3 ms·

I pulled our flow restrictor out a couple years ago and watched our water bills over the year before and year after. In the year before we used 76 units of wat

I pulled our flow restrictor out a couple years ago and watched our water bills over the year before and year after. In the year before we used 76 units of water, in the year after we used 78. So maybe it increased our total usage by 2.6%; but there were also some other lifestyle changes over that period that I'd expect drove up our water usage more. Even if all 2.6% could be attributed to the flow restrictor, its not enough for me to go back to crappy showers.

mrandish 2y ago
Living in California I'm just tired of the pervasive limitations on so many things when it makes virtually no net difference in overall usage. We have a house on a large, isolated property. We have our own well and a 600 gallon tank with a septic system. No one else is pulling from the water table for many miles around. Essentially all of our water is recycled back into the water table from the septic system. Yet I still had to test, modify and, in one case, replace, shower heads, faucets and toilets to get devices with minimally acceptable flow. As you said, at most around a 2% difference in consumption for something that works well and feels great. Yet I drive by our large lakes and the system of agricultural aqueducts weekly and see the millions of gallons of water being pulled to grow crops that aren't even well-suited to the local climate (but which are more profitable). I guess making life a little bit more annoying for tens of millions of consumers, who don't have lobbyists in the capitol, is an easy way for politicians to virtual signal "doing something" for the environment while still collecting that sweet PAC money from the agri-lobby.