    [House Hearing, 106 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                       EPCA REGULATION OF PLUMBING SUPPLIES

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

                                     of the

                             COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       on

                                    H.R. 623

                                   __________

                                 JULY 27, 1999

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 106-76

                                   __________

                Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    58-509                      WASHINGTON : 1999

                             COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

                         TOM BLILEY, Virginia, Chairman

    W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana     JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
    MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio               HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
    MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida           EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    JOE BARTON, Texas                    RALPH M. HALL, Texas
    FRED UPTON, Michigan                 RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
    CLIFF STEARNS, Florida               EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
    PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio                FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
      Vice Chairman                      SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
    JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania     BART GORDON, Tennessee
    CHRISTOPHER COX, California          PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
    NATHAN DEAL, Georgia                 BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma              ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    RICHARD BURR, North Carolina         RON KLINK, Pennsylvania
    BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California         BART STUPAK, Michigan
    ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky               ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    GREG GANSKE, Iowa                    THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio
    CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia             ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
    TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma              GENE GREEN, Texas
    RICK LAZIO, New York                 KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
    BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming               TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
    JAMES E. ROGAN, California           DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
                                         BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
                                         LOIS CAPPS, California

                       James E. Derderian, Chief of Staff

                       James D. Barnette, General Counsel

          Reid P.F. Stuntz, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

                                     ______

                        Subcommittee on Energy and Power

                          JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman

    MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida           RALPH M. HALL, Texas
    CLIFF STEARNS, Florida               KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
      Vice Chairman                      THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio
    STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma              EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    RICHARD BURR, North Carolina         RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
    ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky               FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia             SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
    TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma              BART GORDON, Tennessee
    JAMES E. ROGAN, California           BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
    HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico           TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
    JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona             PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
    CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,       RON KLINK, Pennsylvania
    Mississippi                          JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
    VITO FOSSELLA, New York                (Ex Officio)
    ED BRYANT, Tennessee
    ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland
    TOM BLILEY, Virginia,
      (Ex Officio)

                                      (ii)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                   __________
                                                                       Page

    Testimony of:
        Goike, David, Masco Corporation, representing Plumbing
          Manufacturers Institute....................................   137
        Haege, Glenn, talk show host, WXYT...........................    24
        Knollenberg, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Michigan..........................................     9
        Kosmensky, Gerald, President, Gerald Building Company........    27
        Lieberman, Ben, Policy Analyst, Competitive Enterprise
          Institute, representing the National Consumer Coalition....    19
        Osann, Edward R., President, Potomac Resources, Inc..........    50
        Taylor, Jerome, Director of Natural Resource Studies, Cato
          Institute..................................................    30
        Tippin, David L., Director, Tampa Water Department...........    44
        Whalen, George V., National Association of Plumbing, Heating,
          Cooling Contractors........................................    54
        Willardson, Anthony, Associate Director, Western States Water
          Council....................................................   143
    Material submitted for the record by:
        American Society of Plumbing Engineers, prepared statement of   157
        CTSI Corporation, prepared statement of......................   163
        Williams, Harold, Jr., prepared statement on behalf of The
          American Supply Association................................   161

                                     (iii)

                      EPCA REGULATION OF PLUMBING SUPPLIES

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JULY 27, 1999

                      House of Representatives,
                                 Committee on Commerce,
                              Subcommittee on Energy and Power,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in
    room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Barton
    (chairman) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Barton, Bilirakis, Burr,
    Whitfield, Norwood, Shimkus, Bryant, Hall, Sawyer, Rush, and
    Dingell (ex officio).
        Aslo present: Representative Bilbray.
        Staff present: Amit Sachdev, majority counsel; and Rick
    Kessler, minority professional staff member.
        Mr. Barton. The subcommittee will come to order. We are
    going to hold today a hearing on H.R. 623, introduced by
    Congressman Knollenberg of Michigan, a bill to amend the Energy
    Policy and Conservation Act to eliminate certain regulation of
    plumbing supplies.
        This is bipartisan legislation. It has 82 cosponsors,
    including myself, and as I said, it has been introduced by the
    gentleman before the subcommittee, Mr. Knollenberg of Michigan.
    As a part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Congress created
    national uniform standards regulating the amount of water that
    could be used by faucets, showerheads and water closets. For
    faucets and showerheads, Congress set the maximum flow rate at
    2.5 gallons per minute, for water closets, which most people
    know as toilets, Congess mandated that only 1.6 gallons per
    flush could be used. Today we will hear testimony on H.R. 623
    to consider whether to repeal these national water standards,
    thereby reverting back to State and local government control to
    establish such water standards as they feel are appropriate for
    their regional needs.
        This is an issue that is easy to make light of, obviously,
    because of the subject matter, but it is important that we take
    this legislation seriously. I am a cosponsor and I want to make
    it perfectly clear that I support the need to conserve and not
    waste the precious water resources of our Nation. In my view
    the issue before us today is not whether to encourage water
    conservation in the United States, but how best to do so.
        Why should this legislation be taken up now. The reason is
    fairly simple and straightforward. In hundreds of strongly
    worded letters, e-mails and telephone calls, the public has
    asked that this issue be revisited. As many of my colleagues
    can attest, since passage we have heard quite literally and
    vocally in our town meetings and in our districts that
    consumers are not satisfied with the performance of these new
    appliances. We have heard many accounts that the low flow
    appliances simply do not work. They do not perform adequately.
        These concerns have been raised by news programs on
    television and radio and in newspapers across the country. The
    principal task before us today is to determine whether the
    national one size fits all standard set in Congress in 1992 is
    the most effective way to achieve water conservation in the
    United States. Has the Federal standard one size fits all
    artificially constrained the marketplace for water conservation
    products? Is this an issue that is better addressed at the
    regional level where State and local governments will better
    account for regional water supply and demand? Finally, is there
    a win/win scenario to address the problems that we have heard,
    one that ensures a true marketplace for affordable plumbing
    appliances that perform better and still meet the country's
    water conservation needs?
        We have assembled an esteemed group of experts on both
    sides of the issue to address this problem. We are going to
    start by hearing from the Congressman who has introduced the
    legislation, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Knollenberg. And
    once he has spoken, then we will have two panels of experts,
    again one panel that supports the legislation generally and one
    panel that has questions about it. Seeing no member of the
    minority party yet in attendance, we will recognize Mr.
    Bilirakis, distinguished member of the Health and Environment
    Subcommittee and a gentleman who helped pass the act back in
    1992, for an opening statement. Mr. Bilirakis.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Norwood was here before me.
        Mr. Barton. Well, you are senior and you have been a leader
    on this issue.
        Mr. Bilirakis. First, I would like to thank you, Mr.
    Chairman, for scheduling this hearing at a time I could
    participate. I would also like to take a moment to welcome
    David Tippin, the Director of the Tampa Water Department, here
    to Washington.
        The topic of today's hearing, Mr. Chairman, as you have
    indicated is legislation that proposes to repeal Federal water
    conservation standards enacted as part of the Energy Policy and
    Conservation Act of 1992 for certain plumbing appliances.
        As a representative from a State where water conservation
    is an important issue, I strongly oppose this legislation. Most
    of us take water for granted and we assume that we can simply
    turn on the tap or a garden hose and there will be a steady
    stream of cheap clean water, but in many States and localities
    there is much more to it than that. In my home State of
    Florida, water conservation has become a way of life. Residents
    routinely experience drought conditions, water audits, state-
    of-the-art leak detection methods, lawn sprinkling bans and
    other measures are frequent reminders of the severity of my
    State's water shortfalls.
        The drought now effecting several portions of the United
    States also serves to underscore the need to make more
    efficient use of our water supplies. Even where water is not
    scarce, new water efficient plumbing products help consumers
    and communities hold down the rising costs of additional water
    supply and waste water treatment infrastructure. These costs
    are especially relevant in a climate where residential monthly
    water and sewage charges rose by 75 percent between 1986 and
    1996 for those using 1000 cubic feet of water.
        Americans now spend about $50 billion each year on
    residential water and sewer bills. We spend an additional $16
    billion on the cost of the energy needed to heat domestic hot
    water. New capital improvements will play a major role in
    driving water and waste water costs up in the future. Data
    published by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1997 shows
    that the public water systems and waste water treatment
    agencies will need to invest approximately $280 billion to
    protect public health and to accommodate growth over the next
    20 years. A significant portion of this investment, over $200
    billion, will be for facilities and equipment.
        In a typical single family home 80 percent of all indoor
    water use is devoted to flushing toilets, taking showers,
    washing clothes and allowing fixtures to leak. Without changing
    our life-style, the volume of water committed to each of these
    uses can be substantially reduced with the water efficient
    plumbing appliances required by this, by EPAct. Out of all of
    these fixtures, the 1.6 gallon flush toilet has received the
    most attention. This is due in part to a number of poor
    performing toilets being placed in the market in the early
    1990's. Since the mid-1990's, my understanding is that
    manufacturers have provided toilets which work well and meet
    all national testing standards. Reports ranging from Consumer
    Reports magazine to post-installation studies by utilities
    promoting major toilet rebate and replacement programs show a
    significant degree of satisfaction with the new fixtures.
        For example, 90 percent of San Diego, California customers
    who participated in a toilet rebate program were satisfied with
    their new 1.6 gallon per flush toilets. In Austin, Texas, 95
    percent of users were satisfied or very satisfied with the 1.6
    gallon per flush toilets. And 91 percent of Tampa, Florida
    consumers were likely to purchase another 1.6 gallon per flush
    toilet in the future.
        How significant are the savings from water efficient
    appliances? Water conserving fixtures used in houses built in
    1998 save 44 million gallons of water every day, totaling a
    savings of more than $33.6 million a year. All told, water
    conserving fixtures could cut demand by 30 percent, an
    estimated 5.4 billion gallons per day. Moreover, the energy
    savings resulting from using hot water more efficiently with
    new showerheads and faucets is expected to reach $1.9 billion
    per year by 2010 for the residential sector alone.
        The positive impact of water conservation can be dramatic.
    The population of Los Angeles has risen by nearly 1 million
    since 1970, an increase of 32 percent. Yet residential and
    business customers last year used virtually the same amount of
    water as they used 29 years ago. How is this possible? By low
    flow toilets saving the city 9 billion gallons of water each
    year.
        In 1997 Tampa bay water completed its regional demand
    management plan. This plan estimated that by the year 2000,
    approximately 5.25 million gallons per day will be saved by
    EPAct's water conserving plumbing fixture requirements. The
    plan estimates the savings will increase to 15.5 million
    gallons per day by 2010 and to over 20 million gallons per day
    by 2015.
        When the House of Representatives debated EPAct, it
    overwhelming approved uniform national efficiency standards for
    faucets, water closets, urinals and showerheads to conserve
    both energy and water by a vote of 328 to 79, and I repeat 328
    to 79.
        H.R. 623 would repeal these uniform national standards, the
    very standards that are broadly supported by manufacturers,
    plumbing contractors and wholesalers, water and waste water
    utilities, and environmental organizations. If enacted, this
    measure would increase the burden on States and communities
    seeking to enforce our water efficiency standards, and it would
    also force U.S. Manufacturers to commit time and money
    designing products for differing flush volumes, flow rates,
    test procedures and labeling requirements, all of which could
    vary by State and local jurisdiction if uniform national
    standards are repealed.
        Plumbing suppliers and wholesalers are primarily small
    independent businesses who are in the unique position of owning
    their inventory. Enactment of H.R. 623 could render portions of
    this stock obsolete and unmarketable which could have a
    devastating impact on these small businesses. H.R. 623 injects
    a measure of uncertainty into the planning for billions of
    dollars of water supply and waste water treatment
    infrastructure nationwide.
        Water efficiency, as you said right at the outset, Mr.
    Chairman, is no joke. A consistent and stable regulatory
    environment as provided by current law is a critical ingredient
    for new investment competition and product development in the
    plumbing industry. Water conservation is the easiest and most
    cost effective strategy we can use to combat present and
    projected water supply shortfalls, and repealing the 1992
    conservation standards is in my strong opinion bad policy.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I look forward to
    hearing from our witnesses, and I appreciate your indulgence.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Barton. Thank you, Congressman Bilirakis. We will put
    you down as undecided on this legislation.
        The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Norwood, is now recognized
    for an opening statement.
        Mr. Norwood. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you very much for holding this hearing which on the face of it
    tends to make it grin, but it is truly a serious matter. My
    State of Georgia is surrounded by water. We are surrounded by
    rivers except on our north end, and water conservation is
    extremely important to us. We take that very seriously. On the
    other hand, I am a very proud cosponsor of Mr. Knollenberg's
    bill and hope that we can reverse the 1992 water conservation
    standards, at least on the Federal level, as soon as possible.
        At home I am in difficulty with my sons, both of whom are
    building houses and they are old enough to be men, and I have
    to sit there and plead with them please don't go to the black
    market. That doesn't play very well in the 10th District if my
    sons were to do that. However, they are not satisfied with the
    1.6 gallon flushers that don't work. We do need to conserve
    water, but we don't have a vehicle that does that. When you
    turn around and flush that same toilet twice, you really
    haven't saved a lot.
        I find myself in an interesting position in that I am
    renovating a building which has a great number of 20-year-old
    toilets that I am told by the local inspector, he doesn't blame
    it on the Georgia law, he blames it on the Federal law, that I
    have to rip them all out and put in new units. Well, I can
    catch on why some folks who make toilets might think that is a
    good idea. That doesn't go over my head at all.
        But interestingly enough in my district the plumbing
    contractors and suppliers are very much against the 1992 water
    conservation standard. They didn't feel like people in
    Washington, DC. In their normal effort to have one size fits
    all really need to tell them exactly how they want to do that.
        So I applaud Mr. Knollenberg and look forward to this
    hearing today, and I hope we will all take this as a very
    serious matter because I certainly do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Barton. Thank you Congressman Norwood. We would now
    like to recognize the distinguished ranking member of the full
    committee, Mr. Dingell, for an opening statement.
        Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your kindness
    and recognition. I want to welcome my dear friend, Mr.
    Knollenberg. He is a valuable member of the Michigan
    delegation. He and I work together on many things that are
    important to our State. He is wisely and properly respected and
    I am happy to see him here. I would observe that I do have an
    opening statement which I would ask unanimous consent to put in
    the record.
        Mr. Barton. Without objection.
        Mr. Dingell. My good friend from Michigan and I do not
    agree on this legislation, and I would just make the
    observation that despite the concerns that have been expressed
    outside this committee, water consumption has dropped at the
    same time the population has significantly increased. A lot of
    this is due to reduction in interior residential water use and
    most of this has been as a result of the 1.6 gallon per flush
    toilets.
        Water pollution is a growing problem in this country. We
    are not addressing it because we are not putting money into the
    construction of waste water treatment works and sewer
    construction. This is having a terrible impact on waters in
    areas that are served by my good friend from Michigan and I.
    The result of this is that we are now seeing terrible pressure
    on the communities that he and I serve to spend enormous sums
    of money to clean up waters, rivers that he and I are well
    familiar with. The Huron, the Clinton, the Rouge, and the
    Raisin in southeast Michigan are all being afflicted with
    terrible problems of pollution.
        And with the figures that I am getting on satisfaction, for
    example in Denver, the satisfaction was 87 percent. 9 percent
    of the people registered an unhappy experience. Obviously we
    are going to have to perfect these kinds of toilets, but
    hopefully these kinds of toilets do offer us a chance, until
    the replacement of the old ones has been completed, of
    significantly bettering not only our water use but reducing the
    amount of money that the country has to spend on waste
    treatment.
        And I would note that in 1992 when this legislation was
    passed out of this committee which established the standards,
    it was as a result of an unusual coalition: industry,
    environmentalists, small businesses and the States. Those
    provisions passed the House 328 to 79 and they were viewed
    widely as being useful, necessary and good, and I believe the
    result--a reduction in needs for waste treatment, water
    savings, a saving of taxpayer dollars--has been very, very
    good.
        I say these things with respect for my friend. He is a very
    fine person and a valuable member of the delegation and a great
    public servant. I am sorry we differ, but we will try and do so
    with respect and affection. But I do want him to know that I am
    going to do the best that I can to beat this legislation.
        Mr. Barton. Well, that is two undecideds. The gentleman
    from North Carolina, Mr. Burr, is recognized for a brief
    opening statement.
        Mr. Burr. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome my good
    friend and former neighbor in the Longworth Building, Mr.
    Knollenberg, as well as our other panelists who are here to
    testify today about plumbing standards enacted by the Energy
    Policy Act.
        Mr. Barton. Are you reading off of what I think you are
    reading off of?
        Mr. Burr. Would the gentleman like some time?
        Mr. Barton. I am just observing what you are reading off
    of.
        Mr. Burr. Mr. Chairman, the 1992 Energy Act enacted
    burdensome and frivolous regulations on the sizes of toilets
    and showerheads. Specifically new toilets manufactured in the
    United States can only use 1.6 gallons per flush. And
    showerheads are permitted to use only 2.5 gallons per minute.
    Of course the average American might take these regulations as
    another urban myth, much like the baby alligator who was
    flushed down the toilet into the sewer and grew to terrorize
    the city's water works. Of course under the 1992 EPAct, that
    alligator probably couldn't have been flushed on the first or
    the second or the third try in a low flow, 1.6 gallon per flush
    toilet. It would have taken 2 or 3 flushes.
        Seriously, these regulations have cost home owners and home
    builders adding as much as $200 to the cost of installing a new
    toilet in the home. These regulations also strain the
    relationship between homeowner and home builder. As we will
    hear later, home builders often receive complaints about the
    operation of their toilets. When the contractor responds that
    the faulty toilet is the result of a mandate from Washington,
    the homeowner blames the contractor for making excuses for poor
    professionalism.
        These numbers are backed up by the fact that in 1998 the
    National Association of Home Builders survey found that 72
    percent of home builders consider the 1.6 gallon toilet to be a
    problem.
        It should be noted, Mr. Chairman, that the NAHB has
    recently taken a neutral stance on my colleague Mr.
    Knollenberg's legislation. Also, how is the goal of water
    conservation achieved when a toilet must be flushed more than
    once to remove waste or a person has to take a 10-minute shower
    instead of a 5-minute shower because of the weak water pressure
    produced from a low-volume showerhead.
        H.R. 623, Mr. Chairman, does not impose any new mandates or
    any new Federal regulations on plumbing manufacturers who
    currently oppose this bill. This bill does not outlaw low flush
    toilets or low volume water heads. In fact I am a little
    confused as to why those manufacturers don't want to put the
    best product that they can make on the market.
        Mr. Chairman, I used to joke with my colleagues about the
    legislation that he proposed when his office was located next
    door to mine until I made a trip to Wilmington, North Carolina.
    After a long day of work, I returned to my hotel hoping to
    relax from a day of discussing real problems that Congress
    should be dealing with. I made my way to the hotel bathroom
    only to find a sign next to the toilet stating that because of
    Federal regulations limiting the size of the toilet, it was
    necessary for me to flush at least twice. If that was
    unsuccessful, to call the front desk.
        I felt personally offended by the idea that the Federal
    Government feels it has the right to regulate how many times I
    am required to flush.
        Mr. Chairman, if we allow these regulations to stay in
    place, we in effect put our stamp of approval on an intrusive
    and burdensome Federal Government. If States and localities are
    responsible for zoning laws and building codes, I think it is
    time we return the right of choosing the size of toilet and of
    showerheads back to the governments as well.
        Again, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your insight
    to hold these hearings and welcome my dear friend Congressman
    Flush and thank him for H.R. 623, and with that I yield back
    the balance of my time.
        Mr. Barton. We will not put the gentleman's statement in
    its current configuration in the record. He will have to
    conform to normal standards of statements in terms of what is
    put in the record. We appreciate----
        Mr. Burr. Mr. Chairman, in a quick calculation that I have
    made with the 1.6 gallon toilet, this last Friday, I believe,
    the Vice President with his trip down the Connecticut River
    cost us 6 billion flushes.
        Mr. Barton. Who stayed up all night making that
    calculation?
        Mr. Burr. Mr. Norwood and I between the powers of North
    Carolina and Georgia came up with that calculation.
        Mr. Barton. I see.
        Mr. Burr. I thank the chairman.
        Mr. Barton. The gentleman from Texas, the distinguished
    ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Hall, is recognized for
    an opening statement.
        Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I don't really have an opening
    statement, but I am sure interested in this bill. I think I ran
    into Joe on the floor last year when he introduced it and he
    was so persuasive that I immediately signed on.
        When I got back to my district I found out that one of the
    major manufacturers gives X number of people jobs in my
    district and they were very opposed to this common sense pro
    consumer legislation. And while I have not signed on this year,
    I was just thinking in the Congressman's presentation, I didn't
    get to hear it but I have read it, it says, ``In fact, the
    situation has gotten so bad that many individuals are traveling
    out of the country just to pick up a toilet that works. This is
    a common occurrence at the Detroit-Canadian border,'' and I was
    just think how if my wife called here and they said Ralph is
    out looking for a potty that works, I don't know but what she
    would believe it.
        It is a pretty common sense bill, and I am going to take
    another look at maybe coming on it. I don't think that we have
    any business telling them--invading their private areas as much
    as they are with this kind of legislation.
        And the gentleman mentioned alligators. I remember an old
    story about they sent one of the waiters out to the spring to
    get a bucket of water on one of the hunting mesas, and he
    pulled up the bucket and he saw an alligator, and he came
    running back in. He said there was an alligator out there. They
    said did you bring the water? He said, yeah, but if that
    alligator is as scared as I am, that water ain't fit to drink.
        Mr. Barton. We really appreciate that story.
        Mr. Hall. You can erase that one with one of those Nixon
    erasers. I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Barton. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Bryant, is
    recognized for an opening statement.
        Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for having
    this hearing and Mr. Knollenberg, a good friend from Michigan.
    I thank him for his bill. So far from what I have heard, we
    have said all that we can say from this end. I know there are
    some other folks that have some additional things to make in
    their statements. I am not going to add any more to the level
    of this debate so far, but I am looking forward eagerly to
    hearing from Congressman Knollenberg and the others on the
    following panels who have firsthand knowledge in many cases and
    can tell us the pluses and the minuses of this legislation. I
    look forward to hearing this and I yield back the balance of my
    time.
        Mr. Barton. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, is
    recognized for an opening statement.
        Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend you
    for this hearing, and I want to commend the author of H.R. 623
    for this bill. We are here today to look at an issue that quite
    honestly has two viable sides. Certainly there are complaints
    regarding how the current water flow standards effect the
    quality of living. On the other hand, the benefits of the
    current standards cannot be denied. A savings of 44 million
    gallons of water a day with a dollar savings of $33.6 million a
    year. Let us make no mistake, water is a resource, which means,
    at times, if not all the time, it can be scarce.
        We as Members of Congress have a duty to provide standards
    which encourage conservation. Having said that, Mr. Chairman,
    the means we apply to achieve conservation should not, if not
    necessary, be so overburdensome that the conservation
    regulations totally handicap water usage.
        I look forward to this afternoon's discussion on this
    issue. I hope that we can find a solution which conserves water
    and provides consumers with effective water usage. What I do
    not recommend is that we simply toss out effective conservation
    regulation without being sure of the effect of any replacement.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
    time.
        Mr. Barton. Thank you, Congressman Rush. The gentleman from
    the great State of Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield, is recognized for
    an opening statement.
        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to see
    you, Mr. Knollenberg, and I really appreciate your bringing
    this issue to our attention. I look forward to your testimony.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Barton. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Sawyer, is
    recognized for an opening statement.
        Mr. Sawyer. Let me say thank you to you and to Mr.
    Knollenberg for his tenacity and to Mr. Rush for his carefully
    stated words.
        [Additional statement submitted for the record follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Hon. Tom Bliley, Chairman, Committee on Commerce
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This afternoon, we are here for a
    Subcommittee hearing on H.R. 623, legislation to amend the Energy
    Policy Act of 1992 to repeal the national uniform standards for certain
    types of plumbing appliances, including showerheads and water closets.
        In 1992, Congress set the maximum flow rate at 2.5 gallons per
    minute for faucets and showerheads and at 1.6 gallons per flush for
    water closets.
        I strongly support the need to conserve, and not waste, the
    precious water resources available in our country. The issue before the
    Subcommittee today is whether it is more appropriate to establish water
    standards for plumbing appliances using a uniform federal standard, or
    whether it makes more sense to allow state and local governments to
    establish standards that are tailored to their regional needs.
        Since passage of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, we have heard from
    consumers and groups urging us to revisit this issue. In doing so
    today, I hope our invited experts can offer insights that will ensure a
    winning solution that provides affordable and effective plumbing
    appliances that meet this Country's water conservation goals.
        I look forward to the testimony of our esteemed witnesses.

        Mr. Barton. The gentleman from Michigan, the sponsor of the
    bill, is recognized for such time as you may consume. I
    understand you also have a short video. We are not going to put
    the clock on you, Congressman, but we hope that you manage your
    time well.

    STATEMENT OF HON. JOE KNOLLENBERG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                       FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mr. Knollenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am very appreciative of the comment and opening
    statements, et cetera. I think you have all done a good job in
    presenting both sides of this issue and I am delighted to have
    the opportunity now to address you with some thoughts that
    pertain to H.R. 623, the Plumbing Standards Improvement Act of
    1999. As you know, Mr. Chairman, back in 1992 the 102d Congress
    and President Bush enacted amendments to the Energy Policy Act.
    Tucked inside this large bill was a little-noticed provision
    that vastly expanded the reach of the Federal Government by
    imposing new, overreaching mandates on plumbing products
    manufactured in the United States.
        Specifically, under this new law the Federal Government now
    regulates the flow of water in American toilets and
    showerheads. Since 1994, new toilets manufactured in the United
    States can only use 1.6 gallons of water per flush and
    showerheads are permitted to use only 2.5 gallons of water per
    minute.
        Under the guise of improving the Nation's energy policy and
    conserving water, these burdensome regulations have created an
    unnecessary headache for the American people who have been
    saddled with toilets and showers that in many cases do not work
    properly.
        In the view of millions of American consumers, the Federal
    Government has no business engaging in this type of unnecessary
    and counterproductive regulation. Therefore, in the 105th
    Congress I first introduced legislation to repeal these
    ridiculous mandates. Since that time, my office has received
    not hundreds but thousands of phone calls, letters and e-mails
    from disgruntled consumers who are angry that their new toilets
    repeatedly clog, require multiple flushing, and do not save
    water.
        Their message is clear and straightforward. Get the Federal
    Government out of my bathroom.
        At this time, I request the committee's permission to show
    a segment from the ABC news program 20/20. I believe that this
    footage clearly outlines the issues at hand and offers
    testimonials from several Americans who are unhappy with the
    quality of the 1.6 gallon toilets.
        Mr. Barton. If we can turn the monitor so that the audience
    has a fighting chance to see it in addition to the members.
    People on this side may have to move over temporarily.
        [Videotape shown.]
        Mr. Knollenberg. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your indulgence
    and the committee's indulgence to hear that short tape. I think
    that this tape makes a very compelling case that there is no
    legitimate reason for the Federal Government to be in the
    business of regulating the American people's toilets.
        There are many challenges that face this Nation, such as
    securing the future of Social Security, cutting taxes for
    working Americans, improving the quality of our schools, et
    cetera. Clearly, the Federal Government has more important
    things to do than regulating the amount of water used to flush
    a toilet.
        This regulation offers a vivid example of why the American
    people believe the Federal Government is too large and too
    intrusive. H.R. 623 responds to these concerns. This bill does
    not impose any new mandates on plumbing manufacturers. I
    repeat, this bill does not impose any new mandates on plumbing
    manufacturers. It provides them with the opportunity to make a
    product the American people will want to buy.
        Strangely enough, the Plumbing Manufacturers Institute has
    led the opposition to this common sense pro consumer
    legislation, and I am still perplexed by their opposition.
        In conversations with representatives from the industry, I
    have been told that the 1.6 gallon toilets work and consumers
    are happy with them.
        This is contrary to the messages I have received from angry
    individuals from every region of the country. But for the sake
    of argument, let's concede their point. This raises a very
    interesting question. Given the fact that my bill simply ends
    the Federal Government's regulation of toilets and does not
    require the plumbing manufacturers to meet any new Federal
    requirements, why are they so worried? If the 1.6 gallon
    toilets work, consumers will buy them and the plumbing
    manufacturers will continue to make money. And, if States and
    localities believe that regulation of this type is vital to
    their well-being, H.R. 623 does nothing to prevent them from
    adopting these kinds of standards at the State and local level.
        In reality, consumers are not happy with the performance of
    the 1.6 gallons toilets, and the plumbing manufacturers know
    that if the Federal standard is eliminated, someone will enter
    the market and produce a product that consumers want to buy at
    a reasonable price.
        This is not something for the narrow special interests to
    be afraid of. It is called capitalism, and it has served the
    American people well for over 200 years.
        Mr. Chairman, while there is no question that this issue
    registers on the giggle meter, it is no laughing matter,
    particularly not for the individuals who have been forced by
    politicians in Washington to use inferior products. Make no
    mistake, the American people are upset, and they are demanding
    that Congress do something about this egregious intrusion of
    the Federal Government into their daily lives. In fact, the
    situation has gotten so bad that many individuals are traveling
    out of the country just to pick up a toilet that works. As has
    been noted, this is a common occurrence at the Detroit-Canadian
    border.
        Clearly the time has come for Washington to get out of
    American people's bathrooms. It is time for us to correct this
    overzealous Federal regulation. It is time to get back to some
    common sense. It is time for this Congress to say to the
    American people, we understand the difference between
    appropriate regulation and just plain bad regulation. This is
    bad regulation and it needs to be repealed now.
        I want to thank the chairman and the members of this
    committee for your indulgence. I look forward to working with
    you to resolve this problem once and for all. Again, I would be
    happy to respond to any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Joe Knollenberg follows:]
        Prepared Statement of Hon. Joe Knollenberg, a Representative in
                      Congress from the State of Michigan
        Chairman Barton, members of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, I
    want to thank you for holding this important hearing on H.R. 623, the
    Plumbing Standards Improvement Act of 1999.
        Mr. Chairman, in 1992, the 102nd Congress and President Bush
    enacted the Energy and Policy Act. Tucked inside this large bill was a
    little noticed provision that vastly expanded the reach of the federal
    government by imposing new, overreaching mandates on plumbing products
    manufactured in the United States.
        Specifically, under this new law, the federal government now
    regulates the flow of water in American toilets and showerheads.
    Specifically, new toilets manufactured in the United States can only
    use 1.6 gallons of water per flush, and showerheads are permitted to
    use only 2.5 gallons of water per minute.
        Under the guise of improving the nation's energy policy and
    conserving water, these burdensome regulations have created a
    unnecessary headache for the American people who have been saddled with
    toilets and showers that in many cases do not work properly.
        In the view of millions of American consumers, the federal
    government has no business engaging in this type of unnecessary and
    counterproductive regulation. Therefore, in the 105th Congress, I first
    introduced legislation to repeal these ridiculous mandates. Since that
    time, my office has received thousands of phone calls, letters, and e-
    mails from disgruntled consumers who are angry that their new toilets
    repeatedly clog, require multiple flushing, and do not save water.
        Their message is clear and straightforward: Get the federal
    government out of my bathroom.
        At this time, I request the committee's permission to show a
    segment from the ABC News' program, 20-20. This footage clearly
    outlines the issues at hand and offers testimonials from several
    Americans who are unhappy with the quality of the 1.6 gallon toilets.
        Thank you Mr. Chairman for your indulgence.
        Ladies and gentlemen on the committee, this tape makes a compelling
    case that there is no legitimate reason for the federal government to
    be in the business of regulating the American people's toilets.
        There are many challenges that face our nation, i.e. securing the
    future of Social Security, cutting taxes for working Americans,
    improving the quality of our schools, etc.
        Clearly, the federal government has more important things to do
    than regulating the amount of water used to flush a toilet.
        This regulation offers a vivid example of why the American people
    believe their federal government is too large and too intrusive. H.R.
    623 responds to these concerns. This bill does not impose any new
    mandates on plumbing manufacturers. It simply provides them with the
    opportunity to make a product that the American people will want to
    buy.
        Strangely enough, the Plumbing Manufacturers Institute has led the
    opposition to this common-sense, pro-consumer legislation, and I am
    still perplexed by their opposition.
        In conversations with representatives from the industry, I have
    been told that the 1.6 gallon toilets work and that consumers are happy
    with them.
        This is contrary to the messages I have received from angry
    individuals from every region of the country, but for the sake of
    argument, let's concede their point.
        This raises an interesting question: Given the fact that my bill
    simply ends the federal government's regulation of toilets and does not
    require the plumbing manufacturers to meet any new federal
    requirements, why are they so worried?
        If the 1.6 gallon toilets work, consumers will buy them, and the
    plumbing manufacturers will continue to make money. And, if states and
    localities believe that regulation of this type is vital to their well-
    being, H.R. 623 does nothing to prevent them from adopting these kinds
    of standards at the state and local level.
        In reality, consumers are not happy with the performance of the 1.6
    gallon toilets, and the plumbing manufacturers know that if the federal
    standard is eliminated someone will enter the market and produce a
    product that consumers want to buy at a reasonable price.
        This is not something to for the narrow, special interests to be
    afraid of. It's capitalism, and it has served the American people well
    for over two hundred years.
        Mr. Chairman, while there is no question that this issue registers
    on the giggle meter, it's no laughing matter for the individuals who
    have been forced by politicians in Washington to use an inferior
    product.
        Make no mistake, the American people are upset, and they are
    demanding that Congress do something about this egregious intrusion of
    the federal government into their daily lives.
        In fact, the situation has gotten so bad that many individuals are
    traveling out of the country just to pick up a toilet that works. This
    is a common occurrence at the Detroit/Canadian border.
        Clearly, the time has come for Washington to get out of the
    American people's bathrooms. It's time for us to correct this
    overzealous federal regulation. It's time to get back to a little
    common sense.
        And it's time for this Congress to say to the American people, we
    understand the difference between appropriate regulation and just plain
    bad regulation. This is bad regulation, and it needs to be repealed
    now.
        I want to thank the members of the committee for your consideration
    of this issue, and I look forward to working with you to resolve this
    problem once and for all.

        Mr. Barton. Is that your opening statement?
        Mr. Knollenberg. That is. In fact, if I can submit for the
    record some additional materials, but that is the statement.
        Mr. Barton. The Chair is going to recognize himself for the
    first 5 minutes. If we have a speedy member, we will try to
    keep the hearing going if we can get somebody to go vote and
    come back. We will suspend briefly if we have to.
        My first question is the individuals that go to Canada or
    Mexico and bring a higher capacity device back into the
    country, they are not violating any law by doing that, are
    they?
        Mr. Knollenberg. They are not. The toilets are actually
    exported to Canada, and in effect they are imported by
    Americans going over the line and back into the U.S.
        Mr. Barton. So a U.S. manufacturer can manufacture the
    higher capacity equipment and export it legally and then
    American citizens can go to foreign countries, purchase it
    legally and bring it back into the country legally?
        Mr. Knollenberg. Individuals can do that on an individual
    basis.
        Mr. Barton. And the current Federal standards that are on
    the books today, are those for individual homes or do they also
    encompass hotels and apartments?
        Mr. Knollenberg. They apply to both individual residences
    and commercial. That law went into effect a little later, but
    it has come on line now so it does impact the commercial
    products as well.
        Mr. Barton. So if we pass your legislation, we are not
    repealing the State and community right in a community setting
    to impose a standard, if they so wish?
        Mr. Knollenberg. They can do whatever they are doing now.
    This bill does nothing to intervene or involve itself with
    current law or practice. And what we literally are doing is
    saying if you love the 1.6 gallon toilets, you can have them.
    And in those areas that choose to take that type of device,
    they are certainly able to do so. But we don't have any
    movement or any opposition to that.
        Mr. Barton. Has any consumer group, Consumer Reports
    Magazine, Good Housekeeping, has anybody done any studies to
    verify the anecdotal evidence that the lower capacity toilets
    don't work as well?
        Mr. Knollenberg. Others will comment on that, Mr. Chairman,
    but yes, there have been those kinds of reports. And I would
    simply say, why am I hearing from thousands and thousands of
    people if these products work so well? And I would just tell
    you that people are not happy with the performance. They are
    not happy with the quality of performance. And if they choose
    to buy one that does work, they may find that it is going to
    cost substantially more than the typical standard regular
    toilet they have been used to. It is only when you get into
    changing or remodeling your bathroom or new home that you have
    this problem. So we have touched a small percentage of
    American's households, and I think that is why this flame has
    gotten pretty high with respect to irritation.
        Mr. Barton. What is your answer to the concern raised by
    the supporters of the existing law, Mr. Bilirakis and others,
    who say that water consumption has actually declined because of
    this new equipment, and that is a noble goal and if we repeal
    it, water consumption usage would go back up?
        Mr. Knollenberg. I don't believe that they will go back up.
    But let me just say that the studies that have been done only
    have a small percentage of American households that have had to
    make that conversion from the old to the new. The data is
    pretty much limited. It is very small.
        And I would tell you that I personally would like to see
    water consumption reduced because I think we do have an
    obligation to consider that. If they can do it with 1.6 gallon
    toilets, great. If they can do it with 1 gallon, great. There
    is technology perhaps that is on the cusp of coming into being,
    but it is not here yet. What we have seen is they have slid a
    product into our face that is a one size fits all that may or
    may not work. Americans are not used to that. They are unhappy
    and frustrated about it. So in the end I think we are on the
    same side of the fence but all of those communities that want
    to continue the water conservation problems that they have,
    even if they want to double flush, can do so.
        Mr. Barton. Assuming that we find support to mark this up
    in subcommittee and pass it at full committee, and that is an
    assumption, what is your view of how many votes this
    legislation might get as a stand-alone bill out on the floor?
        Do you believe that you have got sufficient support to pass
    it on the House floor if we can get it through subcommittee and
    full committee?
        Mr. Knollenberg. I believe we can do that. Let me say also
    that the reason for this hearing is to bring this out in the
    open so we do have a chance to let the sun shine in and show
    members of the committee what is taking place here, that the
    mandate is not something that is going to hurt the existing law
    or the existing situation.
        So I believe we will have a better opportunity after this
    hearing is concluded, and thank you for bringing about a
    successful move in the direction of bringing it to closure.
        I would just tell you that any optimism is there, but I am
    only going to make a judgment on this after the hearing is
    over. I think that will help us a great deal.
        Mr. Barton. It just dawned on the chairman that the witness
    has to vote also. I can't continue the hearing because you
    would miss the vote. So we are going to recess but we are going
    to go vote and come back ASAP. I am not going to give a time.
    But as soon as the last vote is over, we will be reconvening
    within 10 minutes of the last vote on the House floor. So we
    are in recess very briefly.
        [Brief recess.]
        Mr. Barton. The committee will come back to order.
        The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, will be recognized
    for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am eager to unplug
    this process here.
        Mr. Barton. That is a mild way to put it.
        Mr. Rush. Mr. Knollenberg, there is a minimum standard
    right now of 1.6 gallons, I believe it is.
        Mr. Knollenberg. That's right.
        Mr. Rush. If you were going to raise the standard, what is
    your recommendation?
        Mr. Knollenberg. I have no recommendation. The bill speaks
    to no recommendation. It merely says let's get away from the
    1.6 gallon toilets. Now that might generate through technology
    a toilet that works and performs because we are really looking
    at performance. That is our goal. It could be that they could
    work on a gallon. I don't have any higher level in mind, and
    the bill does not speak to any.
        Mr. Rush. Your bill has been around for a couple of years.
    Are there different States, Governors, or legislative bodies
    that have endorsed your bill?
        Mr. Knollenberg. We have not gone after Governors or
    legislative bodies, but what we have done is within the
    membership of Congress we have concentrated on getting their
    endorsement and we have 85 Members of the House that have
    supported it openly.
        What we do get of course, as you will find from these other
    gentleman who will testify, is support from a variety of arenas
    that are from people all over the country. The folks we are
    hearing from are from California and Maine and Michigan, Texas,
    all of them. I can't tell you that it has been anything but a
    panorama of response.
        Mr. Rush. My final question, Mr. Chairman, I just
    recently--just this year, moved from the Cannon Building to the
    Rayburn Building and I have noticed a difference in the way the
    toilets flush in the Rayburn Building versus the Cannon
    Building. Is the Federal Government, has the Congress--are our
    toilets----
        Mr. Barton. It is hard to phrase it properly.
        Mr. Rush. It is. Are we at the same standard? Does this
    law--are we adhering to the law?
        Mr. Knollenberg. The law comes into focus whenever there is
    a remodeling process or if there is a new building and they
    need to change the old toilets. So I couldn't tell you if we
    are or not. Honestly, you would have to ask somebody frankly
    who--perhaps the Architect would know the specifics of that. I
    can't even tell you whether it is a 1 gallon urinal. I can tell
    you about the 1.6 gallon toilet, and I can tell by the way it
    works or doesn't work.
        Mr. Barton. We are not subject to the specific law because
    the building was constructed before 1992.
        Mr. Knollenberg. There is no mandate that says you have to
    change tomorrow. You can last for 50 years. If the thing works,
    you can keep it. I am just not aware of what that status is.
        Mr. Rush. I am sure that this law is not--that this
    standard is not operational for the Members of Congress because
    we don't hear the same outcries that we hear from consumers. So
    I am sure that it is not the same standard.
        I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Barton. I now recognize Congressman Bilirakis for 5
    minutes of questions only.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Joe, and I want to
    commend you and compliment you for your presentation.
        Mr. Knollenberg. Thank you.
        Mr. Bilirakis. I am not belittling this issue, but we have
    had some high powered health care hearings and things of that
    nature, and we never can get any media, and you somehow managed
    to get the media here today. Maybe I can learn from you in that
    regard.
        Mr. Barton. It is just his smiling face that they like to
    cover.
        Mr. Bilirakis. And my not smiling face, I guess.
        The gentleman from Illinois just said that he has not had
    an avalanche of indications here on this legislation. We have
    received 5 letters over 3 years since you first introduced your
    legislation in support of your legislation, and I am advised by
    my staff we have about a half foot high pieces of
    communication, principally I will admit from suppliers and
    plumbers and whatnot, who are very much against the
    legislation, Joe.
        Again, I want to repeat because the chairman and I spoke
    about this on the way back from the vote, the 328 to 79 vote
    that a couple of us have mentioned previously, that was not a
    vote on the omnibus piece of legislation, the water bill. That
    was a vote on adding this amendment, to the omnibus bill back
    in May 1992. So we had 328 members who at that time felt very
    strong about this issue. Obviously an awful lot of those 328
    felt, including myself, are very much for States rights and
    generally against more government regulations and things of
    that nature. Yet Congress felt awfully strongly back in those
    days that it was necessary to do something here. The State of
    Pennsylvania is going through drought problems, as are so many
    other parts of the country.
        I am also advised that Consumer Reports tells us that their
    post-installation studies promoting major toilet rebate and
    replacement program show a significant degree of satisfaction
    with the new fixtures.
        San Diego consumers who participated in a toilet rebate
    replacement program were satisfied with their new 1.6 gallon
    per flush toilets. In Austin 95 percent of users were
    satisfied; and Tampa, Florida, 91 percent were satisfied. And
    Joe, on the double flushing situation I am also told, and this
    will be testified to later on by our Tampa representative, in a
    soon to be released study, AWWA Research Foundation has found
    that even in instances of double flushing, the slightly higher
    flushes per day did not offset the volume of water used by the
    larger volume flush toilets. And further, the study stated that
    on average double flushing of low flush toilets does not appear
    to happen any more often than double flushing of nonlow-flush
    toilets.
        So we have talked about customer satisfaction and the
    double flushing. We have talked about the strong support for
    this legislation on this particular amendment, if you will,
    adding it to the overall bill. We have talked about the
    nonavalanche of letters that I have received. What I have
    received have been against your legislation. With all due
    respect, we had good reasons to do it back at that time. You
    have good reasons, I am sure, to come in with your piece of
    legislation. I can ask you maybe a question and that sort of
    thing, but I don't know that we really ought to be doing that.
        Mr. Knollenberg. Could I respond.
        Mr. Barton. I didn't hear a question.
        Mr. Knollenberg. I think you brought up a good point, if
    you would indulge. You are right about that vote, it was on the
    amendment.
        Mr. Barton. Let the record show that I voted against it,
    though.
        Mr. Knollenberg. I want to remind you the limited amount of
    debate was probably 10 to 15 minutes. You also remember this
    was an amendment to a much larger bill. And it was done in a
    very sped-up fashion. Some of the folks that voted for that
    particular amendment the last time are on my bill. So I think
    you have to also realize that it was probably done in----
        Mr. Bilirakis. They are going to have to answer to that.
        Mr. Knollenberg. I know about Consumers Reports and the
    studies which have been done. You can get them. But I can tell
    you if you only had five, I have tens of thousands. Well over
    10,000 responses, I can tell you for sure. We have those locked
    in a room. Perhaps you are on a closed circuit. We are not and
    we got tons of them.
        Mr. Barton. The Chair will stipulate that there are members
    that try to be on both sides of an issue. I know that is a
    revelation. I can see how people would vote for the amendment
    that Congressman Bilirakis supported and then be on your bill.
    It would not be the first time that a member has tried to
    placate both sides of an issue.
        The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Norwood, is recognized for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Norwood. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Knollenberg, as you know, the 103d Congress made a lot
    of votes. One of them was this amendment, and then the 104th
    Congress really changed a great deal. Are there any studies
    showing that great big change in Congress from the 103d to the
    104th might have been related to the 328 votes that voted for
    this Federal Government controlling our bathrooms.
        Mr. Barton. It was the 102d Congress. There was a change
    between the 102d and 104th.
        Mr. Knollenberg. We have not analyzed that.
        Mr. Norwood. I would if I were you.
        Mr. Knollenberg. That bill in its original form wasn't
    effective overnight. The trigger was forward on both
    residential and commercial. So if you are talking commercial,
    they were not affected until a couple of years later. So I
    think it had a future effective date. It didn't appear to be a
    problem of immediate concern, and it wasn't. It has only been
    when you remodel or only when you build a new house you have to
    deal with the problem.
        Mr. Norwood. Are you familiar, Mr. Knollenberg, with the
    studies I keep hearing thrown out saying since we have gone to
    the 1.6 gallon per flush toilet, such and such community saved
    X amount of water? Do you know how they determine that?
        Mr. Knollenberg. I am familiar with several of those
    studies. In fact, I think they are all flawed. Keep in mind
    that everybody in a given community has not made the
    conversion. In fact, in some communities very few have made the
    conversion from the old to the 1.6. I think you can infer a lot
    of things from an investigation or survey, but quite honestly,
    I think they are all flawed. I would even tell you that
    Consumers Report, if you read that one, cover to cover, I would
    challenge some of the comments made by recommendations that are
    made by Consumers Report. Incidentally, in the end they did not
    exactly really come down totally in favor of the idea, it was
    sort of the lukewarm endorsements.
        Mr. Norwood. How do they measure the amount of water saved
    at the wastewater treatment plant unless you can isolate the
    amount of water coming from the toilet to the wastewater
    treatment plant? How do you do this?
        Mr. Knollenberg. I think that is a good question. Frankly,
    I don't know how to do that. I recognize that is a problem
    though. I think some of the people that are going to appear on
    the next panel will be in a position to give you some insight
    there. In certain localities where they have not mandated,
    actually converted everything to the 1.6, they probably can
    draw from that conclusion that there is--that would be
    something I think that might be readable as maybe more factual.
        On the other hand, what was there before? Who knows? Was it
    a building that, frankly, had some ill working plumbing to
    begin with? Did they convert from that to the 1.6? The consumer
    will not know any difference.
        Mr. Barton. If the gentleman would yield quickly, what was
    the traditional standard toilet size before we went to 1.6?
        Mr. Knollenberg. It is interesting, I heard a comment here,
    I don't know who made it, that in 1970, some study, you could
    have had a 5 gallon, one bigger than that. I can't tell you
    exactly the date, perhaps others can, when they went to a 3.5,
    but you have--remember the older closets up on top? Those held
    some pretty substantial volumes of water.
        Mr. Barton. Is it fair to say that we cut it in half at a
    minimum?
        Mr. Knollenberg. I think you can say that, yes. The 1.6's
    did not just come out in 1992. They have been around for some
    time. Of course, the magic of 1.6 is that it is 6 liters. Where
    does that come from? We are not on the metric standard.
        Mr. Bilbray. Will the gentleman yield further? Isn't it
    true that prior to 1992, there are a number of States that
    already established 1.6 standards?
        Mr. Knollenberg. That is right. And, you know, Mr.
    Bilirakis, they can still do that. If they wanted that kind of
    system, they can still have it. My bill does not prevent that.
        Mr. Bilbray. I guess the point is there must have been some
    magic to the 1.6 for them to do it, 17 to do it, either prior
    or even having thought of it.
        Mr. Knollenberg. Certain communities across the country,
    and you know where they are, obviously, did go to a water
    conservation method that included the 1.6's. I don't know if
    that was a central mandate within that particular governmental
    entity, but I do know that they have done that.
        How, all I can say is they choose to do that. If their
    happiness in performance is satisfactory, if their performance
    is satisfactory, and they are happy about it, then I would say
    that they have nothing to worry about. We are not going to
    touch that. This bill does not get into that. We just do not
    think that a one size fits all is good for the entire country.
        Mr. Bilbray. Thank you. I apologize.
        Mr. Norwood. No problem. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        In conclusion, and perhaps this question is directed to
    counsel or you, but I understood you to say that the reason we
    really don't have any trouble with any of this in Washington,
    or at least in the Federal buildings, is that none of this
    applies to any of the Federal buildings built prior to 1992.
        Mr. Barton. That is correct, unless we were to do a massive
    remodeling program. Then I think it would apply. I am not even
    sure it would apply in that case. It would be interesting. It
    could be argued it would apply.
        Mr. Norwood. Would it apply if you simply wanted to repaint
    the inside of Rayburn? Does that mean you would also have to
    change the toilets?
        Mr. Barton. No.
        Mr. Norwood. Is that true in the private sector?
        Mr. Barton. I think you can repaint without having to redo
    toilets in the private sector. I am speaking like I really know
    what I am saying here. So far the experts are nodding their
    heads.
        Mr. Norwood. Well, part of what you said was it really
    costs a lot of money if we had to do it at this level up here.
    It would be very----
        Mr. Barton. Actually Mr. Rush said that.
        Mr. Norwood. Well, I presume it would take a lot of money
    to redo all of these buildings. But, you know, it takes a lot
    of money for a little individual to have to redo their building
    too, to replace perfectly good toilets, to put in new toilets
    because 328 people up here debated 10 minutes they ought to
    have to do it. So I encourage you, Mr. Knollenberg, we will get
    there.
        Mr. Barton. I believe the next gentleman who was here at
    the time would be the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Bryant, for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would still have an
    interest in hearing from other panel members, and I appreciate
    very much Mr. Knollenberg's very fine presentation. In light of
    our time constraints, I would like to go ahead and move forward
    and yield back my time.
        Mr. Barton. The gentleman from Illinois, I would encourage
    you to follow the standard just set by the gentleman from
    Tennessee.
        Mr. Shimkus. I have great respect for my friend and
    colleague from Tennessee and I follow the same standard.
        Mr. Barton. Thank you. I see no other member present who
    has not had an opportunity. We will hold the record open for
    any questions members wish to forward to you. We thank you for
    your persistence in this, Congressman. I think based on the
    next two panels, we will see if there is a consensus on whether
    to move forward or not. We appreciate your testimony, but you
    are excused at this point in time.
        Mr. Knollenberg. Mr. Chairman, members, thank you. I
    greatly appreciate you being willing to listen to all this.
        Mr. Barton. We would now like the second panel to come
    forward. We have Mr. Ben Lieberman, who is representing the
    National Consumer Coalition. We have Mr. Glenn Haege, who is a
    talk show host in Michigan. We have Mr. Gerald Kosmensky, who
    is the President of Gerald building company, a construction
    company, and Mr. Jerome Taylor, who is the Director of Natural
    Resource Studies for the Cato Institute.
        Gentleman, welcome to the committee. Your statements are in
    the record in their entirety. We are going to start with Mr.
    Lieberman and go right down the line and give you each 5
    minutes to summarize. Then we will have questions.

       STATEMENTS OF BEN LIEBERMAN, POLICY ANALYST, COMPETITIVE
       ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL CONSUMER
    COALITION; GLENN HAEGE, TALK SHOW HOST, WXYT; GERALD KOSMENSKY,
    PRESIDENT, GERALD BUILDING COMPANY; AND JEROME TAYLOR, DIRECTOR
              OF NATURAL RESOURCE STUDIES, CATO INSTITUTE

        Mr. Lieberman. Good afternoon. My name is Ben Lieberman and
    I am a policy analyst with the Competitive Enterprise
    Institute.
        Mr. Barton. You need to put the microphone close to you,
    Mr. Lieberman.
        Mr. Lieberman. The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a
    public policy organization committed to advancing the
    principles of free enterprise and limited government. Today I
    represent 9 member organizations of the National Consumer
    Coalition, with a total of more than 3 million members. None of
    the groups I am representing today receive Federal funding
    relevant to the subject of these hearings, and none have a
    financial stake in this matter. My remarks will focus on the
    consumer perspective on the Federal law mandating low flush
    toilets. I believe that consumers have been harmed by this law
    and that passage of H.R. 623, which would repeal it, is in the
    best interests of the American people.
        In 1992, several conservation and environmental lobbyists
    were successful in adding language to the Energy Policy Act
    requiring that toilets use no more than 1.6 gallons per flush,
    less than half the water of most existing models. At the time,
    the general public had virtually no idea what was being done to
    them. However, since the mandate took effect in 1994, millions
    of Americans, whether buying a new house or just replacing an
    old toilet, have had bad experiences with these water stingy
    models.
        Simply put, these new toilets do not perform as well as
    their higher flush predecessors, yet cost considerably more.
    Many complain that the new toilets require increased cleaning
    and clog up more frequently. Others complain of the need to
    flush more than once, which in addition to being annoying and
    unpleasant, cuts into the amount of water that is actually
    conserved.
        Some insist that these problems are few and far between, or
    only apply to the earliest of the low flush models, but such is
    not the case. Quite the contrary, I have never seen a stronger
    grassroots backlash against a product than the one against low
    flush toilets. And although some of the newest 1.6 gallons per
    flush models are improvements over previous low flush versions,
    they are still not as good as the higher flush models, and the
    best of them cost considerably more. Indeed, a 1998 National
    Association of Home Builders survey found that 72 percent of
    homebuilders consider the 1.6 gallon toilets to be a problem.
        I think it is clear that there is widespread consumer
    dissatisfaction with these toilets. Nonetheless, I am sure we
    will hear arguments to the contrary from plumbing fixture
    manufacturers who currently enjoy a guaranteed market for these
    expensive low flush toilets that would never be able to compete
    in the absence of a mandate. We will probably hear similar
    arguments from various bureaucrats and activists who have been
    involved in this issue over the years. But before we get bogged
    down in the debate over which kind of toilet is best, let's not
    forget what the real controversy is: The issue is not whether
    low flush toilets are better or worse than high flush toilets;
    the real issue is who should get to decide such things,
    individual consumers, or special interests. Clearly, this is a
    choice best left to the consumer, and that is what H.R. 623
    would do.
        Proponents of low flush toilets have implied that H.R. 623
    would somehow restrict the availability of low flush toilets,
    but nothing could be further from the truth. This bill in no
    way stops anyone who wishes to continue selling 1.6 gallon per
    flush toilets from doing so. It also in no way restricts
    consumers from buying low flush toilets, if that is what they
    really want. H.R. 623 would only serve to expand consumer
    choice by making the sale of higher flush toilets legal once
    again.
        By the way, this is why I find it so hard to believe the
    critics of H.R. 623, who insist that the new low flush toilets
    are as good or even better than the old style toilets. Assuming
    the 1.6 gallons per flush toilets are as good as their
    proponents say, then why are they so afraid of a little
    competition from the higher flush models?
        Looking into the future, if the low flush mandate is not
    repealed, the situation will likely get worse, not better, in
    the years ahead. Keep in mind that the 1.6 gallons per flush
    figure is just the starting point. The language in the statute
    delegates to the Department of Energy the authority to set even
    tighter standards in the future. And, as anyone familiar with
    Federal agencies knows, bureaucrats rarely pass up such
    opportunities, especially when pressured by special interests,
    some of whom are already hinting that more needs to be done.
        If H.R. 623 does not pass and the current law remains in
    place, expect a future push for 1.4 or 1.2, or maybe even 1.0
    gallons per flush toilets standards, the result of which could
    be even bigger problems for consumers.
        Although my remarks today focus on the consumer impact of
    the low flow toilet mandate, I would like to briefly address
    the conservation arguments put forward to justify this costly
    and intrusive measure.
        The claim made by the supporters of low flush toilets is
    that we need nationwide conservation measures to avert the
    coming national water crisis.
        Mr. Barton. You can at least finish your sentence.
        Mr. Lieberman. Let me go right to the end.
        Mr. Barton. Get to the bottom line here.
        Mr. Lieberman. The bottom line. In conclusion, I would like
    to try to put this issue in a broader context, especially since
    some in Congress may not see this as terribly important.
        Underperforming toilets, after all, are not as serious as
    most issues you deal with. But in a larger sense, the low flush
    toilet controversy and its resolution could be a signal for
    Washington's future direction.
        A Federal Government that believes it has the right, the
    need, and, quite frankly, the competence to set design
    standards for toilets is a government losing sight of its
    limits and its limitations. And if our government is so
    beholden to special interests that it will continue to foist a
    clearly unwanted choice on the American people, then there are
    few constraints on the damage it can inflict.
        On the other hand, a Congress that truly listens to the
    people, admits its mistake, and gets itself out of the plumbing
    business by passing H.R. 623 would be taking a very important
    step toward sensibility.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ben Lieberman follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Ben Lieberman, Policy Analyst, The Competitive
    Enterprise Institute Representing Nine Members of the National Consumer
                                   Coalition
        Good afternoon. My name is Ben Lieberman and I am a policy analyst
    with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a public policy organization
    committed to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited
    government. Today, I represent 9 member organizations of the National
    Consumer Coalition, with a total of more than 3 million
    members.1 None of the groups I am representing today receive
    federal funding relevant to the subject of these hearings, and none
    have a financial stake in this matter. My remarks will focus on the
    consumer perspective on the federal law mandating low flush toilets. I
    believe that consumers have been harmed by this law, and that passage
    of HR 623, which would repeal it, is in the best interests of the
    American people.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ 60 Plus Association, Americans for Tax Reform, Association of
    Concerned Taxpayers, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Competitive
    Enterprise Institute, Consumer Alert, Frontiers of Freedom, Heartland
    Institute, Seniors Coalition.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       a bad idea with no public support
        In 1992, several conservation and environmental lobbyists were
    successful in adding language to the Energy Policy Act requiring that
    toilets use no more than 1.6 gallons per flush, less that half the
    water of most existing models. At the time, the general public had
    virtually no idea what was being done to them. However, since the
    mandate took effect in 1994, millions of Americans, whether buying a
    new house or just replacing an old toilet, have had bad experiences
    with these water stingy models.
        Simply put, these new toilets do not perform as well as their
    higher flush predecessors, yet cost considerably more. Many complain
    that the new toilets require increased cleaning, and clog up more
    frequently. Others complain of the need to flush more than once, which
    in addition to being annoying and unpleasant, cuts into the amount of
    water that is actually conserved.
         a widespread consumer backlash against an unwanted and poorly
                               performing product
        Some insist that these problems are few and far between, or only
    apply to the earliest of the low flush models, but such is not the
    case. Quite the contrary, I have never seen a stronger grassroots
    backlash against a product than the one against low flush toilets. And,
    although some of the newest 1.6 gallons per flush models are
    improvements over previous low flush versions, they are still not
    nearly as good as the higher flush models, and the best of them cost
    considerably more. Indeed, a 1998 National Association of Homebuilders
    survey found that 72 percent of homebuilders consider the 1.6 gallon
    toilets to be a problem.
                consumers have a right to choose for themselves
        I think its clear that there is widespread consumer dissatisfaction
    with these toilets. Nonetheless, I am sure we will hear arguments to
    the contrary from plumbing fixture manufacturers, who currently enjoy a
    guaranteed market for these expensive low flush toilets that would
    never be able to compete in the absence of a mandate. We will probably
    also hear similar arguments from various bureaucrats and activists who
    have been involved in this issue over the years. But before we get
    bogged down in the debate over which kind of toilet is best, lets not
    forget what the real controversy is. The issue is not whether low flush
    toilets are better or worse than high flush toilets; the real issue is
    who should get to decide such things, individual consumers, or special
    interests. Clearly, this is a choice best left to the consumer, and
    that is what HR 623 would do.
                  hr 623 would serve to expand consumer choice
        Proponents of low flush toilets have implied that HR 623 would
    somehow restrict the availability of low flush toilets, but nothing
    could be further from the truth. This bill in no way stops anyone who
    wishes to continue selling 1.6 gallons per flush toilets from doing so.
    It also in no way restricts consumers from buying low flush toilets, if
    that's what they really want. HR 623 would only serve to expand
    consumer choice by making the sale of higher flush toilets legal once
    again. By the way, this is why I find it so hard to believe the critics
    of HR 623 who insist that the new low flush toilets are as good or even
    better than the old style toilets. Assuming the 1.6 gallons per flush
    toilets are as good as their proponents say, then why are they so
    afraid of a little competition from the higher flush models?
             as bad as things are, regulators could make them worse
        Looking into the future, if the low flush mandate is not repealed,
    the situation will likely get worse, not better, in the years ahead.
    Keep in mind that the 1.6 gallons per flush figure is just the starting
    point. The language in the statute delegates to the Department of
    Energy the authority to set even tighter standards in the future. And,
    as anyone familiar with federal agencies knows, bureaucrats rarely pass
    up such opportunities, especially when pressured by special interests,
    some of whom are already hinting that more needs to be done. If HR 623
    does not pass and the current law remains in place, expect a future
    push for 1.4, or 1.2, or maybe even 1.0 gallons per flush toilets
    standards, the result of which would be even bigger problems for
    consumers.
       the conservation rationale behind this measure does not make sense
        Although my remarks focus on the consumer impact of the low flow
    toilet mandate, I would briefly like to address the conservation
    arguments put forward to justify this costly and intrusive measure. The
    claim made by the supporters of the low flush toilet mandate is that we
    need nationwide water conservation measures to avert the coming
    national water crisis. This argument greatly exaggerates the problem,
    and is but the latest in a long line of resource depletion doomsday
    scenarios, virtually none of which has ever come true. In fact, take
    out the word water, put in the word energy, and we've been through all
    this before with the energy crisis of the 1970s. If you remember back
    then, the self-proclaimed experts insisted that the world was going to
    run out of oil, by some estimates as soon as the 1980s or 1990s. They
    argued that federal conservation measures were the only way to prevent
    a very bleak future. Unfortunately, Congress believed them and enacted
    laws that burdened consumers with gas rationing and wasted billions of
    tax dollars on synthetic fuels research and other boondoggles. And of
    course, the energy crisis turned out to be a complete dud. Today, we're
    hearing the very same arguments (and in a few cases, the very same
    people making those arguments) in regards to the supposed water crisis.
    But the doomsayers track record indicates that we should be skeptical.
        The reality is that water is cheap and plentiful for the majority
    of Americans. Personally, I live in the Washington, DC metro area and
    pay about $4 and change for every thousand gallons, and that's water
    and sewer combined. Now I'm not a water policy expert, but $4 for a
    thousand gallons doesn't sound like a crisis to me. And what is true
    for this area is true for most of the nation. Now granted, there are
    parts of the country where water is more scarce or where sewage
    treatment facilities are bumping up against capacity, and we will hear
    from water officials representing those areas. However, these are local
    problems that can best be dealt with at the state or local level, and
    most likely in smarter ways than low flush toilet mandates. The current
    law simply forces a costly and intrusive solution on all Americans for
    something that simply is not a problem for most of them.
        there is no need for a federal one-size-fits-all toilet standard
        Defenders of the status quo have also made the argument that if the
    federal low flush law is repealed, it will just be replaced by a
    patchwork of conflicting state standards. Thus they argue, we are
    better off with a uniform federal low flush statute. This argument
    fails for several reasons.
        First of all, low flush toilet mandates are a very unpopular idea,
    and that is just as true at the state level as it is at the federal
    level. If the 1.6 mandate is killed by Congress, it probably will die
    out at the state level as well. Granted, there were some states that
    enacted low flush standards just prior to the Energy Policy Act, but
    these laws were passed in much the same way as the federal law--by
    special interests, working behind the scenes, with little if any public
    awareness, let alone public support. But today, the cat is out of the
    bag, the public has had to deal with the new toilets for several years,
    and they clearly don't like this mandate, no matter what level of
    government is trying to impose it. At this point, I find it hard to
    believe that the citizens of any state would put up with a low flush
    toilet standard that uniquely burdens them. But even if I am wrong and
    a few state governments try to retain the 1.6 gallons per flush
    standard, so be it. That is hardly an excuse to burden the citizens of
    all the other states as well. Again, the argument that we need a heavy
    handed, one-size-fits-all federal standard in order to usurp the states
    simply does not make sense.
                                   conclusion
        In conclusion, I would like to try to put this issue in a broader
    context, especially since some in Congress may not see this issue as
    terribly important. Underperforming toilets, after all, are not as
    serious as most issues you deal with. But in a larger sense, the low
    flush toilet controversy and its resolution could be signal for
    Washington's future direction. A federal government that believes it
    has the right, the need, and quite frankly the competence to set design
    standards for toilets, is a government losing sight of its limits, and
    its limitations. And if our government is so beholden to special
    interests that it will continue to foist a clearly unwanted choice on
    the American people, then there are few constraints on the damage it
    can inflict.
        On the other hand, a Congress that truly listens to the people,
    admits its mistake, and gets itself out of the plumbing business by
    passing HR 623 would be taking a very important step towards
    sensibility. Thank you.

        Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Lieberman.
        Mr. Haege, your statement is in the record. We would ask
    you to try to summarize in 5 minutes.

                        STATEMENT OF GLENN HAEGE

        Mr. Haege. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
    opportunity to speak with you and the committee today regarding
    this important bill under consideration, namely, the Plumbing
    Standards Improvement Act of 1999.
        This is a very important issue that affects every American
    in a very personal way. I would also like to thank Congressman
    Joe Knollenberg for introducing this bill.
        Mr. Chairman, first I feel that it is important to
    establish my background for you and the other members and why I
    feel very qualified to speak as an expert on home improvement
    and on the behalf of a great number of American homeowners
    across this country.
        My name is Glen Haege. I am known professionally as
    America's Master Handyman. Over 30 years ago I began my
    professional career working as a retail store manager and
    trainer for one of the country's leading paint manufacturers;
    namely, the Sherwin Williams Paint Company.
        After 8 years, I then began working in the retail hardware
    industry as the general merchandise manager for ACO Hardware,
    the largest independent hardware store chain in the country,
    and served as one of their directors.
        Eighteen years ago I began making appearances on various
    radio and television programs on behalf of the hardware store
    chain to present advice and answer home improvement questions
    from listeners. In 1983, I began hosting my own radio call-in
    program called the ``Ask the Handy Man'' with Glen Haege show,
    on weekends on CBS owned WXYT radio in Detroit. The program was
    expanded over the years and now airs for 8 hours every weekend.
        Starting in October 1996, a 2-hour portion of my program
    has been nationally syndicated across the entire country. My
    show airs on stations in 48 States and on close to 200 radio
    stations. It is the most popular home improvement radio show in
    the Nation. It is estimated that over the years I have answered
    over 50,000 home improvement questions from listeners and at
    personal appearances.
        Fellow broadcast industry executives have also recognized
    my talents and I have recently been named as one of the 100
    most important radio talk show hosts in America. In addition, I
    write a weekly newspaper article for the Detroit News, which is
    syndicated around the country by Gannett Newspapers. I am also
    the author of 8 books on the subject of home improvement.
        Mr. Barton. We will stipulate you are an expert.
        Mr. Haege. Thank you. From these conversations, I can tell
    you without a doubt that there is a major problem in the
    bathrooms across America. It is just beginning to become
    apparent to most people. Basically, people everywhere complain
    their newer, low flush toilets just don't work.
        They don't know what is causing the problem, but they
    constantly complain about the toilets do not function properly
    to remove waste from the bowl and they have to flush repeatedly
    to get the job done.
        I have attended numerous trade industry shows and have
    discovered an interesting fact. Many plumbing manufacturers
    have boasted proudly that they are on their fourth or fifth
    generation design for their toilet bowls in a period of only 3
    years. Why are they having to keep spending their research and
    development dollars to keep redesigning 1.6 gallon flush
    toilets so often in such a short period of time?
        The passing of the amendments to the Energy Policy Act in
    1992 that mandated these new low flush toilets have spawned the
    growth of a new industry product called vacuum assisted flush
    systems. These are what you gentleman use in the building that
    you are talking about. They have added an average of $200 to
    the cost of a toilet. You may not know, but these vacuum flush
    systems have been installed in most new commercial buildings,
    such as the one in the Capitol. I know that many Members of
    Congress have received calls and letters from their
    constituents written on toilet paper. I started that in March
    1997.
        I have also been the recipient of thousands of notes and
    letters complaining. Many of them paid for plumbing
    professionals to come to their home and fix their toilet, only
    to be told that you should keep a yardstick next to their
    toilet to break up the waste so it would go down.
        It has gotten to the point that many Americans are crossing
    the border to Canada and Mexico to purchase these now illegal
    toilets, bringing them back over the border. This is not the
    way to handle this situation.
        Who is complaining about the 3.5 gallon toilets? Not the
    homeowners, gentleman. They were very satisfied with a system
    that has worked well for years. What measures of conservation
    are served when the homeowners have to flush several times?
    Nothing is saved. More resources are wasted.
        It is not a safety issue, it is not a cosmetic issue, it is
    a real pain in the bathroom that needs a second look. All we
    are saying is give people a choice. I know that you all know
    the old adage of if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Well, in my
    opinion and the opinion of thousands of people across America
    that call in to my radio program, the old 3.5 gallon flush
    toilets were not broken and the fix that was passed in 1992 by
    the U.S. Congress that mandates 1.6 gallon flush toilets is
    just not working, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Glenn Haege follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Glenn Haege, Talk Show Host, WXYT
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak with
    you, and the Committee, today regarding this important bill under
    consideration, namely, the Plumbing Standards Improvement Act of 1999.
        This is a very important issue that affects every American in a
    very personal way.
        I would also like to thank Congressman Joe Knollenberg for
    introducing this Bill.
        Mr. Chairman, first I feel that it is important to establish my
    background for you and the other members of the committee and why I
    feel very qualified to speak as an expert on home improvement and on
    the behalf of a great number of American homeowners across the country.
        My name is Glenn Haege. I am known professionally as America's
    Master Handyman.
        Over 30 years ago, I began my professional career working as a
    retail store manager and trainer for one of the country's leading paint
    manufacturers, namely, the Sherwin Williams Paint Company.
        After 8 years, I then began working in the retail hardware industry
    as the General Merchandise Manager for ACO Hardware, the largest
    independent hardware store chain in the country, and served as one of
    their Directors.
        18 years ago I began making appearances on various radio and
    television programs, on behalf of the hardware store chain, to present
    advice and answer home improvement questions from listeners. In 1983, I
    began hosting my own radio call-in program, called the ``Ask the
    Handyman'' with Glenn Haege show, on weekends, on CBS-owned, WXYT-AM
    radio in Detroit.
        This program was expanded over the years and now airs for eight
    hours, live, every weekend.
        Starting in October 1996, a two-hour portion of my program has been
    nationally syndicated across the entire country. My show airs on
    stations in 48 states and on close to 200 radio stations. It is the
    most popular home improvement radio show in the nation.
        It is estimated, that over the years, I have answered over 50,000
    home improvement questions from listeners and at personal appearances.
        Fellow broadcast industry executives have also recognized my
    talents and I have recently been named as ``One of the 100 Most
    Important Radio Talk Show Hosts in America'' for the second year in a
    row by Talkers Magazine, a leading trade publication.
        In addition, I write a weekly newspaper article for The Detroit
    News, which is syndicated around the country by Gannett Newspapers. I
    also am the author of 8 books on the subject of home improvement. I
    have been quoted in major newspapers, such as The New York Times, The
    Washington Post, and The Boston Globe, regarding home improvement and
    this important issue.
        Based on length of my program, the number of stations that carry my
    show, audience ratings, newspaper articles and books, I can tell you,
    without doubt, that I speak to more people about home improvement,
    every weekend, than anyone else in America.
        This large audience reach gives me access to a great number of
    people who call in to discuss their home improvement problems.
        From these conversations, I can tell you without a doubt that there
    is a major problem in bathrooms all across America. It is just
    beginning to become apparent to most people. Basically, people
    everywhere complain that their newer, low-flush, toilets just don't
    work.
        They don't know what is causing the problem, but they constantly
    complain about the toilets do not function properly to remove waste
    from the bowl and that they have to flush repeatedly to get the job
    done.
        I have attended numerous industry trade shows and have discovered
    an interesting fact. Many plumbing manufacturers have boasted proudly
    that they are on their fourth or fifth generation design for their
    toilet bowls in a period of only 3 years. Why are they having to keep
    spending their research and development dollars to keep redesigning 1.6
    gallon flush toilets so often in such a short period of time? The
    answer must be because they, too, realize that their previous designed
    products just don't work.
        The passing of the amendments to the Energy Policy Act in 1992 that
    mandated these new low-flush toilets have spawned the growth of a new
    industry product, namely, the vacuum-assisted flush systems. These are
    add-on products that go inside the toilet water tank and use water
    pressure to push the waste through the toilet. They have added an
    average of $200 to the cost of a toilet. You may not know this, but
    these vacuum flush systems have been installed in most new commercial
    buildings, such as hotels, and maybe even right here in the U.S.
    Capitol. Since you don't have to deal with this problem where you work,
    you may not understand the gravity of this situation throughout
    America.
        I know that many members of Congress have received calls and
    letters from their constituents regarding this problem. I, also, have
    been the recipient of thousands of notes, many of them written on
    toilet paper, which ask the `Government to get out of my toilet.'
        I also got to read some of the horrible tales of woe from real
    Americans. Many of them paid for plumbing professionals to come to
    their home and fix their toilet problem only to be told that they
    should keep a yardstick next to the toilet to break up the waste so
    that it would go down easier.
        It has gotten to the point that many Americans are crossing the
    border to Canada and Mexico to purchase these now illegal toilets and
    bringing them back over the border for installation in their homes.
    Believe it or not, but the current law has created a Black Market in
    toilet smuggling.
        This is not the way to handle this situation. Who was complaining
    about the 3.5 toilets? Not the homeowners. They were very satisfied
    with a system that has worked well for years. What measures of
    conservation are served when the homeowners have to flush several
    times? Nothing is saved. More resources are wasted.
        I am here today to ask that the American homeowners be given a
    choice. Let the consumer decide on what size toilet that they would
    like to have in their own home. Let the consumers decide what they want
    and the free market will deliver the products that are preferred. If
    consumers that want the 1.6-gallon toilets for their own home, let them
    have them, but please don't force these toilets in everyone's bathroom.
        It is not a safety issue. It is not a cosmetic issue. It is a real
    pain in the bathroom that needs a second look. All we are saying is
    give people a choice.
        I know that you all know the old adage `if it ain't broke . . .
    don't fix it.' Well, in my opinion, and the opinion of thousands of
    people across America that call in to my radio program, the old 3.5
    gallon flush toilets were not broken and the fix, that was passed in
    1992 by the U.S. Congress that mandates 1.6 gallon flush toilets, is
    just not working.
        Thank you.

        Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Haege. We are very impressed
    with your background, by the way.
        Mr. Haege. Thank you.
        Mr. Barton. That was impressive. I was not trying to
    belittle that. You obviously are an expert in that.
        I would now like to hear from Mr. Kosmensky. Again, your
    statement is in the record and we recognize you to summarize it
    in 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF GERALD KOSMENSKY

        Mr. Kosmensky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify before you today.
    My name is Gerald Kosmensky. I am a home builder from
    Southgate, Michigan, and I have been building houses for 40
    years. I am the past President of the Building Industry
    Association of Southeastern Michigan and past President of the
    Michigan Home Builders Association. I am the Mayor of the city
    of Orchard Lake, Michigan, and a constituent of Representative
    Joe Knollenberg. I am pleased to be here to testify in support
    of H.R. 623, legislation repealing federally mandated 1.6
    gallon flush toilets. I applaud Representative Knollenberg for
    introducing this important legislation.
        I am also a Senior Life Director of the National
    Association of Home Builders and a member of the NAHB's
    Executive Committee. However, I am not here today testifying on
    behalf of NAHB. NAHB has recently taken a neutral stance on
    this legislation in the hope that the significant problems with
    the manufacturing of 1.6 gallon toilets can be worked out with
    the manufacturing community without further Federal Government
    intervention.
        Fortunately, introduction of this bill has spurred
    productive discussions between the building industry and
    plumbing fixture manufacturers as to what must be done
    mechanically to low flow toilets so that they function
    properly.
        The core problem addressed by H.R. 623 is that many low
    flow, 1.6 gallon toilets, just do not work. That means I have
    to place a product in a new home that is not going to function
    properly. This is very disturbing to a small businessman who
    has to rely on good referrals in order to drum up continued
    business. The bottom line is that my reputation as a builder is
    negatively affected when I am installing plumbing fixtures that
    do not work properly.
        I hear time and time again from my colleagues all over the
    country that new home buyers are dissatisfied with their
    toilets. In some cases, builder friends of mine have indicated
    that at least half of their call backs are due to toilets not
    working properly. Every time a builder has to make this kind of
    call back, it takes time away from other projects.
        Oftentimes when I tell a new homeowner that the reason
    their toilet doesn't work has nothing to do with the plumbing
    installment, but because of a Federal mandate on low flow
    toilets, they think I am joking, that I am making an excuse for
    the bad plumbing in a new home. I have made it a policy to tell
    my customers up front about the low flow law.
        Coming from a State that borders Canada, where there is no
    1.6 gallon requirement and 3.5 gallon toilets are the norm,
    many customers opt to buy their toilets on the black market.
    They can buy all the 3.5 gallon toilets they want with a short
    trip to Windsor, Ontario. This may sound ridiculous, but it is
    a fact and an issue which we address every time we build a new
    home.
        There are many horror stories that I could share with you.
    I have heard of homeowners putting instructions on their
    bathroom doors for guests instructing them how to help make the
    toilet flush with plungers and extra cups of water. I submit to
    you this is absurd.
        NAHB's research center in Maryland recently put a survey on
    their Internet site for consumers and homebuilders to comment
    on the performance of low flow toilets. The responses have been
    overwhelmingly negative with both consumers and builders citing
    dissatisfaction with 1.6 gallon toilets.
        This is a common sense issue. If your toilets are not doing
    the job and homeowners are flushing twice or three times or
    pouring extra water in the bowl, we are not saving water or
    energy. If you stay in the shower for 5 or 10 minutes longer
    than you normally do because the water pressure is not getting
    the soap out of your hair, we are not saving water.
        It is disturbing to me as a citizen of the United States
    that the Federal Government is regulating the water used in my
    toilet. I ask myself, what is next? I hear that there is a
    movement to require all washing machines to be front loaded,
    which uses less water and energy, that is true, but a front
    load machine also holds a smaller load, so that means you will
    have to do 4 loads instead of 2. I ask again, how are we saving
    water and energy in these instances?
        I like to tell my customers that this mandate is
    government's version of planned obsolescence.
        Once again, as a builder from Michigan who has to live with
    the fact that these fixtures do not work every day, I want to
    give my wholeheartedly support to H.R. 623 and Representative
    Knollenberg's efforts in this regard.
        I want to thank the committee for allowing me to be here
    today.
        [The prepared statement of Gerald Kosmensky follows:]
      Prepared Statement of Gerald ``Jerry'' Kosmensky, President, Gerald
                                Building Company
        Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee for the
    opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Jerry Kosmensky, I
    am a home builder from Southgate, Michigan and I have been building
    homes for 40 years. I am Past-President of the Building Industry
    Association of Southeastern Michigan and Past-President of the Michigan
    Home Builders Association. I am Mayor of the City of Orchard Lake,
    Michigan and a constituent of Representative Joe Knollenberg. I am
    pleased to be here to testify in support of H.R. 623; legislation
    repealing federally mandated 1.6-gallon flush toilets. I applaud
    Representative Knollenberg for introducing this important legislation.
        I am also a Senior Life Director of the National Association of
    Home Builders (NAHB) and a member of NAHB's Executive Committee.
    However, I am not here today testifying on behalf of NAHB. NAHB has
    recently taken a neutral stance on this legislation in the hope that
    the significant problems with the manufacturing of 1.6-gallon toilets
    can be worked out with the manufacturing community without further
    federal government intervention. Fortunately, introduction of this bill
    has spurred productive discussions between the building industry and
    plumbing fixture manufacturers as to what must be done mechanically to
    low flow toilets so that they function properly.
        The core problem addressed by H.R. 623 is that many low flow, 1.6-
    gallon toilets do not work. That means I have to place a product in a
    new home that is not going to function properly. This is very
    disturbing to a small businessman who has to rely on good referrals in
    order to drum up continued business. The bottom line is that my
    reputation as a builder is negatively effected when I am installing
    plumbing fixtures that do not work.
        I hear time and time again from my colleagues all over the country
    that new homebuyers are dissatisfied with their toilets. In some cases,
    builder friends of mine have indicated that at least half of their
    callbacks are due to toilets not working properly. Every time a builder
    has a callback it takes time away from other projects.
        Often times when I tell a new homeowner that the reason their
    toilet doesn't work has nothing to do with the plumbing installment,
    but because of a federal mandate on low flow toilets, they think I am
    joking--that I am making an excuse for the bad plumbing in the new
    home. I have made it a policy to tell my customers up front about the
    low flow law. Coming from a state that boarders Canada, where there is
    no 1.6-gallon requirement and 3.5 gallon toilets are the norm, many
    customers opt to buy their toilets on the black market. They can buy
    all the 3.5-gallon toilets they want with a short trip to Windsor,
    Ontario. This may sound ridiculous, but it is a fact and an issue with
    which we address every time we build a new home.
        There are many horror stories that I could share with you. I've
    heard of new home owners putting instructions on their bathroom doors
    for guests instructing them how to ``help the toilet flush'' with
    plungers and extra cups of water. This is absurd.
        NAHB's Research Center, in Maryland, recently put a survey on their
    Internet sight for consumers and homebuilders to comment on the
    performance of low flow toilets. The responses have been overwhelmingly
    negative with both consumers and builders citing dissatisfaction with
    1.6-gallon toilets.
        This is a common sense issue. If your toilets are not doing the job
    and homeowners are flushing twice or three times or pouring extra water
    in the bowl, we are not saving water or energy. If you stay in the
    shower for 5 or 10 minutes longer than you normally do because the
    water pressure is not getting soap out of your hair, we are not saving
    water.
        It is disturbing to me, as a citizen of the United States, that the
    federal government is regulating the water used in my toilet. I ask
    myself what is next. I hear that there is a movement to require all
    washing machines to be front loaded which uses less water and energy,
    but a front load machine also holds a smaller load, so that means you
    will just have to do four loads instead of two. I ask again, how are we
    saving water and energy in these instances.
        I like to tell customers that this mandate is the government's
    version of ``planned obsolescence.''
        Once again, as a builder from Michigan who has to live with the
    fact that these fixtures do not work everyday, I want to give my
    wholehearted support to H.R. 623 and Representative Knollenberg's
    efforts in this regard. Thank you for the committee's time.

        Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Kosmensky. We would now like to
    hear from Mr. Taylor, who is representing the Cato Institute.

                       STATEMENT OF JEROME TAYLOR

        Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
    the members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify
    today on H.R. 623. My name is Jerry Taylor. I am Director of
    Natural Resource Studies at the Cato Institute. My comments
    this afternoon will attempt to put the discussion in context by
    addressing the underlying realities of water markets.
        In brief, while there is a legitimate concern about water
    availability, overconsumption is an artificial phenomenon, a
    product of misguided public policy. Appliance standards are
    incapable of remedying the underlying causes of water scarcity
    and, moreover, introduce further distortions and inefficiencies
    in water markets. In my judgment, passage of H.R. 623 would
    move policy in the right direction.
        First, let us consider the anatomy of present water
    markets. How much water is delivered to consumers and what
    price to sell it are determined by political entities, not
    market agents. Water prices have thus been kept artificially
    low. Overconsumption and occasional shortages have been the
    inevitable result. The government has reacted not by raising
    water prices, but by mandating conservation, primarily on the
    less politically influential. The plumbing fixture mandates of
    the 1992 EPAct are a primary example of the kind of technical
    engineering fixes employed to manage water supply and demand.
        This story should sound familiar to this subcommittee. In
    fact, water policy today is a virtual carbon copy of energy
    policy in the 1970's. Then, as now, government rationalized
    regulation on the ground that a resource was too important and
    too scarce to be left to the marketplace. Then, as now,
    government restrained prices and controlled resource allocation
    to protect and subsidize various consumers. Then, as now,
    government responded to overconsumption not by freeing prices
    from government control, but by mandating conservation.
        America should have learned a very few important things
    about economics from the energy experience of 1970's. First,
    when regulations keep pricing below market clearing levels,
    shortages inevitably follow. Shortages are an artifact of
    public policy, not geology.
        Second, government agents cannot direct resource
    production, price or allocation decisions as efficiently as can
    market actors. When the tangled web of energy regulations were
    relaxed and eliminated in the 1980's, scarcity vanished.
        Third, mandatory conservation signals are a poor substitute
    for accurate market signals. The only way to avoid shortages is
    to rely on free market pricing and allocation.
        Finally, government directed conservation investments are
    unlikely to improve upon those that would be made if consumers
    are faced with the correct market signals.
        Now, would removing the mandated purchase of low flow
    toilets and shower heads make matters worse in light of what I
    just outlined? I don't think so. Total water consumption from
    1970 through 1990 declined in this country, despite growth in
    population and national GDP, and per capita use was lower in
    1990 than at any time since 1965.
        Absolute water consumption was about--is about in 1990
    where it was in 1975. Those positive trends, I should point
    out, have nothing to do with government conservation mandates.
    In fact, they predate the standards we are discussing today.
    But those trends continue because, one, effluent charges were
    imposed on industry which provided an incentive to industry to
    reduce water consumption. Two, stricter water quality
    regulations provided an incentive to recycle industrial
    discharges; and, three, reductions in agricultural demand
    reduced irrigation needs.
        Since 80 to 90 percent of all water consumption is by
    agricultural businesses in the 19 western-most States, low flow
    toilets or shower heads, no matter how efficient, do not have
    any appreciable impact on national water consumption.
    Conservationists, however, are right to fret over the
    overconsumption of water in the United States. Existing
    government policies are, frankly, absurd.
        In parts of the West, for example, highly subsidized water
    is being used in arid and desert regions to irrigate price
    supported crops currently in surplus and groundwater is being
    so polluted and wildlife so endangered that this irrigation has
    required massive federally funded cleanup measures.
        Water markets, like energy markets before them, need a dose
    of market discipline. Accurate pricing will surely even induce
    Americans to conserve. Some consumers may willingly install the
    very low flow shower heads and toilets targeted by H.R. 623.
    Others may decide that they value long, vigorous showers more
    than they value green lawns or a new pool. Governments,
    however, should not attempt to micromanage those decisions.
    Moreover, government should not hammer residential consumers
    for consumption habits that pale in comparison with the truly
    prodigious volumes of water being wasted as a direct
    consequence of government policy.
        Americans should learn from the mistakes of the 1970's and
    free water provision consumption from regulatory control.
        Thank you very much for your time, and I look forward to
    your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Jerome Taylor follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Jerry Taylor, Director, Natural Resource Studies,
                                 CATO Institute
        I'd like to thank the members of the subcommittee on energy and
    power for the opportunity to testify today on HR 623, ``The Plumbing
    Standards Improvement Act of 1999.'' My comments this afternoon will
    attempt to put the discussion in context by addressing the underlying
    realities of water markets. The plumbing standards at issue are but a
    small thread within the larger tapestry of national water policy, and
    an understanding of that policy is necessary to judge the merits of HR
    623. In brief, while there is a legitimate concern about water
    availability, over-consumption is an artificial phenomenon--a product
    of misguided public policy. Appliance standards--such as those targeted
    for elimination by HR 623--are incapable of remedying the underlying
    causes of water scarcity and, moreover, introduce further distortions
    and inefficiencies in water markets. In fact, there are striking
    parallels between water and energy markets (and between water and
    energy policy) that serve to illuminate the underlying issues at stake
    in the debate over HR 623. In my judgement, passage of ``The Plumbing
    Standards Improvement Act'' would move policy in the right direction.
    The Anatomy of Present Water Markets
        Water is delivered to consumers either by public entities or
    private companies regulated by public utility commissions. The
    questions of how much water to deliver to consumers--and what price to
    sell it--are likewise determined by political entities, not by market
    agents. Unfortunately--perhaps inevitably--governmental agents have
    directed water to politically powerful interests (primarily western
    agriculture) and under-supplied water to less politically powerful
    interests (urban consumers). Moreover, water prices have been kept
    artificially low.1 Scarcity and shortage has been the
    inevitable result.2
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Although present water charges are on average about half what
    they would be in a free market, the disparity between regulated and
    market price varies by consumer. Municipalities charge about $1 per
    1,000 gallons while industry and agriculture pay only 10 cents per
    1,000 gallons. Contrast those prices with bottled water, which sells at
    about $4,000 per 1,000 gallons. Peter Rogers, America's Water: Federal
    Roles and Responsibilities (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993), pg. 1, 186.
        \2\ Terry Anderson and Pamela Snyder, Water Markets: Priming the
    Invisible Pump (Washington: Cato Institute, 1997), p. 7.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Government has reacted--not by raising its price--but by mandating
    conservation, primarily on the less politically influential (the
    agricultural industry, which consumes 80-90 percent of all water
    withdrawn for human use, 3 has been generally immune from
    such strict conservation mandates). The plumbing fixture mandates of
    the 1992 Energy Policy Act are a primary example of the kind of
    technical, engineering fixes employed to manage water supply and
    demand.4
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Ibid., p. 18.
        \4\ Rogers, pp. 101-103.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The above story should sound familiar. In fact, water policy today
    is a virtual carbon copy of energy policy in the 1970s. The water
    industry, like the energy industry, is one of the nation's largest--and
    most heavily regulated--businesses, delivering a life-sustaining
    resource crucial to the economy.5 Then, as now, government
    rationalized centralized control over the resource on the grounds that
    it was too important to leave to the marketplace, too scarce to be
    allocated by the cold logic of the invisible hand, and too riddled with
    market failures to be efficiently traded without government
    oversight.6 Then, as now, government restrained prices and
    controlled resource allocation to protect and/or subsidize various
    consumers. Acute scarcity was the natural result.7 Then, as
    now, government responded not by freeing prices but by mandating
    conservation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ The water industry is by far the most capital-intensive
    industry in America and, in terms of annual capital expenditures, ranks
    only behind electricity and petrochemicals. The federal government
    alone employs over 90,000 people in ten cabinet departments, two major
    independent agencies, and 34 smaller agencies to oversee 25 separate
    water programs governed by more than 200 sets of federal rules,
    regulations and laws. State and local governments employ and additional
    50,000 regulators and consultants. Rogers, pg. 4, 15-16, 239-241.
        \6\ Ibid., 49-53
        \7\ Robert L. Bradley, Jr., Oil, Gas, and Government: The U.S.
    Experience (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1996), pg. 465-532, 629-
    710, and 1605-1694.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    What the Energy Experience Can Teach Us About Water Policy
        America should have learned a few very important things about
    economics from the energy experience of the 1970s. First, when
    government regulations keep prices below market-clearing levels,
    shortages inevitably follow. Shortages are an artifact of public
    policy, not geology.8
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ M.A. Adelman, The Genie Out of the Bottle: World Oil Since 1970
    (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996, pp. 11-39). Stuart Burness and James Quirk
    have likewise noted that ``Often, what appears to be a shortage of
    water is actually the manifestation of restrictions on water rights
    transfer.'' ``Water Laws, Water Transfers, and Economic Efficiency: The
    Colorado River,'' Journal of Law and Economics 23, April 1980, p. 133.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Second, government agents cannot direct resource production, price,
    or allocation decisions as efficiently as can market
    actors.9 When the tangled web of energy regulations were
    relaxed or eliminated in the 1980s, scarcity vanished. Subsequent
    supply disruptions did not usher in the scarcities or inconveniences of
    the 1970s even though the disruption of 1990 was as larger or larger
    than those of the 1973 and 1979.10
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ ``Price controls and allocations produced the gasoline waiting
    lines which were `made in the USA,' not by the Arabs. They were made
    much worse by set-asides: first for farmers, then justice required them
    for truckers, etc. The result was more hoarding and less supply.'' M.A.
    Adelman, ``The World Oil Market: Fact and Fiction,'' Policy Analysis,
    Cato Institute, forthcoming. For an extensive treatment, see Bradley
    1996, pp. 1815-1910.
        \10\ Robert L. Bradley, ``What Now For U.S. Energy Policy? A Free
    Market Perspective,'' Policy Analysis no. 145, Cato Institute, January
    29, 1991, p. 2.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Third--and most relevant to HR 623--mandatory conservation measures
    are a poor substitute for accurate price signals. It was rising
    prices--not mandatory conservation--which ultimately led to increases
    in energy efficiency in the 1970s and 1980s.11 The only way
    to avoid shortages is to rely on free-market pricing and
    allocation.12 Consumers circumvent mandatory conservation
    technologies by increasing consumption at the margin (the well-known
    ``rebound effect'' 13) or procuring through indirect
    channels the resource being denied them. Their behavior seems to be in
    agreement with M.A. Adelman's argument that ``energy conservation for
    its own sake regardless of price is the talk of the madman in Dr.
    Strangelove, obsessed with his `precious bodily fluids.' ''
    14
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ ``Energy Security White Paper: U.S. Decisions and Global
    Trends,'' American Petroleum Institute, Washington, 1988, pp. 83-85.
        \12\ Robert Hall and Robert Pindyck, ``What to Do When Energy
    Prices Rise Again,'' The Public Interest 65, Fall 1981, pp. 59-70 and
    Richard Gordon, An Economic Analysis of World Energy Problems
    (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 1981.
        \13\ Economists are well aware of the fact that improving technical
    energy efficiency reduces the cost of, and thereby tends to increase
    the consumption of, goods and services that use energy. The degree to
    which energy efficiency gains will lead to increases in energy
    consumption depends upon the elasticity of demand for each of the
    effected energy service. Unfortunately, ``the rebound effect seems
    important for services with a significant conservation potential but
    negligible for services with a minor conservation potential in terms of
    kWhs'' (Franz Wirl, The Economics of Conservation Programs (Boston:
    Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997, pg. 31, 139). The rebound effect
    applies to firms as well. For empirical documentation of the rebound
    effect, see David Greene and L.A. Greening, ``Energy Use, Technical
    Efficiency, and the Rebound Effect: A Review of the Literature,''
    Report to the Office of Policy Analysis and International Affairs, U.S.
    Department of Energy, December 1997. For a review of the literature
    regarding the rebound effect and automobile transportation, see David
    Greene, James Kahn, and Robert Gibson, ``Fuel Economy Rebound Effect
    for U.S. Household Vehicles,'' Energy Journal 20:3, 1999, pp. 6-10.
        \14\ Adelman 1993, p. 495.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Finally, government directed conservation investments are unlikely
    to improve upon those that would be made if consumers were faced with
    correct market signals.15 Looking back at the mandatory
    energy conservation standards of the 1970s, MIT analysts observe that:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ As Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek has noted, ``An economic actor on
    average knows better the environment in which he is acting and the
    probable consequences of his actions than does an outsider, no matter
    how clever the outsider may be.'' F.A. Hayek, ``The Use of Knowledge in
    Society,'' American Economic Review 35, 1945, pp. 519-530. For a review
    of public versus private decision-making in the energy economy, see
    generally Wirl, pp. 119-142.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            An error common to the programs was the concept that it was
            wrong to consume, rather than that we should consume wisely in
            view of the higher price of energy. For example, a goal was
            that we should consume less, even where less meant also less
            comfort, less productivity, and fewer goods and services--
            regardless of the cost effectiveness. The mistake was in
            presuming that conserving less energy was the goal, and that
            the goal had an intrinsic value. The blunder lives on today in
            the mandates of virtually all state energy agencies (emphasis
            in the original).16
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ Thomas Lee, Ben Ball, Jr., and Richard Tabors, Energy
    Aftermath: How We Can Learn From the Blunders of the Past to Create a
    Hopeful Energy Future (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1990), p.
    61.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In fact, the energy experience indicates that conservation mandates
    and subsidized efficiency will not even achieve the goal of reducing
    net consumption.17
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ Wirl, pp. 185-206.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    HR 623: A First Step
        Given the weak theoretical case for the plumbing standards
    established in the 1992 Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPACT),
    consumer complaints about mandatory low-flow toilets and showers should
    be heeded by this Congress. HR 623 is indeed worthy of support.
        Yet the underlying problem that motivated passage of those
    standards should not be dismissed lightly. Conservationists are right
    to fret over the excessive consumption of water in the United States.
    Yet there is no reason for panic. Total water consumption has declined
    over the past 20 years despite growth in population and national GDP,
    and per capita use today is lower than at any time since 1965. Absolute
    water consumption is about where it was in 1975.18 Steep
    projections of future needs are flawed in that they confuse need with
    demand.19 Harvard's Peter Rogers thus ``sees no water crises
    at present in either water quantity or water quality.'' 20
    As far as the future, Rogers notes;
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ Rogers, pp. 34-35. The main reason water consumption has
    dropped over the past 20 years is that (1) effluent charges were
    imposed on industry (providing an incentive to reduce water discharges
    and thus water consumption itself), (2) stricter water quality
    regulations provided an incentive to recycle discharges, and (3)
    reductions in agricultural demand reduced irrigation needs. Rogers, pg.
    126, 147.
        \19\ ``Demand'' is a function of economics, the quantity of water
    that consumers are willing to purchase at various prices. ``Need'' is a
    projection of future trends based upon present price signals. Ibid.,
    pp. 125-131.
        \20\ Ibid., p. 199,
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            The United States could have a water crisis or just a modest
            increase in demand. Which forecast should be used?--If the
            regulators leave water sellers free to make water prices more
            nearly represent the marginal cost of supply, and if realistic
            pricing policies are pursued in cases where the supply has to
            be controlled by government, then the forecast crisis will
            never take place.21
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ Ibid., p. 131.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Conservationists have identified a worrisome malady, yet their
    diagnosis of the problem and their prescription for recovery are
    incorrect.
        Water markets--like the energy markets before them--need a dose of
    market discipline. Water supply, allocation, and pricing decisions
    should be left to market actors with limited interference from
    government. The old rationales for government control over the water
    industry are not persuasive either theoretically or
    empirically.22 Consumers have proven quite responsive to
    changes in water prices and water markets have been shown to work quite
    well when released from regulatory constraints.23 This is
    particularly true in acute drought conditions, when government price
    controls are most counterproductive.24 While state and local
    governments are primarily responsible for the municipal provision of
    water, the federal government should assist by eliminating to the
    greatest degree possible its own interventions in the water economy.
    Greater reliance on market pricing could be introduced to federal water
    project entitlements.25 Allowing water transactions between
    consumer groups would also greatly facilitate the development of water
    markets.26 The Commerce Clause could even be invoked to
    facilitate a break-up of state regulation.27
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ Anderson and Snyder, pp. 49-53.
        \23\ Harvard's Peter Rogers concludes that ``First, the market
    seems to work quite well in allocating scarce water, specifically in
    the West. In fact, it works better than most economists themselves
    would have predicted only 10 years ago. Second, water consumption is
    clearly price responsive. The problem is finding some reasonable
    second-or third-best pricing schemes--In sum, while economic analysis
    and economic thinking by no means solve all the problems in the field,
    water managers and consumers must apply them if a coherent water policy
    is to emerge in the United States.'' Rogers, p. 150. See further
    Anderson and Snyder, pp. 8-12.
        \24\ Concludes oil economist M.A. Adelman, ``The almost
    unquestioned major premise among governments that in an emergency there
    has got to be a `fair allocation at reasonable prices,' is possibly the
    greatest single aggravating force in making disruptions worse then they
    need be.'' M.A. Adelman, The Economics of Oil Supply (Cambridge: MIT
    Press, 1993), p. 516. The success of the Drought Water Bank in
    California in ameliorating the worst effects of the 1987-1993 drought
    are clear testaments to the dramatic gains can that can be achieved by
    simply allowing market transactions in water. Rogers, pp. 8-10.
        \25\ Rogers (p. 187) argues that ``federal water project
    development has proceeded unevenly, inefficiently, and inequitably. It
    has been driven largely by the dictates of distributive politics. The
    result has been water often not available where it is most needed or
    desired and wasted or abused where it is available.'' Reallocation of
    water rights by the Bureau of Reclamation, the Army Corps of Engineers,
    the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Soil Conservation Service would
    prove a major step in the right direction.
        \26\ Ibid., p. 154.
        \27\ For a comprehensive federal agenda for reform, see Anderson
    and Snyder. For a discussion of how the Commerce Clause might be used
    to constrain state and local regulation of the industry, see Paul
    Ballonoff, Energy: Ending the Never Ending Crisis (Washington: Cato
    Institute, 1997), pp. 73-102.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Accurate price signals will surely induce Americans to conserve.
    Some consumers may willingly install the very low-flow shower heads and
    toilets targeted by HR 623. Others may decide that they value long,
    vigorous showers more than they value green lawns. More importantly,
    accurate price signals will reach the greatest sources of water waste
    and over-consumption--the agricultural industry--and even modest
    reductions in use would overwhelm the potential gains from residential
    conservation.28 America should learn from the mistakes of
    the 1970s and free water provision and consumption from regulatory
    control.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \28\ Rogers (pp. 31-32), notes that irrigated agriculture, located
    primarily in the 19 western states, consumes four times as much water
    as all other consumers combined. Anderson and Snyder (pp. 8-12)
    conclude that the water inefficiency is far greater in that sector than
    any other.

        Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. The Chair would now
    recognize himself for the first 5 minutes of questions.
        I am going to ask the first question to Mr. Kosmensky and
    to Mr. Haege, since you seem to be the technical experts in
    this group. What would the traditional toilet cost, the 3.5
    gallon, if it were still available in the United States? I
    think, Mr. Kosmensky, you said these newer low flow toilets
    cost about $200 more. If they were to still be widely
    available, what would the older more traditional capacity
    toilets cost today?
        Mr. Kosmensky. I don't know what the toilets cost
    individually. I don't believe I made that statement. But I
    don't see why----
        Mr. Barton. You need to put the microphone close to you,
    sir.
        Mr. Kosmensky. I am not familiar with the costs of the
    toilet per se.
        Mr. Barton. Who said that the newer ones cost $200 more?
        Mr. Haege. I did, Mr. Chairman. The newer toilets that we
    are talking about, 1.6 gallon toilets, you can buy one on the
    market today for $79.95. You can buy a 3.5 gallon toilet, if
    they were still available on the market, for the same price.
    The difference is when we come to the vacuum flush. All toilets
    we are talking about in the 1.6----
        Mr. Barton. Stop just a second. On the market today you can
    get a water gravity flow 1.6 gallon low flow toilet for about
    80 bucks.
        Mr. Haege. That is correct.
        Mr. Barton. If they were available, you could buy the 3.5
    gallon for about 80 bucks.
        Mr. Haege. That is right.
        Mr. Barton. But does anybody, in the next panel, will the
    experts representing the manufacturers say that the water flow,
    the gravity flow 1.6 gallon toilet works?
        Mr. Haege. I don't know. We will ask them.
        Mr. Barton. Do you think it works?
        Mr. Haege. Well, my public tells me that it----
        Mr. Barton. Not the fancy vacuum assisted.
        Mr. Haege. We are talking about the gravity feed toilet,
    1.6 gallon, what my people, my constituents across the country
    tell me is no, no matter what price you pay.
        Mr. Barton. Because there is just not enough force
    generated by that weight of water?
        Mr. Haege. In talking with the plumbers and talking with
    the manufacturers across this country, and as widely as I
    travel to these sites, it is a case of too soon, too quick, too
    much regulation. It is like the car industry. We don't have a
    choice now with this regulation, gentlemen. If we had a choice,
    we would buy what we feel confident with, and maybe in the
    fourth bathroom or the fifth bathroom we would put a 1.6.
        Mr. Barton. To get it to work, you can get a low flow
    toilet to work, but you have to jazz it up with high
    technology?
        Mr. Haege. That is right, Mr. Chairman. You have to buy
    what we call a vacuum flush toilet, which is a fixture that the
    toilet manufacturers make and they buy a component from two
    manufacturers in this country, and that is added onto it. It
    looks like a little tank. And that shoots 1.5 gallons per
    minute, or per flush. But it develops 70 pounds per square inch
    of pressure. So if the 100 ball test is used as a standard of
    watching how something flushes through a DWV, which is a drain
    waste vent, you will see all the balls go down the drain waste
    vent at the normal slope rate.
        Mr. Barton. The assisted low flow flush costs $280.
        Mr. Haege. Correct, sir.
        Mr. Barton. Congressman Rush and myself and others, we have
    low income constituents. They probably can't afford that extra
    $200 just to get a toilet that flushes, or it is much more
    difficult.
        Mr. Haege. Not only the constituents, but also the
    builders. When they put in multiple families, they put in hotel
    rooms, they can't afford it either.
        Mr. Barton. Okay. I think that is the main question that I
    have got right now. I just wanted to see the effectiveness.
        One more engineering question. What if we took the low flow
    1.6 gallon and put it on the top of the roof and then had a
    pipe that went down into the first floor so that when you pull
    the lever or push the button, you let gravity kind of help you
    get a little momentum up before it hit the toilet bowl?
        Mr. Haege. I don't feel I am qualified to answer that
    question, but I don't want to go to that house.
        Mr. Barton. But it would have more power once it hit the
    bottom.
        Mr. Haege. The power, yes. It has to do with evacuation of
    the drop. That is what they keep working on with these new
    engineering changes. They have less parameter of engineering
    specs on the 1.6 gravity flush toilet so they have to clean up
    their act there where the water drop is.
        Mr. Barton. Okay. My time has expired. The gentleman from
    Illinois, Mr. Rush, is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Right now the bill that
    is before us, H.R. 623, the purpose of it is to repeal the
    previous bill and repeal the standards. If in fact we do, if
    the Congress repealed this particular bill, the current bill,
    rather, the current law, that would introduce either States or
    other localities introducing the opportunities for them to
    either go with 3.5 standard, 1.6 standard, or whatever standard
    they would deem necessary, am I correct? I will ask Mr.--Mayor
    Kosmensky.
        Mr. Kosmensky. They could do whatever they want. They could
    have it like it was before, that there was no restriction at
    all. You sold what the marketplace dictated. The marketplace
    dictated what you manufactured.
        Mr. Rush. In absence of a Federal standard, then wouldn't
    that place additional costs on--if each municipality or region
    had their own standard, wouldn't that place additional costs on
    manufacturers that would have to be met by the consumers? To be
    passed on to the consumers?
        Mr. Kosmensky. I don't think we would have that. Is that a
    question to me?
        Mr. Rush. Yes.
        Mr. Kosmensky. You wouldn't have that. You wouldn't have
    every State having all different kinds of restrictions on
    toilets. You think that they would, like before, just use the
    3.5, and that was it. Everybody used 3.5.
        Mr. Lieberman. I just wanted to make the point that this is
    a very, very unpopular idea, unpopular with people at the
    Federal level, at the State level and local level. I am
    confident that if H.R. 623 is passed, it will largely die out
    at the State and local level as well. I point out there were
    some States and localities that had these laws on the books,
    but from my research I haven't found a single instance that the
    people who lived there actually supported them. These were
    pushed by the same special interests who later argued that we
    have created this patchwork, we need a Federal standard, and
    came to Washington. But, quite frankly, I don't see any support
    for a 1.6 standard at any level of government, and maybe I am
    wrong, maybe one or two States, maybe a dozen or so localities
    will do so, but that hardly seems a reason to burden all the
    rest of America.
        Mr. Rush. So you are saying, if I am correct, and if I am
    interpreting what you are saying correctly, you are saying if
    in fact we repeal the current law and pass H.R. 623, then there
    would be a standard based on the desires or the demand of the
    consumers?
        Mr. Lieberman. There may be no standard at all, other than
    the marketplace.
        Mr. Rush. That is what I am talking about.
        Mr. Lieberman. It is hard to imagine the citizens of any
    State putting up with a low flush toilet standard that uniquely
    burdens them at this point. These laws were easy to pass before
    the toilets hit the market, but at this point this is very
    unpopular. I have seen virtually little evidence of any popular
    support. I would like to quickly respond about those surveys
    that are about Tampa, I think, San Diego, Austin, Texas, and so
    forth.
        I have taken a look at those and there are some very
    serious problems with them. First off, it looks as though they
    gave away the toilets and then asked the people how do you like
    your free toilet. Unfortunately, the other 99 percent of us
    have to pay good money for these toilets, and as far as I am
    aware, they didn't do a survey of us, or if they did, it wasn't
    included.
        There are some other problems with those surveys as well.
    They targeted low income housing, which is nice, but many of
    those apartments probably had plumbing problems to begin with,
    and they may have done general improvements, they may have
    replaced 20 or 30-year-old high flush toilets that were in a
    bad state of repair. So it is very difficult I think to be
    confident in those toilet giveaway programs.
        Mr. Rush. Do you think there would be any additional costs
    that would be passed on to both the manufacturers and also
    consumers if in fact we repealed this current law?
        Mr. Lieberman. I would have to say that they are less than
    the costs that consumers are suffering now with the 1.6
    mandate.
        Mr. Taylor. If I can, Mr. Congressman, I would like to
    point out that consumers ought to have, in my opinion, the
    right to decide how much they spend for services. It may well
    be that these low flush toilets, assume for the sake of
    argument they save consumers money. Well, we could save
    consumers money by banning car washes too and saying it is an
    aesthetic preference. You don't need to wash your car. It will
    save you money, it will save society resources. Isn't this
    Congress pro consumer? We would hesitate to do that because we
    have a respect for consumers purchasing their own preferences
    and making their own decisions, and it may well be they would
    be willing to pay more for a toilet that works.
        Mr. Rush. Mr. Chairman, I just have one comment. I just
    renovated a 100-year-old house a couple of years ago, and I
    remember my contractor telling me that when they installed the
    new toilets in my house, that in fact I was complaining about
    it, and he said well, you guys are the ones that made this law.
    So I couldn't say anything, but just to suffer the consequences
    so to speak.
        Mr. Burr [presiding]. Would the gentleman like to sell me
    the old toilets?
        Mr. Rush. I have already done that.
        Mr. Burr. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
        Mr. Bilirakis. The question is, Mr. Rush, are you satisfied
    with your toilets?
        Mr. Rush. Absolutely not. Absolutely not.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Are not satisfied.
        Mr. Lieberman, with all due respect, sir, the Tampa
    representative will be testifying after this panel is finished
    up. I hope they will address your particular point as to how
    their surveys were taken, and that sort of thing. You may be
    correct, and then again you may not be. I don't know. But let
    me ask you, can I infer from your testimony that you do not
    support any other national efficiency standards for energy or
    water such as those energy standards now in place for
    refrigerators and air conditioners?
        Mr. Lieberman. Well, I thought the first refrigerator
    standard was reasonably good. I don't----
        Mr. Bilirakis. In other words, forgive me, it was okay if
    it is a national standard, as long as you thought it was pretty
    good, reasonably good.
        Mr. Lieberman. I am not sure----
        Mr. Bilirakis. National uniform standard.
        Mr. Lieberman. The standards really didn't make all that
    much difference. If you look at the levels of efficiency in
    refrigerators, they were trending downward anyway. The first
    standard, what I was trying to say, was actually fairly lax and
    didn't make much of a difference. Now we are on a third
    standard and things are starting to get tight. No, I think
    consumers can decide for themselves in the marketplace and
    manufacturers responding to those demands can provide them with
    the products they want in the absence, in most cases, of
    Federal standards.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Even in things such as refrigerators.
        Mr. Lieberman. Even in things such as refrigerators. We had
    no refrigerator standards until 1990 and we did okay.
        Mr. Bilirakis. I was going to ask you to comment.
        Mr. Taylor. I will jump right in there. There is a long
    footnote in my written remarks that I would point your
    attention to. The economics literature has studied the effects
    of these appliance efficiency standards now and there is
    voluminous literature that we can refer to when attempting to
    judge their effectiveness. And energy economists, as opposed to
    policy activists, are virtually unanimous in the belief that
    these appliance standards have made no difference regarding
    gross energy demand. The main reason is something economists
    call the rebound effect.
        If you reduce the marginal cost of a service, say the
    marginal cost of keeping your house cool on a hot summer day,
    consumers are going to consume more of that good. So by and
    large, what a great efficiency standard for an air conditioner
    is going to do is make it cheaper for me to keep my house at 68
    degrees or allow me to run the air conditioner to keep my dog
    comfortable at a lot lower price than it might otherwise have
    before.
        Consumers respond to pricing incentives and economists have
    found empirically, not when you are looking at engineering
    calculations, which is the way most energy activists look at
    these things. They calculate, well, you have this widget in
    your house and you are running it at the same amount, so it
    should have saved you X amount of money. When you are looking
    at empirical behavior, when you are looking at actual
    consumption practices, consumers tend to consume back, as it
    were, all of the energy we thought we saved with the efficiency
    mandate. So that in a nutshell is a good economic reason why
    most specialists in this field are very dubious about
    government efficiency mandates as a practical matter.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Let me ask the mayor, Mr. Kosmensky. Sir,
    you have testified in support of the legislation, you are a
    constituent of Joe's and I guess you better support it. But you
    mention though in your testimony, as I heard it, I thought I
    heard it, that the Home Builders has recently taken a neutral
    stance on the bill while issues are worked out with the
    plumbing manufacturers. You said something about--I think you
    said something about well, in lieu of further legislation, or
    words to that effect, I don't mean to put words in your mouth.
    So I guess my question is should this nonlegislative approach
    be allowed to run its course before we consider legislating in
    this area once again? You know, did we make a mistake
    legislating in the first place in 1992? You know, I don't know.
    But it has been done and all of this manufacturing and what not
    has already taken place.
        Well, so maybe you can ask the question, should this
    nonlegislative approach be allowed to run its course, and then
    maybe in the time left over, in what way could you contemplate
    that it could be worked out among the builders and the plumbing
    manufacturers, et cetera? What would you sort of contemplate or
    see as, I guess I will use the word, compromise or working it
    out?
        Mr. Kosmensky. I think there are things that could be done.
    In Europe they have--the toilet tanks have buttons on them
    where you can push it and get a half flush and push it and get
    a full flush.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Don't we have something like that available?
        Mr. Kosmensky. I have not seen any here, not to say there
    isn't something like that. Perhaps there is. Up to our neutral
    stance, which was just like 3 weeks ago, I am talking about the
    National Home Builders now, the manufacturers really can't have
    much interest in talking to us. But I understand in the last
    couple or 3 weeks they are coming to us and talking with the
    folks from our research foundation about just exactly what you
    mentioned, couldn't there be some kind of a compromise.
        I think that Congressman Knollenberg's bill here is really
    starting to put the pressure on these folks to resolve this
    thing, because I think they realize that we do have problems
    out there. I mean, we are not just sitting here to talk about
    the weather, we are here because we have a problem out there. I
    think they are beginning to realize that. I would hope that
    they will come to the table with some kind of compromises that
    will resolve the problem. I applaud, again, Congressman
    Knollenberg for doing that. If that brings us all to the table
    to resolve the situation short of new legislation, if that is
    what the committee wants, I applaud that.
        Mr. Bilirakis. You have high hopes that something like that
    will take place?
        Mr. Kosmensky. Yes, I really do.
        Mr. Barton. Mr. Burr of North Carolina for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Haege, do you or
    Click and Clack have a larger listenership? Do you know who
    Click and Clack are?
        Mr. Haege. On NPR radio. They talk about cars. I don't talk
    about cars. Last year the home improvement industry was $176.1
    billion. I don't know what the car industry was, but I think
    there are more people that care about their toilets than they
    do if their car runs or not.
        Mr. Barton. I am not so sure about that.
        Mr. Haege. I think you have a great mass transit system in
    this area and a lot of major areas, and they count on that to
    get back and forth to work.
        Mr. Barton. You ask my constituents what they think about
    their pickup versus their toilet, and they are going to tell
    you real quick they love their pickup a lot more than they do
    their toilet.
        Mr. Burr. Both of you have large listenership, as is
    evidenced. Let me just make a comment. We are not here today to
    point out that what was done prior to us was bad legislation.
    It may have miscalculated what technology could do. We pulled a
    number out of the sky and said this is where we would like to
    be on water as it relates to toilets, as it relates to showers,
    and the ultimate judgment was by consumers, did the product
    work.
        I came out of the appliance business before I got here.
    There was a big difference with the energy standards on
    refrigerators and air conditioners and other appliances. Those
    worked. Air conditioners still cooled, refrigerators still kept
    food at a comfortable temperature, and clearly consumers have
    spoken differently as it relates to toilets and some to shower
    heads.
        Let me just ask, is there any data that proves that any
    water savings that has taken place is the direct result of low
    flow toilets?
        Mr. Kosmensky. No. Mr. Chairman, we have to keep in mind
    that we only build 1 million houses a year, and if we put in
    something like the 1.6 in all our houses and then a survey is
    taken throughout the country, it will have a minuscule effect
    on that survey. Ninety-five percent of the houses out there do
    not have the 1.6. I think in all due respect to the gentleman
    from Florida, I don't know where they come up with those
    numbers on the surveys, because we just don't put that many of
    these in there, of the 1.6 toilets. But those that we do put
    in, I find that we have problems with.
        Mr. Taylor. Mr. Burr, as I mentioned, from 1970 to 1990, a
    date prior to passage of the standards, total water consumption
    declined in this country, despite growth in population and
    national GDP, per capita use declined in this country, and
    absolute water withdrawals for human purposes declined in this
    country. All prior to passage of these mandates.
        In fact, those trends continued since passage of those
    mandates. When you are looking at macroeconomic data, it
    certainly is correct for all parties to point out water
    consumption is going down. But to use figures like that, as I
    heard in earlier comments at the beginning of these hearings,
    as an argument for the success of these standards, is, frankly,
    poppycock. It is an after the fact assertion.
        The trend had been going on for a long, long time, prior to
    the passage of these mandates. In fact, where these figures
    came to my attention, a book by NYT press, a Harvard professor
    on this subject, there was no discussion at all of the
    conservation mandates having anything to do with those
    declines. Those declines had to do with other things in the
    economy, as I pointed out in my oral testimony.
        As far as the specific studies that are in discussion
    today, I haven't seen them, so I can't comment on them. My
    experience in the energy arena, however, has been that
    estimates regarding reduced energy use are derived through
    engineering estimates. They are not derived through actual
    monitoring of actual consumer behavior with controllable test
    groups and the sorts of things that you would look for in other
    sorts of data if you were serious about studying the matter.
        I can't judge these particular studies, but my hunch is,
    given what I know in the energy arena when it comes to
    efficiency in appliances, that I would be quite skeptical
    regarding such claims, particularly given the points that Mr.
    Kosmensky just made regarding the amount of water or the amount
    of these devices being installed. Again as an overall matter,
    with agriculture in the West eating up 80 to 90 percent of
    water consumption, it is hard to imagine how a few new home
    buildings is going to affect overall trends in water
    consumption.
        Mr. Burr. We probably know somewhere, if somebody wanted to
    find out the information, if they haven't already, how many
    toilets are installed in this country, wouldn't we?
        Mr. Haege. There is documentation to that. About 4.3
    million is a good estimate per year of toilets.
        Mr. Barton. Per year.
        Mr. Burr. But in total in the country. Do we have any----
        Mr. Taylor. We do, but it wouldn't help too much. The
    reason why is you could make an engineering estimate and say we
    have so many low flow toilets that went in last year, and that
    makes a total of X number of low flow toilets, and we will
    calculate that 1.6 gallons minus 3.5 gallons equals X number of
    gallons in savings and I will put a number to it. But what that
    doesn't do is it doesn't account for whether I had to flush it
    twice or three times or how many toilets I bought or anything
    else that might affect my water consumption behavior.
        The problem we always run into in these sorts of estimates
    and other parts of the economy when looking at appliances is we
    do not measure actual consumer behavior. By and large we are
    making estimates based on installations of that nature----
        Mr. Barton. We know what the housing stock is and you know
    what the number of toilets per population is, so you got about
    280 million Americans. I would estimate just off the top of my
    head probably existing toilets, if you include public buildings
    and everything, would be around 200 million. I am going to miss
    it a little bit, but I am not order of magnitude out of the
    ball park. You are adding 4.3 million a year.
        Mr. Haege. Those are kitchen and industry bath numbers of
    1999.
        Mr. Barton. Yes. So the general point is because of the
    addition of these low flow toilets, it is not having in and of
    itself a noticeable impact on water consumption, and just
    elementary analysis would indicate that has to be true because
    of the existing stock that is already there, even if they are
    totally used exactly as represented.
        Mr. Burr. My last question, to the mayor for a second, as a
    home builder, do your customers come to you after you have
    turned over the keys and question the performance of the
    toilets?
        Mr. Kosmensky. They did, but I warn them. I warn them
    before now.
        Mr. Barton. What if a home builder, you warned them and
    they say I am going to go to Canada and buy this. Are you
    legally allowed to install, if they provide it for you?
        Mr. Kosmensky. Yes.
        Mr. Barton. You are allowed to do that.
        Mr. Kosmensky. Yes.
        Mr. Barton. The gentleman's time has expired. I am going to
    miss the rule vote. I am just going to continue the next panel.
    You all can go vote and come back in time to hear some of the
    statements and the question period.
        There may be written questions for you gentlemen, and we
    will get them to you. We appreciate your attendance, especially
    those that had to travel from out of State to come. But we are
    going to excuse you at this point in time and go to our next
    panel.
        Let's hear from our second panel, or third panel actually.
    We have Mr. David Tippin, Director of the Tampa Water
    Department. Mr. Bilirakis, would you like to introduce him a
    little more forcefully before you leave?
        Mr. Bilirakis. He is going to testify now?
        Mr. Barton. They are going to testify.
        Mr. Burr. They may need your vote on the rule.
        Mr. Bilirakis. I do have to make this vote. It is a rule.
        Mr. Barton. The gentleman from Florida.
        Mr. Bilirakis. I would like to hear Mr. Tippin's testimony,
    Mr. Chairman. I am just not sure how to handle this.
        Mr. Barton. Okay. The problem, I have got a working group
    at 4:30.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Can we skip Mr. Tippin?
        Mr. Barton. I tell you what. Apparently this is a close
    vote. I wouldn't assume a rule vote would be that close, but we
    are going to recess, and I will go do my constitutional duty
    and vote, and then I will come back. It will be about 15
    minutes. If you all stay in the general area so when we get
    back, Mr. Bilirakis especially wants to come back. We are in
    recess subject to the call of the Chair, which should be within
    the next 15 to 20.
        [Brief recess.]
        Mr. Barton. The subcommittee will come back to order. There
    are always two sides to every story, and last but not least, we
    are now going to hear the other side of the issue. On this
    panel, as I pointed out, we have Mr. David Tippin, Director of
    the Tampa Water Department. He represents the American Water
    Works Association. We have Mr. Edward Osann, who is the
    President of Potomac Resources here in Washington, DC. We have
    Mr. George Whalen, who represents the National Association of
    Plumbing, Heating and Cooling Contractors. We have Mr. David
    Goike, who represents the Plumbing Manufacturers Institute, and
    we have Mr. Anthony Willardson, who is the Associate Director
    for the Western States Water Council.
        Gentlemen, we appreciate your patience. Your statements are
    in the record in their entirety. We are going to give you each
    5 minutes to summarize and I know Mr. Bilirakis will have some
    questions and I will have questions.
        Mr. Bilirakis, do you wish to more formally introduce Mr.
    Tippin.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did want to voice
    my disappointment that this panel comes up and you and I are
    the only ones here. We have heard from the other side of the
    story when ordinarily it is mixed and you are going to have two
    and two just to keep something like this from taking place. So
    I am very disappointed in that regard.
        I will say Mr. Tippin has a pretty tough job in our area,
    he is Director of the Tampa Water Department. We have big
    infrastructure water problems in Florida and tremendous water
    problems, as you might imagine, with that high water table. Mr.
    Tippin is I know a free enterpriser, a market oriented
    individual, a person who would ordinarily I think and maybe he
    does agree--I think he does agree with much of the testimony
    that you have heard today in terms of letting the market
    function and what not. I also know that he will share with us
    why what we did back in 1992 is so very important to States
    like Florida and so many others. I am very happy that he would
    take the time to come up here, probably to get out of the heat
    down there.
        Mr. Barton. Like it is not hot here in Washington.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Barton. Mr. Tippin, we welcome you. You are recognized
    for 5 minutes.

