroom or the fifth bathroom we would put a 1.6.
Mr. Barton. To get it to work, you can get a low flow
toilet to work, but you have to jazz it up with high
technology?
Mr. Haege. That is right, Mr. Chairman. You have to buy
what we call a vacuum flush toilet, which is a fixture that the
toilet manufacturers make and they buy a component from two
manufacturers in this country, and that is added onto it. It
looks like a little tank. And that shoots 1.5 gallons per
minute, or per flush. But it develops 70 pounds per square inch
of pressure. So if the 100 ball test is used as a standard of
watching how something flushes through a DWV, which is a drain
waste vent, you will see all the balls go down the drain waste
vent at the normal slope rate.
Mr. Barton. The assisted low flow flush costs $280.
Mr. Haege. Correct, sir.
Mr. Barton. Congressman Rush and myself and others, we have
low income constituents. They probably can't afford that extra
$200 just to get a toilet that flushes, or it is much more
difficult.
Mr. Haege. Not only the constituents, but also the
builders. When they put in multiple families, they put in hotel
rooms, they can't afford it either.
Mr. Barton. Okay. I think that is the main question that I
have got right now. I just wanted to see the effectiveness.
One more engineering question. What if we took the low flow
1.6 gallon and put it on the top of the roof and then had a
pipe that went down into the first floor so that when you pull
the lever or push the button, you let gravity kind of help you
get a little momentum up before it hit the toilet bowl?
Mr. Haege. I don't feel I am qualified to answer that
question, but I don't want to go to that house.
Mr. Barton. But it would have more power once it hit the
bottom.
Mr. Haege. The power, yes. It has to do with evacuation of
the drop. That is what they keep working on with these new
engineering changes. They have less parameter of engineering
specs on the 1.6 gravity flush toilet so they have to clean up
their act there where the water drop is.
Mr. Barton. Okay. My time has expired. The gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Rush, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Right now the bill that
is before us, H.R. 623, the purpose of it is to repeal the
previous bill and repeal the standards. If in fact we do, if
the Congress repealed this particular bill, the current bill,
rather, the current law, that would introduce either States or
other localities introducing the opportunities for them to
either go with 3.5 standard, 1.6 standard, or whatever standard
they would deem necessary, am I correct? I will ask Mr.--Mayor
Kosmensky.
Mr. Kosmensky. They could do whatever they want. They could
have it like it was before, that there was no restriction at
all. You sold what the marketplace dictated. The marketplace
dictated what you manufactured.
Mr. Rush. In absence of a Federal standard, then wouldn't
that place additional costs on--if each municipality or region
had their own standard, wouldn't that place additional costs on
manufacturers that would have to be met by the consumers? To be
passed on to the consumers?
Mr. Kosmensky. I don't think we would have that. Is that a
question to me?
Mr. Rush. Yes.
Mr. Kosmensky. You wouldn't have that. You wouldn't have
every State having all different kinds of restrictions on
toilets. You think that they would, like before, just use the
3.5, and that was it. Everybody used 3.5.
Mr. Lieberman. I just wanted to make the point that this is
a very, very unpopular idea, unpopular with people at the
Federal level, at the State level and local level. I am
confident that if H.R. 623 is passed, it will largely die out
at the State and local level as well. I point out there were
some States and localities that had these laws on the books,
but from my research I haven't found a single instance that the
people who lived there actually supported them. These were
pushed by the same special interests who later argued that we
have created this patchwork, we need a Federal standard, and
came to Washington. But, quite frankly, I don't see any support
for a 1.6 standard at any level of government, and maybe I am
wrong, maybe one or two States, maybe a dozen or so localities
will do so, but that hardly seems a reason to burden all the
rest of America.
Mr. Rush. So you are saying, if I am correct, and if I am
interpreting what you are saying correctly, you are saying if
in fact we repeal the current law and pass H.R. 623, then there
would be a standard based on the desires or the demand of the
consumers?
Mr. Lieberman. There may be no standard at all, other than
the marketplace.
Mr. Rush. That is what I am talking about.
Mr. Lieberman. It is hard to imagine the citizens of any
State putting up with a low flush toilet standard that uniquely
burdens them at this point. These laws were easy to pass before
the toilets hit the market, but at this point this is very
unpopular. I have seen virtually little evidence of any popular
support. I would like to quickly respond about those surveys
that are about Tampa, I think, San Diego, Austin, Texas, and so
forth.
I have taken a look at those and there are some very
serious problems with them. First off, it looks as though they
gave away the toilets and then asked the people how do you like
your free toilet. Unfortunately, the other 99 percent of us
have to pay good money for these toilets, and as far as I am
aware, they didn't do a survey of us, or if they did, it wasn't
included.
There are some other problems with those surveys as well.
They targeted low income housing, which is nice, but many of
those apartments probably had plumbing problems to begin with,
and they may have done general improvements, they may have
replaced 20 or 30-year-old high flush toilets that were in a
bad state of repair. So it is very difficult I think to be
confident in those toilet giveaway programs.
Mr. Rush. Do you think there would be any additional costs
that would be passed on to both the manufacturers and also
consumers if in fact we repealed this current law?
Mr. Lieberman. I would have to say that they are less than
the costs that consumers are suffering now with the 1.6
mandate.
Mr. Taylor. If I can, Mr. Congressman, I would like to
point out that consumers ought to have, in my opinion, the
right to decide how much they spend for services. It may well
be that these low flush toilets, assume for the sake of
argument they save consumers money. Well, we could save
consumers money by banning car washes too and saying it is an
aesthetic preference. You don't need to wash your car. It will
save you money, it will save society resources. Isn't this
Congress pro consumer? We would hesitate to do that because we
have a respect for consumers purchasing their own preferences
and making their own decisions, and it may well be they would
be willing to pay more for a toilet that works.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Chairman, I just have one comment. I just
renovated a 100-year-old house a couple of years ago, and I
remember my contractor telling me that when they installed the
new toilets in my house, that in fact I was complaining about
it, and he said well, you guys are the ones that made this law.
So I couldn't say anything, but just to suffer the consequences
so to speak.
Mr. Burr [presiding]. Would the gentleman like to sell me
the old toilets?
Mr. Rush. I have already done that.
Mr. Burr. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Bilirakis. The question is, Mr. Rush, are you satisfied
with your toilets?
Mr. Rush. Absolutely not. Absolutely not.
Mr. Bilirakis. Are not satisfied.
Mr. Lieberman, with all due respect, sir, the Tampa
representative will be testifying after this panel is finished
up. I hope they will address your particular point as to how
their surveys were taken, and that sort of thing. You may be
correct, and then again you may not be. I don't know. But let
me ask you, can I infer from your testimony that you do not
support any other national efficiency standards for energy or
water such as those energy standards now in place for
refrigerators and air conditioners?
Mr. Lieberman. Well, I thought the first refrigerator
standard was reasonably good. I don't----
Mr. Bilirakis. In other words, forgive me, it was okay if
it is a national standard, as long as you thought it was pretty
good, reasonably good.
Mr. Lieberman. I am not sure----
Mr. Bilirakis. National uniform standard.
Mr. Lieberman. The standards really didn't make all that
much difference. If you look at the levels of efficiency in
refrigerators, they were trending downward anyway. The first
standard, what I was trying to say, was actually fairly lax and
didn't make much of a difference. Now we are on a third
standard and things are starting to get tight. No, I think
consumers can decide for themselves in the marketplace and
manufacturers responding to those demands can provide them with
the products they want in the absence, in most cases, of
Federal standards.
Mr. Bilirakis. Even in things such as refrigerators.
Mr. Lieberman. Even in things such as refrigerators. We had
no refrigerator standards until 1990 and we did okay.
Mr. Bilirakis. I was going to ask you to comment.
Mr. Taylor. I will jump right in there. There is a long
footnote in my written remarks that I would point your
attention to. The economics literature has studied the effects
of these appliance efficiency standards now and there is
voluminous literature that we can refer to when attempting to
judge their effectiveness. And energy economists, as opposed to
policy activists, are virtually unanimous in the belief that
these appliance standards have made no difference regarding
gross energy demand. The main reason is something economists
call the rebound effect.
If you reduce the marginal cost of a service, say the
marginal cost of keeping your house cool on a hot summer day,
consumers are going to consume more of that good. So by and
large, what a great efficiency standard for an air conditioner
is going to do is make it cheaper for me to keep my house at 68
degrees or allow me to run the air conditioner to keep my dog
comfortable at a lot lower price than it might otherwise have
before.
Consumers respond to pricing incentives and economists have
found empirically, not when you are looking at engineering
calculations, which is the way most energy activists look at
these things. They calculate, well, you have this widget in
your house and you are running it at the same amount, so it
should have saved you X amount of money. When you are looking
at empirical behavior, when you are looking at actual
consumption practices, consumers tend to consume back, as it
were, all of the energy we thought we saved with the efficiency
mandate. So that in a nutshell is a good economic reason why
most specialists in this field are very dubious about
government efficiency mandates as a practical matter.
Mr. Bilirakis. Let me ask the mayor, Mr. Kosmensky. Sir,
you have testified in support of the legislation, you are a
constituent of Joe's and I guess you better support it. But you
mention though in your testimony, as I heard it, I thought I
heard it, that the Home Builders has recently taken a neutral
stance on the bill while issues are worked out with the
plumbing manufacturers. You said something about--I think you
said something about well, in lieu of further legislation, or
words to that effect, I don't mean to put words in your mouth.
So I guess my question is should this nonlegislative approach
be allowed to run its course before we consider legislating in
this area once again? You know, did we make a mistake
legislating in the first place in 1992? You know, I don't know.
But it has been done and all of this manufacturing and what not
has already taken place.
Well, so maybe you can ask the question, should this
nonlegislative approach be allowed to run its course, and then
maybe in the time left over, in what way could you contemplate
that it could be worked out among the builders and the plumbing
manufacturers, et cetera? What would you sort of contemplate or
see as, I guess I will use the word, compromise or working it
out?
Mr. Kosmensky. I think there are things that could be done.
In Europe they have--the toilet tanks have buttons on them
where you can push it and get a half flush and push it and get
a full flush.
Mr. Bilirakis. Don't we have something like that available?
Mr. Kosmensky. I have not seen any here, not to say there
isn't something like that. Perhaps there is. Up to our neutral
stance, which was just like 3 weeks ago, I am talking about the
National Home Builders now, the manufacturers really can't have
much interest in talking to us. But I understand in the last
couple or 3 weeks they are coming to us and talking with the
folks from our research foundation about just exactly what you
mentioned, couldn't there be some kind of a compromise.
I think that Congressman Knollenberg's bill here is really
starting to put the pressure on these folks to resolve this
thing, because I think they realize that we do have problems
out there. I mean, we are not just sitting here to talk about
the weather, we are here because we have a problem out there. I
think they are beginning to realize that. I would hope that
they will come to the table with some kind of compromises that
will resolve the problem. I applaud, again, Congressman
Knollenberg for doing that. If that brings us all to the table
to resolve the situation short of new legislation, if that is
what the committee wants, I applaud that.
Mr. Bilirakis. You have high hopes that something like that
will take place?
Mr. Kosmensky. Yes, I really do.
Mr. Barton. Mr. Burr of North Carolina for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Haege, do you or
Click and Clack have a larger listenership? Do you know who
Click and Clack are?
Mr. Haege. On NPR radio. They talk about cars. I don't talk
about cars. Last year the home improvement industry was $176.1
billion. I don't know what the car industry was, but I think
there are more people that care about their toilets than they
do if their car runs or not.
Mr. Barton. I am not so sure about that.
Mr. Haege. I think you have a great mass transit system in
this area and a lot of major areas, and they count on that to
get back and forth to work.
Mr. Barton. You ask my constituents what they think about
their pickup versus their toilet, and they are going to tell
you real quick they love their pickup a lot more than they do
their toilet.
Mr. Burr. Both of you have large listenership, as is
evidenced. Let me just make a comment. We are not here today to
point out that what was done prior to us was bad legislation.
It may have miscalculated what technology could do. We pulled a
number out of the sky and said this is where we would like to
be on water as it relates to toilets, as it relates to showers,
and the ultimate judgment was by consumers, did the product
work.
I came out of the appliance business before I got here.
There was a big difference with the energy standards on
refrigerators and air conditioners and other appliances. Those
worked. Air conditioners still cooled, refrigerators still kept
food at a comfortable temperature, and clearly consumers have
spoken differently as it relates to toilets and some to shower
heads.
Let me just ask, is there any data that proves that any
water savings that has taken place is the direct result of low
flow toilets?
Mr. Kosmensky. No. Mr. Chairman, we have to keep in mind
that we only build 1 million houses a year, and if we put in
something like the 1.6 in all our houses and then a survey is
taken throughout the country, it will have a minuscule effect
on that survey. Ninety-five percent of the houses out there do
not have the 1.6. I think in all due respect to the gentleman
from Florida, I don't know where they come up with those
numbers on the surveys, because we just don't put that many of
these in there, of the 1.6 toilets. But those that we do put
in, I find that we have problems with.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Burr, as I mentioned, from 1970 to 1990, a
date prior to passage of the standards, total water consumption
declined in this country, despite growth in population and
national GDP, per capita use declined in this country, and
absolute water withdrawals for human purposes declined in this
country. All prior to passage of these mandates.
In fact, those trends continued since passage of those
mandates. When you are looking at macroeconomic data, it
certainly is correct for all parties to point out water
consumption is going down. But to use figures like that, as I
heard in earlier comments at the beginning of these hearings,
as an argument for the success of these standards, is, frankly,
poppycock. It is an after the fact assertion.
The trend had been going on for a long, long time, prior to
the passage of these mandates. In fact, where these figures
came to my attention, a book by NYT press, a Harvard professor
on this subject, there was no discussion at all of the
conservation mandates having anything to do with those
declines. Those declines had to do with other things in the
economy, as I pointed out in my oral testimony.
As far as the specific studies that are in discussion
today, I haven't seen them, so I can't comment on them. My
experience in the energy arena, however, has been that
estimates regarding reduced energy use are derived through
engineering estimates. They are not derived through actual
monitoring of actual consumer behavior with controllable test
groups and the sorts of things that you would look for in other
sorts of data if you were serious about studying the matter.
I can't judge these particular studies, but my hunch is,
given what I know in the energy arena when it comes to
efficiency in appliances, that I would be quite skeptical
regarding such claims, particularly given the points that Mr.
Kosmensky just made regarding the amount of water or the amount
of these devices being installed. Again as an overall matter,
with agriculture in the West eating up 80 to 90 percent of
water consumption, it is hard to imagine how a few new home
buildings is going to affect overall trends in water
consumption.
Mr. Burr. We probably know somewhere, if somebody wanted to
find out the information, if they haven't already, how many
toilets are installed in this country, wouldn't we?
Mr. Haege. There is documentation to that. About 4.3
million is a good estimate per year of toilets.
Mr. Barton. Per year.
Mr. Burr. But in total in the country. Do we have any----
Mr. Taylor. We do, but it wouldn't help too much. The
reason why is you could make an engineering estimate and say we
have so many low flow toilets that went in last year, and that
makes a total of X number of low flow toilets, and we will
calculate that 1.6 gallons minus 3.5 gallons equals X number of
gallons in savings and I will put a number to it. But what that
doesn't do is it doesn't account for whether I had to flush it
twice or three times or how many toilets I bought or anything
else that might affect my water consumption behavior.
The problem we always run into in these sorts of estimates
and other parts of the economy when looking at appliances is we
do not measure actual consumer behavior. By and large we are
making estimates based on installations of that nature----
Mr. Barton. We know what the housing stock is and you know
what the number of toilets per population is, so you got about
280 million Americans. I would estimate just off the top of my
head probably existing toilets, if you include public buildings
and everything, would be around 200 million. I am going to miss
it a little bit, but I am not order of magnitude out of the
ball park. You are adding 4.3 million a year.
Mr. Haege. Those are kitchen and industry bath numbers of
1999.
Mr. Barton. Yes. So the general point is because of the
addition of these low flow toilets, it is not having in and of
itself a noticeable impact on water consumption, and just
elementary analysis would indicate that has to be true because
of the existing stock that is already there, even if they are
totally used exactly as represented.
Mr. Burr. My last question, to the mayor for a second, as a
home builder, do your customers come to you after you have
turned over the keys and question the performance of the
toilets?
Mr. Kosmensky. They did, but I warn them. I warn them
before now.
Mr. Barton. What if a home builder, you warned them and
they say I am going to go to Canada and buy this. Are you
legally allowed to install, if they provide it for you?
Mr. Kosmensky. Yes.
Mr. Barton. You are allowed to do that.
Mr. Kosmensky. Yes.
Mr. Barton. The gentleman's time has expired. I am going to
miss the rule vote. I am just going to continue the next panel.
You all can go vote and come back in time to hear some of the
statements and the question period.
There may be written questions for you gentlemen, and we
will get them to you. We appreciate your attendance, especially
those that had to travel from out of State to come. But we are
going to excuse you at this point in time and go to our next
panel.
Let's hear from our second panel, or third panel actually.
We have Mr. David Tippin, Director of the Tampa Water
Department. Mr. Bilirakis, would you like to introduce him a
little more forcefully before you leave?
Mr. Bilirakis. He is going to testify now?
Mr. Barton. They are going to testify.
Mr. Burr. They may need your vote on the rule.
Mr. Bilirakis. I do have to make this vote. It is a rule.
Mr. Barton. The gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Bilirakis. I would like to hear Mr. Tippin's testimony,
Mr. Chairman. I am just not sure how to handle this.
Mr. Barton. Okay. The problem, I have got a working group
at 4:30.
Mr. Bilirakis. Can we skip Mr. Tippin?
Mr. Barton. I tell you what. Apparently this is a close
vote. I wouldn't assume a rule vote would be that close, but we
are going to recess, and I will go do my constitutional duty
and vote, and then I will come back. It will be about 15
minutes. If you all stay in the general area so when we get
back, Mr. Bilirakis especially wants to come back. We are in
recess subject to the call of the Chair, which should be within
the next 15 to 20.
[Brief recess.]
Mr. Barton. The subcommittee will come back to order. There
are always two sides to every story, and last but not least, we
are now going to hear the other side of the issue. On this
panel, as I pointed out, we have Mr. David Tippin, Director of
the Tampa Water Department. He represents the American Water
Works Association. We have Mr. Edward Osann, who is the
President of Potomac Resources here in Washington, DC. We have
Mr. George Whalen, who represents the National Association of
Plumbing, Heating and Cooling Contractors. We have Mr. David
Goike, who represents the Plumbing Manufacturers Institute, and
we have Mr. Anthony Willardson, who is the Associate Director
for the Western States Water Council.
Gentlemen, we appreciate your patience. Your statements are
in the record in their entirety. We are going to give you each
5 minutes to summarize and I know Mr. Bilirakis will have some
questions and I will have questions.
Mr. Bilirakis, do you wish to more formally introduce Mr.
Tippin.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did want to voice
my disappointment that this panel comes up and you and I are
the only ones here. We have heard from the other side of the
story when ordinarily it is mixed and you are going to have two
and two just to keep something like this from taking place. So
I am very disappointed in that regard.
I will say Mr. Tippin has a pretty tough job in our area,
he is Director of the Tampa Water Department. We have big
infrastructure water problems in Florida and tremendous water
problems, as you might imagine, with that high water table. Mr.
Tippin is I know a free enterpriser, a market oriented
individual, a person who would ordinarily I think and maybe he
does agree--I think he does agree with much of the testimony
that you have heard today in terms of letting the market
function and what not. I also know that he will share with us
why what we did back in 1992 is so very important to States
like Florida and so many others. I am very happy that he would
take the time to come up here, probably to get out of the heat
down there.
Mr. Barton. Like it is not hot here in Washington.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barton. Mr. Tippin, we welcome you. You are recognized
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF DAVID L. TIPPIN, DIRECTOR, TAMPA WATER
DEPARTMENT; EDWARD R. OSANN, PRESIDENT, POTOMAC RESOURCES,
INC.; GEORGE V. WHALEN, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBING,
HEATING, COOLING CONTRACTORS; DAVID GOIKE, MASCO CORPORATION,
REPRESENTING PLUMBING MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE; AND ANTHONY
WILLARDSON, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL
Mr. Tippin. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and Congressman
Bilirakis, and thank you for inviting me here. I am David L
Tippin, Director of the Tampa Water Department. I was there as
a temporary job 25 years ago and have been there ever since. I
am a registered professional engineer. I want to testify on
behalf of the city of Tampa, the American Water Works
Association and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies,
whose combined membership provides drinking water to
approximately 90 percent of the American people.
The city of Tampa and American Water Works and AMWA support
the current plumbing products efficiency standards in the 1992
Energy Policy and Conservation Act. It has worked as intended.
The new low flush toilets work and are of high consumer
acceptance. I think some of the video that you saw earlier,
that data is very old. I think it is more than 2 years old on
some of the information and staff that were shown there earlier
today.
A new AWWA research study shows that the double flushing in
new low flush toilets is the same or better than the nonlow
flush toilets. In my own home I have a low flush toilet and I
have a 3.5 gallon toilet, so I feel that I am an expert on
toilet flushing in Florida.
In mine there is no difference, only that the 1.6 saves a
lot more water than the 3.5 flush toilet.
Mr. Barton. You said there is difference?
Mr. Tippin. Both of them work equally well. The May 1998
Consumer Reports shows that the new low flush toilets work. I
think most of you have seen this, and I won't go into that.
To date in Tampa as an incentive we have given over 15,000
toilet rebates in 11,000 households. It is not a free toilet,
we give a hundred dollar rebate and the money comes from add-on
taxes and also our rates, and that is how we fund the rebates
as an incentive. We think that we have saved about 150 million
gallons of water per year from the rebate programs, not
counting the additional low flow toilets in our new homes.
The Tampa area is an exploding area as far as new home
building is concerned. There are good toilets and bad toilets.
Just like you get good American cars and Yugos, it varies. And
the new toilets work. You can go to home supply centers, they
are inexpensive. I know of ones in Tampa that I go to every
Saturday morning, they work.
The customer satisfaction surveys show high approval
ratings on the new low flush toilets, and in Tampa our studies
show that 90 percent of our customers that have these toilets
were satisfied or very satisfied. And in other cities, I think
in Austin, Texas, for one, it rose to 95 percent. In water
savings, which benefit the customer, the economy and the
environment, are enormous. You have to look at the total water
cycle here, not only the water supply. You have to look at
waste treatment. The cost of waste treatment is very high now,
I know that it is in Florida, and I would presume so in the
other States in the country, too. So water conservation should
be looked at as the total water picture.
The efficient plumbing fixtures installed in 1998 in the
United States will save about 16 billion gallons of water in
1999, enough to fill 1.2 million olympic sized swimming pools.
That is 16 billion gallons.
And I would like to offer into the record letters of
support from the mayor and the commissioners of the city of
Portland, Oregon. Also from the largest public water supply,
the Metropolitan District of Southern California, and also the
city of Los Angeles, as part of the record. So I will hand----
Mr. Barton. I am sorry, I was listening to staff. Is there
a unanimous consent request?
Mr. Bilirakis. He wanted letters in support of the
standards.
Mr. Barton. Let the majority and minority staffs look at
them. If there is no objection, they will be entered, but we
want to give especially the minority an opportunity to look at
the letters. That is just kind of a standard practice.
[The information referred to follows:]
City of Portland, Oregon
Bureau of Water Works
July 23, 1999
The Honorable Joe Barton, Chairman
Subcommittee on Energy and Power
Committee on Commerce
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington D.C. 20515
The Honorable Ralph M. Hall, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Energy and Power
Committee on Commerce
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member: The City of Portland has
reviewed HR 623 and commends Rep. Knollenberg for monitoring the
implementation of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, and we thank
you for holding a hearing on this matter and receiving public comment.
The City of Portland was involved in supporting the amendments to the
Act in 1992 which required water efficient plumbing fixtures and we
have been monitoring the implementation as well. We believe the federal
requirements and the nationwide consistency they bring are far superior
to the prior situation which left it to the states to decide on their
own standards. We have monitored the manufactured goods which are being
produced as a result of the federal law and believe them to be reliable
and effective in saving water.
The City of Portland provides high quality drinking water to almost
one-third of the State of Oregon. We are in a high growth area and must
plan for additional water supply. We are also the first urban area to
have fish listed on the Endangered Species List on rivers inside the
City of Portland. Conservation is one of the important tools we can use
to meet water supply and environmental protection. There are
significant water savings being realized through the federal plumbing
standards; the fixtures work well, and we believe it is important for
the current federal standards to remain in place. We are pleased there
is a public hearing on this bill so that Congress can have current
information on the effectiveness of the plumbing fixtures. However, we
do believe the fixtures on the market work well, and there is customer
acceptance and support for water efficient fixtures. We know these
fixtures are saving water, and they are saving customers money on their
water bill. As elected officials of the City of Portland responsible
for both water supply and for issuing building permits and conducting
plumbing inspections we believe there is no compelling need for HR 623.
Sincerely,
Vera Katz, Mayor
Erik Sten, Commissioner
Jim Francesconi, Commissioner
Charlie Hales, Commissioner
Dan Saltzman, Commissioner
______
Los Angeles City Council
Office of the Chief Legislative Analyst
July 26, 1999
The Honorable Joe Barton
Chairman, Energy and Power Subcommittee
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Barton: The City of Los Angeles is strongly opposed
to H.R. 623, the Plumbing Standards Improvement Act of 1999.
Sponsored by Representative Joe Knollenberg, H.R. 623 would repeal
language in the Energy and Policy and Conservation Act of 1992 that
requires newly manufactured toilets and shower heads to meet specific
water efficiency standards.
Water conservation efforts have been--and continue to be--a vital
tool on preserving limited water resources in California.
Unfortunately, H.R. 623 would seriously undermine such efforts.
The current national efficiency standards, combined with water
conservation campaigns at the local level, have played a key role in
encouraging the greater use of water efficient devices in homes and
businesses alike. In recent years, the City's Department of Water and
Power (DWP) has been actively involved in conservation activities aimed
at reducing both in door and out door water use. DWP's ultra-low flush
toilet and low-flow shower head retrofit programs save an estimated
35,000 acre-feet of water annually. This is enough water to meet the
needs of 70,000 families each year.
Preserving the current national efficiency standards for newly-
manufactured toilets and showerheads makes good economic and
environmental sense. If you have any questions, please feel free to
contact me or John Ryan at (202) 347 0915
Sincerely,
James F. Seeley
______
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Office of the General Manager
July 22, 1999
The Honorable Joe Barton
Chairman
United States House of Representatives
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman: H.R. 623, a Bill to Amend the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act to Eliminate Certain Regulation of Plumbing Supplies
(Rep. Knollenberg, R)
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
(Metropolitan) wishes to join the Association of California Water
Agencies in expressing opposition to H.R. 623, the proposed repeal of
water-efficient plumbing fixture standards established by the U.S.
Energy Policy Act of 1992.
As the major wholesale supplier of water to cities and counties
within the arid, drought-prone Southern California region, Metropolitan
is a recognized pioneer and an aggressive proponent of water
conservation programs and policies. Since 1988, Metropolitan, in
partnership with its 27 member agencies, has invested more than $200
million to co-fund projects designed to increase water use efficiency
in the residential, commercial, industrial, institutional and public
sectors.
By adopting uniform efficiency standards, the Energy Policy Act of
1992 (EPAct) provided manufacturers with a national market and
encouraged competition. Large volume purchases of ultra low-flush
toilets (ULFTs) by Metropolitan and others, during the early 1990's,
helped provide the economic incentives manufacturers needed to incur
the substantial engineering and re-tooling investments required to meet
the challenge of producing an acceptable 1.6 gallon per flush toilet.
Metropolitan believes the withdrawal of national standards would
substantially undermine this highly desirable and beneficial trend.
Metropolitan appreciates your continued interest in the water
issues that affect California. If you have any questions, please feel
free to call me at (213) 217-6211, or Brad Hiltscher in our Washington
Office at (202) 296-3551.
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Gastelum
General Manager
Mr. Tippin. That is fine. Representative Knollenberg is to
be commended on introducing legislation which focuses attention
on the problems with the early generation.
Mr. Barton. I think I heard your bell expire. So could you
summarize.
Mr. Tippin. In summary, the objectives of H.R. 623 have
been met through the marketplace, and there is no need for
legislation and we respectfully request that the members of the
subcommittee not support the passage of house resolution 623.
[The prepared statement of David L. Tippin follows:]
Prepared Statement of David L. Tippin, Director, Tampa Water
Department, Representing The American Water Works Association, and
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies
introduction
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman. I am David L. Tippin, Director of the
Tampa Water Department in Tampa, Florida, a position I have held for 25
years. I am here today on behalf of the City of Tampa, the American
Water Works Association (AWWA), and the Association of Metropolitan
Water Agencies (AMWA).
We appreciate the opportunity to present our views on H.R 623, The
Plumbing Standards Improvement Act of 1999.
Tampa, Florida's third largest city, provides water to 450,000
people in a 211 square mile service area. This area of Florida is
densely populated with a staggering annual growth.
AWWA is the world's largest and oldest scientific and educational
association representing drinking water supply professionals. The
association's 56,000 members are comprised of administrators, utility
operators, professional engineers, contractors, manufacturers,
scientists, professors and health professionals. The association's
membership includes over 4,200 utilities which provides over 80 percent
of the nation's drinking water. Since our founding in 1881, AWWA and
its members have been dedicated to providing safe drinking water.
AMWA is an association of the nation's largest public water supply
agencies. Its 136 members provide water to over 120 million people and
the purposes of the association are to work for the advancement and
protection of drinking water supplied by large public agencies.
In today's statement I would like to emphasize the importance of
the current plumbing products efficiency standards in the 1992 Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (PL 102-486) both to the Nation and in
Florida in particular.
plumbing products efficiency standards
The City of Tampa, AWWA, and AMWA respectfully request that the
members of the Subcommittee not support the passage of H.R. 623, which
will repeal a requirement in the 1992 Energy Policy and Conservation
Act (PL 102-486) that restricts all new toilets to 1.6 gallons per
flush and showerheads to 2.5 gallons per minute among other water
conservation standards. A number of things have changed since the
proposal in H.R. 623 was first introduced in the 105th Congress in H.R.
859.
--The toilets work. The once controversial water-saving toilets are no
longer an issue with consumers. The plumbing products industry
has met consumers' needs by engineering a new generation of
water-efficient toilets that work as well as, or better than,
the older pre-water-saving models according to a 1998 Consumers
Union study and numerous consumer satisfaction surveys.
--Water and economic savings are enormous. Efficient plumbing fixtures
installed in new homes last year will save 16 billion gallons
of water in 1999--enough to fill 1.2 million olympic-sized
swimming pools. The cost avoidance for additional
infrastructure and the benefit for growth and development
without adversely affecting natural resources is an enormous
economic and environmental benefit of these savings.
Rep. Knollenberg is to be commended for introducing legislation
which focused public attention on the problems with an early generation
of water efficient toilets which were of concern to consumers. The
public debate on this issue has highlighted the improvements in water
efficient toilets made by the plumbing products industry and the water
and economic benefits of the current standards. There no longer is a
need for this bill to help improve water efficient plumbing products
for consumers. The objective of H.R. 623 has been met through the
rigors of the marketplace which may drive even further improvements in
the performance of plumbing products.
However, the regulatory stability provided by current Federal law
is important to the U.S. plumbing industry. It allows them to bring
improved products to a national market, rather than spend time and
money on designing products for differing flush volumes, flow rates,
test procedures, certification requirements, and labeling rules, all of
which could vary by state and local jurisdictions if Federal standards
were repealed. Economies of scale--an important factor in keeping costs
to consumers low--could be lost if the national market were to become
fragmented. Prior to enactment of the 1992 Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, 17 states as well as numerous localities had adopted
their own plumbing products standards. This led to not only
manufacturing and distribution problems, but also created enforcement
problems within the states.
This issue was debated in 1992 and a bipartisan agreement among
Members of Congress and the stakeholders to adopt national standards
was incorporated into law. While a different legislative approach which
would provide for another mechanism to establish national standards
might have been adopted in 1992, it was not. It would be highly
counter-productive, after all this time, to repeal these standards on
which the manufacturing of plumbing products in the United States is
based. In many cases, the new and efficient plumbing products are a
cornerstone for the local water conservation programs of public water
utilities which avoid the cost to consumers of new reservoirs and both
drinking water and waste-water treatment facilities.
water savings nationally
Water suppliers in the Unites States already process nearly 34
billion gallons of water each day. If the population--and therefore
demand--continues to grow, saving water can help avoid building
expensive new water supply and treatment facilities that would put an
additional stress on the environment and increase water rates for
consumers. According to the 1998 Residential Water Use Summary
commissioned by AWWA, average water use in the typical single-family
home is 74 gallons per capita per day. By installing water-efficient
fixtures, however, consumers can cut their water use by 30 percent to
51.9 gallons per capita per day. This can save households up to $100
each year.
The water savings from coast to coast are enormous. Since 1993,
Tampa has provided 15,000 toilet rebates. On a larger scale, the City
of Los Angeles and local water agencies have provided rebates or given
away more than 2.25 million low-flush toilets since 1992. Despite a
population increase of nearly one million since 1970--a jump of 32
percent--Los Angeles in 1999 used virtually the same amount of water as
it did 29 years ago. Retrofitting toilets in Los Angeles saves nine
billion gallons of water a year. Due to conservation measures, Southern
California's need for imported water has been reduced by 710,000 acre-
feet annually, or about 23 percent. At the other end of the country, in
New York City, more than 1.3 million inefficient toilets were replaced
with low-flush toilets between 1993 and 1997. Although the city's
population continues to grow, per capita water use in New York City
dropped from 195 gallons to 164 gallons per day from 1991 to 1997. The
New York Department of Environmental Protection estimates city-wide
savings from low-flow toilets to be 70 to 80 million gallons per day.
In apartment buildings using low-flow toilets, there was a 29 percent
reduction in water use. In Denver, as part of the resource planning
process, the Denver Board of Water Commissioners identified a need for
an additional 100,000 acre-feet of water annually to meet total demand
by 2045. Denver Water is committed to obtain 29,000 of the 100,000
additional acre-feet through water conservation. Denver Water is
counting on achieving some of these saving through the requirements in
the 1992 Energy Policy and Conservation Act.
Double flushing is no longer a problem and the low-flush toilets
are producing the water savings intended in the 1992 Energy Policy and
Conservation Act. In a soon to be released study, Residential End Uses
of Water, the AWWA Research Foundation has found that, even in
instances of double flushing, the slightly higher flushes per day did
not offset the volume of water used by the larger volume flush toilets.
Further, the study stated that, on average, double flushing of low-
flush toilets does not appear to happen any more often than double
flushing of non-low-flush toilets. Any additional flushing was not
often enough to even begin to offset the water savings available from
the low-flush toilets. The great majority of low-flush toilet owners
surveyed are now satisfied with the performance of the toilets. As
examples, in a low-flush toilet program in Tampa, 91 percent of the
customers were either satisfied or very satisfied with the new low-
flush toilets, and in a similar program in Austin, Texas, 95 percent of
the customers were either satisfied or very satisfied with the new low-
flush toilets. The May 1998 issue of Consumer Reports reported that the
newer low-flush toilets tested worked well.
