Low flow toilet - Is this really a good idea?

[Anonymous]

A city affiliated agency is doing some work for me for free based on my low income. The guy came over and toured my 100 year old house the other day. He's going to try to fix an upstairs bathroom sink that won't drain properly, will put in a door bell, give me some more smoke detectors, maybe some other stuff.

He mentioned that he can put in a low flow toilet instead of the old one I have. I asked if it would flush OK. He said "yes." Now, I wonder because my brother (La Mesa, near San Diego) has a low flow toilet (I think they are mandatory there) and often times it doesn't flush completely and you have to flush it again, sometimes several times. That's annoying if not disgusting. The toilet I use 95% of the time (downstairs), usually works on one flush. Occasionally it doesn't and sometimes I actually have to break things up to get it flushed! I'm afraid that getting a low flow in there would make matters worse. My water usage is pretty minimal already and I use less than the 100 gallons a day that the county considers under the radar when water rationing is in effect here (Alameda County, CA, currently no rationing in effect.

Should I defer on the low flow? Are some better than others? I'm hoping to sell my house in a few years. What's the scoop.

Dan

[David Nebenzahl]

On 7/12/2009 12:45 PM [e-mail] spake thus:

Ask them (the agency doing the repairs) about dual-flush toilets. These are low-water toilets that offer two flush volumes (basically a low volume for #1 and a higher volume for #2). Gives you water savings without the annoyances you've noted.

Here's an alternative: a dual-flush valve for existing toilets that reduces water usage, for only $30:

[HeyBub]

So, he was from the government and was there to help?

And the nature of his help was to replace something that's not broken, that you don't need, and about whose proper function you have doubts?

Sounds about right.

On the other hand, he's getting paid somebody's tax money to undertake this project.

Again, sounds about right.

Now if you feel a moral imperative to save even more water (and a moral indifference to taxpayer money), or if your toilet breaks badly and HAS to be replaced instead of repaired, I'd say do it. Otherwise, no.

[Anonymous]

:Dan Musicant wrote: :> A city affiliated agency is doing some work for me for free based on :> my low income. The guy came over and toured my 100 year old house the :> other day. He's going to try to fix an upstairs bathroom sink that :> won't drain properly, will put in a door bell, give me some more :> smoke detectors, maybe some other stuff. :>

:> He mentioned that he can put in a low flow toilet instead of the old :> one I have. I asked if it would flush OK. He said "yes." Now, I wonder :> because my brother (La Mesa, near San Diego) has a low flow toilet (I :> think they are mandatory there) and often times it doesn't flush :> completely and you have to flush it again, sometimes several times. :> That's annoying if not disgusting. The toilet I use 95% of the time :> (downstairs), usually works on one flush. Occasionally it doesn't and :> sometimes I actually have to break things up to get it flushed! I'm :> afraid that getting a low flow in there would make matters worse. My :> water usage is pretty minimal already and I use less than the 100 :> gallons a day that the county considers under the radar when water :> rationing is in effect here (Alameda County, CA, currently no :> rationing in effect. :>

:> Should I defer on the low flow? Are some better than others? I'm :> hoping to sell my house in a few years. What's the scoop. :>

: :So, he was from the government and was there to help?

Well, actually I think he is with a private company, probably a non-profit that contracts with the city. Not a ton of difference. : :And the nature of his help was to replace something that's not broken, that :you don't need, and about whose proper function you have doubts? : :Sounds about right. : :On the other hand, he's getting paid somebody's tax money to undertake this :project.

True. : :Again, sounds about right. : :Now if you feel a moral imperative to save even more water (and a moral :indifference to taxpayer money), or if your toilet breaks badly and HAS to :be replaced instead of repaired, I'd say do it. Otherwise, no.

I can understand the logic.

Dan

[Ed Pawlowski]

Some time ago the low flow were all junk and often needed multiple flushes. Can't speak for all, but the Kohler and American Standard lines are very good now. The ones we've been using for the past five years have been perfect. They make them with higher seats today also, easier to get up and down as you age.

