The Impacts of High Efficiency Toilets on Plumbing Drainlines and Sewers

[Stormin' Norman]

This is a very interesting monograph about the impact of low volume and high efficiency toilets on drain lines and sewers.

The Impacts of High? Efficiency Toilets on Plumbing Drainlines and Sewers

"This article addresses key questions and concerns as well as misperceptions about the impacts of reduced water use and wastewater flows from water saving measures, particularly high efficiency maximum

1.28 gallons per flush (gpf) toilets, on plumbing sanitary drainlines in buildings and municipal sewer systems. Specifically, does installation of high efficiency toilets ("HET") lead to insufficient wastewater flows to move solid waste down building drainlines and sewers, resulting in clogs and stoppages?"

More:

OR

[Taxed and Spent]

or

[Stormin' Norman]

Antiquated and or improperly designed sewer systems, but, thanks for reading.

[Taxed and Spent]

Yes, but they are out there. And did you notice who penned your cited reference article? A bit of a biased group, eh?

[Stormin' Norman]

You obviously did not read the entire monograph or examine the footnotes and references, oh well, that is how some people roll.

As for bias, I would say your assertion is the equivalent of the pot calling the kettle black, please.

[Stormin' Norman]

One more thought, the solution to antiquated or poorly designed sewer systems is to modify or repair them. The permanent solution is not to waste more potable water.

[Taxed and Spent]

I am not biased - what do I care?

I just reread the article and the article itself is more informative than its erroneous conclusion: Low flow is no problem. But it is, since higher flows were used to overcome other issues which were NOT issues with higher flow.

They should have been a bit clearer in the conclusionary statements. In fact some building and sewer systems may need some work in order to function properly with low flows.

I have always been for saving water, even well before it became fashionable.

[Taxed and Spent]

I agree, although more flushing might be a short term solution until the engineering and construction work is done to modify or repair. And such flushing might be done with less than potable water.

[Stormin' Norman]

If the public sewer systems are defective, the cities might be able to retrofit the problem areas with spray heads that add reclaimed, filtered greywater to the sewer system. It would be completely impractical and unsafe to use greywater in the end user environment.

The discussion is all a moot point as HETs and LVs are here to stay.

[gfretwell]

It is not that simple. The real problem is toilet paper. If you do not have enough water moving to keep that going down the line you will have problems. I have a wall hanger with a Euro style flush valve that you can easily short stroke and leave the load staled in the pipe. If the next dose of water is just water, no problem but if we get 4 girls in a row and none of them wash their hands ... in the bathroom, you have a 50:50 chance you will be hitting it with a plunger. The fix was putting a note on the flush valve to "press and hold", forcing a #2 flush.

[gfretwell]

The efficiency is moot too if you have to flush them twice.

[Stormin' Norman]

Reads like you have a defective or poorly designed toilet.

All of our HET / LV toilets behave in a similar fashion to the pressurized toilets. It is as if they are turbo charged. There is an organization that rates toilets, called MaP, here is a link:

I always buy toilets rated "1000". Humorously, the inexpensive American Standard toilet I installed in the barn does the best job, that is where I do my morning evacuations, and I am 6'7" @ 260lbs and eat a less than politically correct diet. I don't even need to keep a plunger in that or any of the bathrooms.

[Stormin' Norman]

See my other post. I would not classify a toilet as efficient if it doesn't do it's job on a single flush. If it requires a second flush, you should buy a different toilet.

[gfretwell]

You seem to be missing the point. If you have girls who use a lot of paper, that gallon of water is not enough to carry it 100 feet to the curb. We are not talking about clearing the toilet, we are talking about how far it goes. Maybe when they were using 3 or 4 gallons of water, a lower pitch on the soil pipe worked but nobody going to rip out 100' of sewer line to save a gallon of water.

BTW do you water your grass and flowers? wash your car? If so you should not even in this conversation.

[Stormin' Norman]

I am curious how you know just how far your sewage moves, in your pipes, with a given amount of water. Also, what makes you think the goal is to move the waste all the way out to the street with a flush? Everything I have read over the years leads me to conclude the flush is simply to move the waste out of the toilet into the drain pipes and laterals. The movement of waste in the laterals is an incremental process and depends upon the other water being used, showers, baths, laundry, dishes, hand washing, shaving and yes, additional waste disposal through the toilet.

I usually take my red herrings with a little hot sauce and mayo...;-)

[Ed Pawlowski]

Goes back to what we've said all along. It takes a given amount of water to move the solids. If you have 6 girls taking showers like my daughter did, there was plenty of flow. If not, you have to get the water from somewhere, and that may be an extra flush of the toilet.

With the introduction of low flow toilets, the incidence of sewer clogs has increased. I guess those people should take longer showers or shave more.

[Stormin' Norman]

I would really like to see the empirical evidence that supports your assertion, not just anecdotal stories and personal opinions.

[gfretwell]

When you run a snake down there you get a very good idea where the problem was.

It is not a red herring if your toilet flushing is 1 or 2% of the water you use. The average lawn irrigation cycle uses thousands of gallons of water and we have people who do it several times a week in the spring. (an 8th of an acre of grass will take 3000 gallons of water a week if you use the recommended 1" per week) The fact is that even people who do not wash their car or water their lawn use far more water for things other than flushing toilets. The average person in the US uses 550 gallons of water a day. It is strange to me that this is where they decided to save water.

[gfretwell]

This problem is really exacerbated on a ranch style home on one level. There is no real vertical stack to get things moving like you have in a multistory. Once I got everyone using the #2 flush my problems pretty much went away. It was when you used the #1 flush that things started piling up in the pipe.

[Stormin' Norman]

Not to get involved in your family situation, but it sounds like your daughters need to be taught proper hygiene and to wash their hands after using the bathroom and taught to not put feminine hygiene products in the toilet.

If I were to put ready mix into my toilet, drain line or laterals, I would probably get clogs too, even with 3 gallons per flush.

Remarkable, Mark Twain once said "There three kinds of lies; lies, damned lies and statistics." 550 gallons per day? Really? According to the USGS, each person in the US uses 80 - 100 gallons per day.

See: