Low-Flow Hubris?

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

According to the Law of Unintended Consequences, “any intervention in a complex system may or may not have the intended result, but will inevitably create unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes.” In other words, the outcome of a certain action or set of actions does not necessarily dovetail with the original intent and can often lead to unforeseen—and detrimental—results.
As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and when it comes to many environmental and conservation efforts, a triumph in once section can lead to a tragedy somewhere else. And while “sustainability” is a popular catchphrase, many “green” efforts have, in fact, the complete opposite effect.
Case in point—low-flow toilets. These days, programs focused on enlacing existing toilets with low-flow alternatives are a popular “go-to” strategy for communities looking to promote water conservation. On its surface, there’s nothing wrong with a rebate program or retrofit campaign that encourages consumers to be aware of their water consumption. In this context, low-flow fixtures are especially attractive because of the ease of implementation (simply take out that old toilet and replace it with a more efficient model), the low-cost threshold (rebates and tax breaks) and positive PR.
But as we get carried away by the pomp and circumstance of these often self-congratulatory campaigns—no one is asking one simple, but very important question: What do we do with all those old toilets?
This is not a trivial query. Old toilets are clogging up landfills all over the country—often as a result of a community retrofit/replacement campaign. Sometimes, these old toilets are recycled into concrete, which is the case in Fort Collins, CO, where the removed toilets are mixed with asphalt and used for road building. But many cities do not have the means or desire to recycle porcelain and metal, and, in those cases, the old toilets find new homes in rapidly filling landfills. In Austin, TX, a new program that helps apartment complexes install new toilets has come under fire after critics pointed out that up to 280 tons of old toilets would end up in country landfills.
Obviously, old toilets are not an issue for new construction or even extensive remodels where the old fixtures were always slated for removal and replacement. In those instances, it makes sense to require that low-flow toilets be mandated, but what about the homeowner with a properly working toilet who has no remodeling plans? Should we require the replacement of all existing toilets without regard for the consequences? And what about other alternatives that would allow old toilets to become more efficient with help of a little tweak here and there like the old “brick-in-the-tank” option familiar to those of us who grew up in California during the drought-stricken 70s?

"Hit them in the pocketbook!"

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

There’s a long history of attempting to impact human behavior via economic incentives and penalties, although the latter tends to take precedence: We often utilize additional “vice taxes” to commodities and activities deemed unsavory (i.e. levies on alcohol and tobacco purchases). But awarding positive action can be just as effective. Case in point: cap and trade. While cap and trade is getting a lot of buzz as of late—due to the Obama administration’s decision to create a cap and trade system for carbon dioxide—Mark Lange of The Christian Science points out, in an opinion piece, the viability of cap and trade that, in 1989, a cap and trade program for sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions resulted in a 45% reduction in acid rain within five years.
Which brings us to water conservation. Many water utilities employ rate structures that charge based on water usage (and waste)—a clear example of using an economic penalty to modify behavior. But perhaps there is a better way.…
US Representative Mike Coffman thinks so. On April 2, Coffman introduced the “Water Accountability Tax Efficiency Reinvestment (WATER) Act, which mimics the EPA’s Energy Star Program that offers tax credits for the energy-efficient appliances. Under Coffman’s WATER Act, WaterSense products would be eligible for tax credits of up to 30% (with a $1500 cap). According to EPA estimates, the installation of WaterSense fixtures (including low-flow faucets, showerheads, and toilets) could save a family of four $17,000 gallons a year. The WATER Act (aka HR 1908) now awaits review by the House Committee on Ways and Means.
In a statement to the press, Coffman says “The Water Conservation Act will help meet this demand by helping individuals and businesses conserve water.”
What do you think? Are incentives the way to go when it comes to promoting conscientious water use, or should we combine tiered rate systems with low-flow rebates?
To read Mark Lange’s opinion piece on cap and trade go to: www.csmonitor.com/2009/0413/p09s04-coop.html