America's public water supply systems continue to use more and more
water. Total withdrawals have nearly tripled since 1950. The cost of
water and wastewater treatment has gone up significantly in recent
years. Americans now spend about $50 billion each year on residential
water and sewer bills. Water conservation can help reduce residential
water bills not only through reduced water use but through avoidance of
capital expenditures as well. The Environmental Protection Agency needs
survey for both drinking water and wastewater estimates that at least
$280 billion will be needed to protect public health and accommodate
growth over the next 20 years. A significant portion of this need is
for facilities and equipment where the volume of water and wastewater
flow affects the required size and cost. Water conservation programs
can postpone or reduce the cost of such capital spending.
water savings in florida
The Tampa area receives about 55 inches of rainfall per year.
However, about 49 of those inches are lost to run-off and evaporation,
resulting in a true effective rainfall of only about six inches. Most
of the rain occurs in July, August and September. Conversely, Tampa
water supplies are quite stressed during our annual drought cycle--
making conservation critical. The plumbing products standards of the
1992 Energy Policy and Conservation Act are an essential component of
water conservation and repealing these standards will only exacerbate
existing problems. In addition, repealing the current Federal plumbing
products standards is detrimental to the long-term health of the
Floridian economy. Florida is one of the fastest growing states in the
country. Each new resident and business places increasing demand on a
relatively static supply of potable water. Water conservation is one
way that we can meet the needs of new residents and businesses while
stretching the limited supplies of water available. Without national
standards, Florida would be forced to adopt its own state standards
which could put Florida in an economic competitive disadvantage with
other areas and cost Florida consumers more for water efficient
plumbing products.
Tampa has found that indoor water use, by using water savings
fixtures, can be reduced by 15 percent or about 14,000 gallons per year
per household.
summary
In conclusion, I want highlight the main points of the testimony:
--The City of Tampa, AWWA, and AMWA support the current plumbing
products efficiency standards in the 1992 Energy Policy and
Conservation Act. It has worked as intended.
--The new low-flush toilets work and have high consumer acceptance.
--The water savings which benefit the consumer, the economy and
environment are enormous.
--The objectives of H.R. 623 have been met through the market place and
there is no need for legislation.
--We respectfully request that the members of the Subcommittee not
support the passage of H.R. 623.
This concludes our statement on H.R. 623, The Plumbing Standards
Improvement Act of 1999. I would be pleased to answer any questions or
provide additional material for the committee.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Tippin. Mr. Osann, we recognize
you for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF EDWARD R. OSANN
Mr. Osann. My name is Edward Osann. I am of Potomac
Resources, and this testimony is presented on behalf of 10
national and State environmental organizations, as well as the
National Association of Service and Conservation Corps, and the
California Urban Water Conservation Council. I am sure that it
will come as no surprise to you, Mr. Chairman, we could not
disagree with Mr. Knollenberg more on this legislation. We
are----
Mr. Barton. You need to move the microphone over. You could
not disagree more?
Mr. Osann. We could not disagree more. As this hearing
takes place, there are severe drought conditions which are
extending across a dozen or 14 eastern and southeastern States
and portions of Texas, as I am sure you are aware, remain dry
and have not recovered from last year, particularly in the Rio
Grande Valley. These water use restrictions that result from
these conditions highlight the value and continuing importance
of saving water. But as severe as some of these problems are
locally, the Federal interests, the national interest in water
conservation in general and plumbing product efficiency in
particular is really much broader than that. It stems from the
fundamental reality that it takes money to provide safe
drinking water, and it takes money to clean up waste water.
The financial needs that have been projected by the States
and reported by EPA are so enormous over the coming decades,
some $280 billion will be needed to comply with current law and
accommodate growth over the next 20 years, that these costs
threaten to frustrate or delay achieving important public
health objectives and environmental quality goals. Many of the
organizations that I am representing here today work to enact
or to strengthen the Safe Drinking Water Act, to enact or
strengthen the Clean Water Act. If the cost of compliance with
these statutes were to appear to be unmanageable, it might
threaten the achievement of the goals, goals which we believe
are broadly supported by the American people.
Efficient plumbing products help communities and consumers
to manage their water and sewer costs, and this is good for the
environment. The value of this is apparent in many places that
we don't usually think of being as arid or being short on
water. Congressman Dingell alluded to the concerns regarding
waste water in the State of Michigan and my testimony indicates
across--gives examples of infrastructure needs through the
water rich parts of the country, areas that we don't usually
think of as being subject to water shortages, but the dollar
requirements are significant and these products because they
save significant amounts of water are very useful tools for
managing these costs.
By significantly reducing indoor water use, efficient
plumbing products can help hold down the cost of water supply
and waste water treatment infrastructure in all 50 States in a
highly cost effective manner, and we think the Federal interest
is clearly demonstrated here by the establishment of Federal
environmental goals and the Safe Drinking Water Act and the
Clean Water Act and the Federal financial interest that is
evidenced by multi-billion dollar appropriations for State
revolving funds and rural water and sewer programs to finance
both drinking water and waste water treatment improvements. We
think that there is a strong Federal interest in maintaining
efficiency standards for plumbing products that can save
consumers money and facilitate improvements of these important
public health and environmental objectives.
In many communities there are special efforts that are
underway to use efficient plumbing products to accomplish local
and regional environmental goals. In some cases it is
maintaining riparian habitat and restoring fisheries, and in
others it is improving the quality of waste water discharges.
My written testimony provides a list of examples where
conservation programs are addressing water needs and
environmental objectives and conservation programs that are
using water efficient products.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barton. If you have another sentence or two----
Mr. Osann. I would simply point out that many States have
found water efficient plumbing to be critically important for
their future infrastructure planning and with that achievement
of environmental goals that the American public values highly.
Attached to my testimony is a narrative description from
the Texas Water Development Board that describes the role of
water efficient plumbing products in Texas and the significant
reliance on these products over the coming decades that the
State perceives, and I simply call that to your attention, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Edward R. Osann follows:]
Prepared Statement of Edward R. Osann, President, Potomac Resources,
Inc.
My name is Edward R. Osann, and I am President of Potomac
Resources, Inc., a consulting business specializing in energy and
natural resources policy. Over the past two years, I have served as a
legislative representative on the issue before the subcommittee today
on behalf of plumbing manufacturers, environmental organizations, and
water and wastewater utilities.
My testimony today is endorsed and presented on behalf of the
following organizations, whose principal interests involve the
conservation and wise use of natural resources, the protection of
environmental quality, and public education regarding such issues: the
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Clean Water Action,
Environmental and Energy Study Institute, Environmental Defense Fund,
Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife federation, Natural Resources
Defense Council, Sierra Club, Texas Committee on Natural Resources, and
the Union of Concerned Scientists.
This testimony is also presented on behalf of the:
--National Association of Service & Conservation Corps, a membership
association for 100 conservation corps in 34 states who provide
employment and training for young adults. Several of these
corps work with utilities and municipalities on water
conservation projects; and the
--California Urban Water Conservation Council, an organization
established in 1991 to advance the analysis and implementation
of urban water conservation measures in California, and whose
decision making is shared evenly between the its water agency
members and its non-profit public interest group members.
Water conservation is important to the nation.
Mr. Chairman, as this hearing convenes, a band of states extending
from Massachusetts to North Carolina is experiencing severe drought
conditions, and portions of Texas have seen little relief from last
year's severe heat and dry weather. The water use restrictions that
result from these conditions serve to highlight the continuing
importance of making efficient use of our water resources.
But as severe as some of these local water supply problems have
become, the national interest--indeed, the federal interest--in water
conservation in general, and plumbing product efficiency in particular,
is much broader than that. It stems from the fundamental reality that
in all 50 states, it takes money to provide safe drinking water, and it
takes money to clean up wastewater. The financial needs are so
enormous--according to EPA and the States, some $280 billion will be
needed to comply with current law and accommodate growth over the next
20 years--that these cost threaten to frustrate or delay the
achievement of important public health objectives and environmental
quality goals.
Admittedly, water conservation is seldom a ``top of the mind''
concern in water-rich portions of our country. But consider this:
States throughout the Northeast and Midwest have multi-billion-dollar
infrastructure needs. In many cases, these are for facilities and
improvements whose costs are related, at least in part, to the volume
or flow of water or wastewater that must be accommodated. This is where
water conservation can translate into real dollar savings.
To illustrate, these needs over the next two decades have been
projected by the States themselves and EPA for portions of the country
that we don't usually consider to be ``arid'':
Iowa............................ drinking water $1.2 billion
transmission.
Michigan........................ drinking water 1.4 billion
transmission.
Ohio............................ drinking water 1.4 billion
transmission.
Pennsylvania.................... drinking water 1.3 billion
treatment.
Illinois........................ drinking water 1.5 billion
treatment.
New Jersey...................... wastewater 2.0 billion
secondary
treatment.
North Carolina.................. wastewater 1.1 billion
advanced
treatment.
Michigan........................ combined sewer 3.7 billion
overflow.
Ohio............................ combined sewer 4.2 billion
overflow.
Illinois........................ combined sewer 9.4 billion
overflow.
In fact, four out of the top six states ranked by their total flow-
related drinking water and wastewater infrastructure needs are Great
Lakes States--New York, Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania--joined by
California and Texas. (See attachment on Texas infrastructure needs.)
By significantly reducing indoor water use, efficient plumbing
products can help hold down the costs of water supply and wastewater
treatment infrastructure in all 50 States, in a highly cost-effective
manner. In light of--
the federal interest in meeting safe drinking water needs and
achieving water quality goals, as reflected in the Safe
Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act; and
the federal financial interest evidenced by multi-billion
dollar appropriations for State Revolving Funds and rural water
and sewer programs to finance both drinking water and
wastewater treatment improvements,
there is a strong federal interest in maintaining efficiency standards
for plumbing products that can save consumers money and facilitate the
achievement of these important public health and environmental
objectives throughout the nation.
Water conservation is helping to protect the environment today.
Increasingly, water conservation plays an important role in meeting
the environmental goals of many states and communities, in addition to
lowering costs and improving the reliability of water and wastewater
systems. Water conservation programs, including those featuring
efficient plumbing products, can be structured to achieve any of the
following--
Maintaining riparian habitat and restoring fisheries;
Protecting groundwater supplies from excessive depletion and
contamination;
Improving the quality of wastewater discharges;
Restoring the natural values and functions of wetlands and
estuaries;
Reducing energy consumption and related air pollution.
There are many examples of conservation programs addressing these
problems. Here is a brief sample of such activities.
In Washington . . . Puget Sound and its tributary streams have
already benefitted from conservation-assisted improvements in water
quality. These programs are soon to be expanded to address the special
needs for stream habitat restoration necessary for salmon restoration
under the Endangered Species Act.
In Texas . . . Ambitious water conservation programs are helping to
address the special needs of endangered species that are threatened by
excessive groundwater use in the San Antonio and Austin areas. The
Edwards Aquifer Authority was created to help stabilize and restore
groundwater resources, and improved plumbing efficiency has been a
significant element in the restoration program. Statewide, the 1997
Texas Water Plan projects that water conservation will produce \2/3\ of
all new supplies needed in the state by 2050, and that improved
plumbing efficiency will constitute \1/3\ of all conservation savings.
(See attachments from the Texas Water Development Board.)
In California . . . Several federal agencies are currently working
with the State of California on the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, designed
to restore ecological health and improve water management in
California's San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary.
The CALFED Bay-Delta Program has proceeded with a recognition that
efficient use of water is vital to the continued health of California's
economy, the reliability of water supplies for urban and agricultural
users, and the restoration of ecological health. Programs to ensure the
use of efficient plumbing fixtures in new construction, and encourage
the replacement of older inefficient fixtures, are among the most
important and most successful urban water conservation programs.
California relies on existing state and federal plumbing standards, as
well as local incentive programs, to replace older fixtures, as
essential elements of statewide efforts to guarantee a reliable future
water supply and a healthy Bay-Delta ecosystem. The estimated potential
urban water conservation savings of the program through 2020 are
significant, between 1,800,000 and 2,125,000 acre-feet. A significant
portion of these savings comes from installing 1.6-gpf toilets and
efficient showerheads.
In New York City . . . In order to improve the quality of
wastewater discharges at chronically overloaded sewage treatment
plants, New York City embarked on one of the largest water conservation
programs in the nation. An ambitious program to install water meters at
each unmetered residential account was begun in 1988, resulting in the
installation of over 500,000 water meters. In 1994, the City launched
its Toilet Rebate Program, through which 1.3 million inefficient
toilets were replaced with 1.6-gpf units of the building owners'' own
selection. Since the beginning of the rebate program, both water
consumption and wastewater inflows have dropped dramatically, even
while the city's population has grown. Current dry-weather flows to the
city's sewage treatment plants now average 1,266 million gallons per
day (mgd), which contrasts with flows of 1,530 mgd in 1994, a reduction
of 17% in five years. Currently all 14 of the city's treatment plants
are operating within their design capacity, and the additional
retention time made possible by reduced inflows has resulted in higher
quality effluent.
In the District of Columbia . . . The Washington Metropolitan Area
is served by the Blue Plains regional wastewater treatment plant, which
recently underwent a costly expansion of capacity. Nevertheless,
Washington, DC, is using more than its share of capacity of the plant,
which was built to serve neighboring suburban jurisdictions as well. In
order to meet its contractual obligations to its suburban partners and
maintain the plant's performance, Washington will undertake a water
conservation program designed to shave 20 mgd from the inflows to Blue
Plains. A variety of measures are under evaluation, with efficient
plumbing fixtures likely to be a major component of the program. These
measures will play an additional important role as the city develops
plans to reduce long-neglected combined sewer discharges into the
Anacostia River.
In Florida . . . Perhaps the largest wetlands restoration program
ever undertaken, the Everglades Restoration Plan will involve major
reductions in wastewater discharges to the ocean, and a redirection of
conserved water to the Everglades and Florida Bay estuary on a massive
scale. Because the water distribution system in South Florida must
serve both the human demands for water and the environmental needs of
the Everglades, the Everglades Restoration Plan recently submitted to
Congress addresses both these needs. According to the plan's
projections, the population in South Florida is expected to double in
the next fifty years, or an increase of roughly 6 million people. The
plan therefore relies on a water conservation program for South Florida
that would reduce consumption by 17% over the life of the plan,
dropping water consumption from 1,449 mgd down to 1,193 mgd. These
reductions are roughly equal to the increase in the amount of water
that the Restudy Plan will provide for Everglades National Park (about
270,000 acre-feet per year). In dry years, that is more than half of
the water flowing into the Park. These reductions depend on full use of
1.6-gpf toilets in the project area.
Enactment of H.R. 623 would be costly, unnecessary, and
counterproductive to the protection of the environment.
For the reasons outlined above, the nation can ill afford the
additional cost that would inevitably result from enactment of H.R.
623. With some 35 million 1.6-gpf toilets now installed all across the
United States, this new water-saving technology has become an important
factor in the achievement of long-sought environmental goals. American
communities and consumers are saving money, and good product
performance is being recognized in the competitive marketplace.
Consumer Reports has referred to the bill as ``unwarranted,''' and we
fully agree.
We view H.R. 623 as an impulsive attack on an environmentally
beneficial statute that is working well and costing little. Any
advancement of this bill could only be seen as a return to the
ideologically driven assaults on environmental laws that were loudly
undertaken in Congress in the mid-90's, but soundly rejected by the
American people. We urge you NOT to approve H.R. 623.
Mr. Barton. We would now like to hear from Mr. Whalen, who
is representing the plumbing, heating and cooling contractors
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE V. WHALEN
Mr. Whalen. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. I am George Whalen, and I am here today on behalf of
the Plumbing Heating Cooling Contractors National Association,
and I thank you for the opportunity to present my testimony.
I am here today to speak in opposition to H.R. 623. For 37
years I have served as the President and Executive Director of
the Plumbing Foundation of the city of New York, a trade
association representing contractors, unions and wholesalers
and sanitary engineers.
The city of New York rebate and retrofit program. While at
the foundation I had the opportunity to work with the New York
City Department of Environmental Protection to develop and
implement the largest and most successful toilet rebate and
retrofit program in the Nation. This program has been a
resounding success with residents, building owners and
managers, the plumbing industry, the city's water purveyors,
local, State and Federal officials.
New York City has long been recognized as having one of the
most successful water supply systems, both in terms of quality
and quantity. That supply, however, was not infinite, and
beginning in 1991, the city recognized the need to protect its
water resources. High usage and summertime drought conditions
had forced the city's reservoirs to dip dangerously low and had
placed unreasonable demands on both the city's clean water
needs and its capacity to treat waste water. It is important to
remember that each gallon of water consumed equals at least a
gallon of water that needs to be treated by one of the city's
14 sewage plants, 4 of which at the time were operating at or
above capacity. At that time the estimate for upgrading the
city's waste water treatment capacity to meet current and
future needs was expected to cost more than $10 billion in
State and Federal money.
The city was not alone in experiencing increased water
usage, and wondering how it would meet the rising costs of
waste water treatment, and finding clean potable water wasn't
the biggest problem.
I personally have worked on projects for California,
Florida, Maryland and Massachusetts as well as Cities of
Philadelphia, Atlanta, Duluth, Minnesota and Portland, Oregon,
all of which were facing stresses on their ability to meet
their waste water treatment needs. In fact, some areas of the
country, including New York City, were threatening building
moratoriums in order to reduce waste water treatment demands.