         STATEMENTS OF DAVID L. TIPPIN, DIRECTOR, TAMPA WATER
      DEPARTMENT; EDWARD R. OSANN, PRESIDENT, POTOMAC RESOURCES,
       INC.; GEORGE V. WHALEN, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBING,
     HEATING, COOLING CONTRACTORS; DAVID GOIKE, MASCO CORPORATION,
      REPRESENTING PLUMBING MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE; AND ANTHONY
      WILLARDSON, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL

        Mr. Tippin. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and Congressman
    Bilirakis, and thank you for inviting me here. I am David L
    Tippin, Director of the Tampa Water Department. I was there as
    a temporary job 25 years ago and have been there ever since. I
    am a registered professional engineer. I want to testify on
    behalf of the city of Tampa, the American Water Works
    Association and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies,
    whose combined membership provides drinking water to
    approximately 90 percent of the American people.
        The city of Tampa and American Water Works and AMWA support
    the current plumbing products efficiency standards in the 1992
    Energy Policy and Conservation Act. It has worked as intended.
    The new low flush toilets work and are of high consumer
    acceptance. I think some of the video that you saw earlier,
    that data is very old. I think it is more than 2 years old on
    some of the information and staff that were shown there earlier
    today.
        A new AWWA research study shows that the double flushing in
    new low flush toilets is the same or better than the nonlow
    flush toilets. In my own home I have a low flush toilet and I
    have a 3.5 gallon toilet, so I feel that I am an expert on
    toilet flushing in Florida.
        In mine there is no difference, only that the 1.6 saves a
    lot more water than the 3.5 flush toilet.
        Mr. Barton. You said there is difference?
        Mr. Tippin. Both of them work equally well. The May 1998
    Consumer Reports shows that the new low flush toilets work. I
    think most of you have seen this, and I won't go into that.
        To date in Tampa as an incentive we have given over 15,000
    toilet rebates in 11,000 households. It is not a free toilet,
    we give a hundred dollar rebate and the money comes from add-on
    taxes and also our rates, and that is how we fund the rebates
    as an incentive. We think that we have saved about 150 million
    gallons of water per year from the rebate programs, not
    counting the additional low flow toilets in our new homes.
        The Tampa area is an exploding area as far as new home
    building is concerned. There are good toilets and bad toilets.
    Just like you get good American cars and Yugos, it varies. And
    the new toilets work. You can go to home supply centers, they
    are inexpensive. I know of ones in Tampa that I go to every
    Saturday morning, they work.
        The customer satisfaction surveys show high approval
    ratings on the new low flush toilets, and in Tampa our studies
    show that 90 percent of our customers that have these toilets
    were satisfied or very satisfied. And in other cities, I think
    in Austin, Texas, for one, it rose to 95 percent. In water
    savings, which benefit the customer, the economy and the
    environment, are enormous. You have to look at the total water
    cycle here, not only the water supply. You have to look at
    waste treatment. The cost of waste treatment is very high now,
    I know that it is in Florida, and I would presume so in the
    other States in the country, too. So water conservation should
    be looked at as the total water picture.
        The efficient plumbing fixtures installed in 1998 in the
    United States will save about 16 billion gallons of water in
    1999, enough to fill 1.2 million olympic sized swimming pools.
    That is 16 billion gallons.
        And I would like to offer into the record letters of
    support from the mayor and the commissioners of the city of
    Portland, Oregon. Also from the largest public water supply,
    the Metropolitan District of Southern California, and also the
    city of Los Angeles, as part of the record. So I will hand----
        Mr. Barton. I am sorry, I was listening to staff. Is there
    a unanimous consent request?
        Mr. Bilirakis. He wanted letters in support of the
    standards.
        Mr. Barton. Let the majority and minority staffs look at
    them. If there is no objection, they will be entered, but we
    want to give especially the minority an opportunity to look at
    the letters. That is just kind of a standard practice.
        [The information referred to follows:]

                               City of Portland, Oregon
                                          Bureau of Water Works
                                                          July 23, 1999
    The Honorable Joe Barton, Chairman
    Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    Committee on Commerce
    U.S. House of Representatives
    Washington D.C. 20515

    The Honorable Ralph M. Hall, Ranking Member
    Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    Committee on Commerce
    U.S. House of Representatives
    Washington D.C. 20515
        Dear Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member: The City of Portland has
    reviewed HR 623 and commends Rep. Knollenberg for monitoring the
    implementation of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, and we thank
    you for holding a hearing on this matter and receiving public comment.
    The City of Portland was involved in supporting the amendments to the
    Act in 1992 which required water efficient plumbing fixtures and we
    have been monitoring the implementation as well. We believe the federal
    requirements and the nationwide consistency they bring are far superior
    to the prior situation which left it to the states to decide on their
    own standards. We have monitored the manufactured goods which are being
    produced as a result of the federal law and believe them to be reliable
    and effective in saving water.
        The City of Portland provides high quality drinking water to almost
    one-third of the State of Oregon. We are in a high growth area and must
    plan for additional water supply. We are also the first urban area to
    have fish listed on the Endangered Species List on rivers inside the
    City of Portland. Conservation is one of the important tools we can use
    to meet water supply and environmental protection. There are
    significant water savings being realized through the federal plumbing
    standards; the fixtures work well, and we believe it is important for
    the current federal standards to remain in place. We are pleased there
    is a public hearing on this bill so that Congress can have current
    information on the effectiveness of the plumbing fixtures. However, we
    do believe the fixtures on the market work well, and there is customer
    acceptance and support for water efficient fixtures. We know these
    fixtures are saving water, and they are saving customers money on their
    water bill. As elected officials of the City of Portland responsible
    for both water supply and for issuing building permits and conducting
    plumbing inspections we believe there is no compelling need for HR 623.
                Sincerely,
                                                       Vera Katz, Mayor
                                                Erik Sten, Commissioner
                                          Jim Francesconi, Commissioner
                                            Charlie Hales, Commissioner
                                             Dan Saltzman, Commissioner
                                     ______

                               Los Angeles City Council
                        Office of the Chief Legislative Analyst
                                                          July 26, 1999
    The Honorable Joe Barton
    Chairman, Energy and Power Subcommittee
    2125 Rayburn House Office Building
    Washington, D.C. 20515
        Dear Chairman Barton: The City of Los Angeles is strongly opposed
    to H.R. 623, the Plumbing Standards Improvement Act of 1999.
        Sponsored by Representative Joe Knollenberg, H.R. 623 would repeal
    language in the Energy and Policy and Conservation Act of 1992 that
    requires newly manufactured toilets and shower heads to meet specific
    water efficiency standards.
        Water conservation efforts have been--and continue to be--a vital
    tool on preserving limited water resources in California.
    Unfortunately, H.R. 623 would seriously undermine such efforts.
        The current national efficiency standards, combined with water
    conservation campaigns at the local level, have played a key role in
    encouraging the greater use of water efficient devices in homes and
    businesses alike. In recent years, the City's Department of Water and
    Power (DWP) has been actively involved in conservation activities aimed
    at reducing both in door and out door water use. DWP's ultra-low flush
    toilet and low-flow shower head retrofit programs save an estimated
    35,000 acre-feet of water annually. This is enough water to meet the
    needs of 70,000 families each year.
        Preserving the current national efficiency standards for newly-
    manufactured toilets and showerheads makes good economic and
    environmental sense. If you have any questions, please feel free to
    contact me or John Ryan at (202) 347 0915
                Sincerely,
                                                        James F. Seeley
                                     ______

     Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
                                  Office of the General Manager
                                                          July 22, 1999
    The Honorable Joe Barton
    Chairman
    United States House of Representatives
    2125 Rayburn House Office Building
    Washington, D.C. 20515
        Dear Chairman: H.R. 623, a Bill to Amend the Energy Policy and
    Conservation Act to Eliminate Certain Regulation of Plumbing Supplies
    (Rep. Knollenberg, R)
        The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
    (Metropolitan) wishes to join the Association of California Water
    Agencies in expressing opposition to H.R. 623, the proposed repeal of
    water-efficient plumbing fixture standards established by the U.S.
    Energy Policy Act of 1992.
        As the major wholesale supplier of water to cities and counties
    within the arid, drought-prone Southern California region, Metropolitan
    is a recognized pioneer and an aggressive proponent of water
    conservation programs and policies. Since 1988, Metropolitan, in
    partnership with its 27 member agencies, has invested more than $200
    million to co-fund projects designed to increase water use efficiency
    in the residential, commercial, industrial, institutional and public
    sectors.
        By adopting uniform efficiency standards, the Energy Policy Act of
    1992 (EPAct) provided manufacturers with a national market and
    encouraged competition. Large volume purchases of ultra low-flush
    toilets (ULFTs) by Metropolitan and others, during the early 1990's,
    helped provide the economic incentives manufacturers needed to incur
    the substantial engineering and re-tooling investments required to meet
    the challenge of producing an acceptable 1.6 gallon per flush toilet.
    Metropolitan believes the withdrawal of national standards would
    substantially undermine this highly desirable and beneficial trend.
        Metropolitan appreciates your continued interest in the water
    issues that affect California. If you have any questions, please feel
    free to call me at (213) 217-6211, or Brad Hiltscher in our Washington
    Office at (202) 296-3551.
                Sincerely,
                                             Ronald E. Gastelum
                                                        General Manager

        Mr. Tippin. That is fine. Representative Knollenberg is to
    be commended on introducing legislation which focuses attention
    on the problems with the early generation.
        Mr. Barton. I think I heard your bell expire. So could you
    summarize.
        Mr. Tippin. In summary, the objectives of H.R. 623 have
    been met through the marketplace, and there is no need for
    legislation and we respectfully request that the members of the
    subcommittee not support the passage of house resolution 623.
        [The prepared statement of David L. Tippin follows:]
         Prepared Statement of David L. Tippin, Director, Tampa Water
      Department, Representing The American Water Works Association, and
                   Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies
                                  introduction
        Good afternoon Mr. Chairman. I am David L. Tippin, Director of the
    Tampa Water Department in Tampa, Florida, a position I have held for 25
    years. I am here today on behalf of the City of Tampa, the American
    Water Works Association (AWWA), and the Association of Metropolitan
    Water Agencies (AMWA).
        We appreciate the opportunity to present our views on H.R 623, The
    Plumbing Standards Improvement Act of 1999.
        Tampa, Florida's third largest city, provides water to 450,000
    people in a 211 square mile service area. This area of Florida is
    densely populated with a staggering annual growth.
        AWWA is the world's largest and oldest scientific and educational
    association representing drinking water supply professionals. The
    association's 56,000 members are comprised of administrators, utility
    operators, professional engineers, contractors, manufacturers,
    scientists, professors and health professionals. The association's
    membership includes over 4,200 utilities which provides over 80 percent
    of the nation's drinking water. Since our founding in 1881, AWWA and
    its members have been dedicated to providing safe drinking water.
        AMWA is an association of the nation's largest public water supply
    agencies. Its 136 members provide water to over 120 million people and
    the purposes of the association are to work for the advancement and
    protection of drinking water supplied by large public agencies.
        In today's statement I would like to emphasize the importance of
    the current plumbing products efficiency standards in the 1992 Energy
    Policy and Conservation Act (PL 102-486) both to the Nation and in
    Florida in particular.
                     plumbing products efficiency standards
        The City of Tampa, AWWA, and AMWA respectfully request that the
    members of the Subcommittee not support the passage of H.R. 623, which
    will repeal a requirement in the 1992 Energy Policy and Conservation
    Act (PL 102-486) that restricts all new toilets to 1.6 gallons per
    flush and showerheads to 2.5 gallons per minute among other water
    conservation standards. A number of things have changed since the
    proposal in H.R. 623 was first introduced in the 105th Congress in H.R.
    859.

    --The toilets work. The once controversial water-saving toilets are no
            longer an issue with consumers. The plumbing products industry
            has met consumers' needs by engineering a new generation of
            water-efficient toilets that work as well as, or better than,
            the older pre-water-saving models according to a 1998 Consumers
            Union study and numerous consumer satisfaction surveys.
    --Water and economic savings are enormous. Efficient plumbing fixtures
            installed in new homes last year will save 16 billion gallons
            of water in 1999--enough to fill 1.2 million olympic-sized
            swimming pools. The cost avoidance for additional
            infrastructure and the benefit for growth and development
            without adversely affecting natural resources is an enormous
            economic and environmental benefit of these savings.
        Rep. Knollenberg is to be commended for introducing legislation
    which focused public attention on the problems with an early generation
    of water efficient toilets which were of concern to consumers. The
    public debate on this issue has highlighted the improvements in water
    efficient toilets made by the plumbing products industry and the water
    and economic benefits of the current standards. There no longer is a
    need for this bill to help improve water efficient plumbing products
    for consumers. The objective of H.R. 623 has been met through the
    rigors of the marketplace which may drive even further improvements in
    the performance of plumbing products.
        However, the regulatory stability provided by current Federal law
    is important to the U.S. plumbing industry. It allows them to bring
    improved products to a national market, rather than spend time and
    money on designing products for differing flush volumes, flow rates,
    test procedures, certification requirements, and labeling rules, all of
    which could vary by state and local jurisdictions if Federal standards
    were repealed. Economies of scale--an important factor in keeping costs
    to consumers low--could be lost if the national market were to become
    fragmented. Prior to enactment of the 1992 Energy Policy and
    Conservation Act, 17 states as well as numerous localities had adopted
    their own plumbing products standards. This led to not only
    manufacturing and distribution problems, but also created enforcement
    problems within the states.
        This issue was debated in 1992 and a bipartisan agreement among
    Members of Congress and the stakeholders to adopt national standards
    was incorporated into law. While a different legislative approach which
    would provide for another mechanism to establish national standards
    might have been adopted in 1992, it was not. It would be highly
    counter-productive, after all this time, to repeal these standards on
    which the manufacturing of plumbing products in the United States is
    based. In many cases, the new and efficient plumbing products are a
    cornerstone for the local water conservation programs of public water
    utilities which avoid the cost to consumers of new reservoirs and both
    drinking water and waste-water treatment facilities.
                            water savings nationally
        Water suppliers in the Unites States already process nearly 34
    billion gallons of water each day. If the population--and therefore
    demand--continues to grow, saving water can help avoid building
    expensive new water supply and treatment facilities that would put an
    additional stress on the environment and increase water rates for
    consumers. According to the 1998 Residential Water Use Summary
    commissioned by AWWA, average water use in the typical single-family
    home is 74 gallons per capita per day. By installing water-efficient
    fixtures, however, consumers can cut their water use by 30 percent to
    51.9 gallons per capita per day. This can save households up to $100
    each year.
        The water savings from coast to coast are enormous. Since 1993,
    Tampa has provided 15,000 toilet rebates. On a larger scale, the City
    of Los Angeles and local water agencies have provided rebates or given
    away more than 2.25 million low-flush toilets since 1992. Despite a
    population increase of nearly one million since 1970--a jump of 32
    percent--Los Angeles in 1999 used virtually the same amount of water as
    it did 29 years ago. Retrofitting toilets in Los Angeles saves nine
    billion gallons of water a year. Due to conservation measures, Southern
    California's need for imported water has been reduced by 710,000 acre-
    feet annually, or about 23 percent. At the other end of the country, in
    New York City, more than 1.3 million inefficient toilets were replaced
    with low-flush toilets between 1993 and 1997. Although the city's
    population continues to grow, per capita water use in New York City
    dropped from 195 gallons to 164 gallons per day from 1991 to 1997. The
    New York Department of Environmental Protection estimates city-wide
    savings from low-flow toilets to be 70 to 80 million gallons per day.
    In apartment buildings using low-flow toilets, there was a 29 percent
    reduction in water use. In Denver, as part of the resource planning
    process, the Denver Board of Water Commissioners identified a need for
    an additional 100,000 acre-feet of water annually to meet total demand
    by 2045. Denver Water is committed to obtain 29,000 of the 100,000
    additional acre-feet through water conservation. Denver Water is
    counting on achieving some of these saving through the requirements in
    the 1992 Energy Policy and Conservation Act.
        Double flushing is no longer a problem and the low-flush toilets
    are producing the water savings intended in the 1992 Energy Policy and
    Conservation Act. In a soon to be released study, Residential End Uses
    of Water, the AWWA Research Foundation has found that, even in
    instances of double flushing, the slightly higher flushes per day did
    not offset the volume of water used by the larger volume flush toilets.
    Further, the study stated that, on average, double flushing of low-
    flush toilets does not appear to happen any more often than double
    flushing of non-low-flush toilets. Any additional flushing was not
    often enough to even begin to offset the water savings available from
    the low-flush toilets. The great majority of low-flush toilet owners
    surveyed are now satisfied with the performance of the toilets. As
    examples, in a low-flush toilet program in Tampa, 91 percent of the
    customers were either satisfied or very satisfied with the new low-
    flush toilets, and in a similar program in Austin, Texas, 95 percent of
    the customers were either satisfied or very satisfied with the new low-
    flush toilets. The May 1998 issue of Consumer Reports reported that the
    newer low-flush toilets tested worked well.
        America's public water supply systems continue to use more and more
    water. Total withdrawals have nearly tripled since 1950. The cost of
    water and wastewater treatment has gone up significantly in recent
    years. Americans now spend about $50 billion each year on residential
    water and sewer bills. Water conservation can help reduce residential
    water bills not only through reduced water use but through avoidance of
    capital expenditures as well. The Environmental Protection Agency needs
    survey for both drinking water and wastewater estimates that at least
    $280 billion will be needed to protect public health and accommodate
    growth over the next 20 years. A significant portion of this need is
    for facilities and equipment where the volume of water and wastewater
    flow affects the required size and cost. Water conservation programs
    can postpone or reduce the cost of such capital spending.
                            water savings in florida
        The Tampa area receives about 55 inches of rainfall per year.
    However, about 49 of those inches are lost to run-off and evaporation,
    resulting in a true effective rainfall of only about six inches. Most
    of the rain occurs in July, August and September. Conversely, Tampa
    water supplies are quite stressed during our annual drought cycle--
    making conservation critical. The plumbing products standards of the
    1992 Energy Policy and Conservation Act are an essential component of
    water conservation and repealing these standards will only exacerbate
    existing problems. In addition, repealing the current Federal plumbing
    products standards is detrimental to the long-term health of the
    Floridian economy. Florida is one of the fastest growing states in the
    country. Each new resident and business places increasing demand on a
    relatively static supply of potable water. Water conservation is one
    way that we can meet the needs of new residents and businesses while
    stretching the limited supplies of water available. Without national
    standards, Florida would be forced to adopt its own state standards
    which could put Florida in an economic competitive disadvantage with
    other areas and cost Florida consumers more for water efficient
    plumbing products.
        Tampa has found that indoor water use, by using water savings
    fixtures, can be reduced by 15 percent or about 14,000 gallons per year
    per household.
                                    summary
        In conclusion, I want highlight the main points of the testimony:

    --The City of Tampa, AWWA, and AMWA support the current plumbing
            products efficiency standards in the 1992 Energy Policy and
            Conservation Act. It has worked as intended.
    --The new low-flush toilets work and have high consumer acceptance.
    --The water savings which benefit the consumer, the economy and
            environment are enormous.
    --The objectives of H.R. 623 have been met through the market place and
            there is no need for legislation.
    --We respectfully request that the members of the Subcommittee not
            support the passage of H.R. 623.
        This concludes our statement on H.R. 623, The Plumbing Standards
    Improvement Act of 1999. I would be pleased to answer any questions or
    provide additional material for the committee.

        Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Tippin. Mr. Osann, we recognize
    you for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF EDWARD R. OSANN

        Mr. Osann. My name is Edward Osann. I am of Potomac
    Resources, and this testimony is presented on behalf of 10
    national and State environmental organizations, as well as the
    National Association of Service and Conservation Corps, and the
    California Urban Water Conservation Council. I am sure that it
    will come as no surprise to you, Mr. Chairman, we could not
    disagree with Mr. Knollenberg more on this legislation. We
    are----
        Mr. Barton. You need to move the microphone over. You could
    not disagree more?
        Mr. Osann. We could not disagree more. As this hearing
    takes place, there are severe drought conditions which are
    extending across a dozen or 14 eastern and southeastern States
    and portions of Texas, as I am sure you are aware, remain dry
    and have not recovered from last year, particularly in the Rio
    Grande Valley. These water use restrictions that result from
    these conditions highlight the value and continuing importance
    of saving water. But as severe as some of these problems are
    locally, the Federal interests, the national interest in water
    conservation in general and plumbing product efficiency in
    particular is really much broader than that. It stems from the
    fundamental reality that it takes money to provide safe
    drinking water, and it takes money to clean up waste water.
        The financial needs that have been projected by the States
    and reported by EPA are so enormous over the coming decades,
    some $280 billion will be needed to comply with current law and
    accommodate growth over the next 20 years, that these costs
    threaten to frustrate or delay achieving important public
    health objectives and environmental quality goals. Many of the
    organizations that I am representing here today work to enact
    or to strengthen the Safe Drinking Water Act, to enact or
    strengthen the Clean Water Act. If the cost of compliance with
    these statutes were to appear to be unmanageable, it might
    threaten the achievement of the goals, goals which we believe
    are broadly supported by the American people.
        Efficient plumbing products help communities and consumers
    to manage their water and sewer costs, and this is good for the
    environment. The value of this is apparent in many places that
    we don't usually think of being as arid or being short on
    water. Congressman Dingell alluded to the concerns regarding
    waste water in the State of Michigan and my testimony indicates
    across--gives examples of infrastructure needs through the
    water rich parts of the country, areas that we don't usually
    think of as being subject to water shortages, but the dollar
    requirements are significant and these products because they
    save significant amounts of water are very useful tools for
    managing these costs.
        By significantly reducing indoor water use, efficient
    plumbing products can help hold down the cost of water supply
    and waste water treatment infrastructure in all 50 States in a
    highly cost effective manner, and we think the Federal interest
    is clearly demonstrated here by the establishment of Federal
    environmental goals and the Safe Drinking Water Act and the
    Clean Water Act and the Federal financial interest that is
    evidenced by multi-billion dollar appropriations for State
    revolving funds and rural water and sewer programs to finance
    both drinking water and waste water treatment improvements. We
    think that there is a strong Federal interest in maintaining
    efficiency standards for plumbing products that can save
    consumers money and facilitate improvements of these important
    public health and environmental objectives.
        In many communities there are special efforts that are
    underway to use efficient plumbing products to accomplish local
    and regional environmental goals. In some cases it is
    maintaining riparian habitat and restoring fisheries, and in
    others it is improving the quality of waste water discharges.
        My written testimony provides a list of examples where
    conservation programs are addressing water needs and
    environmental objectives and conservation programs that are
    using water efficient products.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Barton. If you have another sentence or two----
        Mr. Osann. I would simply point out that many States have
    found water efficient plumbing to be critically important for
    their future infrastructure planning and with that achievement
    of environmental goals that the American public values highly.
        Attached to my testimony is a narrative description from
    the Texas Water Development Board that describes the role of
    water efficient plumbing products in Texas and the significant
    reliance on these products over the coming decades that the
    State perceives, and I simply call that to your attention, Mr.
    Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Edward R. Osann follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Edward R. Osann, President, Potomac Resources,
                                      Inc.
        My name is Edward R. Osann, and I am President of Potomac
    Resources, Inc., a consulting business specializing in energy and
    natural resources policy. Over the past two years, I have served as a
    legislative representative on the issue before the subcommittee today
    on behalf of plumbing manufacturers, environmental organizations, and
    water and wastewater utilities.
        My testimony today is endorsed and presented on behalf of the
    following organizations, whose principal interests involve the
    conservation and wise use of natural resources, the protection of
    environmental quality, and public education regarding such issues: the
    American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Clean Water Action,
    Environmental and Energy Study Institute, Environmental Defense Fund,
    Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife federation, Natural Resources
    Defense Council, Sierra Club, Texas Committee on Natural Resources, and
    the Union of Concerned Scientists.
        This testimony is also presented on behalf of the:

    --National Association of Service & Conservation Corps, a membership
            association for 100 conservation corps in 34 states who provide
            employment and training for young adults. Several of these
            corps work with utilities and municipalities on water
            conservation projects; and the
    --California Urban Water Conservation Council, an organization
            established in 1991 to advance the analysis and implementation
            of urban water conservation measures in California, and whose
            decision making is shared evenly between the its water agency
            members and its non-profit public interest group members.
    Water conservation is important to the nation.
        Mr. Chairman, as this hearing convenes, a band of states extending
    from Massachusetts to North Carolina is experiencing severe drought
    conditions, and portions of Texas have seen little relief from last
    year's severe heat and dry weather. The water use restrictions that
    result from these conditions serve to highlight the continuing
    importance of making efficient use of our water resources.
        But as severe as some of these local water supply problems have
    become, the national interest--indeed, the federal interest--in water
    conservation in general, and plumbing product efficiency in particular,
    is much broader than that. It stems from the fundamental reality that
    in all 50 states, it takes money to provide safe drinking water, and it
    takes money to clean up wastewater. The financial needs are so
    enormous--according to EPA and the States, some $280 billion will be
    needed to comply with current law and accommodate growth over the next
    20 years--that these cost threaten to frustrate or delay the
    achievement of important public health objectives and environmental
    quality goals.
        Admittedly, water conservation is seldom a ``top of the mind''
    concern in water-rich portions of our country. But consider this:
    States throughout the Northeast and Midwest have multi-billion-dollar
    infrastructure needs. In many cases, these are for facilities and
    improvements whose costs are related, at least in part, to the volume
    or flow of water or wastewater that must be accommodated. This is where
    water conservation can translate into real dollar savings.
        To illustrate, these needs over the next two decades have been
    projected by the States themselves and EPA for portions of the country
    that we don't usually consider to be ``arid'':

    Iowa............................  drinking water      $1.2 billion
                                       transmission.
    Michigan........................  drinking water      1.4 billion
                                       transmission.
    Ohio............................  drinking water      1.4 billion
                                       transmission.
    Pennsylvania....................  drinking water      1.3 billion
                                       treatment.
    Illinois........................  drinking water      1.5 billion
                                       treatment.
    New Jersey......................  wastewater          2.0 billion
                                       secondary
                                       treatment.
    North Carolina..................  wastewater          1.1 billion
                                       advanced
                                       treatment.
    Michigan........................  combined sewer      3.7 billion
                                       overflow.
    Ohio............................  combined sewer      4.2 billion
                                       overflow.
    Illinois........................  combined sewer      9.4 billion
                                       overflow.

        In fact, four out of the top six states ranked by their total flow-
    related drinking water and wastewater infrastructure needs are Great
    Lakes States--New York, Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania--joined by
    California and Texas. (See attachment on Texas infrastructure needs.)
        By significantly reducing indoor water use, efficient plumbing
    products can help hold down the costs of water supply and wastewater
    treatment infrastructure in all 50 States, in a highly cost-effective
    manner. In light of--

     the federal interest in meeting safe drinking water needs and
            achieving water quality goals, as reflected in the Safe
            Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act; and
     the federal financial interest evidenced by multi-billion
            dollar appropriations for State Revolving Funds and rural water
            and sewer programs to finance both drinking water and
            wastewater treatment improvements,
    there is a strong federal interest in maintaining efficiency standards
    for plumbing products that can save consumers money and facilitate the
    achievement of these important public health and environmental
    objectives throughout the nation.
    Water conservation is helping to protect the environment today.
        Increasingly, water conservation plays an important role in meeting
    the environmental goals of many states and communities, in addition to
    lowering costs and improving the reliability of water and wastewater
    systems. Water conservation programs, including those featuring
    efficient plumbing products, can be structured to achieve any of the
    following--

     Maintaining riparian habitat and restoring fisheries;
     Protecting groundwater supplies from excessive depletion and
            contamination;
     Improving the quality of wastewater discharges;
     Restoring the natural values and functions of wetlands and
            estuaries;
     Reducing energy consumption and related air pollution.
        There are many examples of conservation programs addressing these
    problems. Here is a brief sample of such activities.
        In Washington . . . Puget Sound and its tributary streams have
    already benefitted from conservation-assisted improvements in water
    quality. These programs are soon to be expanded to address the special
    needs for stream habitat restoration necessary for salmon restoration
    under the Endangered Species Act.
        In Texas . . . Ambitious water conservation programs are helping to
    address the special needs of endangered species that are threatened by
    excessive groundwater use in the San Antonio and Austin areas. The
    Edwards Aquifer Authority was created to help stabilize and restore
    groundwater resources, and improved plumbing efficiency has been a
    significant element in the restoration program. Statewide, the 1997
    Texas Water Plan projects that water conservation will produce \2/3\ of
    all new supplies needed in the state by 2050, and that improved
    plumbing efficiency will constitute \1/3\ of all conservation savings.
    (See attachments from the Texas Water Development Board.)
        In California . . . Several federal agencies are currently working
    with the State of California on the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, designed
    to restore ecological health and improve water management in
    California's San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary.
    The CALFED Bay-Delta Program has proceeded with a recognition that
    efficient use of water is vital to the continued health of California's
    economy, the reliability of water supplies for urban and agricultural
    users, and the restoration of ecological health. Programs to ensure the
    use of efficient plumbing fixtures in new construction, and encourage
    the replacement of older inefficient fixtures, are among the most
    important and most successful urban water conservation programs.
    California relies on existing state and federal plumbing standards, as
    well as local incentive programs, to replace older fixtures, as
    essential elements of statewide efforts to guarantee a reliable future
    water supply and a healthy Bay-Delta ecosystem. The estimated potential
    urban water conservation savings of the program through 2020 are
    significant, between 1,800,000 and 2,125,000 acre-feet. A significant
    portion of these savings comes from installing 1.6-gpf toilets and
    efficient showerheads.
        In New York City . . . In order to improve the quality of
    wastewater discharges at chronically overloaded sewage treatment
    plants, New York City embarked on one of the largest water conservation
    programs in the nation. An ambitious program to install water meters at
    each unmetered residential account was begun in 1988, resulting in the
    installation of over 500,000 water meters. In 1994, the City launched
    its Toilet Rebate Program, through which 1.3 million inefficient
    toilets were replaced with 1.6-gpf units of the building owners'' own
    selection. Since the beginning of the rebate program, both water
    consumption and wastewater inflows have dropped dramatically, even
    while the city's population has grown. Current dry-weather flows to the
    city's sewage treatment plants now average 1,266 million gallons per
    day (mgd), which contrasts with flows of 1,530 mgd in 1994, a reduction
    of 17% in five years. Currently all 14 of the city's treatment plants
    are operating within their design capacity, and the additional
    retention time made possible by reduced inflows has resulted in higher
    quality effluent.
        In the District of Columbia . . . The Washington Metropolitan Area
    is served by the Blue Plains regional wastewater treatment plant, which
    recently underwent a costly expansion of capacity. Nevertheless,
    Washington, DC, is using more than its share of capacity of the plant,
    which was built to serve neighboring suburban jurisdictions as well. In
    order to meet its contractual obligations to its suburban partners and
    maintain the plant's performance, Washington will undertake a water
    conservation program designed to shave 20 mgd from the inflows to Blue
    Plains. A variety of measures are under evaluation, with efficient
    plumbing fixtures likely to be a major component of the program. These
    measures will play an additional important role as the city develops
    plans to reduce long-neglected combined sewer discharges into the
    Anacostia River.
        In Florida . . . Perhaps the largest wetlands restoration program
    ever undertaken, the Everglades Restoration Plan will involve major
    reductions in wastewater discharges to the ocean, and a redirection of
    conserved water to the Everglades and Florida Bay estuary on a massive
    scale. Because the water distribution system in South Florida must
    serve both the human demands for water and the environmental needs of
    the Everglades, the Everglades Restoration Plan recently submitted to
    Congress addresses both these needs. According to the plan's
    projections, the population in South Florida is expected to double in
    the next fifty years, or an increase of roughly 6 million people. The
    plan therefore relies on a water conservation program for South Florida
    that would reduce consumption by 17% over the life of the plan,
    dropping water consumption from 1,449 mgd down to 1,193 mgd. These
    reductions are roughly equal to the increase in the amount of water
    that the Restudy Plan will provide for Everglades National Park (about
    270,000 acre-feet per year). In dry years, that is more than half of
    the water flowing into the Park. These reductions depend on full use of
    1.6-gpf toilets in the project area.
    Enactment of H.R. 623 would be costly, unnecessary, and
            counterproductive to the protection of the environment.
        For the reasons outlined above, the nation can ill afford the
    additional cost that would inevitably result from enactment of H.R.
    623. With some 35 million 1.6-gpf toilets now installed all across the
    United States, this new water-saving technology has become an important
    factor in the achievement of long-sought environmental goals. American
    communities and consumers are saving money, and good product
    performance is being recognized in the competitive marketplace.
    Consumer Reports has referred to the bill as ``unwarranted,''' and we
    fully agree.
        We view H.R. 623 as an impulsive attack on an environmentally
    beneficial statute that is working well and costing little. Any
    advancement of this bill could only be seen as a return to the
    ideologically driven assaults on environmental laws that were loudly
    undertaken in Congress in the mid-90's, but soundly rejected by the
    American people. We urge you NOT to approve H.R. 623.

