U.S. House Passes Ban on Federal Funding of Efficient Toilets

[peoli]

WASHINGTON — In a stunning move on July 10, the U.S. House of Representatives passed an amendment on a voice vote to the 2015 Energy and Water Appropriations Act (H.R. 4923) which would prohibit any federal spending for replacement of inefficient toilets. House Amendment #1046 was sponsored by Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona. The bill then passed the House and is now on its way to the U.S. Senate.

The impacts of this amendment will be far reaching. It will prevent the use of any federal funding from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or even the U.S. Department of Energy to finance toilet retrofit programs that save both water and energy.

Rep. Gosar said such Federal programs are a waste of money.

“With an out of control debt and no end in sight, it is beyond crazy to have the federal government continuing to subsidize unnecessary and wasteful projects,” Rep. Gosar said. “My commonsense amendment saves taxpayer money and gets the federal government out of the business of subsidizing expensive toilet exchanges that yield highly questionable returns.

“If toilet exchange programs were as efficient as the EPA and Bureau of Reclamation claim,” he continued, “then such products would save so much money and water over time that they would sell themselves in the private market and wouldn’t need taxpayer subsidies. It’s time for the federal government to stop flushing taxpayer dollars down the toilet.”

http://contractormag.com/toilets/us-house-passes-ban-federal-funding-efficient-toilets


High Efficiency Toilets can save a family of four up to 16,500 gallons of water annually.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. Maybe, if everyone had a water meter...

and paid "market value" for the water, including infrastructure capital costs.

But, of course not, and he's just a jackass.

[3catwoman3]

2. Well, hey, why would...

...a legislator from a drought stricken state want to do anything to save WATER? What kind of foolishness is that?

[CBHagman]

3. Gosar gets "The Princess Bride" award for misuse of a term, i.e., "wasteful."

Has he been paying attention to what's going on around the world and even a state or two away?

[Cresent City Kid]

4. Wouldn't we spend more on desparate thirsty people?

I suppose free market forces will have them march across the desert.

[modrepub]

5. Counter Intuitive

Maybe one reason this is being done is because in the long run saving water fragilizes your infrastructure. From the utilities point of view less water consumption leads to lower bills (usually based on water usage) and less revenue. The treatment plant's have fixed or rising costs and with less money coming in (lower water consumption) these entities start running into financial problems (how do you pay your bond holders). Keep in mind if you're living in areas not considered deserts then you get a lot of water infiltration into your sewer system so conserving water usage may still not lower your expenses.

This is one process that kind of thwarts conserving natural resources; less consumption = less money to maintain or expand services. Without a good method of reducing costs conservation actually weakens our infrastructure (roads, sewer, water, energy, et cetera). Since many of these types of systems have long-term service horizons (30 years or greater) it's not easy to come up with short term solutions when your revenue stream dries up before you finish paying for it.

Just for the record I support conservation and efficiency measures.