Tapping into new water sources was unjustifiably expensive and
would not address the city's long term environmental needs. The
city needed a solution that would address both challenges,
reducing the city's demands for clean water and reducing the
amount of water needing treatment. Prior to the 1990's, the
majority of the New York City's toilets used 3 to 5 gallons of
water per flush. And in fact prior to 1980, you could use a
toilet in the United States with 4\1/2\ to 7 gallons of water.
There were 4 million toilets in the city of New York, and the
frequency at which they were flushed, very quickly you realize
the amount of water being consumed is no longer insignificant.
The toilet rebate and retrofit program eventually adopted
by the city was an innovative and effective plan that would
address the city's clean water and waste water treatment needs.
The terms of the program were simple. The city offered a rebate
up to $240 on the installed cost for the replacement of an
outdated water guzzling toilet with a modern, low-consumption
toilet. Additional replacements in the same household were
eligible for $150 rebate per unit. Commercial replacements
qualified for $150 per unit. A couple of caveats, and these
were the things that ensured the program's success. At least 70
percent of the toilets in each building had to be replaced
before the owner was eligible for the rebate. Only models
tested and approved by the State of New York could be
installed. And most importantly, the installation must be
completed by a licensed plumbing contractor who could not get
paid if the unit did not work.
This public-private partnership succeeded because of the
credibility of the program among the city's building owners and
the licensed plumbing contractors working in the city's 2.3
million households. It could not have worked without their
support.
I would like to share some impressive facts. We did 1.3
million plus toilets in the first 25 months on the program at
an average of 12,500 a week. The city of New York had reduced
the flow of water through its sewage treatment plants by 80
million gallons a day, 280 million gallons a year. New York
City replaced 1.3 million toilets at a cost of $290 million,
but saved the city $3 billion in water and waste water
treatment expansion costs. The average household in New York
City was saving $70 annually on its water and sewer bills,
which are combined. Water consumption was reduced by 29
percent.
I would say in conclusion, gentlemen, we were going to go
on and do the rest of the 4 million toilets, and as Mr.
Giuliani came in, everybody started saying we don't have to
save 240 million gallons of water. So they stopped it at 1.3
because there wasn't a need for it. We have held back the other
2.7--or the other 1.7 or 2.7 as a reserve. But this was all
attributable directly, I have with me and I would leave for
your staff to look at an outside evaluation of the New York
City toilet program, which is voluminous to say the least, and
it shows almost all of the toilets that were installed and the
consumer's response to that and I think more importantly when I
say to you very frankly the plumbing installer in New York City
did not get paid from the administration if the consumer said
hey, that thing doesn't work. So in fact we did it in Federal
office buildings, Marriott hotels, houses, a cross-section of
the city. This thing works. They saved 80 million gallons a
day.
Mr. Bilirakis. I ask unanimous consent that document be
made part of the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.079
Mr. Barton. Again subject to the minority approval at staff
level without objection.
The program that you just alluded to, that was not mandated
by this Federal law. The State and city of New York were doing
that before we passed this legislation, is that not correct?
Mr. Whalen. We passed low flow water legislation in New
York City in 1992 which was effective in 1993. The first area
that did this was in 1990 in Massachusetts, was the first State
to do it, but in fact to answer your question, yes. It was
mandated by the city, but it was voluntary for the homeowner to
then replace them. The caveat on that was if you did an
alteration in your home or you built a new home, you had to use
a 1.6 gallon toilet.
[The prepared statement of George V. Whalen follows:]
Prepared Statement of George Whalen on Behalf of the Plumbing-Heating-
Cooling Contractors--National Association
Good afternoon Mister Chairman, members of the Committee. My name
is George Whalen and I am here today on behalf of the Plumbing-Heating-
Cooling Contractors--National Association. Thank you for the
opportunity to present my testimony.
I am here today to speak in opposition to H.R. 623. For 37 years, I
served as the President and Executive Director of the Plumbing
Foundation of the City of New York, a trade association representing
contractors, unions, and wholesalers.
City of New York--Rebate and Retrofit Program
While with the Foundation, I had the opportunity to work with the
New York City Department of Environmental Protection to develop and
implement the largest and most successful toilet rebate and retrofit
program in the nation. This program has been a resounding success with
residents, building owners and managers, the plumbing industry, the
city's water purveyors, and local, state and federal officials.
NYC has long been recognized as having one of the world's most
successful water supply systems, both in terms of quantity and quality.
That supply, however, was not infinite and beginning in 1991, the City
of New York recognized the need protect its water resources. High usage
and summertime drought conditions had forced the city's reservoirs to
dip dangerously low and had placed unreasonable demands on both the
city's clean water needs and its capacity to treat wastewater. It is
important to remember that each gallon of water consumed in New York
City equals at least a gallon that needs to be treated by one of the
city's 14 sewerage plants, four of which at the time were operating at
or above capacity. At the time, the estimate for upgrading the city's
wastewater treatment capacity to meet current and future needs was
expected to cost more than $10 billion in federal, state and city
money.
The City of New York was not alone in experiencing increased water
usage and wondering how it would meet the rising cost of wastewater
treatment. And finding clean, potable water wasn't the biggest problem.
I have worked on projects for California, Florida, Maryland and
Massachusetts, as well as the cities of Philadelphia, Atlanta, Duluth,
Minnesota and Portland, Oregon, all of which were facing stresses on
their abilities to meet their wastewater treatment needs. In fact, some
areas of the country, including New York City, were threatening
building moratoriums in order to reduce wastewater treatment demands.
Tapping into new water sources was unjustifiably expensive, and
would not address the city's long-term environmental needs. The city
needed a solution that would address both challenges--reducing the
city's demand for clean water and reduce the amount of water needing
treatment.
Prior to the early 1990's, the majority of New York City's toilets
used 3.5-5 gallons of water per flush. Not a significant amount of
water in itself.
But, consider the total toilet population of the city and the
frequency with which they were flushed and very quickly you realize the
amount of water being consumed is no longer insignificant. The toilet
rebate and retrofit program eventually adopted by the city was an
innovative and effective plan that would address the city's clean water
and wastewater treatment needs.
The terms of the program were simple. The city offered a rebate of
up to $240.07 on the installed cost for the replacement of an outdated,
water-guzzling toilet with a modern, low consumption toilet. Additional
replacements in the same household were eligible for a $150.07 rebate.
Commercial replacements qualified for $150.07 per unit. A couple of
caveats ensured the program's success:
at least 70% of the toilets in each building had to be
replaced before the owner is eligible for the rebate
only models tested and approved by the State could be
installed, and
the installation must be completed by a licensed plumbing
contractor
This public-private partnership succeeded because of the
credibility of the program among the city's building owners and the
licensed plumbing contractors working in the city's 2.3 million
households. It could not have worked without their support.
I'd like to share some impressive facts about New York City's
toilet rebate and retrofit program with you:
1,300,000 toilets were replaced in the first 25 months of the
program, an average of 12,500 toilets a week
The City of New York has reduced the flow of water through its
sewerage treatment plans by 80 million gallons a day or 2.8
billion gallons a year.
The City of New York replaced 1.3 million toilets at a cost of
$290 million but saved the City $ 3 billion in water and
wastewater treatment expansion costs.
The average household in NYC is saving $70 annually on its
water and sewer bills, which are combined in the City of New
York.
Water consumption was reduced by 29%.
The continued use of low consumption toilets is a wise and prudent
move that will ensure future generations have access to clean, potable
water.
H.R. 623 is Poor Public Policy
H.R. 623 counters every energy and natural resources conservation
and efficiency message Congress has ever sent!
H.R. 623 is bad for the environment. Water is our most precious
natural resource. It is expensive and in limited supply. Water is
everyone's problem--not just those who happen to live in certain areas
of the country. Water-conserving plumbing products can save millions of
gallons of water every day; Water that could be better used in other
capacities.
H.R. 623 is bad for the business community. If enacted, H.R. 623
could limit growth in your congressional district! Limiting growth
could restrict the economy--that's not good.
Our country's wastewater treatment facilities are already severely
overburdened. Many areas of the country are considering (or have
considered) building moratoriums and other growth-limiting restrictions
because they cannot meet current or expected wastewater treatment
needs. Less water used in our plumbing systems means less water that
has to be treated! And wastewater plants that don't have to be
expanded!
H.R. 623 is bad for America's consumers. The flushing of toilets
accounts for nearly 40% of all water consumed in the average house.
Every day we flush more than 5 billion gallons of water down the drain.
Experts say that's about 1.5 billion (yes, billion) gallons of
water more than necessary. Switching to water-efficient plumbing
fixtures could save the average household as much as $50 to $100 a year
on water and wastewater treatment bills. Water down the drain is money
down the drain.
Consumers will also feel the negative effects of this legislation
when their wastewater treatment facilities fail to meet their
community's needs and they are forced to pay millions, and sometimes
billions, of tax dollars to build new treatment facilities. Their sewer
charges could double within 3 years.
Negative Effect on the Plumbing Industry
The plumbing industry supports the national efficiency standards
contained in current law. The flow rates and flush volumes enacted in
the 1992 Act were developed through the voluntary standard-setting
process. The same standards had also been adopted by many states prior
to the enactment of the Act.
A single federal, low consumption requirement is both necessary and
practical. A single standard allows products to move freely across
state lines, without the industry having to produce, stock, deliver and
install different products based on a variety of state or local
consumption requirements. This in turn helps to control consumer prices
for plumbing products.
Should Congress repeal the current federal standards by passing
H.R. 623, the efficiencies and economies of the present regulatory
framework will be lost. Our industry will be forced to comply with
possibly 50 different state standards, 50 different test procedures, 50
different certification requirements, and a different building code for
every town, county and state in which they work.
Water-efficient technology is vastly improved from where it was
several years ago. The fact is that there are excellent 1.6 gallon per
flush (gpf) toilets on the market today. Toilet hardware, not the units
themselves, is sometimes to blame for poor performance. Toilets must be
properly installed. Licensed plumbing contractors who properly install
the 1.6 gpf fixtures rarely get complaints. Plumbing contractors will
install products that work because warrantee callbacks are costly.
If you believe improvements can be made in the efficiency or
performance of the 1.6 gpf toilets mandated in the 1992 Energy Policy
Act, we urge you to work with our organization and the plumbing
industry to bring your concerns before American National Standards
Institute's (ANSI) approved voluntary consensus standardization process
with jurisdiction over this matter. ANSI is a private, non-profit
membership organization that coordinates the U.S. voluntary consensus
standard system.
The plumbing industry supports the voluntary consensus standard
process that develops and governs standards ranging from aerospace
engineering to zirconium production and from crayons to nuclear safety
to plumbing. The plumbing industry also supports water efficient
plumbing standards that reduce water consumption and assure states and
communities a reliable supply of efficient and affordable plumbing
fixtures.
Let's keep the government out of our bathrooms and put the experts
back in charge!
Mr. Barton. Mr. Goike, we welcome you to the committee.
Your statement is in the record.
STATEMENT OF DAVID GOIKE
Mr. Goike. Thank you. I would like to enter into the
hearing a letter addressed to you with two copies from the
President of TOTO, U.S.A.
Mr. Barton. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
TOTO
July 22, 1999
The Honorable Joe Barton
Chairman
Subcommittee on Energy and Power
Committee on Commerce
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman: Please accept this statement of TOTO USA for the
record of the hearing of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power on H.R.
623, the bill to repeal the current uniform national water efficiency
standards for plumbing products. TOTO USA is strongly in support of
current law, and is opposed to the enactment of H.R. 623.
TOTO USA is a manufacturer of vitreous china plumbing products,
including water closets and urinals subject to the national standards
enacted in 1992. TOTO USA is a subsidiary of TOTO Ltd. of Japan, the
largest manufacturer of plumbing products in the world. We serve the US
market from two manufacturing plants in Atlanta and Morrow, Georgia.
Our Morrow plant opened in 1996, and with its advanced pressure casting
technology, it is the most modern and productive vitreous china
manufacturing plant in North America.
TOTO is known throughout the world for its engineering expertise,
and we have applied our engineering resources to meet the challenge of
producing fully functional, gravity-operated toilets that consistently
perform well at 1.6 gallons-per-flush. By giving careful attention to
both design innovation in the research phase and quality control in the
manufacturing process, TOTO is able to produce high quality toilets in
large volumes and at moderate prices.
TOTO products have been well received by American consumers. In its
1995 survey of ultra-low-flush toilet users in Los Angeles, the
Wirthlin Group reported that more purchasers were satisfied with TOTO
USA's CST 703 than with any other brand identified in the survey. In
surveys of participants in New York City's landmark toilet rebate
program of 1994-96, the CST 703 was again found to have produced the
highest level of customer satisfaction measured for any toilet in the
program. More recently, TOTO's two-piece and one-piece models have both
been rated as ``Best Buys'' by Consumer Digest Magazine.
H.R. 623 appears to be based on the mistaken notion that it is not
possible to produce reasonably priced toilets that consistently please
consumers while operating on only 1.6 gallons-per-flush. We most
respectfully disagree. Our business in the United States is built
around doing just that. And we have invested in the plant, equipment,
and people necessary to produce top quality plumbing products with the
conviction that competition in the American marketplace will reward
those who can meet this challenge.
We are pleased that our products are contributing to the
conservation of America's natural resources and to the reduction of
capital costs for water and wastewater infrastructure in American
communities. This is a role that our company and our employees would
like to continue. We urge you not to turn back the clock on water
saving-technology. We urge that H.R. 623 not be enacted.
Sincerely,
Toshio Kitano
President, TOTO USA
cc: The Hon. Mac Collins, M.C.
The Hon. John Lewis, M.C.
Mr. Goike. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. My name is David Goike and I am here on behalf of
the Plumbing Manufacturers Institute, a national trade
association of companies that produce the Nation's finished
plumbing, fitting and fixtures, along with a variety of other
plumbing products. Thank you also for the opportunity to
testify.
I am here to present PMI's strong opposition to H.R. 623
legislation. PMI works with model code agencies, States and
local jurisdictions to promote uniformity in plumbing codes.
PMI also teams up with national and Federal groups such as the
American National Standards Institute and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development to formulate and update plumbing
standards for materials, performance and installation
requirements.
In these roles, PMI and its members are in a unique
position to measure the effect of EPAct. We believe that this
law has been successful in conserving water while establishing
national standards for plumbing fixtures which have resulted in
significant savings for consumers and municipalities. We are at
a loss to see why Congress would consider reversing these
successes at this time. The provision in EPAct mandating low-
flow fixtures passed the House, as previously stated, by a
bipartisan vote of 328 do 79. These provisions have begun to
realize their enormous potential to help the environment while
costing the taxpayers, consumers and the government virtually
nothing. It is rare that a Federal law accomplishes so much and
costs so little.
PMI's active promotion of water conservation in plumbing
systems dates to the early 1970's, when our members began
working on product standards for low flow faucets and
showerheads. In the 1980's, our members worked on products
standards for low flow water closets. The plumbing industry has
answered a vital public policy need by developing products
requiring the use of less water.
I have a study which has been passed out, Saving Water,
Saving Dollars. I am not going to read the testimony because it
has been given. There is a 15 percent savings of interior
residential water use with just 1.6 gallon toilets alone, and
it further documents savings of as much as 30 percent of
interior residential water use if all plumbing products of
EPAct are applied. Such huge savings on the water supply side
translate as well to substantial savings in the cost of waste
water infrastructure systems as well.
Those advocating the repeal of the plumbing provisions in
EPAct have sought to diminish and politicize a significant and
somewhat historic consumer and environmental victory. Repeal
advocates charge that 1.6 gallon flush toilets don't work and
claim a broad consumer rebellion against these legislative
standards.
Gentlemen, we are here to tell you that simply is not true.
The report I cited earlier, Saving Water, Saving Dollars,
concludes that plumbing products, including 1.6 gallon toilets,
work well and save water. And again I am not going to bother
because the testimony that I had prepared talks about the
cities we have already covered, San Diego, Austin, Tampa, where
over 90 percent of the consumers were very satisfied with 1.6
gallon toilets. There were several other cities in this report
where the user satisfaction is extremely high.
Two other facts which I think I would like to point out is
that the 25 million 1.6 gallon flush toilets installed as of
1998 were saving on average 29 gallons of water per day in
single family homes and 48 gallons per day in apartment units.
Another fact, the water cost savings from 1.6 gallon flush
toilets alone amount to $50 per year to consumers with an
average water and sewer bill, even more in high-cost areas, as
Mr. Whalen just testified, over $70 in New York City.
The report further demonstrates that consumer choices would
not change for the most part if plumbing product provisions of
EPAct were repealed. State and local regulations exist because
of a need to conserve water, not simply to satisfy the
requirements of EPAct. When EPAct was signed into law, 48
percent of the U.S. Population lived in States already
requiring the installation of 1.6 gallon flush toilets.
Preexisting State laws would remain leaving about 17 States
with low flow requirements in place, in addition to numerous
municipalities which also required 1.6 gallon toilets.
What would change is the cost to the consumer. The
economies of scale that allow costs to remain constant would be
lost and consumers would end up paying more for their plumbing
products.
In closing, permit me to remind the subcommittee that the
plumbing product provisions of EPAct were inspired by a unique
coalition of interests, including groups representing business,
conservation, labor, consumers, environmentalists, water
utilities and waste water treatment providers. We are here to
preserve water for our children and grandchildren in the years
ahead and to make plumbing fixtures less costly for consumers
and to avoid unnecessary governmental regulatory costs. We see
no reason to repeal and reverse this highly successful
initiative.
Thank you for your efforts.
[The prepared statement of David Goike follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Goike, Masco Corporation, on Behalf of the
Plumbing Manufacturers Institute
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Committee Members. I appreciate
the opportunity to testify before you and the Energy and Power
Subcommittee today on this most important issue.
introduction
The Plumbing Manufacturers Institute (PMI) is the national trade
association of plumbing products manufacturers. Its member companies
produce the nation's finished plumbing fittings and plumbing fixtures
along with a variety of other plumbing products.