        Mr. Barton. We would now like to hear from Mr. Whalen, who
    is representing the plumbing, heating and cooling contractors
    for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF GEORGE V. WHALEN

        Mr. Whalen. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    committee. I am George Whalen, and I am here today on behalf of
    the Plumbing Heating Cooling Contractors National Association,
    and I thank you for the opportunity to present my testimony.
        I am here today to speak in opposition to H.R. 623. For 37
    years I have served as the President and Executive Director of
    the Plumbing Foundation of the city of New York, a trade
    association representing contractors, unions and wholesalers
    and sanitary engineers.
        The city of New York rebate and retrofit program. While at
    the foundation I had the opportunity to work with the New York
    City Department of Environmental Protection to develop and
    implement the largest and most successful toilet rebate and
    retrofit program in the Nation. This program has been a
    resounding success with residents, building owners and
    managers, the plumbing industry, the city's water purveyors,
    local, State and Federal officials.
        New York City has long been recognized as having one of the
    most successful water supply systems, both in terms of quality
    and quantity. That supply, however, was not infinite, and
    beginning in 1991, the city recognized the need to protect its
    water resources. High usage and summertime drought conditions
    had forced the city's reservoirs to dip dangerously low and had
    placed unreasonable demands on both the city's clean water
    needs and its capacity to treat waste water. It is important to
    remember that each gallon of water consumed equals at least a
    gallon of water that needs to be treated by one of the city's
    14 sewage plants, 4 of which at the time were operating at or
    above capacity. At that time the estimate for upgrading the
    city's waste water treatment capacity to meet current and
    future needs was expected to cost more than $10 billion in
    State and Federal money.
        The city was not alone in experiencing increased water
    usage, and wondering how it would meet the rising costs of
    waste water treatment, and finding clean potable water wasn't
    the biggest problem.
        I personally have worked on projects for California,
    Florida, Maryland and Massachusetts as well as Cities of
    Philadelphia, Atlanta, Duluth, Minnesota and Portland, Oregon,
    all of which were facing stresses on their ability to meet
    their waste water treatment needs. In fact, some areas of the
    country, including New York City, were threatening building
    moratoriums in order to reduce waste water treatment demands.
    Tapping into new water sources was unjustifiably expensive and
    would not address the city's long term environmental needs. The
    city needed a solution that would address both challenges,
    reducing the city's demands for clean water and reducing the
    amount of water needing treatment. Prior to the 1990's, the
    majority of the New York City's toilets used 3 to 5 gallons of
    water per flush. And in fact prior to 1980, you could use a
    toilet in the United States with 4\1/2\ to 7 gallons of water.
    There were 4 million toilets in the city of New York, and the
    frequency at which they were flushed, very quickly you realize
    the amount of water being consumed is no longer insignificant.
        The toilet rebate and retrofit program eventually adopted
    by the city was an innovative and effective plan that would
    address the city's clean water and waste water treatment needs.
    The terms of the program were simple. The city offered a rebate
    up to $240 on the installed cost for the replacement of an
    outdated water guzzling toilet with a modern, low-consumption
    toilet. Additional replacements in the same household were
    eligible for $150 rebate per unit. Commercial replacements
    qualified for $150 per unit. A couple of caveats, and these
    were the things that ensured the program's success. At least 70
    percent of the toilets in each building had to be replaced
    before the owner was eligible for the rebate. Only models
    tested and approved by the State of New York could be
    installed. And most importantly, the installation must be
    completed by a licensed plumbing contractor who could not get
    paid if the unit did not work.
        This public-private partnership succeeded because of the
    credibility of the program among the city's building owners and
    the licensed plumbing contractors working in the city's 2.3
    million households. It could not have worked without their
    support.
        I would like to share some impressive facts. We did 1.3
    million plus toilets in the first 25 months on the program at
    an average of 12,500 a week. The city of New York had reduced
    the flow of water through its sewage treatment plants by 80
    million gallons a day, 280 million gallons a year. New York
    City replaced 1.3 million toilets at a cost of $290 million,
    but saved the city $3 billion in water and waste water
    treatment expansion costs. The average household in New York
    City was saving $70 annually on its water and sewer bills,
    which are combined. Water consumption was reduced by 29
    percent.
        I would say in conclusion, gentlemen, we were going to go
    on and do the rest of the 4 million toilets, and as Mr.
    Giuliani came in, everybody started saying we don't have to
    save 240 million gallons of water. So they stopped it at 1.3
    because there wasn't a need for it. We have held back the other
    2.7--or the other 1.7 or 2.7 as a reserve. But this was all
    attributable directly, I have with me and I would leave for
    your staff to look at an outside evaluation of the New York
    City toilet program, which is voluminous to say the least, and
    it shows almost all of the toilets that were installed and the
    consumer's response to that and I think more importantly when I
    say to you very frankly the plumbing installer in New York City
    did not get paid from the administration if the consumer said
    hey, that thing doesn't work. So in fact we did it in Federal
    office buildings, Marriott hotels, houses, a cross-section of
    the city. This thing works. They saved 80 million gallons a
    day.
        Mr. Bilirakis. I ask unanimous consent that document be
    made part of the record.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.070

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.071

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.072

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.073

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.074

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.075

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.076

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.077

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.078

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8509.079

        Mr. Barton. Again subject to the minority approval at staff
    level without objection.
        The program that you just alluded to, that was not mandated
    by this Federal law. The State and city of New York were doing
    that before we passed this legislation, is that not correct?
        Mr. Whalen. We passed low flow water legislation in New
    York City in 1992 which was effective in 1993. The first area
    that did this was in 1990 in Massachusetts, was the first State
    to do it, but in fact to answer your question, yes. It was
    mandated by the city, but it was voluntary for the homeowner to
    then replace them. The caveat on that was if you did an
    alteration in your home or you built a new home, you had to use
    a 1.6 gallon toilet.
        [The prepared statement of George V. Whalen follows:]
     Prepared Statement of George Whalen on Behalf of the Plumbing-Heating-
                   Cooling Contractors--National Association
        Good afternoon Mister Chairman, members of the Committee. My name
    is George Whalen and I am here today on behalf of the Plumbing-Heating-
    Cooling Contractors--National Association. Thank you for the
    opportunity to present my testimony.
        I am here today to speak in opposition to H.R. 623. For 37 years, I
    served as the President and Executive Director of the Plumbing
    Foundation of the City of New York, a trade association representing
    contractors, unions, and wholesalers.
    City of New York--Rebate and Retrofit Program
        While with the Foundation, I had the opportunity to work with the
    New York City Department of Environmental Protection to develop and
    implement the largest and most successful toilet rebate and retrofit
    program in the nation. This program has been a resounding success with
    residents, building owners and managers, the plumbing industry, the
    city's water purveyors, and local, state and federal officials.
        NYC has long been recognized as having one of the world's most
    successful water supply systems, both in terms of quantity and quality.
    That supply, however, was not infinite and beginning in 1991, the City
    of New York recognized the need protect its water resources. High usage
    and summertime drought conditions had forced the city's reservoirs to
    dip dangerously low and had placed unreasonable demands on both the
    city's clean water needs and its capacity to treat wastewater. It is
    important to remember that each gallon of water consumed in New York
    City equals at least a gallon that needs to be treated by one of the
    city's 14 sewerage plants, four of which at the time were operating at
    or above capacity. At the time, the estimate for upgrading the city's
    wastewater treatment capacity to meet current and future needs was
    expected to cost more than $10 billion in federal, state and city
    money.
        The City of New York was not alone in experiencing increased water
    usage and wondering how it would meet the rising cost of wastewater
    treatment. And finding clean, potable water wasn't the biggest problem.
    I have worked on projects for California, Florida, Maryland and
    Massachusetts, as well as the cities of Philadelphia, Atlanta, Duluth,
    Minnesota and Portland, Oregon, all of which were facing stresses on
    their abilities to meet their wastewater treatment needs. In fact, some
    areas of the country, including New York City, were threatening
    building moratoriums in order to reduce wastewater treatment demands.
        Tapping into new water sources was unjustifiably expensive, and
    would not address the city's long-term environmental needs. The city
    needed a solution that would address both challenges--reducing the
    city's demand for clean water and reduce the amount of water needing
    treatment.
        Prior to the early 1990's, the majority of New York City's toilets
    used 3.5-5 gallons of water per flush. Not a significant amount of
    water in itself.
        But, consider the total toilet population of the city and the
    frequency with which they were flushed and very quickly you realize the
    amount of water being consumed is no longer insignificant. The toilet
    rebate and retrofit program eventually adopted by the city was an
    innovative and effective plan that would address the city's clean water
    and wastewater treatment needs.
        The terms of the program were simple. The city offered a rebate of
    up to $240.07 on the installed cost for the replacement of an outdated,
    water-guzzling toilet with a modern, low consumption toilet. Additional
    replacements in the same household were eligible for a $150.07 rebate.
    Commercial replacements qualified for $150.07 per unit. A couple of
    caveats ensured the program's success:

     at least 70% of the toilets in each building had to be
            replaced before the owner is eligible for the rebate
     only models tested and approved by the State could be
            installed, and
     the installation must be completed by a licensed plumbing
            contractor
        This public-private partnership succeeded because of the
    credibility of the program among the city's building owners and the
    licensed plumbing contractors working in the city's 2.3 million
    households. It could not have worked without their support.
        I'd like to share some impressive facts about New York City's
    toilet rebate and retrofit program with you:

     1,300,000 toilets were replaced in the first 25 months of the
            program, an average of 12,500 toilets a week
     The City of New York has reduced the flow of water through its
            sewerage treatment plans by 80 million gallons a day or 2.8
            billion gallons a year.
     The City of New York replaced 1.3 million toilets at a cost of
            $290 million but saved the City $ 3 billion in water and
            wastewater treatment expansion costs.
     The average household in NYC is saving $70 annually on its
            water and sewer bills, which are combined in the City of New
            York.
     Water consumption was reduced by 29%.
        The continued use of low consumption toilets is a wise and prudent
    move that will ensure future generations have access to clean, potable
    water.
    H.R. 623 is Poor Public Policy
        H.R. 623 counters every energy and natural resources conservation
    and efficiency message Congress has ever sent!
        H.R. 623 is bad for the environment. Water is our most precious
    natural resource. It is expensive and in limited supply. Water is
    everyone's problem--not just those who happen to live in certain areas
    of the country. Water-conserving plumbing products can save millions of
    gallons of water every day; Water that could be better used in other
    capacities.
        H.R. 623 is bad for the business community. If enacted, H.R. 623
    could limit growth in your congressional district! Limiting growth
    could restrict the economy--that's not good.
        Our country's wastewater treatment facilities are already severely
    overburdened. Many areas of the country are considering (or have
    considered) building moratoriums and other growth-limiting restrictions
    because they cannot meet current or expected wastewater treatment
    needs. Less water used in our plumbing systems means less water that
    has to be treated! And wastewater plants that don't have to be
    expanded!
        H.R. 623 is bad for America's consumers. The flushing of toilets
    accounts for nearly 40% of all water consumed in the average house.
    Every day we flush more than 5 billion gallons of water down the drain.
        Experts say that's about 1.5 billion (yes, billion) gallons of
    water more than necessary. Switching to water-efficient plumbing
    fixtures could save the average household as much as $50 to $100 a year
    on water and wastewater treatment bills. Water down the drain is money
    down the drain.
        Consumers will also feel the negative effects of this legislation
    when their wastewater treatment facilities fail to meet their
    community's needs and they are forced to pay millions, and sometimes
    billions, of tax dollars to build new treatment facilities. Their sewer
    charges could double within 3 years.
    Negative Effect on the Plumbing Industry
        The plumbing industry supports the national efficiency standards
    contained in current law. The flow rates and flush volumes enacted in
    the 1992 Act were developed through the voluntary standard-setting
    process. The same standards had also been adopted by many states prior
    to the enactment of the Act.
        A single federal, low consumption requirement is both necessary and
    practical. A single standard allows products to move freely across
    state lines, without the industry having to produce, stock, deliver and
    install different products based on a variety of state or local
    consumption requirements. This in turn helps to control consumer prices
    for plumbing products.
        Should Congress repeal the current federal standards by passing
    H.R. 623, the efficiencies and economies of the present regulatory
    framework will be lost. Our industry will be forced to comply with
    possibly 50 different state standards, 50 different test procedures, 50
    different certification requirements, and a different building code for
    every town, county and state in which they work.
        Water-efficient technology is vastly improved from where it was
    several years ago. The fact is that there are excellent 1.6 gallon per
    flush (gpf) toilets on the market today. Toilet hardware, not the units
    themselves, is sometimes to blame for poor performance. Toilets must be
    properly installed. Licensed plumbing contractors who properly install
    the 1.6 gpf fixtures rarely get complaints. Plumbing contractors will
    install products that work because warrantee callbacks are costly.
        If you believe improvements can be made in the efficiency or
    performance of the 1.6 gpf toilets mandated in the 1992 Energy Policy
    Act, we urge you to work with our organization and the plumbing
    industry to bring your concerns before American National Standards
    Institute's (ANSI) approved voluntary consensus standardization process
    with jurisdiction over this matter. ANSI is a private, non-profit
    membership organization that coordinates the U.S. voluntary consensus
    standard system.
        The plumbing industry supports the voluntary consensus standard
    process that develops and governs standards ranging from aerospace
    engineering to zirconium production and from crayons to nuclear safety
    to plumbing. The plumbing industry also supports water efficient
    plumbing standards that reduce water consumption and assure states and
    communities a reliable supply of efficient and affordable plumbing
    fixtures.
        Let's keep the government out of our bathrooms and put the experts
    back in charge!

        Mr. Barton. Mr. Goike, we welcome you to the committee.
    Your statement is in the record.

                        STATEMENT OF DAVID GOIKE

        Mr. Goike. Thank you. I would like to enter into the
    hearing a letter addressed to you with two copies from the
    President of TOTO, U.S.A.
        Mr. Barton. Without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]

                                                           TOTO
                                                          July 22, 1999
    The Honorable Joe Barton
    Chairman
    Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    Committee on Commerce
    U.S. House of Representatives
    Washington, DC 20515
        Dear Mr. Chairman: Please accept this statement of TOTO USA for the
    record of the hearing of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power on H.R.
    623, the bill to repeal the current uniform national water efficiency
    standards for plumbing products. TOTO USA is strongly in support of
    current law, and is opposed to the enactment of H.R. 623.
        TOTO USA is a manufacturer of vitreous china plumbing products,
    including water closets and urinals subject to the national standards
    enacted in 1992. TOTO USA is a subsidiary of TOTO Ltd. of Japan, the
    largest manufacturer of plumbing products in the world. We serve the US
    market from two manufacturing plants in Atlanta and Morrow, Georgia.
    Our Morrow plant opened in 1996, and with its advanced pressure casting
    technology, it is the most modern and productive vitreous china
    manufacturing plant in North America.
        TOTO is known throughout the world for its engineering expertise,
    and we have applied our engineering resources to meet the challenge of
    producing fully functional, gravity-operated toilets that consistently
    perform well at 1.6 gallons-per-flush. By giving careful attention to
    both design innovation in the research phase and quality control in the
    manufacturing process, TOTO is able to produce high quality toilets in
    large volumes and at moderate prices.
        TOTO products have been well received by American consumers. In its
    1995 survey of ultra-low-flush toilet users in Los Angeles, the
    Wirthlin Group reported that more purchasers were satisfied with TOTO
    USA's CST 703 than with any other brand identified in the survey. In
    surveys of participants in New York City's landmark toilet rebate
    program of 1994-96, the CST 703 was again found to have produced the
    highest level of customer satisfaction measured for any toilet in the
    program. More recently, TOTO's two-piece and one-piece models have both
    been rated as ``Best Buys'' by Consumer Digest Magazine.
        H.R. 623 appears to be based on the mistaken notion that it is not
    possible to produce reasonably priced toilets that consistently please
    consumers while operating on only 1.6 gallons-per-flush. We most
    respectfully disagree. Our business in the United States is built
    around doing just that. And we have invested in the plant, equipment,
    and people necessary to produce top quality plumbing products with the
    conviction that competition in the American marketplace will reward
    those who can meet this challenge.
        We are pleased that our products are contributing to the
    conservation of America's natural resources and to the reduction of
    capital costs for water and wastewater infrastructure in American
    communities. This is a role that our company and our employees would
    like to continue. We urge you not to turn back the clock on water
    saving-technology. We urge that H.R. 623 not be enacted.
                Sincerely,
                                                  Toshio Kitano
                                                    President, TOTO USA
    cc: The Hon. Mac Collins, M.C.
       The Hon. John Lewis, M.C.

        Mr. Goike. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    committee. My name is David Goike and I am here on behalf of
    the Plumbing Manufacturers Institute, a national trade
    association of companies that produce the Nation's finished
    plumbing, fitting and fixtures, along with a variety of other
    plumbing products. Thank you also for the opportunity to
    testify.
        I am here to present PMI's strong opposition to H.R. 623
    legislation. PMI works with model code agencies, States and
    local jurisdictions to promote uniformity in plumbing codes.
    PMI also teams up with national and Federal groups such as the
    American National Standards Institute and the Department of
    Housing and Urban Development to formulate and update plumbing
    standards for materials, performance and installation
    requirements.
        In these roles, PMI and its members are in a unique
    position to measure the effect of EPAct. We believe that this
    law has been successful in conserving water while establishing
    national standards for plumbing fixtures which have resulted in
    significant savings for consumers and municipalities. We are at
    a loss to see why Congress would consider reversing these
    successes at this time. The provision in EPAct mandating low-
    flow fixtures passed the House, as previously stated, by a
    bipartisan vote of 328 do 79. These provisions have begun to
    realize their enormous potential to help the environment while
    costing the taxpayers, consumers and the government virtually
    nothing. It is rare that a Federal law accomplishes so much and
    costs so little.
        PMI's active promotion of water conservation in plumbing
    systems dates to the early 1970's, when our members began
    working on product standards for low flow faucets and
    showerheads. In the 1980's, our members worked on products
    standards for low flow water closets. The plumbing industry has
    answered a vital public policy need by developing products
    requiring the use of less water.
        I have a study which has been passed out, Saving Water,
    Saving Dollars. I am not going to read the testimony because it
    has been given. There is a 15 percent savings of interior
    residential water use with just 1.6 gallon toilets alone, and
    it further documents savings of as much as 30 percent of
    interior residential water use if all plumbing products of
    EPAct are applied. Such huge savings on the water supply side
    translate as well to substantial savings in the cost of waste
    water infrastructure systems as well.
        Those advocating the repeal of the plumbing provisions in
    EPAct have sought to diminish and politicize a significant and
    somewhat historic consumer and environmental victory. Repeal
    advocates charge that 1.6 gallon flush toilets don't work and
    claim a broad consumer rebellion against these legislative
    standards.
        Gentlemen, we are here to tell you that simply is not true.
    The report I cited earlier, Saving Water, Saving Dollars,
    concludes that plumbing products, including 1.6 gallon toilets,
    work well and save water. And again I am not going to bother
    because the testimony that I had prepared talks about the
    cities we have already covered, San Diego, Austin, Tampa, where
    over 90 percent of the consumers were very satisfied with 1.6
    gallon toilets. There were several other cities in this report
    where the user satisfaction is extremely high.
        Two other facts which I think I would like to point out is
    that the 25 million 1.6 gallon flush toilets installed as of
    1998 were saving on average 29 gallons of water per day in
    single family homes and 48 gallons per day in apartment units.
    Another fact, the water cost savings from 1.6 gallon flush
    toilets alone amount to $50 per year to consumers with an
    average water and sewer bill, even more in high-cost areas, as
    Mr. Whalen just testified, over $70 in New York City.
        The report further demonstrates that consumer choices would
    not change for the most part if plumbing product provisions of
    EPAct were repealed. State and local regulations exist because
    of a need to conserve water, not simply to satisfy the
    requirements of EPAct. When EPAct was signed into law, 48
    percent of the U.S. Population lived in States already
    requiring the installation of 1.6 gallon flush toilets.
    Preexisting State laws would remain leaving about 17 States
    with low flow requirements in place, in addition to numerous
    municipalities which also required 1.6 gallon toilets.
        What would change is the cost to the consumer. The
    economies of scale that allow costs to remain constant would be
    lost and consumers would end up paying more for their plumbing
    products.
        In closing, permit me to remind the subcommittee that the
    plumbing product provisions of EPAct were inspired by a unique
    coalition of interests, including groups representing business,
    conservation, labor, consumers, environmentalists, water
    utilities and waste water treatment providers. We are here to
    preserve water for our children and grandchildren in the years
    ahead and to make plumbing fixtures less costly for consumers
    and to avoid unnecessary governmental regulatory costs. We see
    no reason to repeal and reverse this highly successful
    initiative.
        Thank you for your efforts.
        [The prepared statement of David Goike follows:]
    Prepared Statement of David Goike, Masco Corporation, on Behalf of the
                        Plumbing Manufacturers Institute
        Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Committee Members. I appreciate
    the opportunity to testify before you and the Energy and Power
    Subcommittee today on this most important issue.
                                  introduction
        The Plumbing Manufacturers Institute (PMI) is the national trade
    association of plumbing products manufacturers. Its member companies
    produce the nation's finished plumbing fittings and plumbing fixtures
    along with a variety of other plumbing products.
        PMI works with model code agencies, states and local jurisdictions
    to promote uniformity in plumbing codes. PMI also teams up with
    national and federal groups such as the American National Standards
    Institute and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to
    formulate and update plumbing standards for materials, performance and
    installation requirements.
                   water conservation--always a high priority
        PMI's active promotion of water conservation in plumbing systems
    began in the early 1970s. The Institute and its members worked on
    product standards for low-flow faucets and showerheads. This effort
    culminated in 1979 when the American National Standard covering low
    water-consumption products was approved. Subsequently, PMI has been
    instrumental in seeking adoption of this standard and standards
    requiring low-flush volume toilets and urinals by states and local
    governments. Thus, it was no accident that PMI was an architect of the
    plumbing product provisions of EPAct '92.
                               answering the need
        The plumbing industry has answered a vital public policy need by
    developing products requiring the use of less water. Over the past 25
    years, the federal government recognized the need for a comprehensive,
    nationwide water use and conservation policy. While a variety of
    regulations from such diverse federal agencies and departments as
    Housing and Urban Development, Agriculture, Energy and EPA have
    addressed some of the issues relating to long-term national potable
    water needs, a truly comprehensive policy does not yet exist.
            the need for public water policy and water conservation
        The need for water conservation in private and public use should
    not be obscured by looking at a map of the United States showing the
    Great Lakes and other magnificent water resources, nor can average
    rainfall be used as an indicator of the areas where water conservation
    is required. The need to save potable water--the water that is suited
    for human consumption--exists in virtually every area of the U.S.
        Potable water is expensive water, increasingly expensive.
    Typically, potable water comes from a source where a substantial
    capital expenditure is required to gather and hold the water (i.e.,
    ground water or surface water from man-made reservoirs). The raw water
    must be transported to a treatment plant, processed through treatment
    techniques, transported to the ultimate user and then must be
    transported to a wastewater treatment plant, treated, and finally
    transported again.
        This process costs a great deal of money. Water, for a variety of
    reasons, has typically been underpriced. Utilities have been reluctant,
    historically, to charge enough for water to fully recover capital
    costs. In other words, there has been little set aside for
    infrastructure maintenance and expansion.
        As the population expands and building developments increase,
    tremendous pressure is created on water and wastewater systems
    throughout the U.S. This occurs in areas that have enormous supplies of
    raw water as well as in arid lands. In addition to demand-related
    costs, utilities must also meet constantly expanding regulations
    concerning health-based concerns such as lead in drinking water.
        U.S. EPA estimates, delivered to Congress in 1997, peg needed water
    and wastewater capital investments at $280 billion in the next 20
    years. Some of these funds will come from local users and the local tax
    base. A much larger portion of these funds will have to come from the
    federal government. This is money collected from every taxpayer in the
    U.S.
        Congress should seize every opportunity to maximize taxpayers'
    investments. The report entitled, Saving Water, Saving Dollars, quotes
    studies documenting a 15 percent savings of interior, residential water
    use by the use of 1.6 gallons per flush (gpf) water closets alone. It
    further documents savings of as much as 30 percent of interior,
    residential water use, if all plumbing product provisions of EPAct '92
    are applied along with the use of new, more efficient clothes washers.
        Such savings on the water supply side translate to substantial
    savings on the wastewater infrastructure of systems as well. Water
    conservation in plumbing systems makes sense for many reasons, not the
    least of which is because it allows taxpayer dollars to be used more
    efficiently by government and utilities.
                             a quadruple win . . .
        The plumbing product provisions of EPAct '92 exist because a unique
    coalition of interests worked in unison for the public good. Industry,
    labor, contractors, environmentalists and consumer groups, water
    suppliers and government all came together and agreed on how to achieve
    more efficient use of our water resources.
        This is an example of legislature where there are few government
    programs where everyone wins. Now that the reality of water
    conservation has been documented by Saving Water, Saving Dollars, we
    can point out that the plumbing product provisions of EPAct '92 created
    a quadruple win . . .
        . . . First, huge amounts of a precious, expensive resource are not
    being wasted and misused. The ramifications for all of us in the 21st
    century are enormous and positive. Showcase a victory for the
    environment and our future!
        . . . Products meeting the federal requirements now cost little or
    no more than the same products did prior to 1993, when the requirements
    were enacted. So, the consumer benefits. The consumer benefits again
    because water and sewer bills are less in many instances because of the
    decreased usage. Chalk up a consumer victory!
        . . . these plumbing products provisions have cost the federal
    government virtually nothing. Local and state governments have adopted
    the regulations into their plumbing codes, and plumbing inspectors are
    already enforcing them. The federal government spends virtually nothing
    administering the water conservation standards because standards
    development was left to the private sector that already had the
    capabilities to do the job. Chalk up a victory for government and the
    taxpayer!
        . . . allowing manufacturers to concentrate on more important
    issues such as product improvement and foreign markets. Tally a victory
    for industry!
        Summary: The plumbing product provisions of EPAct '92 have begun to
    realize their enormous potential to help the environment while costing
    taxpayers, our government and consumers virtually nothing. Lets face
    it--such a report card is rarely issued on government programs!
                  reality will continue to make epact '92 work
        Prior to 1992, a number of states and local governments had
    identified the benefits of lower water use plumbing products as part of
    a strategy to save water and avoid capital costs for water and
    wastewater facilities. Many of these entities created their own, but
    differing, efficiency regulations in the absence of uniform federal
    requirements. Product manufacturers, distributors and installers had
    major problems meeting this patchwork of regulation. Literally, an
    installer of a 1.6 gallons per flush water closet could walk across the
    street to a different town and have to install one flushing on 1.5
    gallons per flush.
        The manufacturing, distribution, logistics and enforcement costs of
    this system were unnecessarily high. The consumer was paying more for
    products than would have been necessary under a unifying national
    standard.
                       why has epact '92 worked so well?
        Congress prudently created a target for product manufacturers and
    regulators but did not tell them how to meet the goal. The ``how to''
    was left to the private sector and to existing institutions, such as
    the American National Standards Institute, that already knew how to do
    the job. The inherent competitiveness of the plumbing industry has been
    a major force in creating a ``win-win'' scenario under this law. Since
    1992, products covered by the Act have increased in functionality, and
    they cost virtually no more than their predecessors did.
        Plumbing product manufacturers today must meet the demands of the
    marketplace, and they are doing so, just as they have always done.
                                  other issues
        1) It has been asserted by detractors of EPAct '92 that the
    plumbing product provisions of the Act should be repealed so that
    consumers may have a ``choice'' as to how much water toilets use. The
    argument is illusory. First, one must recognize, as a practical matter,
    consumers in recent times have never had a choice as to how much water
    toilets used to flush. In the last 25 years, water closet flushing
    volume has evolved steadily downward for a variety of reasons from
    seven gallons per flush to the current 1.6 gallons per flush.
        Consumers today can specify the same choices with respect to
    toilets as they did 25 years ago (i.e., color, shape and size of the
    bowl), with the exceptions of short periods of time when higher
    flushing generations of toilets were phased out of the market and the
    next lower flushing generation was phased in.
        2) Repealing the federal law will have minimal impact on the broad
    use and acceptance of water conservation plumbing products, but costs
    may very well increase needlessly. The requirements of EPAct '92 are
    now firmly embedded in state and local law, and codes. They are being
    widely enforced. Most areas of the U.S., either before 1992 or after
    EPAct '92 was passed, have changed their own statutes and regulations
    to require water conservation plumbing products.
        The model plumbing codes, upon which most state and local codes are
    based, have also changed requirements for water conservation products.
    It is our opinion, based on our knowledge of the market and the code
    development process, that few--if any--states and local jurisdictions
    would repeal regulations mandating the use of water conservation
    plumbing products.
        What is bound to happen, however, is that states and local
    jurisdictions would move back to the pre-1992 situation in which they
    make ``slight'' changes in their regulations.
        We cannot predict precisely how these localized regulations would
    change manufacturing, but we can report what happened prior to
    implementation of the federal requirements: in order to maintain
    efficiency and productivity, producers made all or most of their
    toilets, showerheads and faucets to the most stringent requirements in
    the national marketplace. This is, if state X required 1.3 gallons per
    flush toilets, all toilets were made to that standard by the
    manufacturer, generally speaking, it is more efficient to produce and
    distribute fewer models of a product.
        It is ironic that repeal of the plumbing product provisions of
    EPAct '92 would quite likely have exactly the opposite effect that H.R.
    623 contemplates.
        3) Consumers are generally satisfied with the current generation of
    water conservation products. The documentation of consumer acceptance
    and satisfaction contained in Saving Water, Saving Dollars should ease
    any congressional concerns. We have reviewed consumer complaint data
    form several major toilet manufacturers. The conclusion is that
    manufacturers receive no more complaints about 1.6 gallons per flush
    toilets than they did about 3.5 gallons per flush toilets. As a matter
    of fact, some have received fewer complaints on the 1.6 models.
        4) The alleged ``black market'' for older toilets is imaginary in
    its impact. We asked toilet manufacturers to compare several years'
    data of projected sales of toilets against actual sales for outlets
    near the Canadian border (Canada has no such 1.6 gallons per flush
    requirement). It was assumed that sales in these areas would suffer, if
    a black market for 3.5 gallons per flush toilets existed. Every
    reporting company indicated sales of 1.6 gallons per flush toilets
    along the Canadian border were at or above forecasts.
        5) Contrary to the battle cry of H.R. 623 sponsors, the government
    has been in your bathroom since the 1400s--ever since officials
    determined emptying chamber pots out the window into the street caused
    disease. Plumbing installation is highly regulated at the state and
    local levels today, as it has been since the Middle Ages. The federal
    government also plays an increasing role in the regulation of plumbing
    products.
        If the plumbing product provisions of EPAct '92 were repealed, the
    federal government would still be in your bathroom through laws,
    regulations or policies of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the
    EPA, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the
    Department of Justice (ADAAG). These citations do not include the
    important role of federal purchasing specifications in shaping product
    standards.
                             how congress can help
        We believe there is a proper and very useful role for the Congress
    concerning the broad issues of water conservation and plumbing
    products.
        The first part of that role is for Congress to foster and nurture a
    comprehensive review of water supplies and water use--to create a
    national water policy. Experts have been documenting the need to
    preserve water supplies for decades. Each Presidential administration
    since Jimmy Carter's has made headlines over initiation of a
    comprehensive national policy, with conservation as an important part
    of the policy. We are now moving into the twenty-first century and
    still do not have a comprehensive water policy for this nation.
        With respect to plumbing products, we wish to emphasize that the
    use of our industry products is only part of the necessary development
    of a comprehensive national water policy.
        1) Section 337 of EPAct '92 mandates the Secretary of the
    Department of Energy to carry out consumer education. If this
    obligation has been met at all, it has only been a minimal effort. The
    plumbing industry needs help from consumer and environmental groups,
    other interested parties and government in letting consumers' needs,
    but they operate differently. Congress could help cause government
    agencies to become part of the solution to consumer education issues.
        2) We believe that, over the long term, flow rates and flush
    volumes of plumbing products will continue to be driven downward
    because of the need to save water and energy. The products manufactured
    by our industry are the products the consumers see in their bathrooms
    and kitchens. Underlying these products is a complicated system of
    water delivery and waste disposal that, along with those products the
    consumer actually uses, form the plumbing system. All portions of the
    overall system must function in harmony or serious problems effecting
    health and safety develop.
        Within the federal government (at the National Institute for
    Standards and Technology) the expertise already exists to begin dealing
    with the longer-term plumbing system design issues inherent in the need
    to save water. Coupling NIST with the American Society of Plumbing
    Engineers, representing the private plumbing system design professional
    and other groups, would position Congress in a strong leadership role
    solving twenty-first century water problems.
        While we believe H.R. 623 should not be passed, we also recognize
    that those supporting it have, by their efforts, helped focus attention
    on the need for a comprehensive national water policy. We invite the
    sponsors and supporters of H.R. 623 to work with the same coalition
    that created the plumbing product provisions in EPAct '92 to talk about
    water and the twenty-first century.
                                    summary
        The plumbing product provisions of EPAct '92 were created by a
    truly unique group of interests including business, labor, consumers,
    environmentalists, the water industry and government.
        What they created has . . .
          . . . saved precious water
          . . . saved the consumer money
          . . . cost the government virtually nothing to administer
          . . . help the environment!!
        Why would such an initiative be repealed?

