yah! I also bathe in Ozarka

(Rowlett is situated ON Lake Ray Hubburd, but we pay to have the water piped from Lake Lavon which is about 10 miles away, we also have to pay the city of Garland for the use of their sewage pipes makes one a tad angry....and yes I have already emailed the city of Rowlett's manager and voiced my opinion - in no uncertain terms of my disspleasure with my water bill.....I shit you not, I have to time how long my kids take a bath, if they go over 3 minutes, I have to bang on the bathroom door).

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!! Oh my god, I'm hysterical with laughter, the dog thinks I've gone bonkers - she's probably right!

At a Britnet get-together in CT two years ago, the newly-installed toilet blocked every other flush. We all concluded (after several drinks, mind you) that you just need to develop some sphincter control and squeeze it out in two inch portions for easy passage around the s-bend. And yes, most of us had only just met, so there's definitely a nationality thing in this topic of discussion

Just be glad it goes that way!

Low-flow revolt; Congress looks at repealing new toilet standard
By Ben Lieberman
Copyright 1998 Chicago Tribune
August 8, 1998

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Of all the bills now facing Congress, the Plumbing Standards Improvement Act may affect you the most.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Joseph Knollenberg, a Republican from Michigan, would repeal provisions in a 1992 law mandating the highly unpopular low-flow toilets now tormenting Americans.

Don't laugh. Well, laugh a little bit, but this bill is an important battle in a war against a federal government gone awry, a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" that nonetheless does things the people can't stand, like forcing us to endure expensive new toilets that don't work well.

Included in the numerous provisions of the massive 1992 Energy Policy Act was a requirement that, by 1994, all new toilets sold in the United States must use no more than 1.6 gallons per flush (gpf in Washingtonspeak), well below the 3.5 gpf models most Americans are accustomed to.

The stated purpose of this standard, implemented by the Department of Energy, was to conserve water.

The bill, which also regulates water flow in new shower heads and faucets, generated little controversy at the time and passed easily.

But now, with the law in effect for several years, there are millions of Americans moving into new homes or remodeling bathrooms who have had to deal with these brave new toilets. The reaction thus far has been strongly negative.

In addition to costing more than the old versions, the new low-flow models don't work nearly as well. Many people say they have to flush several times to clear out the bowl, which of course defeats the entire purpose of water conservation. Other people have experienced more frequent clogs, and thus increased cleaning and maintenance.

Such complaints have flooded into Knollenberg's office. Indeed, some dissatisfied homeowners have reportedly turned to a growing black market in the remaining 3.5 gpf toilets, which now sell at a premium.

An intrusive and annoying federal "solution" is bad enough, all the more so when it is chasing a nonexistent threat.

"There is no national water crisis," says Terry Anderson, water policy expert and executive director of the Political Economy Research Center in Bozeman, Mont. Quite the contrary, Anderson adds that "water is cheap and plentiful throughout most of the United States."

Thus there is no justification for onerous national austerity measures. Those areas that do have water shortages or inadequate sewage-treatment facilities can best deal with these problems at the local level.

Doubtless they could find smarter ways to reduce water use than requiring dysfunctional toilets.

So why would the federal government do something that is both unpopular and unnecessary? Special-interest politics, of course.

Low-flow toilets, like many other eco-friendly product mandates, have three sources of support--federal bureaucrats, environmental activists and opportunistic manufacturers. In this instance, all three came out ahead.

Conspicuously absent from Washington's potty politics was anyone giving voice to the wishes of affected consumers, the ones who have to live with these newfangled toilets.

In fact, nowhere is there any indication of an effort to determine if the American people actually wanted them.

Fortunately, the fight is not yet over. Against the powerful and well- connected forces of the commode commissars, a freedom fighter has emerged.

Knollenberg is taking a stand not just for better toilets but for better and more limited government. "The federal government should be out of our bathrooms," is his oft-quoted rallying cry.

He has become the Patrick Henry of porcelain. And, judging by the public response, there are many freedom-loving patriots ready to support the cause.

Knollenberg's toilet crusade, though commendable, will need to be repeated in many similar contexts, as a number of equally dumb appliance regulations are currently in the pipeline.

For example, the Energy Department is considering a ban on top-loading washing machines in favor of front-loading models. As with the 1.6 gpf toilets, these new machines, which supposedly save water and energy, are more expensive and have several performance drawbacks.

But department bureaucrats and their outside consultants (including the same "experts" who insist that the 1.6 gpf toilets are a great success) claim that consumers will love the new washers, once they are forced to buy them.

Of course, this new regulation is supported by a few front-loader producers hoping to make a killing once competition with the preferred top-loading models is put to an end.

One spokesman for a large home-appliance maker, in response to questions about public acceptance of the new washing machines, said that "selling it in the marketplace is easy, if there's a standard in place. It's not a matter, necessarily, of consumer acceptance."

In other words, consumers don't want this stuff, so we must mandate it.

Additionally, new energy efficiency standards for fluorescent lamps, ovens, water heaters and air conditioners, supposedly to reduce energy use and thus fight global warming, are currently under consideration.

If enacted, they, too, will raise product costs and compromise performance while doing no more to save the earth than low-flow toilets.

Again and again, federal bureaucrats, with the support of environmental advocacy groups and advantage-seeking manufacturers, are spending our dollars to further limit our choices in the marketplace.

Apparently, money and individual liberty are two scarce resources Washington isn't interested in saving.

I think it is all in the flick of the wrist. As I mentioned, my poor husband regularly clogs our toilet up but when I lived in London I caused my landlady no end of trouble with her plumbing. I could never get the hang of it.

Trust me, there is nothing quite a mortifying as coming home to see your landlady elbow deep in (your) crap that (for three days) would not flush down. It was the most awkward confrontation I've ever experienced and wouldn't wish it on anyone...

So I think it works both ways....

You couldn't flush your turds in London?

you must have turds the size of texas

May I recommend a garbage disposal for your toilet. That thing'll mince a few pounds of monkey fudge in no time.

ROFL

We brits use too much loo paper. My son-in-law, a plumber, is forever saying its the paper that blocks the toilets. He keeps telling us to use a certain brand- I forget which one LOL shows how much notice I take. I like my Kleenex loo paper- softer on the bum.

I've always been deeply suspicious as to why all US poo-paper is white.

OMG!!!! ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!! Anyway, I'll have to keep that suggestion in mind, although our stupid garbage disposal doesn't work (and we can't get the landlord to come fix it - yet another subject for another thread! ) and all it would do is just whirl it around.

My hubs thought it was a bit weird that you could only get all white loo paper here and when we lived in the UK I wouldn't buy anything else! There was an issue years ago about dyes in the paper causing problems. I can't remember exactly what the problem was, but I didn't like coloured paper anyway.

on white bog roll...

at least you can see clearly when you're errr...clean.

Well it's not like colored poo-paper is brown with yellow specks is it?

Still, at least we have toilet paper. I remember on my travels being told to "use the jug of water." Give me a lemon-wet-wipe anyday.

Yellow specs?

you should see a doctor very soon.