PMI works with model code agencies, states and local jurisdictions
to promote uniformity in plumbing codes. PMI also teams up with
national and federal groups such as the American National Standards
Institute and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to
formulate and update plumbing standards for materials, performance and
installation requirements.
water conservation--always a high priority
PMI's active promotion of water conservation in plumbing systems
began in the early 1970s. The Institute and its members worked on
product standards for low-flow faucets and showerheads. This effort
culminated in 1979 when the American National Standard covering low
water-consumption products was approved. Subsequently, PMI has been
instrumental in seeking adoption of this standard and standards
requiring low-flush volume toilets and urinals by states and local
governments. Thus, it was no accident that PMI was an architect of the
plumbing product provisions of EPAct '92.
answering the need
The plumbing industry has answered a vital public policy need by
developing products requiring the use of less water. Over the past 25
years, the federal government recognized the need for a comprehensive,
nationwide water use and conservation policy. While a variety of
regulations from such diverse federal agencies and departments as
Housing and Urban Development, Agriculture, Energy and EPA have
addressed some of the issues relating to long-term national potable
water needs, a truly comprehensive policy does not yet exist.
the need for public water policy and water conservation
The need for water conservation in private and public use should
not be obscured by looking at a map of the United States showing the
Great Lakes and other magnificent water resources, nor can average
rainfall be used as an indicator of the areas where water conservation
is required. The need to save potable water--the water that is suited
for human consumption--exists in virtually every area of the U.S.
Potable water is expensive water, increasingly expensive.
Typically, potable water comes from a source where a substantial
capital expenditure is required to gather and hold the water (i.e.,
ground water or surface water from man-made reservoirs). The raw water
must be transported to a treatment plant, processed through treatment
techniques, transported to the ultimate user and then must be
transported to a wastewater treatment plant, treated, and finally
transported again.
This process costs a great deal of money. Water, for a variety of
reasons, has typically been underpriced. Utilities have been reluctant,
historically, to charge enough for water to fully recover capital
costs. In other words, there has been little set aside for
infrastructure maintenance and expansion.
As the population expands and building developments increase,
tremendous pressure is created on water and wastewater systems
throughout the U.S. This occurs in areas that have enormous supplies of
raw water as well as in arid lands. In addition to demand-related
costs, utilities must also meet constantly expanding regulations
concerning health-based concerns such as lead in drinking water.
U.S. EPA estimates, delivered to Congress in 1997, peg needed water
and wastewater capital investments at $280 billion in the next 20
years. Some of these funds will come from local users and the local tax
base. A much larger portion of these funds will have to come from the
federal government. This is money collected from every taxpayer in the
U.S.
Congress should seize every opportunity to maximize taxpayers'
investments. The report entitled, Saving Water, Saving Dollars, quotes
studies documenting a 15 percent savings of interior, residential water
use by the use of 1.6 gallons per flush (gpf) water closets alone. It
further documents savings of as much as 30 percent of interior,
residential water use, if all plumbing product provisions of EPAct '92
are applied along with the use of new, more efficient clothes washers.
Such savings on the water supply side translate to substantial
savings on the wastewater infrastructure of systems as well. Water
conservation in plumbing systems makes sense for many reasons, not the
least of which is because it allows taxpayer dollars to be used more
efficiently by government and utilities.
a quadruple win . . .
The plumbing product provisions of EPAct '92 exist because a unique
coalition of interests worked in unison for the public good. Industry,
labor, contractors, environmentalists and consumer groups, water
suppliers and government all came together and agreed on how to achieve
more efficient use of our water resources.
This is an example of legislature where there are few government
programs where everyone wins. Now that the reality of water
conservation has been documented by Saving Water, Saving Dollars, we
can point out that the plumbing product provisions of EPAct '92 created
a quadruple win . . .
. . . First, huge amounts of a precious, expensive resource are not
being wasted and misused. The ramifications for all of us in the 21st
century are enormous and positive. Showcase a victory for the
environment and our future!
. . . Products meeting the federal requirements now cost little or
no more than the same products did prior to 1993, when the requirements
were enacted. So, the consumer benefits. The consumer benefits again
because water and sewer bills are less in many instances because of the
decreased usage. Chalk up a consumer victory!
. . . these plumbing products provisions have cost the federal
government virtually nothing. Local and state governments have adopted
the regulations into their plumbing codes, and plumbing inspectors are
already enforcing them. The federal government spends virtually nothing
administering the water conservation standards because standards
development was left to the private sector that already had the
capabilities to do the job. Chalk up a victory for government and the
taxpayer!
. . . allowing manufacturers to concentrate on more important
issues such as product improvement and foreign markets. Tally a victory
for industry!
Summary: The plumbing product provisions of EPAct '92 have begun to
realize their enormous potential to help the environment while costing
taxpayers, our government and consumers virtually nothing. Lets face
it--such a report card is rarely issued on government programs!
reality will continue to make epact '92 work
Prior to 1992, a number of states and local governments had
identified the benefits of lower water use plumbing products as part of
a strategy to save water and avoid capital costs for water and
wastewater facilities. Many of these entities created their own, but
differing, efficiency regulations in the absence of uniform federal
requirements. Product manufacturers, distributors and installers had
major problems meeting this patchwork of regulation. Literally, an
installer of a 1.6 gallons per flush water closet could walk across the
street to a different town and have to install one flushing on 1.5
gallons per flush.
The manufacturing, distribution, logistics and enforcement costs of
this system were unnecessarily high. The consumer was paying more for
products than would have been necessary under a unifying national
standard.
why has epact '92 worked so well?
Congress prudently created a target for product manufacturers and
regulators but did not tell them how to meet the goal. The ``how to''
was left to the private sector and to existing institutions, such as
the American National Standards Institute, that already knew how to do
the job. The inherent competitiveness of the plumbing industry has been
a major force in creating a ``win-win'' scenario under this law. Since
1992, products covered by the Act have increased in functionality, and
they cost virtually no more than their predecessors did.
Plumbing product manufacturers today must meet the demands of the
marketplace, and they are doing so, just as they have always done.
other issues
1) It has been asserted by detractors of EPAct '92 that the
plumbing product provisions of the Act should be repealed so that
consumers may have a ``choice'' as to how much water toilets use. The
argument is illusory. First, one must recognize, as a practical matter,
consumers in recent times have never had a choice as to how much water
toilets used to flush. In the last 25 years, water closet flushing
volume has evolved steadily downward for a variety of reasons from
seven gallons per flush to the current 1.6 gallons per flush.
Consumers today can specify the same choices with respect to
toilets as they did 25 years ago (i.e., color, shape and size of the
bowl), with the exceptions of short periods of time when higher
flushing generations of toilets were phased out of the market and the
next lower flushing generation was phased in.
2) Repealing the federal law will have minimal impact on the broad
use and acceptance of water conservation plumbing products, but costs
may very well increase needlessly. The requirements of EPAct '92 are
now firmly embedded in state and local law, and codes. They are being
widely enforced. Most areas of the U.S., either before 1992 or after
EPAct '92 was passed, have changed their own statutes and regulations
to require water conservation plumbing products.
The model plumbing codes, upon which most state and local codes are
based, have also changed requirements for water conservation products.
It is our opinion, based on our knowledge of the market and the code
development process, that few--if any--states and local jurisdictions
would repeal regulations mandating the use of water conservation
plumbing products.
What is bound to happen, however, is that states and local
jurisdictions would move back to the pre-1992 situation in which they
make ``slight'' changes in their regulations.
We cannot predict precisely how these localized regulations would
change manufacturing, but we can report what happened prior to
implementation of the federal requirements: in order to maintain
efficiency and productivity, producers made all or most of their
toilets, showerheads and faucets to the most stringent requirements in
the national marketplace. This is, if state X required 1.3 gallons per
flush toilets, all toilets were made to that standard by the
manufacturer, generally speaking, it is more efficient to produce and
distribute fewer models of a product.
It is ironic that repeal of the plumbing product provisions of
EPAct '92 would quite likely have exactly the opposite effect that H.R.
623 contemplates.
3) Consumers are generally satisfied with the current generation of
water conservation products. The documentation of consumer acceptance
and satisfaction contained in Saving Water, Saving Dollars should ease
any congressional concerns. We have reviewed consumer complaint data
form several major toilet manufacturers. The conclusion is that
manufacturers receive no more complaints about 1.6 gallons per flush
toilets than they did about 3.5 gallons per flush toilets. As a matter
of fact, some have received fewer complaints on the 1.6 models.
4) The alleged ``black market'' for older toilets is imaginary in
its impact. We asked toilet manufacturers to compare several years'
data of projected sales of toilets against actual sales for outlets
near the Canadian border (Canada has no such 1.6 gallons per flush
requirement). It was assumed that sales in these areas would suffer, if
a black market for 3.5 gallons per flush toilets existed. Every
reporting company indicated sales of 1.6 gallons per flush toilets
along the Canadian border were at or above forecasts.
5) Contrary to the battle cry of H.R. 623 sponsors, the government
has been in your bathroom since the 1400s--ever since officials
determined emptying chamber pots out the window into the street caused
disease. Plumbing installation is highly regulated at the state and
local levels today, as it has been since the Middle Ages. The federal
government also plays an increasing role in the regulation of plumbing
products.
If the plumbing product provisions of EPAct '92 were repealed, the
federal government would still be in your bathroom through laws,
regulations or policies of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the
EPA, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the
Department of Justice (ADAAG). These citations do not include the
important role of federal purchasing specifications in shaping product
standards.
how congress can help
We believe there is a proper and very useful role for the Congress
concerning the broad issues of water conservation and plumbing
products.
The first part of that role is for Congress to foster and nurture a
comprehensive review of water supplies and water use--to create a
national water policy. Experts have been documenting the need to
preserve water supplies for decades. Each Presidential administration
since Jimmy Carter's has made headlines over initiation of a
comprehensive national policy, with conservation as an important part
of the policy. We are now moving into the twenty-first century and
still do not have a comprehensive water policy for this nation.
With respect to plumbing products, we wish to emphasize that the
use of our industry products is only part of the necessary development
of a comprehensive national water policy.
1) Section 337 of EPAct '92 mandates the Secretary of the
Department of Energy to carry out consumer education. If this
obligation has been met at all, it has only been a minimal effort. The
plumbing industry needs help from consumer and environmental groups,
other interested parties and government in letting consumers' needs,
but they operate differently. Congress could help cause government
agencies to become part of the solution to consumer education issues.
2) We believe that, over the long term, flow rates and flush
volumes of plumbing products will continue to be driven downward
because of the need to save water and energy. The products manufactured
by our industry are the products the consumers see in their bathrooms
and kitchens. Underlying these products is a complicated system of
water delivery and waste disposal that, along with those products the
consumer actually uses, form the plumbing system. All portions of the
overall system must function in harmony or serious problems effecting
health and safety develop.
Within the federal government (at the National Institute for
Standards and Technology) the expertise already exists to begin dealing
with the longer-term plumbing system design issues inherent in the need
to save water. Coupling NIST with the American Society of Plumbing
Engineers, representing the private plumbing system design professional
and other groups, would position Congress in a strong leadership role
solving twenty-first century water problems.
While we believe H.R. 623 should not be passed, we also recognize
that those supporting it have, by their efforts, helped focus attention
on the need for a comprehensive national water policy. We invite the
sponsors and supporters of H.R. 623 to work with the same coalition
that created the plumbing product provisions in EPAct '92 to talk about
water and the twenty-first century.
summary
The plumbing product provisions of EPAct '92 were created by a
truly unique group of interests including business, labor, consumers,
environmentalists, the water industry and government.
What they created has . . .
. . . saved precious water
. . . saved the consumer money
. . . cost the government virtually nothing to administer
. . . help the environment!!
Why would such an initiative be repealed?
Mr. Barton. Thank you, sir. We would like to hear from Mr.
Willardson. You are asked to summarize your statement.
STATEMENT OF ANTHONY WILLARDSON
Mr. Willardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. We appreciate the opportunity to testify on
behalf of the council. The council is an organization of 16
States and the members are appointed by the Governors of those
States. The council is opposed to the repeal of uniform
national plumbing efficiency standards. I might add that is an
unusual position for us to take to support Federal regulation,
but in this case our States have had, many of them, the same
standards before enactment of the Federal requirements.
The States of Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, Texas,
Utah and Washington all had plumbing efficiency standards prior
to the Federal requirements. The Federal requirements have been
incorporated in their plumbing codes. Other States now depend
on those standards. The State of New Mexico is one who again
opposes repeal of those standards. Repeal would send--to us it
is a question of conservation. It is an issue of conservation.
The repeal of those standards would send the wrong message,
that urban water conservation is not as important as it was.
We have seen significant water savings in different areas
of the country. While it may not be perceptible nationwide, it
is perceptible in the Los Angeles Basin and in the San Diego
area, in Las Vegas, where they are reaching the limit of their
water supply and are still building. The issue may come down if
we can't reduce our water use, a building moratorium. The State
of Arizona has closed many of their groundwater basins to
further development. They have required a showing of a 100-year
water supply before you can subdivide.
There are many water supply issues in the West, and we
believe that one of the other major issues for those States
that had standards is enforcement of those standards. The
member from Arizona remarked they wondered what they were going
to do now that they were giving the standards from a State
water agency. Were they going to home base, the local hardware
stores to see what they were selling? The enactment of the
Federal standards eliminated that tremendous regulatory problem
for the States, and enactment of H.R. 623 and repeal of those
standards would again place that burden on the States.
Also there is the issue of Federal funding, increasing the
demands for Federal funding for infrastructure financing for
water and waste water. We have heard that before. It would
create a disproportionate burden on western States where we are
limiting our water use and create a greater demand in other
States that are not limiting their water use for those funds,
for State revolving funds and others.
We have chosen to exercise the constraints. The State of
California supports the Federal standards even though their
standards were more stringent at the time that the Energy
Policy Act was enacted in 1992.
There are other things that States can do and are doing to
save water. This is an important issue to us and as I say, it
is not one that was taken lightly. The discussion in our
meetings among our States, and it was a unanimous adopted
position, was enlightening. But it came down to the issue of
supporting conservation and the regulatory burden that would be
placed on the States if this act were repealed. Nevada was
interesting. They wanted to know what the support was for
repeal of the bill, if there was a National Association of
Water Wasters.
Arizona has talked about their plumbing standards and how
that is a base requirement for all of the cities in Arizona
now, including the city of Phoenix. In Oregon, the State's
administrative rules with respect to water allocation and
conservation are all tied to their water efficiency standards
and the plumbing codes. There are many--there would be
tremendous repercussions if the national standards were
repealed, and for that reason the issues of conserving water
and for simplifying and reducing the burden on States of
regulating water use, we oppose H.R. 623 and the repeal of
national standards.
[The prepared statement of Anthony Willardson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anthony G. Willardson, Associate Director,
Western States Water Council
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
Western States Water Council, I appreciate this opportunity to testify
on H.R. 623. The Council consists of representatives appointed by the
governors of sixteen western states.
The Council is opposed to the repeal of the uniform national
plumbing efficiency standards in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, as
envisioned in H.R. 623. A resolution adopted by the Council to this
effect is attached. The Council has always advocated and promoted the
wise use of western water resources in general, and specifically
appropriate water conservation measures. Making efficient and
beneficial use of scarce water resources has been, and continues to be,
a fundamental objective of western states' water policies.
Water agencies that have carried out retrofit programs to install
higher efficiency fixtures have demonstrated substantial water savings
from these programs. Between 1990 and 1992 the States of Arizona,
California, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Washington adopted
statewide standards for new plumbing products, including a standard of
1.6 gallons per flush (gpf) for toilets. Following action by these
States and others, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 was enacted in October
1992 containing uniform national water efficiency standards for
plumbing products, including a standard of 1.6 gpf for toilets, with
the active support of many water and wastewater utilities in the
Western States. Other Western States subsequently incorporated
comparable water efficiency standards into their plumbing codes.
Still other states now rely on the established federal standards,
which if repealed, would leave a regulatory gap that could lead to
substantial confusion and difficulties in enforcing current state
standards for installation of water efficient fixtures. Uniform
national efficiency standards simplify and reduce the States' burden of
enforcement regarding the sale and installation of ultra-low flush
toilets (ULFTs) and other water-efficient plumbing products. Moreover,
uniform national efficiency standards maintain a national market for
plumbing products, allowing manufacturers to achieve full economies of
scale and encouraging wider competition in all jurisdictions.
Furthermore, repeal might be perceived as sending the wrong signal
that urban water conservation is not as important now as a few years
ago. Efficient plumbing products, including ultra-low flush toilets
(ULFTs), became widely available in the early 1990's, and have
undergone substantial product development and performance improvements
since that time. The American Water Works Association Research
Foundation (AWWARF) commissioned the most comprehensive end-use study
of indoor water use ever undertaken in North America, recording indoor
water usage in twelve cities, the majority located in the Western
States. These AWWARF studies have documented per capita indoor water
use reductions averaging over 30% in single-family homes equipped with
water-efficient plumbing fixtures, fittings, and appliances currently
on the market, compared to homes without such products.
With urban growth in the West and the difficulty in developing new
water supplies to meet the needs of an expanding population, continuing
water use efficiency will always be an important water conservation and
management tool. Enactment of this legislation would increase the
burden of enforcement on Western States and communities seeking to
maintain efficiency standards for plumbing products, and will reduce
the reliability and predictability of water savings resulting from such
standards. Such legislation may also disadvantage those Western States
seeking to maintain water efficiency standards for plumbing products as
a disproportionate share of federal financial assistance for water and
wastewater infrastructure in future years could be diverted to States
choosing to make less efficient use of water by relaxing or repealing
water efficiency standards for plumbing products.
In conclusion, the national standards highlight the importance of
uniform requirements which contribute to the vital goal of conserving
water and simplify and reduce the state burden of enforcement regarding
the sale and installation of water efficient plumbing fixtures. The
federal statute provides minimum standards, but if necessary and
appropriate, states may still choose to exercise their authority to
adopt more stringent requirements. We would appreciate your support in
maintaining the existing national standards.
______
Western States Water Council
April 21, 1999
Position No. 224
The Honorable Tom Bliley, Chair
House Commerce Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
2409 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-4607
Dear Chairman Bliley: On behalf of the Western States Water
Council, which represents the governors of sixteen states, I am writing
to express our opposition to the repeal of the uniform national
plumbing efficiency standards in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, as
envisioned in H.R. 623. A resolution adopted by the Council to this
effect is enclosed. The Council has always advocated and promoted the
wise use of western water resources in general, and specifically
appropriate water conservation measures. Making efficient and
beneficial use of scarce water resources has been, and continues to be,
a fundamental objective of western states' water policies. Water
agencies that have carried out retrofit programs to install higher
efficiency fixtures have demonstrated substantial water savings from
these programs.
While many western states have enacted their own plumbing
efficiency standards and codes, others now rely on the established
federal standards, which if repealed, would leave a regulatory gap that
could lead to substantial confusion and difficulties in enforcing
current state standards for installation of water efficient fixtures.
Moreover, repeal might be perceived as sending the wrong signal that
urban water conservation is not as important now as a few years ago.
With urban growth in the West and the difficulty in developing new
water supplies to meet the needs of an expanding population, continuing
water use efficiency will always be an important water conservation and
management tool.
The national standards provide uniform requirements that simplify
and reduce the state burden of enforcement regarding the sale and
installation of water efficient plumbing fixtures. The federal statute
provides a minimum standards, but if necessary and appropriate, states
may still choose to exercise their authority to adopt more stringent
requirements. We would appreciate your support in maintaining the
existing national standards.
Sincerely,
Francis ``Fritz'' Schwindt, Chair
Western States Water Council
cc: Western Congressional Delegation
______
Position No. 224
Position of the Western States Water Council Regarding
Water Efficiency Standards for PLumbing Products
Yakima, Washington, April 9, 1999
WHEREAS, making efficient and beneficial use of scarce water
resources has been, and continues to be, a fundamental objective of the
Western States; and
WHEREAS, the importance of water use efficiency continues to grow
as the finite water resources of the Western States support increasing
levels of population and economic activity; and
WHEREAS, new technology that makes more efficient use of water in
its various applications offers significant economic and environmental
benefits to the Western States; and
WHEREAS, efficient plumbing products, including ultra-low flush
toilets (ULFTs), became widely available in the early 1990's, and have
undergone substantial product development and performance improvement
since that time; and
WHEREAS, the American Water Works Association Research Foundation
(AWWARF) has commissioned the most comprehensive end-use study of
indoor water use ever undertaken in North America, recording indoor
water usage in twelve cities, the majority located in the Western
States; and
WHEREAS, the AWWARF studies have documented per capita indoor water
use reductions averaging over 30% in single-family homes equipped with
water-efficient plumbing fixtures, fittings, and appliances currently
on the market, compared to homes without such products; and
WHEREAS, the States comprising the Western States Water Council
have identified drinking water and wastewater infrastructure needs
totaling more the $60 billion over the next 20 years, as contained in
Needs Surveys forwarded to Congress by the Environmental Protection
Agency; and
WHEREAS, many of these capital costs can be postponed or reduced by
reductions in the volume of flows that must be accommodated; and
WHEREAS, in recognition of the public and private benefits of
efficient plumbing products, between 1990 and 1992 the States of
Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Washington
adopted statewide standards for new plumbing products, including a
standard of 1.6 gallons per flush for toilets; and
WHEREAS, following action by these States and others, the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 was enacted in October 1992 containing uniform
national water efficiency standards for plumbing products, including a
standard of 1.6 gpf for toilets, with the active support of many water
and wastewater utilities in the Western States; and
WHEREAS, other Western States have subsequently incorporated
comparable water efficiency standards into their plumbing codes; and
WHEREAS, uniform national efficiency standards simplify and reduce
the States' burden of enforcement regarding sale and installation of
ULFTs and other water-efficient plumbing products; and
WHEREAS, uniform national efficiency standards maintain a national
market for plumbing products, allowing manufacturers to achieve full
economies of scale and encouraging wider competition in all
jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, legislation has been introduced in the 106th Congress to
repeal uniform national efficiency standards for plumbing products; and
WHEREAS, enactment of such legislation will not benefit the
communities and consumers of the Western States; and
WHEREAS, enactment of such legislation will increase the burden of
enforcement on Western States and communities seeking to maintain
efficiency standards for plumbing products, and will reduce the
reliability and predictability of water savings resulting from such
standards; and
WHEREAS, enactment of such legislation may disadvantage Western
States seeking to maintain water efficiency standards for plumbing
products due to the diversion of a disproportionate share of federal
financial assistance for water and wastewater infrastructure in future
years to States choosing to make less efficient use of water by
relaxing or repealing water efficiency standards for plumbing products.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Western States Water Council
supports the retention of uniform national water efficiency standards
for plumbing products.
Mr. Barton. Thank you. The Chair recognizes himself for 5
minutes for questions. I want to first try to get a handle on
how much water is being saved by these new Federal standards.
Mr. Whalen, you seem to give the most fact based
presentation. It sounds like the City and State of New York has
put some real effort into trying to conserve water and has come
up with a fairly innovative program. I am going to direct these
questions to you because you used real facts in your
presentation, but the whole panel is welcome to try to answer
them.
My first question is: Of the total water that is consumed
in the United States, what percentage is consumed by the
appliances that are covered under these Federal standards, that
is toilet, showerheads, et cetera? Does anybody know that?
Mr. Whalen. Are you referring to the total amount that is
withdrawn from the ground and rivers?
Mr. Osann. Municipal water is actually a small fraction of
the total if you include agricultural water use and electric
power production. Those are a couple of big ones.
Mr. Barton. We need to come up with a standard universe of
water, and we need to determine what percent that the act
covers is consuming. I am an engineer, and the first thing you
have to do is identify the problem and in order to identify the
problem you have to identify the parameters. That is all that I
am trying to do.
Mr. Osann. If I might, Mr. Chairman, the products that are
regulated under the standards are responsible, I believe, for
70 to 80 percent of indoor water use.
Mr. Barton. That is not answering my question. That is
irrelevant. The question is how much water do we use each day
in the United States and how much of the water we use is used
by these appliances. Is that 10 percent of the total water or 5
percent or 1 percent? 80 percent? It is obvious if you talk
about indoor water, you know, that toilets, showers, sinks, I
guess bathtubs, washing machines, it is a fairly small
universe.
Mr. Whalen. I think it would be incumbent upon us to submit
back to you the answers to those questions. I know that
information is available, and I think between us and the
organizations we represent, we owe it to you give you an answer
factually.
Mr. Barton. Here is why I asked that, Mr. Whalen. Your
group with great justification is saying this is helping
conserve water. The group that wants to repeal these standards
says not all that much water is being saved by these standards.
It is true that water is being saved but it is because of all
of these other factors, it is not because of this. The
proponents of these standards are taking credit for something
that they are not due credit.
Obviously if everything is equal and you have a 3.5 gallon
toilet and a 1.6 gallon toilet and you use them the same number
of times under the same conditions, that you are saving almost
2 gallons a use. But that kind of begs the question of the
larger universe of total water that is being conserved.
So my first question is let's determine what the use
universe is.
The second question is in the equipment inventory, what
percent of the equipment in the inventory is this new
equipment? Standards at the Federal level were passed in 1992
but they didn't go into effect until 1994, and again there is
a--the testimony of the previous panel says that we are adding
about 4.3 million toilets a year to the inventory and my guess
is that is about 1 percent of the total toilets or even less,
but I don't know that. Do you know the answer to that.
Mr. Goike. Mr. Chairman, the data that I have got and it is
through 1996, which is the latest full year available, there
are approximately 9 million shipments of toilets per year. Of
those 9 million, approximately 7 million are 1.6 gallon
toilets. So we are manufacturing and shipping approximately 7
million 1.6 gallon toilets per year.
Mr. Barton. So the toilets that are above this standard,
where are they going?
Mr. Goike. Those are commercial use.
Mr. Barton. Which is not covered by the act.
Mr. Whalen. In prisons, there are radical difference on
toilets used there, for obvious reasons, and they do not meet
that requirement. And there are other special uses. If you get
involved in certain hospitals uses, there is a differentiation.
Mr. Barton. The first panel said American manufacturers can
manufacture the larger capacity equipment and export it. Is
that true and is that being done?
Mr. Goike. There is a type of toilet called a blow out that
uses a larger trap. That is an example of a larger volume
toilet. Those can be used in public use places and where there
is a lot of transient--stadiums.
Mr. Barton. Is the American plumbing manufacturing industry
manufacturing individual toilets that are the larger 3.5 or
above and then selling them to Mexico and Canada and then they
are coming back?
Mr. Goike. That is not my understanding, no.
Mr. Barton. So those toilets are not coming back, being
imported on an individual basis?
Mr. Goike. No, there is a big market of toilets
manufactured in other countries.
Mr. Barton. My last question, although my time has expired,
what is wrong with Congressman Knollenberg's assertion that
let's just repeal it at the Federal level because this is a
State and local issue.
Again, Mr. Whalen, what you have done or your State and
city has done is very commendable, but you didn't need a
Federal statute to do that. What is wrong with just letting the
State and local governments, the western States, all of these
entities that want to do this, let them do it but don't mandate
it from Washington?
Mr. Whalen. There is an answer and I will try to be brief.
I have always found that if things are not mandated and then
followed up and enforced, the tendency for things to go crazy
happens, and that happens in manufacturing. I believe that that
program in New York City couldn't have happened if all of the
manufacturers weren't making the product.
I heard the gentleman to my left representing manufacturers
tell you that the price of plumbing products was reduced
considerably because instead of making 2 or 3 different types
of models, now the manufacturer is making all one toilet and he
is doing 9 million a year and therefore he can produce it at a
cheaper rate. We found that to be true.
Mr. Barton. He also said that the public could choose the
lower flow toilet. And if that is the case, the people that
wanted them, that small minority which I would include myself
in, I would want a larger capacity toilet, that would at least
be available. My time has expired.
Mr. Goike. Could I add, to help answer that question, from
a manufacturer standpoint, the problem we face with this type
of repeal is that it would add considerable cost to
manufacturing. If you can imagine a production line with
showerheads or faucets and we have to start to manufacture
product for all the different State laws that would now be in
effect once the Federal law is repealed and the municipalities,
the cost of manufacturing, distributing and logistically
getting all of those products to all of these individual States
and municipalities would drive up the cost.
Mr. Barton. The reality is that there would not be that
many different variations. We would have a national code. There
would be some variation, I would admit that, but it wouldn't be
tremendous.
Mr. Burr. I don't think that there is anything in the
legislation which mandates that a manufacturer supply all of
those different products.
Mr. Goike. But that would take away our competitive
advantage.
Mr. Burr. It would be the response of the customers that
would require you to make that----
Mr. Goike. We would be responding to the customers but we
would be responding to customers with 50 different proposals.
Mr. Barton. What Mr. Burr is saying is that you wouldn't
have to. You could let Barton-Burr Enterprises spring into
existence to manufacture and sell the two toilets per year that
weren't 1.5 gallon flow.
Mr. Burr. Additionally, I think that is the reason we are
having this hearing. We are responding to the people that we
represent who are not satisfied with the standardization of the
product that is available. Just like you would respond.
Mr. Barton. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Your question speaks to what we are doing
here. I know that certainly Mr. Burr would recognize the
economies of scale that one of you mentioned would not be
present if a manufacturer had to be concerned with a number of
different size, different standard type products.
And so yes, the market--some members of the market, maybe a
limited, maybe a larger amount, would maybe demand the larger
size, but you wouldn't really know how many of those people
there would be, so you would have to manufacture some sort of a
percentage which of course would drive up the cost.
Well, let me ask Mr. Tippin, have the water utilities that
promoted efficient toilets and showerheads received a
substantial number of complaints from their customers?
Mr. Tippin. I can speak for Tampa.
Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Whalen has a thick booklet which speaks
to that. Maybe you can speak to Tampa.
Mr. Tippin. I had a conversation yesterday morning with our
chief plumbing inspector, I asked him, what about the
satisfaction. Has he had complaints. He says not in the last 2
years. So with the changes in the design of the toilet
fixtures----
Mr. Bilirakis. Are you saying during the first couple years
or so there were some problems?
Mr. Tippin. Yes, I think there were design problems and I
think those have since been corrected.
Mr. Bilirakis. I will allow you all to respond, too, but
Rebecca Hyder, who is a member of my staff and does this issue,
handed me a note. ``my parents built a new house in 1995,''
this is in Florida, ``with low flow toilets and they have had
no problems or complaints.'' would you say that----
Mr. Tippin. I can echo that. My son just built a new house
in north Tampa and moved in last summer with three low flow
toilets in Hillsborough County, no problems.
Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Rush, we heard him say that he was
remodeling a 100-year-old home and he had to put in the new low
flow toilets. He said he is unhappy. Is that attributable to
the fact that it is a 100-year-old home and you have that type
of piping and that sort of thing? Comments?
Mr. Tippin. In my opinion you are putting a new toilet in a
100-year-old plumbing design which may be all wrong for that
fixture.
Mr. Whalen. A lot of the toilets that get used are
specified for the kinds of use. The one-family home would
necessarily have a different toilet.
But just to comment, the reason that there was only, let's
say, 20 different kinds of toilets used in the program that we
did, we found that those 20 toilets worked and the plumbing guy
said I am not putting anything else in because I won't get paid
for it. That was the marketability of it.
Mr. Willardson. I know that our chairman Francis Schwinn
from North Dakota sits on the State Plumbing Board, Department
of Natural Resources, and he has noted that their inspectors
have had no complaints, that initially there were problems but
improvements have been made, and he views this bill as a step
backwards.
From a State perspective, it is an issue of enforcement.
The Federal standard is enforced on manufacturers. The State
can't enforce that at the State level on manufacturers so they
would have to look at the retail level or individuals. And if
you talk about getting into people's bathrooms, they are not
going to want the State regulators in their bathrooms looking
at what they are using.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you for that. Mr. Taylor, and I don't
know, is Mr. Taylor still here? Mr. Taylor, the Director of
Natural Resource Studies, Cato Institute, very eloquently,
basically without trying to put words in his mouth, indicated
that going back to the 1970's that water started to be
conserved. And consequently, that these standards really
haven't had very much to do with that. In fact, the lines in
terms of conservation started back at that period of time and
has just really continued on. Did you hear the same thing that
I did in that regard? Comments? Mr. Whalen.
Mr. Whalen. Well, I can only tell you, sir, I worked in New
York City for almost 40 years and there was an ongoing problem
with the increased consumption per person living and in
business in that town that we could not get enough water to
take care of the requirements, and it went up every year. And I
used to sit on the conservation committee and we used to say we
keep building reservoirs and it is not enough. They did not
have an increase in people in New York City in many years. That
town has stayed static. It has not changed in 20 years. What it
was was consumption. I have sat on national and State boards
and consumption has increased, not decreased, and it would
generally decrease in the areas of residential and commercial
use.
Mr. Bilirakis. So you are attributing the savings to----
Mr. Whalen. I know that we saved 29 percent in New York
City on that program that we put in, and you should realize
that the largest cost in New York City for water and sewer is
the water treatment, not for the water.
Mr. Bilirakis. You wanted to say something, Mr. Tippin?
Mr. Tippin. Yes, from 1974 to 1989 water consumption in
Tampa rose very sharply until we had supply problems. And water
consumption since 1989, the demand has been essentially flat
due to all conservation efforts, indoor/outdoor.
Mr. Willardson. If I might add----
Mr. Barton. You are operating under the same 5 minute rule
I operated under.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Mr. Willardson.
Mr. Willardson. I am not sure that it is useful to look at
it from a macro perspective because there have been reductions
in irrigated agriculture, and as has been noted, that is 80
percent of the water use in the country. We are talking about a
5 to 10 percent for treated water supplies. It is the cost of
not providing the raw water but treating that water and then
disposing of the waste water that is an issue, and that is
really what these national standards get to.
Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Chairman, my time is up and I am not
going to go into it, but you started questioning regarding
Federal preemption and why is it so important to manufacturers
and others in lieu of the fact that New York City was doing it
even prior to and many of the States were, 17 States I believe
had it in effect. I think it is a very foundational question,
as I said, when you first called upon me.
I don't know where these people--and I also wanted to say,
too, I really appreciate Mr. Burr returning because we had
people on this side of the aisle who are supporters of the
legislation heard strictly that one story and left after that
one panel and did not hear anything from this particular panel.
I just wanted to express my appreciation to Mr. Burr.
Mr. Barton. The reason that we started at 2 was so that the
gentleman from Florida could be here. Initially we were going
to do this at 10 this morning. Mr. Bilirakis had a pending
subcommittee that he was chairing.
Mr. Bilirakis. No, I had the markup.
Mr. Barton. So we rescheduled, and that is why we are still
here at 5:30 in the evening.
Mr. Whalen. You have a test station. This building that you
are in was recently converted. And I would ask those who are in
this building, do you have a lot of plumbing problems in this
building?
Mr. Burr. They are all vacuum flush. Totally. I haven't
visited every toilet in this building, but every one that I
have seen is.