[KC]

If they are doing this for you without cost, it's almost a given that they will be using inexpensive products from a big box store. And from my experience, you will not be satisfied with the flushing action of them. There are good LF toilets on the market that flush very well but they are expensive. KC

[Wayne Whitney]

There are plenty of good low flow toilets available. For objective ratings that I trust, see: .

Cheers, Wayne

[bob haller]

stick with your old water waster, much more reliable, after all its worked fine for how many years

[ransley]

Years ago, maybe 6, they didnt do shit, pun intended, Consumer reports rates them and tested them with similar shit. I used about 12 of HDs cheapest 59 dollar Glacier bays in 07 and have had only one complaint from a 6ft 7" mexican who says he likes beans, but I think its my old pipes. You would want an extra large glazed trap, few had that years ago. You dont have to spend huindreds to have a complete movement. Look for reviews, they do save water and work on one flush, maybe a cow needs two.

[Stormin Mormon]

He's from the government, and he's here to help. As a tax payer, let me assure you that nothing the government does is free. It just means that myself and others like me are paying to fix up your house.

Based on your low income. How about you get some education, and get back into the job market? How about myself and the other voters vote out our elected reps who give away our tax dollars instead of doing what the Constitution permits and nothing else?

Politely decline, and send the guy packing. The low flows don't have enough galons per flush to send the waste down the line. You risk having your sewer line clogged with residual solids. And, then, some government idiot will use more of my tax money, unconstitutionally, to clear your crap out of your drain.

[Stormin Mormon]

Ask the agency where in the Constitution it gives them the authority to spend my taxes on fixing other peoples houses.

[C & E]

My water waster was in my master half bath. It had a run that was pretty tortuous and required use of a plumbers friend on a bi-weekly basis. When it was time to trade-out the Harvest Gold two years ago I did a search for a low flow toilet and the vid clip of flushing 26 golf balls sent me packing for an American Standard, Champion. It makes about half again as much noise as the one it replaced but, I haven't used the 'helper' in two years. Since then, though, Kohler has produced one that is quieter. Of course, I can't vouche for the reliability of theirs. Best of luck! Chuck

[h]

My house was built in the early 1800s. When we remodeled the half bath two years ago we put in a Toto Ultimate one piece low flow toilet, and we love it. It has NEVER, not even once, required a double flush or backed up or displayed any of the nonsense we experienced with the old water waster. It was about $550 delivered. It was shipped overnight, for free, from some place in NJ (IIRC). There was one semi-local store which sold the same thing, but it was more money and we would have had to drive 75 miles round trip to get it. When we built our new addition we'll be using Toto.

[h]

Oh, and it's much quieter than the water waster and the tank doesn't take 5 minutes to fill!

[z]

the govt is just trying to keep the volume of sewage low for a while to avoid having to upgrade the treatment plant for a while, which would cost more than buying folks new toilets.

[WhiteTea77581]

To cut back on water usage, I put bricks in the bowls of two toilets made in the 1950's and 1980's and have not seen any decrease in performance.

Andy

[Frank]

When my toilets showed their age, I started replacing with low flow toilets with no problems. i like them because I have a septic system and less water to drain field is better. Also with a well, water cost is no concern but may save you money on a municipal system.

I would avoid the dual flush systems as they may be fussier and more complex to maintain.

[The Daring Dufas]

Does the weight of the bricks help hold the toilet down during severe backfires? The toilet we have here at the house has been known to come loose after a bean burrito assault.

TDD

[Douglas Johnson]

He said it was a city agency, which derives it's powers from the state, so that would be the 10th amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

-- Doug

[HeyBub]

States can do anything they want unless prohibited by the Constitution. Until 1947 states could have a state-sponsored church. In most states (not the 2nd Circuit), a state can quarter soldiers in your home. A state is not required to obtain an indictment by a grand jury (though the federal government is). You are not entitled to a jury trial in a civil case nor or you protected, at the state level, against excessive bail or bonds.

In the instant case, it may well be that the feds said: "We'll give you a billion bucks to fix up substandard housing but you've got to push low-flow toilets. Your choice."