Anyway, long story short, over the years the majority of these late 50s-early 60s units have had their 5+ gpf commodes replaced with the politically-correct 1.6gpf toilets, and... NO DETECTABLE DROP IN WATER USAGE!

I mean really, in the big scheme of residential water usage, who in DC (*all bow*) decided toilet flushing was the culprit? Why haven't Canada and other nations followed suit, if it's such a great "green" idea?

Also, any idea how many parasites, err, I mean Federal bureaucrats make a full-time living off of this non-problem?

Thanks in advance, look forward to hearing from others who have tracked real-world data on this.

Also, while it's easy to imagine that those clueless and incompetent bureaucrats are the culprits here, before you criticize the government too much, you need to understand that a lot of the push for using water-efficient appliances comes from utilities who are being squeezed between meeting larger-and-larger demands for water as populations grow in urban areas, and regulators who are trying to keep cost increases down. Do you really think private companies would be offering rebates -- as they are in my area -- to change out appliances if it didn't make financial sense to them in the long run?

Companies offer rebates for two reasons: 1) They are getting subsidized to do so by the government, or 2) They use rebates as a way to generate sales in an otherwise flat or negative sales trend.

Much of the push for lower flow toilets was initially from environmental groups, not from utilities. Legislation was passed, as usual, by folks with little understanding of the environmental impact or toilet technology at the time. You may have, as a result, an apartment complex full of toilets that don't work.

As for utility rebates, I worked for a utility that pushed a number of energy saving rebates for equipment change-outs, and we did not get subsidies from the government, nor were we trying to increase anyone's market share. Our energy conservation measures only went into place after they passed a rigorous technical, economic, and legal analysis that showed a long-term, positive benefit for both the utility and the customer.

Another cheaper option, although I haven't tried this, would be to install flow restrictors for each shower head. If any seem to work too poorly, you can always drill the hole just a little bit bigger. Google "shower flow restrictor".

Another thing to do is put pipe insulation on your hot water pipes. This can save from wasting water at the beginning of a shower while waiting for hot.

Another thing to do is install flow restrictor aerators on the sink faucets.

Let's start with your assumption of 20 flushes a day: a low-usage toilet would save about 4.5 gallons per flush, so that's 90 gallons a day. In a month, that's about 2700 gallons. Now the cost of water depends on a lot of things, including where you live and your overall consumption (which affects the per gallon rate). I did a Google search on current water utility rates for different parts of the country and found most of the rates were in the range of $1.50-$6.50 per 1000 gallons; at my house it's about $5.80 per 1000 gallons (and that's in the Pacific NW, which is not known for its desert terrain). So, the savings for me would be about $15/month, or $180 per year. That's enough to pay for a replacement toilet in a year, and then save that much money every year thereafter. Even if you are lucky enough to have a rock bottom water rate, you'd still save about $50 per year. So, I'll offer you this deal: I'll buy you a low-flush toilet, and you pay me $50 a year for, say, the next 25 years.

You're also missing the larger point that the water utilities can't just "make" as much water as everyone wants. With expanding populations and limitations on water, rates are going to keep spiraling up if people scoff at reasonable conservation measures. Utilities are offering rebates not because they're kissing up to environmentalists, or all of a sudden want to pretend they're politically correct. They're doing it because it makes them money in the long run.

So I'm at a loss concerning your allusion to rebates from "democrats." When I worked for the city utility, conservation measures were one of the few things that were non-partisan. The politicians were just trying to keep everybody's costs under control: the things that they saw as "green" were the ones that saved money.

In the early 1900's toilets consumed 5gpf however in those days water was plentiful and the sewage was simply discharged into a local river or estuary.

In the late 40's or early 50's they began mandating sewage treatment and as the population expanded there was a big concern that many of the sewage treatment plants could not keep pace with demand.

On average every man, woman and child will flush a toilet 6 times a day. At 5gpf that equated to 30gal/day per person or on the big picture, 30,000gal of waste to the treatment plant per day for every 1,000 people in your community.

With the rate of population increase by the mid 60's the local sewage treatment plants were being overwhelmed until someone came up with the idea that if they cut the flush rate from 5gpf to 3.5gpf they could reduce the waste load generated by toilets by approximately 30%. The alternative was to build additional treatment plants and replace miles of sewer pipes with larger lines at a substantial cost to the taxpayers.

By the mid 80's the population had expanded to the point where not only were the sewage treatment plants overwhelmed, the municipal water supply and treatment facilities were also running at peak demand. In some areas such as where I live water is plentiful so we could build additional water & sewer treatment plants at a cost of millions of dollars to the taxpayers, while in some arid regions such as California or the Southwest, they simply do not have the water even if they were to build additional treatment plants.

When we consider that toilets account for approximately 50 of the total water and sewer demand the quick solution was to reduce the toilet water and sewer consumption rate to 1.6gpf, thus reducing the load generated by toilets by approximately 50%.

Now in regards to why you cannot see the savings on your water bill? As Kudzu pointed out, the national average cost for water is $6.50 per 1,000gal or $0.0065 per gallon, however, water supply is not measured in gallons but rather in cubic feet. One cubic foot of water is slightly less than 8 gallons (7.92gal/cu.ft) therefore on the national average water costs $0.051/gal, however for billing purposes most communities charge a flat monthly service rate that includes the first 5,000cu.ft, then they charge a surcharge for each additional 500cu.ft. Sewer tax is then computed at 2 or 3 times the water rate.

On the individual household, in most cases changing from 3.5gpf to 1.6gpf will not change your consumption enough to show a substantial savings on your water bill, on the other hand, if the community as a whole does not make the change, they will have no alternative but to replace the sewer lines and build additional water and sewer treatment plants so in conclusion, if your looking for the savings on your water bill you looking in the wrong place. The real savings is on your tax bill.

I am also aware of all the sewer charges, and taxes, and related rates (for example, my area has a base charge and then 3 other tiers as consumption goes up). But I left them out to simplify my argument, although their inclusion would make the savings even greater, and I agree they should be counted in. (I did see one typo in your post: you put in a water cost of $0.051/gal when you obviously intended to say per cubic foot.)

I'm still arguing that the household savings that I computed ($50-$180 per year) are not insignificant, although given the fluctuations in bills from month to month, and as rates change, they're not obvious without a little analysis.

Otherwise I think we are in heated agreement!

PS: Yes, I'm talking GALLONS, not $$

PPS: I'm ALL for conserving resources and reducing pollution of the biosphere, but I think top-loading washing machines--which were foisted on consumers starting in the 1960s--are way bigger wasters. And don't get me going on the Bobo 12.5gpm 5-head McShowers.