Mr. Barton. He is working his way through them.
Mr. Whalen. I got involved in the Department of Energy's
M&V protocol on this and subsequently the Federal contracting
on it and the results in the Federal buildings and Army bases
and Naval bases around this country have been unbelievable in
energy savings. That is the air conditioning and the
refrigeration, the whole thing. When you read the figures of
these bases and these office buildings and court buildings that
belong to the government, and so much of this work has been
done, the executive order was just renewed I understand in
March and most of the facilities now have been done and the
savings is unbelievable.
Mr. Barton. The public bathrooms on the men's side,
obviously I have not been into the women's, but in the men's
there is some sort of a central, there is not an actual
physical bowl or receptacle in the public. It is some kind of a
central powered situation. But in my personal bathroom in my
member's private office, I have had--at least it looks like a
low flow. It is shorter.
Mr. Whalen. My understanding is that this whole building
was done.
Mr. Barton. It does have problems, so I don't use it except
in extreme emergencies.
Mr. Burr. Would the chairman like me to take over now.
Mr. Barton. Yes, I recognize Mr. Burr for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burr. Mr. Tippin, you have 2 or 3 that work. I have two
and neither one of them work, and I hope for Mr. Goike's sake
that he doesn't take that as a comment unsubstantiated. I hope
you will give me the credit to be able to judge whether the
toilet works or not. One is fairly recent. It is in North
Carolina. The other one is slightly older and it is in
Michigan, and so I know it doesn't have anything to do with the
difference in States. Let me go back.
You question this need as a manufacturer to have multi
SKUs. I mean, would you lobby us to have a Federal standard on
door knobs, because I know Masco is in the business of door
knobs, but you wouldn't do that, would you? You would like to
be able to offer something to everybody because there is a
different thing out there that triggers that buying impulse in
everybody and I think at the root of what Mr. Knollenberg has
tried to do, he hasn't said--you know, reverse the Federal
position on a 1.6 gallon low flush toilet being a good thing, a
conservation issue. He just said maybe the Federal Government
should not mandate it. Maybe it should not be that we have
decided what the flow is for every toilet in America because
clearly as Mr. Haege said, there are a number of folks that
call his show, a high percentage, who are upset, who don't like
the product and who, given the choice, would choose something
else.
I am not sure how many of those are going over to Windsor,
Canada or Mexico. Do you have any manufacturing of toilets out
of the United States or is it all in the United States?
Mr. Goike. No, it is all in the United States.
Mr. Burr. But I am sure there is some manufacturing out of
the country and it does come back in the form of product that
U.S. Companies have manufactured that comes back in under the
radar screen of this Federal mandate that is out there.
Mr. Whalen, you said the rebate for the first toilet in a
house was $240?
Mr. Whalen. Yes.
Mr. Burr. How did you come up with that?
Mr. Whalen. I sat with the city people and we worked over
the prices of the manufacturers and the price of doing the work
in a particular locale.
Mr. Burr. You also said that the plumbers couldn't be paid
for their work unless the toilets worked successfully. Are
there any plumbers still due money?
Mr. Whalen. No. You couldn't continue to be in the program
if you were providing poor service.
Mr. Burr. So every toilet that New York chose to put in the
program never had a problem?
Mr. Whalen. No, sir, I won't say we never had a problem but
those few that had problems, that contractor went back and
satisfied them.
Mr. Burr. That sounds like an installation problem versus a
manufacturing problem. And I think what we are here
concentrating, and clearly we got off on plumbing, we are
talking about the design of the toilet. Can 1.6 gallons of
water in the current configuration drive the normal waste in a
bowl through on a first flush?
I think my frustration is I found the answer to be no. I
have found it as well in hotels, and it is a pretty
embarrassing thing to call for a plunger and have a guy come in
and plunge your toilet in a hotel. My question is: Did all of
the toilets successfully work that 1.6 gallons of water flushed
it?
Mr. Whalen. No. In fact, it very quickly became apparent
that the X model or the Y model was not working and therefore
those contractors no longer used that model.
Mr. Barton. Would the gentleman yield.
Mr. Burr. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. Barton. Why did we agree on a 1.6 standard? How did
that develop? Mr. Knollenberg alluded to that that equals 6
liters. That would lead me to believe there is some equivalent
6 liter standard in Europe.
Mr. Whalen. Europe has used the lesser size water closet
for a long time, and I believe they got involved in this
discussion back in----
Mr. Barton. Was there a physical pilot program and it was
determined that 1.6 gallons was the minimum necessary to do the
job? Did it just kind of evolve because of the European
situation? Where did that particular number come from because
it is not--it is not 1 gallon, it is not 2 gallons. It is just
an odd number.
Mr. Goike. That number was arrived at--prior to 1992 there
were approximately 17 States, as I mentioned in my testimony,
that already moved to that direction before the 1992 EPAct.
Mr. Barton. But somebody at some point in time designed a
toilet with that.
Mr. Goike. The State of Massachusetts was the first one
given credit to set the limit at 1.6 gallons per minute. There
were other quantities.
Mr. Barton. But if we had physical data that showed if we
went to 2 gallons, nobody would complain, would the industry--
it is still less than 3.5. I am just trying to determine from a
so-called scientific standpoint if there is a reason for 1.6
gallons. It is smaller than 3.5, but it is not an instinctively
obvious number. Did somebody at some point in time say we need
to design a toilet to save water and then do all of these
empirical tests and say 1.6 gallons works. Or did somebody in
Europe just start making them or did it just happen?
Mr. Goike. I have never heard of the European influence
before. My knowledge on this was that it was set by 17 States
prior to 1992. And then it was enacted into EPAct and that was
the measure----
Mr. Barton. Mr. Burr, I took some of your time.
Mr. Burr. Mr. Whalen, in New York did you replace
showerheads at the same time?
Mr. Whalen. Yes. The 240 included the showerheads and those
faucets that could handle the aerator and the showerhead and
the toilet.
Mr. Burr. Should we outlaw bathtubs?
Mr. Whalen. I frankly think that the use of bathtubs--I
mean, there are a lot of positive things. I can remember
washing our children in the tub rather than having the six of
them in the shower because we would have had a riot. Or the
other thing, you get older folks that can't take a shower.
There are a lot of uses for bathtubs.
Mr. Burr. My kids are 13 and 14, and it is a little tough
to get them in the same tub. Just for 1 minute believe some of
the people who were here earlier that everybody in America that
has got a new 1.6 gallon toilet has to flush it three times to
alleviate the waste that is in it.
Mr. Osann. That is hard to believe.
Mr. Burr. If that were the case, wouldn't we have failed
with the conservation side of our quest?
Mr. Osann. Objectively probably not, but with regard to
public acceptance, certainly. Because the average----
Mr. Burr. My math says we would have used more water.
Mr. Osann. The number of times that a toilet is flushed at
least in a residential setting is 5 a day per capita. Solid
waste evacuation is an average about one a day.
Mr. Barton. That does follow common sense.
Mr. Burr. Let me make this statement. Given the questions
that are out there about the need for multiple flushes, the
performance of the product and your belief that this standard
should stay in effect, I really believe that it is incumbent
upon all of us to find out are we saving. I think that is the
obligation that we have to the American people. If there is
something great being accomplished by this, then let's keep it.
If there is not something great that is being accomplished, and
we are putting an undue burden on the American people, on
manufacturers. I know that you have switched, but you have got
the old molds, you can switch back, don't we owe it to them to
at least allow them the choice of buying what their preference
is? It is only a question that I raise.
Mr. Whalen. I was going to ask the question of Mr. Burr, do
you have knowledge of who installed those water closets? Was it
a handyman or plumber?
Mr. Burr. Moi.
Mr. Whalen. And you specified as to what you wanted? You
were replacing----
Mr. Barton. We have never had a panelist ask a Congressman
questions.
Mr. Whalen. I am sorry.
Mr. Burr. I actually went to the store and chose my toilet.
Mr. Whalen. I appreciate his candor.
Mr. Burr. To be quite candid with you, if a week later or a
month later or today I were to see somebody throw away an old
toilet, I would grab it and replace that one in that new room
in a second.
Mr. Barton. Is the gentleman available for service calls to
other members of the subcommittee?
Mr. Burr. The gentleman would do everything in your
apartment but clean it given the shape that it is in.
Mr. Bilirakis. The gentleman asked a question and I know
his time has expired, but he considers it key to determine
whether or not there is such a savings as a result of the low
flush. So I don't know--you asked that question, Richard.
Mr. Burr. I thought he answered.
Mr. Osann. Mr. Chairman, if I might respond to the question
raised by Mr. Burr. I think that several of us have actually
alluded to it in our testimony, the question of are we really
saving, do they really save.
Mr. Barton. That is one of my double foundation questions.
Mr. Osann. The American Water Works Association's research
foundation, which is the arm of the drinking water utility
industry, has just completed but not yet published the most
comprehensive survey of residential water use that has ever
been undertaken in North America. It involved 12 cities, one
was Tampa. It involved monitoring individual water use events
at over 100 homes in 12 cities over 4 weeks. And in the
previous panel there was a question about how can you really
tell how much waste water an individual appliance is using.
In this case there were data loggers that were installed at
each location and software that would match--that would
identify the signature, actually, of each water using product
at that residence and match it up when it occurred over a 4-
week period. So each time toilet A was flushed, there was a
data point in their survey. Each time a shower was used, there
was a data point in the survey.
This is the most comprehensive water use--residential water
use survey ever undertaken. It will be publicly released in
September.
There are a lot of interesting things that come out of this
survey, but two of the things that I think are most relevant to
the subject of this hearing involve the use of water by 1.6
gallon toilets. And the survey found that those residences
that--there were a certain number of residences that were
exclusively equipped with low consumption toilets, there were a
number of residences that were mixed and a number of residences
that did not have any 1.6 gallon toilets in them.
When you compared those that had the 1.6 gallon units and
relied on them, the ones that didn't, the amount of water that
was used for flushing toilets was reduced by about 50 percent
on a per capita basis. And that is real life conditions. Real
homes, real people using the products as they would use them in
their homes over a 4-week period. The other thing was that the
number of flushes per capita, and this can be measured because
this extensive data set is available, the number of data sets
per capita between the residences, the residences that had the
1.6 gallon and relied on them exclusively and those that didn't
have them, were statistically indistinguishable.
There was about 4.9 something for the--for one group and
5.0 something for the other group. So to the extent that there
is a double flushing issue out there, it has not been
identified in the data that has been produced in the most
comprehensive residential----
Mr. Burr. But what about my house? That data is not----
Mr. Barton. Let's give the group credit. They have tried to
do a survey that attempts to reflect that.
Mr. Osann. The plumbing industry was not involved in this
survey. It was entirely funded by the drinking water industry.
Mr. Bilirakis. I wonder if the results could be made
available to the committee.
Mr. Barton. When it becomes public.
Mr. Bilirakis. In September he indicated.
Mr. Barton. In the interest of full disclosure I need to
admit that I have a high flow toilet and it has stopped up, and
I have had to work like a tiger to unstop it. It is not only
the low flow operators that don't work, sometimes the old flow
don't work, either, especially if you have children and wives
who put Pampers in the toilet bowl. They tend not to go through
the system, regardless of how much flow you put into the
system.
Mr. Osann. I think that is exactly the point, Mr. Chairman.
I think some people have encouraged people to think that every
plumbing problem that is experienced now is the result of these
new and tighter standards, and I am afraid there were plumbing
problems before the 1.6 gallon toilets.
Mr. Barton. We will stipulate that there were, from
personal experience.
Mr. Willardson. Can I add to those comments.
Mr. Barton. Let's let Mr. Hall have his time. I do want a
formal answer where this 1.6 gallon standard came from.
Hopefully there is some research which showed that is necessary
as opposed to just serendipity.
Mr. Hall is recognized.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a unanimous
request. At the request of Patrick O'Conner of the Washington
Government Affairs Office of American Supply Association, I
want to enter into the record the statement of Harold Williams,
Jr., who is for the American Supply Association. It is a
national trade association for wholesale distributors of
plumbing fixtures, and it has one cover page and 5 pages of Mr.
Williams' statement.
Mr. Barton. I am glad that the gentleman had made that
because the Chair had already agreed to do that, but I am very
willing to accede to the request of the minority member. This
group does represent the wholesale distributors. They were not
able to testify in person, and we do want their testimony in
the record at the appropriate point in the hearing. Without
objection, so ordered.
Mr. Hall. Thank you. I don't know what questions have been
asked, so I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Barton. Does Mr. Bilirakis have additional questions?
Mr. Bilirakis. I know that this panel will be available to
submit answers to any written questions we may offer, and also
that September report, when it does come out, if you can give
it to us quickly I think it would be very significant for us to
have it.
Mr. Barton. I want to thank you gentlemen for waiting. It
is always the case that if these hearings go late afternoon
there is not as much member participation as there are at the
earlier parts of the hearing, but we did want a balanced
hearing, and I am a cosponsor of Mr. Knollenberg's legislation
and so I would like to see if there is not a consensus to move
his bill or a bill similar to it. But I certainly understand
the reluctance of the manufacturers and I am very supportive of
what is being done at the State and local level that Mr. Whalen
alluded to and Mr. Tippin from Tampa alluded to. It is obvious
that we do need to conserve as much water as possible and this
is certainly one approach to it.
Without any more members here to ask questions, we do
adjourn this hearing.
[Whereupon, at 5:55 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Plumbing Engineers
Who is ASPE?
The American Society of Plumbing Engineers (ASPE) is THE
international organization for professionals skilled in the design,
specification and inspection of plumbing systems. ASPE was founded in
1964 as a non-profit organization and currently has over 7,000 members.
Internationally, ASPE members are located throughout the United States,
Canada, Asia, Mexico, South and Central America, the South Pacific,
Australia, and Europe.
ASPE is dedicated to the advancement of the science of plumbing
engineering, to the professional growth and advancement of its members
and to the protection of the health, welfare and safety of the public.
The Society disseminates technical data and information, sponsors
activities that facilitate interaction with fellow professionals, and,
through research and education, expands the base of knowledge of the
plumbing engineering industry. ASPE members are leaders in innovative
plumbing design, effective materials and energy use, and the
application of advanced techniques throughout the world.
In addition, the ASPE Research Foundation, a separate non-profit
organization founded by ASPE in 1976, is the only independent and
impartial organization involved in plumbing engineering and design
research.
Plumbing History
Whether it was the ancient Romans or Grecians who created the first
rudimentary plumbing systems, water supply and human waste disposal
have posed plumbing related problems which civilizations have had to
deal with for centuries. With population growth came and water borne
disease such as typhoid and cholera. Water could no longer be carried
in jugs and human wastes could no longer be dumped into street gullies
or into streams. Embryonic plumbing systems were simply pipes designed
to carry water to, and waste away from, population centers. However,
indoor plumbing and drainage systems in the industrial centers of the
world have only been viable for less than a century. There are still
many highly populated, underdeveloped areas in the world which continue
to suffer the dilemma, challenges, hardships and indignities associated
with primitive plumbing and drainage systems.
What is Plumbing Engineering?
Plumbing Engineering is the application of scientific principles to
the design of efficient and ecological systems for the transport and
distribution of fluids, solids, and gases. Plumbing Engineers are
protectors of the public's health, since they design drainage,
distribution, and other piping systems to transport potable water and
to safely dispose of human and industrial wastes. Engineered plumbing
systems serve residential dwellings and commercial, institutional,
industrial and public use facilities such as, hospitals, laboratories,
factories, schools, shopping centers, stadiums and the like.
Plumbing Engineers are responsible for the design of more than 30
separate and distinct systems that are necessary for institutional,
industrial, educational, commercial, and residential buildings. Some of
these systems include potable water, domestic hot water, recycled
water, sanitary and industrial waste, storm drainage, laboratory water
and waste, medical gases, compressed air, vacuum systems, venting
systems, fire protection, swimming pools, decorative fountains,
irrigation, water treatment, and sewage disposal.
Plumbing Engineers design the various plumbing systems of a
construction project, select suitable materials and equipment, write
specifications, prepare cost estimates, aid in contractor selection,
and provide additional field services to the owner/client during and
after construction. A Plumbing Engineer typically has a degree in
Civil, Sanitary, or Mechanical Engineering--or a two-year technical
degree in these areas. A majority of Plumbing Engineers carry the
designation of Professional Engineer and/or Certified In Plumbing
Engineering.
Why Is ASPE Here?
The members of the American Society of Plumbing Engineers are
interested in, and protectors of, the public's health, welfare and
safety. The Society supports insightful and judicious use of the
world's natural resources. Properly researched and designed programs of
water conservation and reuse, and the curtailment of wastewater, not
only results in the conservation of water but also reductions in energy
use, pipe sizes, wastewater treatment costs, and facility construction
and operating costs. Proposed bill H.R. 623 (Plumbing Standards
Improvement Act of 1999) compounds the impreciseness and deficiency of
knowledge available when the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) was
initially passed.
To act on H.R. 623, and pass it out of committee, without any solid
data, without any specific research, without any detailed information,
and relying mostly on anecdotal tales and complaints, would be a
travesty and disservice to not only the environment, but to the health,
welfare and safety of the public. Legislation of this magnitude
requires adequate and complete data, in-depth research and the
testimony of experts, not politicians. Testimony should be solicited
from not only interested parties, but also vital constituencies and
individuals with the appropriate knowledge and expertise.
When EPACT was first passed, it was done so without the expert
knowledge and input of the plumbing engineering community--and ASPE
must take partial responsibility for this oversight. However, today,
ASPE steps forward, and will no longer be silent on EPACT--vital
legislation that has provided water conservation measures desperately
needed to maintain a safe and continuing source of potable water for
this generation and generations to come. To have come this far, only to
now have proposed legislation designed to create havoc and begin the
process of tearing apart the very fabric of water conservation and
water usage is a debacle of unprecedented magnitude. A vital turning
point in leading the world towards water and energy conservation was
EPACT; a pivotal point in undoing that leadership is H.R. 623.