        Mr. Barton. Thank you, sir. We would like to hear from Mr.
    Willardson. You are asked to summarize your statement.

                     STATEMENT OF ANTHONY WILLARDSON

        Mr. Willardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    subcommittee. We appreciate the opportunity to testify on
    behalf of the council. The council is an organization of 16
    States and the members are appointed by the Governors of those
    States. The council is opposed to the repeal of uniform
    national plumbing efficiency standards. I might add that is an
    unusual position for us to take to support Federal regulation,
    but in this case our States have had, many of them, the same
    standards before enactment of the Federal requirements.
        The States of Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, Texas,
    Utah and Washington all had plumbing efficiency standards prior
    to the Federal requirements. The Federal requirements have been
    incorporated in their plumbing codes. Other States now depend
    on those standards. The State of New Mexico is one who again
    opposes repeal of those standards. Repeal would send--to us it
    is a question of conservation. It is an issue of conservation.
    The repeal of those standards would send the wrong message,
    that urban water conservation is not as important as it was.
        We have seen significant water savings in different areas
    of the country. While it may not be perceptible nationwide, it
    is perceptible in the Los Angeles Basin and in the San Diego
    area, in Las Vegas, where they are reaching the limit of their
    water supply and are still building. The issue may come down if
    we can't reduce our water use, a building moratorium. The State
    of Arizona has closed many of their groundwater basins to
    further development. They have required a showing of a 100-year
    water supply before you can subdivide.
        There are many water supply issues in the West, and we
    believe that one of the other major issues for those States
    that had standards is enforcement of those standards. The
    member from Arizona remarked they wondered what they were going
    to do now that they were giving the standards from a State
    water agency. Were they going to home base, the local hardware
    stores to see what they were selling? The enactment of the
    Federal standards eliminated that tremendous regulatory problem
    for the States, and enactment of H.R. 623 and repeal of those
    standards would again place that burden on the States.
        Also there is the issue of Federal funding, increasing the
    demands for Federal funding for infrastructure financing for
    water and waste water. We have heard that before. It would
    create a disproportionate burden on western States where we are
    limiting our water use and create a greater demand in other
    States that are not limiting their water use for those funds,
    for State revolving funds and others.
        We have chosen to exercise the constraints. The State of
    California supports the Federal standards even though their
    standards were more stringent at the time that the Energy
    Policy Act was enacted in 1992.
        There are other things that States can do and are doing to
    save water. This is an important issue to us and as I say, it
    is not one that was taken lightly. The discussion in our
    meetings among our States, and it was a unanimous adopted
    position, was enlightening. But it came down to the issue of
    supporting conservation and the regulatory burden that would be
    placed on the States if this act were repealed. Nevada was
    interesting. They wanted to know what the support was for
    repeal of the bill, if there was a National Association of
    Water Wasters.
        Arizona has talked about their plumbing standards and how
    that is a base requirement for all of the cities in Arizona
    now, including the city of Phoenix. In Oregon, the State's
    administrative rules with respect to water allocation and
    conservation are all tied to their water efficiency standards
    and the plumbing codes. There are many--there would be
    tremendous repercussions if the national standards were
    repealed, and for that reason the issues of conserving water
    and for simplifying and reducing the burden on States of
    regulating water use, we oppose H.R. 623 and the repeal of
    national standards.
        [The prepared statement of Anthony Willardson follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Anthony G. Willardson, Associate Director,
                          Western States Water Council
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
    Western States Water Council, I appreciate this opportunity to testify
    on H.R. 623. The Council consists of representatives appointed by the
    governors of sixteen western states.
        The Council is opposed to the repeal of the uniform national
    plumbing efficiency standards in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, as
    envisioned in H.R. 623. A resolution adopted by the Council to this
    effect is attached. The Council has always advocated and promoted the
    wise use of western water resources in general, and specifically
    appropriate water conservation measures. Making efficient and
    beneficial use of scarce water resources has been, and continues to be,
    a fundamental objective of western states' water policies.
        Water agencies that have carried out retrofit programs to install
    higher efficiency fixtures have demonstrated substantial water savings
    from these programs. Between 1990 and 1992 the States of Arizona,
    California, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Washington adopted
    statewide standards for new plumbing products, including a standard of
    1.6 gallons per flush (gpf) for toilets. Following action by these
    States and others, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 was enacted in October
    1992 containing uniform national water efficiency standards for
    plumbing products, including a standard of 1.6 gpf for toilets, with
    the active support of many water and wastewater utilities in the
    Western States. Other Western States subsequently incorporated
    comparable water efficiency standards into their plumbing codes.
        Still other states now rely on the established federal standards,
    which if repealed, would leave a regulatory gap that could lead to
    substantial confusion and difficulties in enforcing current state
    standards for installation of water efficient fixtures. Uniform
    national efficiency standards simplify and reduce the States' burden of
    enforcement regarding the sale and installation of ultra-low flush
    toilets (ULFTs) and other water-efficient plumbing products. Moreover,
    uniform national efficiency standards maintain a national market for
    plumbing products, allowing manufacturers to achieve full economies of
    scale and encouraging wider competition in all jurisdictions.
        Furthermore, repeal might be perceived as sending the wrong signal
    that urban water conservation is not as important now as a few years
    ago. Efficient plumbing products, including ultra-low flush toilets
    (ULFTs), became widely available in the early 1990's, and have
    undergone substantial product development and performance improvements
    since that time. The American Water Works Association Research
    Foundation (AWWARF) commissioned the most comprehensive end-use study
    of indoor water use ever undertaken in North America, recording indoor
    water usage in twelve cities, the majority located in the Western
    States. These AWWARF studies have documented per capita indoor water
    use reductions averaging over 30% in single-family homes equipped with
    water-efficient plumbing fixtures, fittings, and appliances currently
    on the market, compared to homes without such products.
        With urban growth in the West and the difficulty in developing new
    water supplies to meet the needs of an expanding population, continuing
    water use efficiency will always be an important water conservation and
    management tool. Enactment of this legislation would increase the
    burden of enforcement on Western States and communities seeking to
    maintain efficiency standards for plumbing products, and will reduce
    the reliability and predictability of water savings resulting from such
    standards. Such legislation may also disadvantage those Western States
    seeking to maintain water efficiency standards for plumbing products as
    a disproportionate share of federal financial assistance for water and
    wastewater infrastructure in future years could be diverted to States
    choosing to make less efficient use of water by relaxing or repealing
    water efficiency standards for plumbing products.
        In conclusion, the national standards highlight the importance of
    uniform requirements which contribute to the vital goal of conserving
    water and simplify and reduce the state burden of enforcement regarding
    the sale and installation of water efficient plumbing fixtures. The
    federal statute provides minimum standards, but if necessary and
    appropriate, states may still choose to exercise their authority to
    adopt more stringent requirements. We would appreciate your support in
    maintaining the existing national standards.
                                     ______

                                   Western States Water Council
                                                         April 21, 1999

                                                       Position No. 224
    The Honorable Tom Bliley, Chair
    House Commerce Committee
    U.S. House of Representatives
    2409 Rayburn House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515-4607
        Dear Chairman Bliley: On behalf of the Western States Water
    Council, which represents the governors of sixteen states, I am writing
    to express our opposition to the repeal of the uniform national
    plumbing efficiency standards in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, as
    envisioned in H.R. 623. A resolution adopted by the Council to this
    effect is enclosed. The Council has always advocated and promoted the
    wise use of western water resources in general, and specifically
    appropriate water conservation measures. Making efficient and
    beneficial use of scarce water resources has been, and continues to be,
    a fundamental objective of western states' water policies. Water
    agencies that have carried out retrofit programs to install higher
    efficiency fixtures have demonstrated substantial water savings from
    these programs.
        While many western states have enacted their own plumbing
    efficiency standards and codes, others now rely on the established
    federal standards, which if repealed, would leave a regulatory gap that
    could lead to substantial confusion and difficulties in enforcing
    current state standards for installation of water efficient fixtures.
    Moreover, repeal might be perceived as sending the wrong signal that
    urban water conservation is not as important now as a few years ago.
    With urban growth in the West and the difficulty in developing new
    water supplies to meet the needs of an expanding population, continuing
    water use efficiency will always be an important water conservation and
    management tool.
        The national standards provide uniform requirements that simplify
    and reduce the state burden of enforcement regarding the sale and
    installation of water efficient plumbing fixtures. The federal statute
    provides a minimum standards, but if necessary and appropriate, states
    may still choose to exercise their authority to adopt more stringent
    requirements. We would appreciate your support in maintaining the
    existing national standards.
                Sincerely,
                              Francis ``Fritz'' Schwindt, Chair
                                           Western States Water Council
    cc: Western Congressional Delegation
                                     ______

                                                       Position No. 224
             Position of the Western States Water Council Regarding
                Water Efficiency Standards for PLumbing Products
                       Yakima, Washington, April 9, 1999
        WHEREAS, making efficient and beneficial use of scarce water
    resources has been, and continues to be, a fundamental objective of the
    Western States; and
        WHEREAS, the importance of water use efficiency continues to grow
    as the finite water resources of the Western States support increasing
    levels of population and economic activity; and
        WHEREAS, new technology that makes more efficient use of water in
    its various applications offers significant economic and environmental
    benefits to the Western States; and
        WHEREAS, efficient plumbing products, including ultra-low flush
    toilets (ULFTs), became widely available in the early 1990's, and have
    undergone substantial product development and performance improvement
    since that time; and
        WHEREAS, the American Water Works Association Research Foundation
    (AWWARF) has commissioned the most comprehensive end-use study of
    indoor water use ever undertaken in North America, recording indoor
    water usage in twelve cities, the majority located in the Western
    States; and
        WHEREAS, the AWWARF studies have documented per capita indoor water
    use reductions averaging over 30% in single-family homes equipped with
    water-efficient plumbing fixtures, fittings, and appliances currently
    on the market, compared to homes without such products; and
        WHEREAS, the States comprising the Western States Water Council
    have identified drinking water and wastewater infrastructure needs
    totaling more the $60 billion over the next 20 years, as contained in
    Needs Surveys forwarded to Congress by the Environmental Protection
    Agency; and
        WHEREAS, many of these capital costs can be postponed or reduced by
    reductions in the volume of flows that must be accommodated; and
        WHEREAS, in recognition of the public and private benefits of
    efficient plumbing products, between 1990 and 1992 the States of
    Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Washington
    adopted statewide standards for new plumbing products, including a
    standard of 1.6 gallons per flush for toilets; and
        WHEREAS, following action by these States and others, the Energy
    Policy Act of 1992 was enacted in October 1992 containing uniform
    national water efficiency standards for plumbing products, including a
    standard of 1.6 gpf for toilets, with the active support of many water
    and wastewater utilities in the Western States; and
        WHEREAS, other Western States have subsequently incorporated
    comparable water efficiency standards into their plumbing codes; and
        WHEREAS, uniform national efficiency standards simplify and reduce
    the States' burden of enforcement regarding sale and installation of
    ULFTs and other water-efficient plumbing products; and
        WHEREAS, uniform national efficiency standards maintain a national
    market for plumbing products, allowing manufacturers to achieve full
    economies of scale and encouraging wider competition in all
    jurisdictions; and
        WHEREAS, legislation has been introduced in the 106th Congress to
    repeal uniform national efficiency standards for plumbing products; and
        WHEREAS, enactment of such legislation will not benefit the
    communities and consumers of the Western States; and
        WHEREAS, enactment of such legislation will increase the burden of
    enforcement on Western States and communities seeking to maintain
    efficiency standards for plumbing products, and will reduce the
    reliability and predictability of water savings resulting from such
    standards; and
        WHEREAS, enactment of such legislation may disadvantage Western
    States seeking to maintain water efficiency standards for plumbing
    products due to the diversion of a disproportionate share of federal
    financial assistance for water and wastewater infrastructure in future
    years to States choosing to make less efficient use of water by
    relaxing or repealing water efficiency standards for plumbing products.
        NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Western States Water Council
    supports the retention of uniform national water efficiency standards
    for plumbing products.

        Mr. Barton. Thank you. The Chair recognizes himself for 5
    minutes for questions. I want to first try to get a handle on
    how much water is being saved by these new Federal standards.
        Mr. Whalen, you seem to give the most fact based
    presentation. It sounds like the City and State of New York has
    put some real effort into trying to conserve water and has come
    up with a fairly innovative program. I am going to direct these
    questions to you because you used real facts in your
    presentation, but the whole panel is welcome to try to answer
    them.
        My first question is: Of the total water that is consumed
    in the United States, what percentage is consumed by the
    appliances that are covered under these Federal standards, that
    is toilet, showerheads, et cetera? Does anybody know that?
        Mr. Whalen. Are you referring to the total amount that is
    withdrawn from the ground and rivers?
        Mr. Osann. Municipal water is actually a small fraction of
    the total if you include agricultural water use and electric
    power production. Those are a couple of big ones.
        Mr. Barton. We need to come up with a standard universe of
    water, and we need to determine what percent that the act
    covers is consuming. I am an engineer, and the first thing you
    have to do is identify the problem and in order to identify the
    problem you have to identify the parameters. That is all that I
    am trying to do.
        Mr. Osann. If I might, Mr. Chairman, the products that are
    regulated under the standards are responsible, I believe, for
    70 to 80 percent of indoor water use.
        Mr. Barton. That is not answering my question. That is
    irrelevant. The question is how much water do we use each day
    in the United States and how much of the water we use is used
    by these appliances. Is that 10 percent of the total water or 5
    percent or 1 percent? 80 percent? It is obvious if you talk
    about indoor water, you know, that toilets, showers, sinks, I
    guess bathtubs, washing machines, it is a fairly small
    universe.
        Mr. Whalen. I think it would be incumbent upon us to submit
    back to you the answers to those questions. I know that
    information is available, and I think between us and the
    organizations we represent, we owe it to you give you an answer
    factually.
        Mr. Barton. Here is why I asked that, Mr. Whalen. Your
    group with great justification is saying this is helping
    conserve water. The group that wants to repeal these standards
    says not all that much water is being saved by these standards.
    It is true that water is being saved but it is because of all
    of these other factors, it is not because of this. The
    proponents of these standards are taking credit for something
    that they are not due credit.
        Obviously if everything is equal and you have a 3.5 gallon
    toilet and a 1.6 gallon toilet and you use them the same number
    of times under the same conditions, that you are saving almost
    2 gallons a use. But that kind of begs the question of the
    larger universe of total water that is being conserved.
        So my first question is let's determine what the use
    universe is.
        The second question is in the equipment inventory, what
    percent of the equipment in the inventory is this new
    equipment? Standards at the Federal level were passed in 1992
    but they didn't go into effect until 1994, and again there is
    a--the testimony of the previous panel says that we are adding
    about 4.3 million toilets a year to the inventory and my guess
    is that is about 1 percent of the total toilets or even less,
    but I don't know that. Do you know the answer to that.
        Mr. Goike. Mr. Chairman, the data that I have got and it is
    through 1996, which is the latest full year available, there
    are approximately 9 million shipments of toilets per year. Of
    those 9 million, approximately 7 million are 1.6 gallon
    toilets. So we are manufacturing and shipping approximately 7
    million 1.6 gallon toilets per year.
        Mr. Barton. So the toilets that are above this standard,
    where are they going?
        Mr. Goike. Those are commercial use.
        Mr. Barton. Which is not covered by the act.
        Mr. Whalen. In prisons, there are radical difference on
    toilets used there, for obvious reasons, and they do not meet
    that requirement. And there are other special uses. If you get
    involved in certain hospitals uses, there is a differentiation.
        Mr. Barton. The first panel said American manufacturers can
    manufacture the larger capacity equipment and export it. Is
    that true and is that being done?
        Mr. Goike. There is a type of toilet called a blow out that
    uses a larger trap. That is an example of a larger volume
    toilet. Those can be used in public use places and where there
    is a lot of transient--stadiums.
        Mr. Barton. Is the American plumbing manufacturing industry
    manufacturing individual toilets that are the larger 3.5 or
    above and then selling them to Mexico and Canada and then they
    are coming back?
        Mr. Goike. That is not my understanding, no.
        Mr. Barton. So those toilets are not coming back, being
    imported on an individual basis?
        Mr. Goike. No, there is a big market of toilets
    manufactured in other countries.
        Mr. Barton. My last question, although my time has expired,
    what is wrong with Congressman Knollenberg's assertion that
    let's just repeal it at the Federal level because this is a
    State and local issue.
        Again, Mr. Whalen, what you have done or your State and
    city has done is very commendable, but you didn't need a
    Federal statute to do that. What is wrong with just letting the
    State and local governments, the western States, all of these
    entities that want to do this, let them do it but don't mandate
    it from Washington?
        Mr. Whalen. There is an answer and I will try to be brief.
    I have always found that if things are not mandated and then
    followed up and enforced, the tendency for things to go crazy
    happens, and that happens in manufacturing. I believe that that
    program in New York City couldn't have happened if all of the
    manufacturers weren't making the product.
        I heard the gentleman to my left representing manufacturers
    tell you that the price of plumbing products was reduced
    considerably because instead of making 2 or 3 different types
    of models, now the manufacturer is making all one toilet and he
    is doing 9 million a year and therefore he can produce it at a
    cheaper rate. We found that to be true.
        Mr. Barton. He also said that the public could choose the
    lower flow toilet. And if that is the case, the people that
    wanted them, that small minority which I would include myself
    in, I would want a larger capacity toilet, that would at least
    be available. My time has expired.
        Mr. Goike. Could I add, to help answer that question, from
    a manufacturer standpoint, the problem we face with this type
    of repeal is that it would add considerable cost to
    manufacturing. If you can imagine a production line with
    showerheads or faucets and we have to start to manufacture
    product for all the different State laws that would now be in
    effect once the Federal law is repealed and the municipalities,
    the cost of manufacturing, distributing and logistically
    getting all of those products to all of these individual States
    and municipalities would drive up the cost.
        Mr. Barton. The reality is that there would not be that
    many different variations. We would have a national code. There
    would be some variation, I would admit that, but it wouldn't be
    tremendous.
        Mr. Burr. I don't think that there is anything in the
    legislation which mandates that a manufacturer supply all of
    those different products.
        Mr. Goike. But that would take away our competitive
    advantage.
        Mr. Burr. It would be the response of the customers that
    would require you to make that----
        Mr. Goike. We would be responding to the customers but we
    would be responding to customers with 50 different proposals.
        Mr. Barton. What Mr. Burr is saying is that you wouldn't
    have to. You could let Barton-Burr Enterprises spring into
    existence to manufacture and sell the two toilets per year that
    weren't 1.5 gallon flow.
        Mr. Burr. Additionally, I think that is the reason we are
    having this hearing. We are responding to the people that we
    represent who are not satisfied with the standardization of the
    product that is available. Just like you would respond.
        Mr. Barton. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Your question speaks to what we are doing
    here. I know that certainly Mr. Burr would recognize the
    economies of scale that one of you mentioned would not be
    present if a manufacturer had to be concerned with a number of
    different size, different standard type products.
        And so yes, the market--some members of the market, maybe a
    limited, maybe a larger amount, would maybe demand the larger
    size, but you wouldn't really know how many of those people
    there would be, so you would have to manufacture some sort of a
    percentage which of course would drive up the cost.
        Well, let me ask Mr. Tippin, have the water utilities that
    promoted efficient toilets and showerheads received a
    substantial number of complaints from their customers?
        Mr. Tippin. I can speak for Tampa.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Whalen has a thick booklet which speaks
    to that. Maybe you can speak to Tampa.
        Mr. Tippin. I had a conversation yesterday morning with our
    chief plumbing inspector, I asked him, what about the
    satisfaction. Has he had complaints. He says not in the last 2
    years. So with the changes in the design of the toilet
    fixtures----
        Mr. Bilirakis. Are you saying during the first couple years
    or so there were some problems?
        Mr. Tippin. Yes, I think there were design problems and I
    think those have since been corrected.
        Mr. Bilirakis. I will allow you all to respond, too, but
    Rebecca Hyder, who is a member of my staff and does this issue,
    handed me a note. ``my parents built a new house in 1995,''
    this is in Florida, ``with low flow toilets and they have had
    no problems or complaints.'' would you say that----
        Mr. Tippin. I can echo that. My son just built a new house
    in north Tampa and moved in last summer with three low flow
    toilets in Hillsborough County, no problems.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Rush, we heard him say that he was
    remodeling a 100-year-old home and he had to put in the new low
    flow toilets. He said he is unhappy. Is that attributable to
    the fact that it is a 100-year-old home and you have that type
    of piping and that sort of thing? Comments?
        Mr. Tippin. In my opinion you are putting a new toilet in a
    100-year-old plumbing design which may be all wrong for that
    fixture.
        Mr. Whalen. A lot of the toilets that get used are
    specified for the kinds of use. The one-family home would
    necessarily have a different toilet.
        But just to comment, the reason that there was only, let's
    say, 20 different kinds of toilets used in the program that we
    did, we found that those 20 toilets worked and the plumbing guy
    said I am not putting anything else in because I won't get paid
    for it. That was the marketability of it.
        Mr. Willardson. I know that our chairman Francis Schwinn
    from North Dakota sits on the State Plumbing Board, Department
    of Natural Resources, and he has noted that their inspectors
    have had no complaints, that initially there were problems but
    improvements have been made, and he views this bill as a step
    backwards.
        From a State perspective, it is an issue of enforcement.
    The Federal standard is enforced on manufacturers. The State
    can't enforce that at the State level on manufacturers so they
    would have to look at the retail level or individuals. And if
    you talk about getting into people's bathrooms, they are not
    going to want the State regulators in their bathrooms looking
    at what they are using.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you for that. Mr. Taylor, and I don't
    know, is Mr. Taylor still here? Mr. Taylor, the Director of
    Natural Resource Studies, Cato Institute, very eloquently,
    basically without trying to put words in his mouth, indicated
    that going back to the 1970's that water started to be
    conserved. And consequently, that these standards really
    haven't had very much to do with that. In fact, the lines in
    terms of conservation started back at that period of time and
    has just really continued on. Did you hear the same thing that
    I did in that regard? Comments? Mr. Whalen.
        Mr. Whalen. Well, I can only tell you, sir, I worked in New
    York City for almost 40 years and there was an ongoing problem
    with the increased consumption per person living and in
    business in that town that we could not get enough water to
    take care of the requirements, and it went up every year. And I
    used to sit on the conservation committee and we used to say we
    keep building reservoirs and it is not enough. They did not
    have an increase in people in New York City in many years. That
    town has stayed static. It has not changed in 20 years. What it
    was was consumption. I have sat on national and State boards
    and consumption has increased, not decreased, and it would
    generally decrease in the areas of residential and commercial
    use.
        Mr. Bilirakis. So you are attributing the savings to----
        Mr. Whalen. I know that we saved 29 percent in New York
    City on that program that we put in, and you should realize
    that the largest cost in New York City for water and sewer is
    the water treatment, not for the water.
        Mr. Bilirakis. You wanted to say something, Mr. Tippin?
        Mr. Tippin. Yes, from 1974 to 1989 water consumption in
    Tampa rose very sharply until we had supply problems. And water
    consumption since 1989, the demand has been essentially flat
    due to all conservation efforts, indoor/outdoor.
        Mr. Willardson. If I might add----
        Mr. Barton. You are operating under the same 5 minute rule
    I operated under.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Mr. Willardson.
        Mr. Willardson. I am not sure that it is useful to look at
    it from a macro perspective because there have been reductions
    in irrigated agriculture, and as has been noted, that is 80
    percent of the water use in the country. We are talking about a
    5 to 10 percent for treated water supplies. It is the cost of
    not providing the raw water but treating that water and then
    disposing of the waste water that is an issue, and that is
    really what these national standards get to.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Chairman, my time is up and I am not
    going to go into it, but you started questioning regarding
    Federal preemption and why is it so important to manufacturers
    and others in lieu of the fact that New York City was doing it
    even prior to and many of the States were, 17 States I believe
    had it in effect. I think it is a very foundational question,
    as I said, when you first called upon me.
        I don't know where these people--and I also wanted to say,
    too, I really appreciate Mr. Burr returning because we had
    people on this side of the aisle who are supporters of the
    legislation heard strictly that one story and left after that
    one panel and did not hear anything from this particular panel.
    I just wanted to express my appreciation to Mr. Burr.
        Mr. Barton. The reason that we started at 2 was so that the
    gentleman from Florida could be here. Initially we were going
    to do this at 10 this morning. Mr. Bilirakis had a pending
    subcommittee that he was chairing.
        Mr. Bilirakis. No, I had the markup.
        Mr. Barton. So we rescheduled, and that is why we are still
    here at 5:30 in the evening.
        Mr. Whalen. You have a test station. This building that you
    are in was recently converted. And I would ask those who are in
    this building, do you have a lot of plumbing problems in this
    building?
        Mr. Burr. They are all vacuum flush. Totally. I haven't
    visited every toilet in this building, but every one that I
    have seen is.
        Mr. Barton. He is working his way through them.
        Mr. Whalen. I got involved in the Department of Energy's
    M&V protocol on this and subsequently the Federal contracting
    on it and the results in the Federal buildings and Army bases
    and Naval bases around this country have been unbelievable in
    energy savings. That is the air conditioning and the
    refrigeration, the whole thing. When you read the figures of
    these bases and these office buildings and court buildings that
    belong to the government, and so much of this work has been
    done, the executive order was just renewed I understand in
    March and most of the facilities now have been done and the
    savings is unbelievable.
        Mr. Barton. The public bathrooms on the men's side,
    obviously I have not been into the women's, but in the men's
    there is some sort of a central, there is not an actual
    physical bowl or receptacle in the public. It is some kind of a
    central powered situation. But in my personal bathroom in my
    member's private office, I have had--at least it looks like a
    low flow. It is shorter.
        Mr. Whalen. My understanding is that this whole building
    was done.
        Mr. Barton. It does have problems, so I don't use it except
    in extreme emergencies.
        Mr. Burr. Would the chairman like me to take over now.
        Mr. Barton. Yes, I recognize Mr. Burr for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Burr. Mr. Tippin, you have 2 or 3 that work. I have two
    and neither one of them work, and I hope for Mr. Goike's sake
    that he doesn't take that as a comment unsubstantiated. I hope
    you will give me the credit to be able to judge whether the
    toilet works or not. One is fairly recent. It is in North
    Carolina. The other one is slightly older and it is in
    Michigan, and so I know it doesn't have anything to do with the
    difference in States. Let me go back.
        You question this need as a manufacturer to have multi
    SKUs. I mean, would you lobby us to have a Federal standard on
    door knobs, because I know Masco is in the business of door
    knobs, but you wouldn't do that, would you? You would like to
    be able to offer something to everybody because there is a
    different thing out there that triggers that buying impulse in
    everybody and I think at the root of what Mr. Knollenberg has
    tried to do, he hasn't said--you know, reverse the Federal
    position on a 1.6 gallon low flush toilet being a good thing, a
    conservation issue. He just said maybe the Federal Government
    should not mandate it. Maybe it should not be that we have
    decided what the flow is for every toilet in America because
    clearly as Mr. Haege said, there are a number of folks that
    call his show, a high percentage, who are upset, who don't like
    the product and who, given the choice, would choose something
    else.
        I am not sure how many of those are going over to Windsor,
    Canada or Mexico. Do you have any manufacturing of toilets out
    of the United States or is it all in the United States?
        Mr. Goike. No, it is all in the United States.
        Mr. Burr. But I am sure there is some manufacturing out of
    the country and it does come back in the form of product that
    U.S. Companies have manufactured that comes back in under the
    radar screen of this Federal mandate that is out there.
        Mr. Whalen, you said the rebate for the first toilet in a
    house was $240?
        Mr. Whalen. Yes.
        Mr. Burr. How did you come up with that?
        Mr. Whalen. I sat with the city people and we worked over
    the prices of the manufacturers and the price of doing the work
    in a particular locale.
        Mr. Burr. You also said that the plumbers couldn't be paid
    for their work unless the toilets worked successfully. Are
    there any plumbers still due money?
        Mr. Whalen. No. You couldn't continue to be in the program
    if you were providing poor service.
        Mr. Burr. So every toilet that New York chose to put in the
    program never had a problem?
        Mr. Whalen. No, sir, I won't say we never had a problem but
    those few that had problems, that contractor went back and
    satisfied them.
        Mr. Burr. That sounds like an installation problem versus a
    manufacturing problem. And I think what we are here
    concentrating, and clearly we got off on plumbing, we are
    talking about the design of the toilet. Can 1.6 gallons of
    water in the current configuration drive the normal waste in a
    bowl through on a first flush?
        I think my frustration is I found the answer to be no. I
    have found it as well in hotels, and it is a pretty
    embarrassing thing to call for a plunger and have a guy come in
    and plunge your toilet in a hotel. My question is: Did all of
    the toilets successfully work that 1.6 gallons of water flushed
    it?
        Mr. Whalen. No. In fact, it very quickly became apparent
    that the X model or the Y model was not working and therefore
    those contractors no longer used that model.
        Mr. Barton. Would the gentleman yield.
        Mr. Burr. I would be happy to yield.
        Mr. Barton. Why did we agree on a 1.6 standard? How did
    that develop? Mr. Knollenberg alluded to that that equals 6
    liters. That would lead me to believe there is some equivalent
    6 liter standard in Europe.
        Mr. Whalen. Europe has used the lesser size water closet
    for a long time, and I believe they got involved in this
    discussion back in----
        Mr. Barton. Was there a physical pilot program and it was
    determined that 1.6 gallons was the minimum necessary to do the
    job? Did it just kind of evolve because of the European
    situation? Where did that particular number come from because
    it is not--it is not 1 gallon, it is not 2 gallons. It is just
    an odd number.
        Mr. Goike. That number was arrived at--prior to 1992 there
    were approximately 17 States, as I mentioned in my testimony,
    that already moved to that direction before the 1992 EPAct.
        Mr. Barton. But somebody at some point in time designed a
    toilet with that.
        Mr. Goike. The State of Massachusetts was the first one
    given credit to set the limit at 1.6 gallons per minute. There
    were other quantities.
        Mr. Barton. But if we had physical data that showed if we
    went to 2 gallons, nobody would complain, would the industry--
    it is still less than 3.5. I am just trying to determine from a
    so-called scientific standpoint if there is a reason for 1.6
    gallons. It is smaller than 3.5, but it is not an instinctively
    obvious number. Did somebody at some point in time say we need
    to design a toilet to save water and then do all of these
    empirical tests and say 1.6 gallons works. Or did somebody in
    Europe just start making them or did it just happen?
        Mr. Goike. I have never heard of the European influence
    before. My knowledge on this was that it was set by 17 States
    prior to 1992. And then it was enacted into EPAct and that was
    the measure----
        Mr. Barton. Mr. Burr, I took some of your time.
        Mr. Burr. Mr. Whalen, in New York did you replace
    showerheads at the same time?
        Mr. Whalen. Yes. The 240 included the showerheads and those
    faucets that could handle the aerator and the showerhead and
    the toilet.
        Mr. Burr. Should we outlaw bathtubs?
        Mr. Whalen. I frankly think that the use of bathtubs--I
    mean, there are a lot of positive things. I can remember
    washing our children in the tub rather than having the six of
    them in the shower because we would have had a riot. Or the
    other thing, you get older folks that can't take a shower.
    There are a lot of uses for bathtubs.
        Mr. Burr. My kids are 13 and 14, and it is a little tough
    to get them in the same tub. Just for 1 minute believe some of
    the people who were here earlier that everybody in America that
    has got a new 1.6 gallon toilet has to flush it three times to
    alleviate the waste that is in it.
        Mr. Osann. That is hard to believe.
        Mr. Burr. If that were the case, wouldn't we have failed
    with the conservation side of our quest?
        Mr. Osann. Objectively probably not, but with regard to
    public acceptance, certainly. Because the average----
        Mr. Burr. My math says we would have used more water.
        Mr. Osann. The number of times that a toilet is flushed at
    least in a residential setting is 5 a day per capita. Solid
    waste evacuation is an average about one a day.
        Mr. Barton. That does follow common sense.
        Mr. Burr. Let me make this statement. Given the questions
    that are out there about the need for multiple flushes, the
    performance of the product and your belief that this standard
    should stay in effect, I really believe that it is incumbent
    upon all of us to find out are we saving. I think that is the
    obligation that we have to the American people. If there is
    something great being accomplished by this, then let's keep it.
    If there is not something great that is being accomplished, and
    we are putting an undue burden on the American people, on
    manufacturers. I know that you have switched, but you have got
    the old molds, you can switch back, don't we owe it to them to
    at least allow them the choice of buying what their preference
    is? It is only a question that I raise.
        Mr. Whalen. I was going to ask the question of Mr. Burr, do
    you have knowledge of who installed those water closets? Was it
    a handyman or plumber?
        Mr. Burr. Moi.
        Mr. Whalen. And you specified as to what you wanted? You
    were replacing----
        Mr. Barton. We have never had a panelist ask a Congressman
    questions.
        Mr. Whalen. I am sorry.
        Mr. Burr. I actually went to the store and chose my toilet.
        Mr. Whalen. I appreciate his candor.
        Mr. Burr. To be quite candid with you, if a week later or a
    month later or today I were to see somebody throw away an old
    toilet, I would grab it and replace that one in that new room
    in a second.
        Mr. Barton. Is the gentleman available for service calls to
    other members of the subcommittee?
        Mr. Burr. The gentleman would do everything in your
    apartment but clean it given the shape that it is in.
        Mr. Bilirakis. The gentleman asked a question and I know
    his time has expired, but he considers it key to determine
    whether or not there is such a savings as a result of the low
    flush. So I don't know--you asked that question, Richard.
        Mr. Burr. I thought he answered.
        Mr. Osann. Mr. Chairman, if I might respond to the question
    raised by Mr. Burr. I think that several of us have actually
    alluded to it in our testimony, the question of are we really
    saving, do they really save.
        Mr. Barton. That is one of my double foundation questions.
        Mr. Osann. The American Water Works Association's research
    foundation, which is the arm of the drinking water utility
    industry, has just completed but not yet published the most
    comprehensive survey of residential water use that has ever
    been undertaken in North America. It involved 12 cities, one
    was Tampa. It involved monitoring individual water use events
    at over 100 homes in 12 cities over 4 weeks. And in the
    previous panel there was a question about how can you really
    tell how much waste water an individual appliance is using.
        In this case there were data loggers that were installed at
    each location and software that would match--that would
    identify the signature, actually, of each water using product
    at that residence and match it up when it occurred over a 4-
    week period. So each time toilet A was flushed, there was a
    data point in their survey. Each time a shower was used, there
    was a data point in the survey.
        This is the most comprehensive water use--residential water
    use survey ever undertaken. It will be publicly released in
    September.
        There are a lot of interesting things that come out of this
    survey, but two of the things that I think are most relevant to
    the subject of this hearing involve the use of water by 1.6
    gallon toilets. And the survey found that those residences
    that--there were a certain number of residences that were
    exclusively equipped with low consumption toilets, there were a
    number of residences that were mixed and a number of residences
    that did not have any 1.6 gallon toilets in them.
        When you compared those that had the 1.6 gallon units and
    relied on them, the ones that didn't, the amount of water that
    was used for flushing toilets was reduced by about 50 percent
    on a per capita basis. And that is real life conditions. Real
    homes, real people using the products as they would use them in
    their homes over a 4-week period. The other thing was that the
    number of flushes per capita, and this can be measured because
    this extensive data set is available, the number of data sets
    per capita between the residences, the residences that had the
    1.6 gallon and relied on them exclusively and those that didn't
    have them, were statistically indistinguishable.
        There was about 4.9 something for the--for one group and
    5.0 something for the other group. So to the extent that there
    is a double flushing issue out there, it has not been
    identified in the data that has been produced in the most
    comprehensive residential----
        Mr. Burr. But what about my house? That data is not----
        Mr. Barton. Let's give the group credit. They have tried to
    do a survey that attempts to reflect that.
        Mr. Osann. The plumbing industry was not involved in this
    survey. It was entirely funded by the drinking water industry.
        Mr. Bilirakis. I wonder if the results could be made
    available to the committee.
        Mr. Barton. When it becomes public.
        Mr. Bilirakis. In September he indicated.
        Mr. Barton. In the interest of full disclosure I need to
    admit that I have a high flow toilet and it has stopped up, and
    I have had to work like a tiger to unstop it. It is not only
    the low flow operators that don't work, sometimes the old flow
    don't work, either, especially if you have children and wives
    who put Pampers in the toilet bowl. They tend not to go through
    the system, regardless of how much flow you put into the
    system.
        Mr. Osann. I think that is exactly the point, Mr. Chairman.
    I think some people have encouraged people to think that every
    plumbing problem that is experienced now is the result of these
    new and tighter standards, and I am afraid there were plumbing
    problems before the 1.6 gallon toilets.
        Mr. Barton. We will stipulate that there were, from
    personal experience.
        Mr. Willardson. Can I add to those comments.
        Mr. Barton. Let's let Mr. Hall have his time. I do want a
    formal answer where this 1.6 gallon standard came from.
    Hopefully there is some research which showed that is necessary
    as opposed to just serendipity.
        Mr. Hall is recognized.
        Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a unanimous
    request. At the request of Patrick O'Conner of the Washington
    Government Affairs Office of American Supply Association, I
    want to enter into the record the statement of Harold Williams,
    Jr., who is for the American Supply Association. It is a
    national trade association for wholesale distributors of
    plumbing fixtures, and it has one cover page and 5 pages of Mr.
    Williams' statement.
        Mr. Barton. I am glad that the gentleman had made that
    because the Chair had already agreed to do that, but I am very
    willing to accede to the request of the minority member. This
    group does represent the wholesale distributors. They were not
    able to testify in person, and we do want their testimony in
    the record at the appropriate point in the hearing. Without
    objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Hall. Thank you. I don't know what questions have been
    asked, so I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Barton. Does Mr. Bilirakis have additional questions?
        Mr. Bilirakis. I know that this panel will be available to
    submit answers to any written questions we may offer, and also
    that September report, when it does come out, if you can give
    it to us quickly I think it would be very significant for us to
    have it.
        Mr. Barton. I want to thank you gentlemen for waiting. It
    is always the case that if these hearings go late afternoon
    there is not as much member participation as there are at the
    earlier parts of the hearing, but we did want a balanced
    hearing, and I am a cosponsor of Mr. Knollenberg's legislation
    and so I would like to see if there is not a consensus to move
    his bill or a bill similar to it. But I certainly understand
    the reluctance of the manufacturers and I am very supportive of
    what is being done at the State and local level that Mr. Whalen
    alluded to and Mr. Tippin from Tampa alluded to. It is obvious
    that we do need to conserve as much water as possible and this
    is certainly one approach to it.
        Without any more members here to ask questions, we do
    adjourn this hearing.
        [Whereupon, at 5:55 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
        Prepared Statement of the American Society of Plumbing Engineers
    Who is ASPE?
        The American Society of Plumbing Engineers (ASPE) is THE
    international organization for professionals skilled in the design,
    specification and inspection of plumbing systems. ASPE was founded in
    1964 as a non-profit organization and currently has over 7,000 members.
    Internationally, ASPE members are located throughout the United States,
    Canada, Asia, Mexico, South and Central America, the South Pacific,
    Australia, and Europe.
        ASPE is dedicated to the advancement of the science of plumbing
    engineering, to the professional growth and advancement of its members
    and to the protection of the health, welfare and safety of the public.
    The Society disseminates technical data and information, sponsors
    activities that facilitate interaction with fellow professionals, and,
    through research and education, expands the base of knowledge of the
    plumbing engineering industry. ASPE members are leaders in innovative
    plumbing design, effective materials and energy use, and the
    application of advanced techniques throughout the world.
        In addition, the ASPE Research Foundation, a separate non-profit
    organization founded by ASPE in 1976, is the only independent and
    impartial organization involved in plumbing engineering and design
    research.
    Plumbing History
        Whether it was the ancient Romans or Grecians who created the first
    rudimentary plumbing systems, water supply and human waste disposal
    have posed plumbing related problems which civilizations have had to
    deal with for centuries. With population growth came and water borne
    disease such as typhoid and cholera. Water could no longer be carried
    in jugs and human wastes could no longer be dumped into street gullies
    or into streams. Embryonic plumbing systems were simply pipes designed
    to carry water to, and waste away from, population centers. However,
    indoor plumbing and drainage systems in the industrial centers of the
    world have only been viable for less than a century. There are still
    many highly populated, underdeveloped areas in the world which continue
    to suffer the dilemma, challenges, hardships and indignities associated
    with primitive plumbing and drainage systems.
    What is Plumbing Engineering?
        Plumbing Engineering is the application of scientific principles to
    the design of efficient and ecological systems for the transport and
    distribution of fluids, solids, and gases. Plumbing Engineers are
    protectors of the public's health, since they design drainage,
    distribution, and other piping systems to transport potable water and
    to safely dispose of human and industrial wastes. Engineered plumbing
    systems serve residential dwellings and commercial, institutional,
    industrial and public use facilities such as, hospitals, laboratories,
    factories, schools, shopping centers, stadiums and the like.
        Plumbing Engineers are responsible for the design of more than 30
    separate and distinct systems that are necessary for institutional,
    industrial, educational, commercial, and residential buildings. Some of
    these systems include potable water, domestic hot water, recycled
    water, sanitary and industrial waste, storm drainage, laboratory water
    and waste, medical gases, compressed air, vacuum systems, venting
    systems, fire protection, swimming pools, decorative fountains,
    irrigation, water treatment, and sewage disposal.
        Plumbing Engineers design the various plumbing systems of a
    construction project, select suitable materials and equipment, write
    specifications, prepare cost estimates, aid in contractor selection,
    and provide additional field services to the owner/client during and
    after construction. A Plumbing Engineer typically has a degree in
    Civil, Sanitary, or Mechanical Engineering--or a two-year technical
    degree in these areas. A majority of Plumbing Engineers carry the
    designation of Professional Engineer and/or Certified In Plumbing
    Engineering.
    Why Is ASPE Here?
        The members of the American Society of Plumbing Engineers are
    interested in, and protectors of, the public's health, welfare and
    safety. The Society supports insightful and judicious use of the
    world's natural resources. Properly researched and designed programs of
    water conservation and reuse, and the curtailment of wastewater, not
    only results in the conservation of water but also reductions in energy
    use, pipe sizes, wastewater treatment costs, and facility construction
    and operating costs. Proposed bill H.R. 623 (Plumbing Standards
    Improvement Act of 1999) compounds the impreciseness and deficiency of
    knowledge available when the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) was
    initially passed.
        To act on H.R. 623, and pass it out of committee, without any solid
    data, without any specific research, without any detailed information,
    and relying mostly on anecdotal tales and complaints, would be a
    travesty and disservice to not only the environment, but to the health,
    welfare and safety of the public. Legislation of this magnitude
    requires adequate and complete data, in-depth research and the
    testimony of experts, not politicians. Testimony should be solicited
    from not only interested parties, but also vital constituencies and
    individuals with the appropriate knowledge and expertise.
        When EPACT was first passed, it was done so without the expert
    knowledge and input of the plumbing engineering community--and ASPE
    must take partial responsibility for this oversight. However, today,
    ASPE steps forward, and will no longer be silent on EPACT--vital
    legislation that has provided water conservation measures desperately
    needed to maintain a safe and continuing source of potable water for
    this generation and generations to come. To have come this far, only to
    now have proposed legislation designed to create havoc and begin the
    process of tearing apart the very fabric of water conservation and
    water usage is a debacle of unprecedented magnitude. A vital turning
    point in leading the world towards water and energy conservation was
    EPACT; a pivotal point in undoing that leadership is H.R. 623.
    Water Conservation Is Being Achieved
        When legislation affecting engineering plumbing and drainage
    systems are altered, the effects of even a small change to a single
    portion of a system can be dramatic and create unintended, drastic and
    catastrophic results. EPACT was such a change. Since its inception, the
    plumbing industry has struggled to properly implement the water and
    energy conservation effects of the legislation on plumbing systems. In
    the six years since the industry has undertaken this massive effort, it
    is only now that the environmental and engineering efforts are taking
    effect and being observed and changes are being hypothesized.
        Intuitively it is obvious that changing from an average water
    closet 3.5 gal flush to 1.6 gal will save considerable amounts of
    water. However, to meet that requirement, the plumbing manufacturers
    have had to re-engineer and redesign their products. Simple? Consider
    that for new installations, the plumbing engineer can design the
    overall systems to properly function to integrate the new water
    conserving fixtures. However, for retrofit installation environments,
    the results of using water saving fixtures on systems not designed for
    them results in unexpected and typically, unintended results.
        For example, the anecdotal evidence is relatively strong--low-flow
    water closets do not consistently work well in retrofit environments
    (and sometimes not in new installations). The amount of human waste has
    not diminished because of the implementation of water conservation
    plumbing fixtures; only the amount of water available to remove the
    wastes out of the water closet bowl and move it through the drain line.
    Therefore, there are water closets that require multiple flushes for
    the removal of human bulk wastes and the related necessity of cleaning
    and sanitation, and in some cases increase clogging within the bowl or
    in the drain line. However, this does not diminish the overall water
    and energy conservation effects of EPACT.
        Some simple math will help demonstrate. If at any one time:

    1. there are 200 million people in the United States on any given day;
    2. approximately 45% of them are located in major urban areas
    3. each individual uses a water closet an average of four times a day
            for which 50% of that usage includes ridding the body of its
            bulk wastes (in actuality bulk waste removal occurs about one-
            third of the time);
    4. each water closet requires an average of 2 flushes to remove bulk
            wastes and 1 flush to remove liquid wastes; and
    5. it is assumed that a 3.5 gal per flush water closet will require an
            average of only 1 flush to remove bulk wastes (which is not a
            correct assumption);
    then, on average, the amount of water that can be saved if everyone was
    using low-flow water closets, is approximately 400 million gallons of
    water per day. (This, of course, is for water closets only and does not
    include any non-urban areas.) Of course, not everyone is currently
    using low-flow water closets, but the future intent is there. Moreover,
    the passing of H.R. 623 doesn't just affect water closets. Shower
    heads, sink faucets, urinals and other plumbing fixtures will all be
    affected.
        Yes, in today's fast paced environment, double and triple flushing
    or a water closet is an annoying nuisance--but it saves water and
    energy (reduced wastewater treatment costs, reduced pumping costs,
    etc.). The entire plumbing industry continues to evaluate and adjust,
    successfully, to the requirements of EPACT.
        The plumbing industry was slow to react, and because of a lack of
    data and research, did not fully understand the effects of reduced
    water usage and flow in plumbing systems. Dr. Roy Hunter, 75 years ago,
    researched plumbing systems and developed what is now dubbed ``Hunters
    Curve.'' Hunter's curve furnishes data on the probability of use on a
    plumbing system and provides guidelines on the sizing of piping of the
    water and drainage requirements for a plumbing system. However, it is
    important to note that water conservation measures do not affect the
    probability of use of the plumbing system. Therefore, the data and
    information on how to better accommodate low consumption fixtures has
    been slowly developed by a disparate conglomeration of studies by
    manufacturers, engineers and model code and standard organizations. The
    collected materials have been used to slowly modify local government
    jurisdictional plumbing codes to provide for smaller pipe sizes,
    installation modifications and materials which better accommodates the
    use of low consumption fixtures and maintain the integrity and
    efficiency of a plumbing system.
        H.R. 623 will do nothing more than exacerbate an already complex
    engineering issue that the plumbing industry is still coming to grips
    with and understanding, and defeat the ongoing and successful water
    conservation efforts that have been achieved.
    A Basis for Pandemonium
        The repeal of the plumbing standards portions of EPACT by H.R. 623
    actions has implications that will sorely test the patience of the
    public and may well result in significant increased costs for plumbing
    products. Without the provisions of EPACT, there will no longer be a
    national water conservation standard. Any governmental regulatory body
    would be able to mandate water usage parameters of plumbing fixtures.
    The result could well be disastrous.
        A common water usage standard for plumbing fixtures allows a
    plumbing system to be engineered and designed to function as intended.
    Without a common standard, a plumbing system could be compromised and
    result in a haphazard operation. Fixtures would have to be yet again
    redesigned, a process undertaken after EPACT implementation that has
    already resulted in manufactures having to spend millions of dollars.
        Plumbing systems would require immense amounts of new data
    collection and evaluation to ensure proper re-engineering and design.
    Most onerous of all would be if each local governmental jurisdiction
    were required to develop and pass new plumbing codes sufficient to
    provide for the various multitude of options that would be sure to
    result. States may be forced to enact specific water conservation
    legislation. Without a coherent national strategy in place the result
    could well be calamitous as each state attempts to satisfy its own need
    to conserve available resources. Will manufacturers be expected to
    retool factories and produce plumbing fixtures to meet separate local
    government requirements? Must plumbing engineers create separate design
    standards for each state?
    H.R. 623--A Formula for Unrequited Chaos?
        H.R. 623 has the potential to set the entire plumbing industry back
    at least a decade. The provisions of EPACT are being implemented and
    the initial difficulties and problems associated with water and energy
    conservation are being corrected as they are identified.
        There exists no researched evidence that indicates that passing of
    H.R. 623 would accomplish any purpose. Rather, with the potential for
    confusion, the health and safety of the public may well be comprised.
    The entire plumbing industry--manufacturers, contractors and
    engineers--are creating and building the necessary information and
    knowledge to effectively and efficiently utilize low-consumption
    fixtures, albeit slowly, given the dearth of available research funds.
    The common goal is the support and success of water and energy
    conservation. The intent of the plumbing industry is to continue its
    mandate to protect the health welfare and safety of the public.
        Likewise, the federal government has a duty and an obligation to
    protect the public's health, welfare and safety, to maintain the
    environment, maximize the efficient use of all available resources and
    facilitate interstate commerce. This cannot be accomplished by
    repealing the water conservation measures contained in EPACT.
        The federal government has an obligation to help obtain, along with
    affiliated professionals, such as plumbing engineers, contractors,
    manufacturers and code officials, the necessary expertise, information
    and knowledge required for effective and efficient decisions. Any
    fixture, mandated in isolation to operational and research data and its
    effect and functionality on existing plumbing and drainage systems, may
    be not only be considered ineffectual government, but a compromise of
    its duty. Decisions such as contemplated by H.R. 623 cannot be made in
    a vacuum of knowledge.
    ASPE Recommendations
    1. ASPE does not believe the repeal of any portion of EPACT is
            warranted at this time. However, we suggest maintaining,
            subject to the recommendations below, the current standards as
            set in EPACT. An incomplete oversight program for appropriate
            performance standards for plumbing fixtures would open the way
            for individual state mandated performance standards and result
            in confusion for the consumer and the manufacturer.
    2. Create an environment, and provide for the support of plumbing
            engineering and research, for data collection and research
            conducted within the environs of an independent accredited
            laboratory under the aegises of plumbing engineers and related
            unbiased professionals. ASPE recommends that a federal
            appropriation be made to provide for the testing and collecting
            of plumbing engineering and design data and instituting of
            related necessary research.
    3. Have standards established through the currently available processes
            such as ASME/ANSI. However, include the requirement that all
            future standards, and all changes, modifications or adjustments
            of current standards that affect or impact federal legislation
            and/or the public's health, welfare and safety, utilize actual
            data and research, and not be limited to ``professional, or
            non-professional, opinions.''
    4. Rather than repeal of the DOE's jurisdiction, have regulations be
            more complete and include the performance standards necessary
            to ensure the proper operation of plumbing fixtures. That is,
            the current regulation only requires that fixtures meet a flow
            and capacity standard, the 1.6 gallon requirement. The current
            ASME, A112.19.6 already includes sufficient other performance
            standards, some of which should be incorporated as part of the
            regulation.
    Please, Do Not Pass H.R. 623
        As plumbing engineers and related professionals which make up the
    membership of ASPE, we take great pride in our chosen profession. We
    also take our responsibility to protect the public health and the
    environment quite seriously. Therefore, we implore you to not pass H.R.
    623.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Harold Williams, Jr. on Behalf of The American
                               Supply Association
        I am Harold Williams from Selkirk, New York. Selkirk is a suburb of
    Albany. My company, Security Supply, is a wholesaler of plumbing
    fixtures and related products with 11 branches, three of those within
    20 miles of the Canadian border.
        I am pleased to submit this statement on behalf of the American
    Supply Association for the July 27, 1999 hearing on H.R. 623,
    legislation to repeal the uniform national water conservation standard
    for plumbing products.
        The American Supply Association (ASA) is the national trade
    organization for wholesale distributors in the plumbing, heating, and
    cooling industry. The Association has over 800 member companies, with
    more than 3,000 locations. We represent more than 80% of the sales
    volume in the industry.
        Wholesalers sell toilets and other plumbing fixtures to
    installation contractors, bath retailers, homebuilders and property
    managers. As a part of the distribution channel that moves products
    from the manufacturer to the consumer, a very large percentage of
    toilets sold today is handled through a plumbing wholesaler.
                                    h.r. 623
        Frankly, ASA members do not understand the purpose of this
    legislation.
        Repeal of the uniform national efficiency standards for new
    plumbing products is particularly troubling in light of the drought
    conditions that continue to affect sections of the country, including
    the Washington, D.C. area.
        Since 1992, plumbing manufacturers have redesigned all of their
    toilets to the 1.6 gallons per flush (gpf) requirement. The thought of
    scrapping all of their efforts and going back to the 3.5 gpf standard
    is not in anyone's best interest.
        H.R. 623 will cost our wholesalers millions of dollars with no
    corresponding benefit. However, these losses will pale in comparison to
    the billions in additional costs faced by municipal water and sewer
    districts, which have based their strategic plans for the future on the
    1.6 gpf standard.
        Passage of H.R. 623 will turn back the clock on water conservation
    and return us to a world where any state or locality can set its own
    plumbing products standards. With the potential for up to fifty
    different state standards, plus hundreds of varying local standards,
    there would be chaos within the entire plumbing industry.
                     a wholesaler's perspective on h.r. 623
    Why A Uniform National Standard is Appropriate
        Generally, plumbing wholesalers are not big fans of federal
    regulations. Compliance with most regulations is costly and burdensome.
        However, the 1.6 standard makes sense. Wholesalers are united in
    support of the current standard. It allows products to move freely
    across state lines without the industry being required to manufacture,
    stock and deliver products based on varied state or local standards.
        Prior to the 1992 Energy Policy Act, wholesalers had to deal with
    17 different state regulations and a myriad of local standards. There
    was chaos in the marketplace. The wholesaler who sold product in more
    than one state had to carry duplicate and sometime triplicate
    inventories to meet differing state and local standards.
        Even for the wholesaler doing business in a single state there was
    confusion. For example, in Massachusetts, the plumbing code mandated
    the installation of 1.6 toilets. Who was affected by that law? The
    licensed contractor--our customer. But since the sale of 1.6 toilets
    was not mandated, the Sunday newspapers would carry ads for home
    centers offering 3.5 toilets for sale.
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I strongly urge you
    not to turn back the clock on water conservation and return us to a
    world where any state or locality can set its own plumbing products
    standard. H.R. 623 equals chaos.
    Are There Consumer Complaints
        There have been a lot of claims and assertions that there is a huge
    consumer uproar over the 1.6 toilets. There is no question that some of
    the early models did not work as expected. But that is typical whenever
    a new product is introduced. However, the product being sold and
    installed today is working and saving water.
        Are there still consumer complaints? There always will be an
    unhappy consumer, but there is no public uproar.
        In an article from Consumer Reports magazine, May 1998, regarding
    low flush toilets, their testing showed that newer designed units work
    just fine.
        They tested units from nearly every major manufacturer and found
    many affordable units that, when installed, would save the average
    family from up to 500 gallons of water per week.
        I am in the business of selling plumbing products. If consumers are
    unhappy, my business does not profit. Even a young boy or girl selling
    lemonade on the street corner knows that a successful business depends
    on a satisfied customer.
        More than 30 million low flow toilets have been sold since 1992.
    And a plumbing wholesaler has sold almost every one of the 30 million.
    If these products really did not work and there was really a public
    uproar, plumbing wholesalers would be the first to hear about it. Make
    no doubt about it--when my customers are unhappy they make sure that I
    know. If my customers--installation contractors, builders, and property
    managers--were hearing complaints from their unhappy customers the
    first call would be to Security Supply.
        I would not be here today if my customers and their customers were
    unhappy. Further, I would not be in business today if I sold products
    that did not perform properly.
    Is There A Black Market?
        I keep hearing about a ``black market'' in toilets. Frankly, the
    only black market I am aware of is the ``garage sale black market''
    where you might be able to buy an old toilet at a neighborhood sale.
        But is there a black market in new toilets?
        No!!
        Again, I am in a business that sells plumbing products. My company,
    Security Supply, is located in upstate New York, with three branches
    about 20 miles from the Canadian border.
        If truckloads of ``black market'' toilets were being shipped across
    the Canadian border for sale in New York, I would know. If there were a
    black market, Security Supply and other plumbing wholesalers would see
    a drop in sales and we haven't.
        Rest assured, if plumbing wholesalers were losing market share to a
    ``black market,'' I would support H.R. 623. But, frankly, there are
    probably more Cuban cigars coming across the Canadian border into the
    U.S. than contraband toilets.
    Cost of H.R. 623 to Plumbing Wholesalers
        I would like to make one comment on the cost to plumbing
    wholesalers if the national standard for plumbing products were to be
    repealed. What happens to the value of the hundreds of thousands of low
    flow toilets that plumbing wholesalers have in inventory throughout the
    country? After the supporters of H.R. 623 go on the radio talk shows
    and late night television shows to trumpet their success, how much will
    this inventory be worth?
        Please remember, that 100 percent of our inventory is a result of a
    law passed by Congress in 1992. Please keep in mind the economic
    consequences to the plumbing industry if Congress now reverses itself
    and repeals the standard. And, eight years from now, what if a new
    Congress decides that low flow plumbing products are good public
    policy?
    Water Conservation With 1.6 Gallon Per Flush Toilets
        New York City's toilet rebate program has had a huge impact on
    water use in that city. The toilet rebate program was started on March
    1, 1994 and continued through November 1996. 1.1 million toilets were
    replaced with 1.6 gallon per flush units.
        The average water use in buildings that participated in the program
    declined by 69 gallons per unit per day. This equates to a 29%
    reduction in water usage.
        This savings in water usage translates into a reduction of 29% in
    the treatment of units to potable standard and a reduction of 29% in
    treating waste water for discharge into the environment.
        Because they have reduced water usage, billions of dollars have not
    had to be invested to build additional waste and sewage treatment
    plants.
        The availability of this water has led to a resurgence in the
    reconstruction industry in New York City.
                                    summary
        Now is not the time to abandon water conservation goals underlying
    these national standards. The technology for low consumption plumbing
    products has advanced dramatically since the national standard was set
    in 1992, and each new generation of products brings better performance.
        We think this progress toward water conservation will only
    accelerate in the years ahead.
                                     ______

                                       CTSI Corporation
                                       Tustin, California 92780
                                                          July 27, 1999
        Honorable ladies and Gentlemen: I am writing you on behalf of a
    large and growing coalition who are deeply concerned about Rep.
    Knollenberg's proposal (H.R. 623) to repeal the Plumbing Efficiency
    Standards contained in the 1992 Energy Policy Act. Rep. Knollenberg has
    gathered numerous co-sponsors to this proposal and we feel that their
    cosponsorship is ill-considered for the following reasons:
     H.R. 623 has the potential of costing the U.S. over $2 billion
            a year in additional water use, as well as accelerated
            infrastructure repairs, additions and maintenance. Over the
            next 20 years, it is projected that $240 billion in capital
            expenditures will be necessary for wastewater infrastructure
            alone. Consistent nationwide efficiency measures could postpone
            these enormous costs for from 5-20 years. Congress, as you
            know, is now grappling with the problem of State Revolving
            Funds being insufficient to meet Clean Water Act requirements.
            Efficiency measures go a long way toward reducing these
            problems by placing less burden on older infrastructures.
     It is ironic that many of the co-sponsors to H.R. 523, come
            from states with tremendous water supply problems:
        Texas, whose populations is projected to grow by 9 million people
    (45%) by 2025;
        California, whose populations is projected to grow by 18 million
    (50%) by 2025;
        Florida, whose populations is projected to grow by 6.5 million
    (45%) by 2025;
        Georgia, whose populations is projected to grow by 3 million (38%)
    by 2025;
        Alabama, which is projecting a 46% increase in population and is
    already in near crisis in terms of water supply;
        Arizona, which is projecting a 53% increase in population and is in
    the desert;
        and Washington State, which, in spite of constant rain in the
    winter, faces shortages every summer.
        Each of these states can pass its own efficiency standards, but
    what of states around them that may not choose to be as responsible?
    States that share the same source of supply? Lawsuits would surely
    follow.
     The potential additional water that could be wasted by
            striking national efficiency standards, by our calculations,
            would be enough to drain the Hoover Dam in 5 years! and for
            what? Rep. Knollenberg quotes constituents who do not like 1.6
            gpf toilets, but our company alone has distributed over 500,000
            ULF toilets over the past 7 years through utility-sponsored
            conservation programs, and complaints are less than 1%.
            Manufacturers have spent millions of dollars re-engineering
            these efficient models, and they work better than most of the
            old 3.5 gpf fixtures.
     Of the 500,000 Ultra-Low Flush toilets we have distributed, a
            large percentage has gone into lower income neighborhoods and
            has saved residents countless thousands of dollars in water
            bills. Higher infrastructure costs will be borne by those who
            cannot afford to invest in savings on their own.
     Rescinding the Federal Efficiency Standards is not good for
            anyone. Populations are growing, but the supply of water is
            not.
        Please carefully consider these important facts and keep the
    plumbing efficiency standards in place--for all of us.
                Most Sincerely,
                                                 James P. Craft
                                                                    CEO