Water Conservation Is Being Achieved
When legislation affecting engineering plumbing and drainage
systems are altered, the effects of even a small change to a single
portion of a system can be dramatic and create unintended, drastic and
catastrophic results. EPACT was such a change. Since its inception, the
plumbing industry has struggled to properly implement the water and
energy conservation effects of the legislation on plumbing systems. In
the six years since the industry has undertaken this massive effort, it
is only now that the environmental and engineering efforts are taking
effect and being observed and changes are being hypothesized.
Intuitively it is obvious that changing from an average water
closet 3.5 gal flush to 1.6 gal will save considerable amounts of
water. However, to meet that requirement, the plumbing manufacturers
have had to re-engineer and redesign their products. Simple? Consider
that for new installations, the plumbing engineer can design the
overall systems to properly function to integrate the new water
conserving fixtures. However, for retrofit installation environments,
the results of using water saving fixtures on systems not designed for
them results in unexpected and typically, unintended results.
For example, the anecdotal evidence is relatively strong--low-flow
water closets do not consistently work well in retrofit environments
(and sometimes not in new installations). The amount of human waste has
not diminished because of the implementation of water conservation
plumbing fixtures; only the amount of water available to remove the
wastes out of the water closet bowl and move it through the drain line.
Therefore, there are water closets that require multiple flushes for
the removal of human bulk wastes and the related necessity of cleaning
and sanitation, and in some cases increase clogging within the bowl or
in the drain line. However, this does not diminish the overall water
and energy conservation effects of EPACT.
Some simple math will help demonstrate. If at any one time:
1. there are 200 million people in the United States on any given day;
2. approximately 45% of them are located in major urban areas
3. each individual uses a water closet an average of four times a day
for which 50% of that usage includes ridding the body of its
bulk wastes (in actuality bulk waste removal occurs about one-
third of the time);
4. each water closet requires an average of 2 flushes to remove bulk
wastes and 1 flush to remove liquid wastes; and
5. it is assumed that a 3.5 gal per flush water closet will require an
average of only 1 flush to remove bulk wastes (which is not a
correct assumption);
then, on average, the amount of water that can be saved if everyone was
using low-flow water closets, is approximately 400 million gallons of
water per day. (This, of course, is for water closets only and does not
include any non-urban areas.) Of course, not everyone is currently
using low-flow water closets, but the future intent is there. Moreover,
the passing of H.R. 623 doesn't just affect water closets. Shower
heads, sink faucets, urinals and other plumbing fixtures will all be
affected.
Yes, in today's fast paced environment, double and triple flushing
or a water closet is an annoying nuisance--but it saves water and
energy (reduced wastewater treatment costs, reduced pumping costs,
etc.). The entire plumbing industry continues to evaluate and adjust,
successfully, to the requirements of EPACT.
The plumbing industry was slow to react, and because of a lack of
data and research, did not fully understand the effects of reduced
water usage and flow in plumbing systems. Dr. Roy Hunter, 75 years ago,
researched plumbing systems and developed what is now dubbed ``Hunters
Curve.'' Hunter's curve furnishes data on the probability of use on a
plumbing system and provides guidelines on the sizing of piping of the
water and drainage requirements for a plumbing system. However, it is
important to note that water conservation measures do not affect the
probability of use of the plumbing system. Therefore, the data and
information on how to better accommodate low consumption fixtures has
been slowly developed by a disparate conglomeration of studies by
manufacturers, engineers and model code and standard organizations. The
collected materials have been used to slowly modify local government
jurisdictional plumbing codes to provide for smaller pipe sizes,
installation modifications and materials which better accommodates the
use of low consumption fixtures and maintain the integrity and
efficiency of a plumbing system.
H.R. 623 will do nothing more than exacerbate an already complex
engineering issue that the plumbing industry is still coming to grips
with and understanding, and defeat the ongoing and successful water
conservation efforts that have been achieved.
A Basis for Pandemonium
The repeal of the plumbing standards portions of EPACT by H.R. 623
actions has implications that will sorely test the patience of the
public and may well result in significant increased costs for plumbing
products. Without the provisions of EPACT, there will no longer be a
national water conservation standard. Any governmental regulatory body
would be able to mandate water usage parameters of plumbing fixtures.
The result could well be disastrous.
A common water usage standard for plumbing fixtures allows a
plumbing system to be engineered and designed to function as intended.
Without a common standard, a plumbing system could be compromised and
result in a haphazard operation. Fixtures would have to be yet again
redesigned, a process undertaken after EPACT implementation that has
already resulted in manufactures having to spend millions of dollars.
Plumbing systems would require immense amounts of new data
collection and evaluation to ensure proper re-engineering and design.
Most onerous of all would be if each local governmental jurisdiction
were required to develop and pass new plumbing codes sufficient to
provide for the various multitude of options that would be sure to
result. States may be forced to enact specific water conservation
legislation. Without a coherent national strategy in place the result
could well be calamitous as each state attempts to satisfy its own need
to conserve available resources. Will manufacturers be expected to
retool factories and produce plumbing fixtures to meet separate local
government requirements? Must plumbing engineers create separate design
standards for each state?
H.R. 623--A Formula for Unrequited Chaos?
H.R. 623 has the potential to set the entire plumbing industry back
at least a decade. The provisions of EPACT are being implemented and
the initial difficulties and problems associated with water and energy
conservation are being corrected as they are identified.
There exists no researched evidence that indicates that passing of
H.R. 623 would accomplish any purpose. Rather, with the potential for
confusion, the health and safety of the public may well be comprised.
The entire plumbing industry--manufacturers, contractors and
engineers--are creating and building the necessary information and
knowledge to effectively and efficiently utilize low-consumption
fixtures, albeit slowly, given the dearth of available research funds.
The common goal is the support and success of water and energy
conservation. The intent of the plumbing industry is to continue its
mandate to protect the health welfare and safety of the public.
Likewise, the federal government has a duty and an obligation to
protect the public's health, welfare and safety, to maintain the
environment, maximize the efficient use of all available resources and
facilitate interstate commerce. This cannot be accomplished by
repealing the water conservation measures contained in EPACT.
The federal government has an obligation to help obtain, along with
affiliated professionals, such as plumbing engineers, contractors,
manufacturers and code officials, the necessary expertise, information
and knowledge required for effective and efficient decisions. Any
fixture, mandated in isolation to operational and research data and its
effect and functionality on existing plumbing and drainage systems, may
be not only be considered ineffectual government, but a compromise of
its duty. Decisions such as contemplated by H.R. 623 cannot be made in
a vacuum of knowledge.
ASPE Recommendations
1. ASPE does not believe the repeal of any portion of EPACT is
warranted at this time. However, we suggest maintaining,
subject to the recommendations below, the current standards as
set in EPACT. An incomplete oversight program for appropriate
performance standards for plumbing fixtures would open the way
for individual state mandated performance standards and result
in confusion for the consumer and the manufacturer.
2. Create an environment, and provide for the support of plumbing
engineering and research, for data collection and research
conducted within the environs of an independent accredited
laboratory under the aegises of plumbing engineers and related
unbiased professionals. ASPE recommends that a federal
appropriation be made to provide for the testing and collecting
of plumbing engineering and design data and instituting of
related necessary research.
3. Have standards established through the currently available processes
such as ASME/ANSI. However, include the requirement that all
future standards, and all changes, modifications or adjustments
of current standards that affect or impact federal legislation
and/or the public's health, welfare and safety, utilize actual
data and research, and not be limited to ``professional, or
non-professional, opinions.''
4. Rather than repeal of the DOE's jurisdiction, have regulations be
more complete and include the performance standards necessary
to ensure the proper operation of plumbing fixtures. That is,
the current regulation only requires that fixtures meet a flow
and capacity standard, the 1.6 gallon requirement. The current
ASME, A112.19.6 already includes sufficient other performance
standards, some of which should be incorporated as part of the
regulation.
Please, Do Not Pass H.R. 623
As plumbing engineers and related professionals which make up the
membership of ASPE, we take great pride in our chosen profession. We
also take our responsibility to protect the public health and the
environment quite seriously. Therefore, we implore you to not pass H.R.
623.
______
Prepared Statement of Harold Williams, Jr. on Behalf of The American
Supply Association
I am Harold Williams from Selkirk, New York. Selkirk is a suburb of
Albany. My company, Security Supply, is a wholesaler of plumbing
fixtures and related products with 11 branches, three of those within
20 miles of the Canadian border.
I am pleased to submit this statement on behalf of the American
Supply Association for the July 27, 1999 hearing on H.R. 623,
legislation to repeal the uniform national water conservation standard
for plumbing products.
The American Supply Association (ASA) is the national trade
organization for wholesale distributors in the plumbing, heating, and
cooling industry. The Association has over 800 member companies, with
more than 3,000 locations. We represent more than 80% of the sales
volume in the industry.
Wholesalers sell toilets and other plumbing fixtures to
installation contractors, bath retailers, homebuilders and property
managers. As a part of the distribution channel that moves products
from the manufacturer to the consumer, a very large percentage of
toilets sold today is handled through a plumbing wholesaler.
h.r. 623
Frankly, ASA members do not understand the purpose of this
legislation.
Repeal of the uniform national efficiency standards for new
plumbing products is particularly troubling in light of the drought
conditions that continue to affect sections of the country, including
the Washington, D.C. area.
Since 1992, plumbing manufacturers have redesigned all of their
toilets to the 1.6 gallons per flush (gpf) requirement. The thought of
scrapping all of their efforts and going back to the 3.5 gpf standard
is not in anyone's best interest.
H.R. 623 will cost our wholesalers millions of dollars with no
corresponding benefit. However, these losses will pale in comparison to
the billions in additional costs faced by municipal water and sewer
districts, which have based their strategic plans for the future on the
1.6 gpf standard.
Passage of H.R. 623 will turn back the clock on water conservation
and return us to a world where any state or locality can set its own
plumbing products standards. With the potential for up to fifty
different state standards, plus hundreds of varying local standards,
there would be chaos within the entire plumbing industry.
a wholesaler's perspective on h.r. 623
Why A Uniform National Standard is Appropriate
Generally, plumbing wholesalers are not big fans of federal
regulations. Compliance with most regulations is costly and burdensome.
However, the 1.6 standard makes sense. Wholesalers are united in
support of the current standard. It allows products to move freely
across state lines without the industry being required to manufacture,
stock and deliver products based on varied state or local standards.
Prior to the 1992 Energy Policy Act, wholesalers had to deal with
17 different state regulations and a myriad of local standards. There
was chaos in the marketplace. The wholesaler who sold product in more
than one state had to carry duplicate and sometime triplicate
inventories to meet differing state and local standards.
Even for the wholesaler doing business in a single state there was
confusion. For example, in Massachusetts, the plumbing code mandated
the installation of 1.6 toilets. Who was affected by that law? The
licensed contractor--our customer. But since the sale of 1.6 toilets
was not mandated, the Sunday newspapers would carry ads for home
centers offering 3.5 toilets for sale.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I strongly urge you
not to turn back the clock on water conservation and return us to a
world where any state or locality can set its own plumbing products
standard. H.R. 623 equals chaos.
Are There Consumer Complaints
There have been a lot of claims and assertions that there is a huge
consumer uproar over the 1.6 toilets. There is no question that some of
the early models did not work as expected. But that is typical whenever
a new product is introduced. However, the product being sold and
installed today is working and saving water.
Are there still consumer complaints? There always will be an
unhappy consumer, but there is no public uproar.
In an article from Consumer Reports magazine, May 1998, regarding
low flush toilets, their testing showed that newer designed units work
just fine.
They tested units from nearly every major manufacturer and found
many affordable units that, when installed, would save the average
family from up to 500 gallons of water per week.
I am in the business of selling plumbing products. If consumers are
unhappy, my business does not profit. Even a young boy or girl selling
lemonade on the street corner knows that a successful business depends
on a satisfied customer.
More than 30 million low flow toilets have been sold since 1992.
And a plumbing wholesaler has sold almost every one of the 30 million.
If these products really did not work and there was really a public
uproar, plumbing wholesalers would be the first to hear about it. Make
no doubt about it--when my customers are unhappy they make sure that I
know. If my customers--installation contractors, builders, and property
managers--were hearing complaints from their unhappy customers the
first call would be to Security Supply.
I would not be here today if my customers and their customers were
unhappy. Further, I would not be in business today if I sold products
that did not perform properly.
Is There A Black Market?
I keep hearing about a ``black market'' in toilets. Frankly, the
only black market I am aware of is the ``garage sale black market''
where you might be able to buy an old toilet at a neighborhood sale.
But is there a black market in new toilets?
No!!
Again, I am in a business that sells plumbing products. My company,
Security Supply, is located in upstate New York, with three branches
about 20 miles from the Canadian border.
If truckloads of ``black market'' toilets were being shipped across
the Canadian border for sale in New York, I would know. If there were a
black market, Security Supply and other plumbing wholesalers would see
a drop in sales and we haven't.
Rest assured, if plumbing wholesalers were losing market share to a
``black market,'' I would support H.R. 623. But, frankly, there are
probably more Cuban cigars coming across the Canadian border into the
U.S. than contraband toilets.
Cost of H.R. 623 to Plumbing Wholesalers
I would like to make one comment on the cost to plumbing
wholesalers if the national standard for plumbing products were to be
repealed. What happens to the value of the hundreds of thousands of low
flow toilets that plumbing wholesalers have in inventory throughout the
country? After the supporters of H.R. 623 go on the radio talk shows
and late night television shows to trumpet their success, how much will
this inventory be worth?
Please remember, that 100 percent of our inventory is a result of a
law passed by Congress in 1992. Please keep in mind the economic
consequences to the plumbing industry if Congress now reverses itself
and repeals the standard. And, eight years from now, what if a new
Congress decides that low flow plumbing products are good public
policy?
Water Conservation With 1.6 Gallon Per Flush Toilets
New York City's toilet rebate program has had a huge impact on
water use in that city. The toilet rebate program was started on March
1, 1994 and continued through November 1996. 1.1 million toilets were
replaced with 1.6 gallon per flush units.
The average water use in buildings that participated in the program
declined by 69 gallons per unit per day. This equates to a 29%
reduction in water usage.
This savings in water usage translates into a reduction of 29% in
the treatment of units to potable standard and a reduction of 29% in
treating waste water for discharge into the environment.
Because they have reduced water usage, billions of dollars have not
had to be invested to build additional waste and sewage treatment
plants.
The availability of this water has led to a resurgence in the
reconstruction industry in New York City.
summary
Now is not the time to abandon water conservation goals underlying
these national standards. The technology for low consumption plumbing
products has advanced dramatically since the national standard was set
in 1992, and each new generation of products brings better performance.
We think this progress toward water conservation will only
accelerate in the years ahead.
______
CTSI Corporation
Tustin, California 92780
July 27, 1999
Honorable ladies and Gentlemen: I am writing you on behalf of a
large and growing coalition who are deeply concerned about Rep.
Knollenberg's proposal (H.R. 623) to repeal the Plumbing Efficiency
Standards contained in the 1992 Energy Policy Act. Rep. Knollenberg has
gathered numerous co-sponsors to this proposal and we feel that their
cosponsorship is ill-considered for the following reasons:
H.R. 623 has the potential of costing the U.S. over $2 billion
a year in additional water use, as well as accelerated
infrastructure repairs, additions and maintenance. Over the
next 20 years, it is projected that $240 billion in capital
expenditures will be necessary for wastewater infrastructure
alone. Consistent nationwide efficiency measures could postpone
these enormous costs for from 5-20 years. Congress, as you
know, is now grappling with the problem of State Revolving
Funds being insufficient to meet Clean Water Act requirements.
Efficiency measures go a long way toward reducing these
problems by placing less burden on older infrastructures.
It is ironic that many of the co-sponsors to H.R. 523, come
from states with tremendous water supply problems:
Texas, whose populations is projected to grow by 9 million people
(45%) by 2025;
California, whose populations is projected to grow by 18 million
(50%) by 2025;
Florida, whose populations is projected to grow by 6.5 million
(45%) by 2025;
Georgia, whose populations is projected to grow by 3 million (38%)
by 2025;
Alabama, which is projecting a 46% increase in population and is
already in near crisis in terms of water supply;
Arizona, which is projecting a 53% increase in population and is in
the desert;
and Washington State, which, in spite of constant rain in the
winter, faces shortages every summer.
Each of these states can pass its own efficiency standards, but
what of states around them that may not choose to be as responsible?
States that share the same source of supply? Lawsuits would surely
follow.
The potential additional water that could be wasted by
striking national efficiency standards, by our calculations,
would be enough to drain the Hoover Dam in 5 years! and for
what? Rep. Knollenberg quotes constituents who do not like 1.6
gpf toilets, but our company alone has distributed over 500,000
ULF toilets over the past 7 years through utility-sponsored
conservation programs, and complaints are less than 1%.
Manufacturers have spent millions of dollars re-engineering
these efficient models, and they work better than most of the
old 3.5 gpf fixtures.
Of the 500,000 Ultra-Low Flush toilets we have distributed, a
large percentage has gone into lower income neighborhoods and
has saved residents countless thousands of dollars in water
bills. Higher infrastructure costs will be borne by those who
cannot afford to invest in savings on their own.
Rescinding the Federal Efficiency Standards is not good for
anyone. Populations are growing, but the supply of water is
not.
Please carefully consider these important facts and keep the
plumbing efficiency standards in place--for all of us.
Most Sincerely,
James P. Craft
CEO