Sage Chapter 4

Thank you for bearing with me so far. Substack shows me that essentially all of my subscribers have at least opened the last three posts. And I got a few thumbs-up. I will not continue to dwell on toilet flush rates after this post, which is intended to get to an essential message that will serve other stories.

The chapter ends with Norman citing the topic of the next few seminars. These discussions will be among the seminar participants. I will not burden you with details, as I will have made the point.

I am naming this story Sage, for Robert Norman, who is not based on an actual person. The time frame of the first four chapters is the early 1970s, when I was a civil engineering undergraduate student at Pitt. I had many very good professors, but I can assure you than none of them ever talked to us about sustainability. I expect no other CE students at that time heard the word, either. So Bob Norman is an unusual CE professor. Thus the title of the story: Sage.

---

“OK. Thanks for coming back for the fourth meeting of the sustainability seminar. I guarantee: we will not talk about toilet flush rates beyond this session. Or perhaps a better guarantee: I will not ask us to talk about toilet flush rates after this session. I want to see if we can get to an agreement as to how we as a U.S. society might be able to reduce the amount of water that we consume. I’ve used toilets as an example, but there are many other ways that we use water. Faucets, showerheads, dishwashers, clothes washers.

“I’m going to state the premises of the discussion and then I’ll take notes as you discuss. The discussion will focus on toilets: the amount of water they use in a flush. We’ve talked about flush rate of current toilets available for a reasonable price in the U.S. We will rule out the simple fix of storing less water in the toilet tank so that the flush uses less water.”

“Bob, I don’t think we’ve agreed on that premise.”

“John, thank you for bringing that up. I have talked about exactly this matter with engineering colleagues at two of the major U.S. manufacturers. They were both adamant that the bowls of their current toilet products would not be able to clear user ‘deposits’ adequately with lower flush flows. Both of these engineers agreed that their toilets depended on between five and eight gallons to succeed in clearing the toilet bowl in one flush.

“So with the premises I’ve stated, and one more, that it is a good idea to have toilets that use less than three to eight gallons to flush, please proceed to discuss the question: how would the U.S. progress toward using toilets with lower flush rates? Remember the rules: be courteous if you disagree.”

“OK, I’ll start. The government should set a requirement for the maximum flush flow. Give the manufacturers a couple of years to refine their flush hydraulics and then prohibit toilets that exceed the value to be sold.”

“Yes, have the government dictate the flush flows. What? Congress writes a toilet flush law?”

“There’s already a federal agency that could regulate toilet flushes: the Environmental Protection Agency. They’re focused on wastewater treatment right now, but reduced toilet flushes would reduce the amount of wastewater. It fits their mission.”

“So more regulation! I say we have enough regulation. We ought to be able to decide how to live our lives. If I can buy only a low-flush toilet, maybe I just build an outhouse. Then my flush rate is zero.”

“John, you know that outhouses are pretty much prohibited in settled areas. They’re prohibited by local governments. The federal government isn’t even involved.”

“Bob, is it even possible to have a low-flow toilet?”

“Good question, Tony. Quick break from my oath of silence. There’s a Japanese firm – Toto - that has been working on exactly this issue, for several years. I know…Toto is the little dog in The Wizard of Oz. This is a real firm that is working on a real issue. Japan is very densely populated. They need to reduce water and wastewater flows as much as they can.

Both of my U.S. contacts referred to Toto as a model for lower flow toilet design.”

“OK, so back to the main issue in my view. The market in our country defines what we are able to have. If the market doesn’t see that there are enough people who want low-flow toilets – or high mpg cars – we do not have the choice.”

“Jack, we’re talking about toilets, not cars.”

“I know, but the issue is the same. The market decides what we are able to buy. What are we to do? Make our own toilets? Unless we take John’s advice and dig pit toilets.”

“Guys, remember the rule: disagree courteously.”

“I’m fine with being courteous, but the suggestion has to be practical. You cannot have an outhouse anywhere except on a farm. And I’ll guess that farmers like their indoor plumbing.”

“OK, sorry to suggest outhouses. I just feel that we are regulated enough. Why are we asking for more regulation?”

“John, if the goal is to have people buy low-flow toilets, it seems reasonable to think that somehow, manufacturers would have to be required to produce them, and for people to buy them. Why do we have to debate Jack’s views on the market and your views on personal freedom? If a product is not available, no one will be able to buy it. So how do we make the product available? Manufacturers aren’t going to spend their money to study flush hydraulics unless someone or something forces them to.”

“So if manufacturers are required to produce low-flow toilets, would the government require us all to replace our toilets?”

“There’s no reason why. So build low-flow toilets into building codes. This would apply to new construction, or to renovations.”

“Yeah, renovations! That’s what I’m talking about. If the only toilet you can buy is a low-flow toilet, what choice to you have if you renovate your bathroom? You have to buy the low-flow toilet that’s on the shelf.”

“Where’s the problem with that, John? Should buyers have a choice between the wasteful toilet and the modern toilet? Let’s see…’I really like a big flush’. Where is the problem?”

“The problem is government intrusion. Each intrusion is a step towards socialism.”

“Oh, come on! Toilet socialism?”

“We have to draw the line somewhere.”

Norman intervened. “Let’s avoid spinning off into the stratosphere. But John has a point. An important point. How is a modern democratic society to regulate itself? If the goal is to have less water used in flushing toilets, the current options in the marketplace do not seem to offer a lower flow alternative. Maybe a lower flow toilet would be more costly than current toilets. I expect they would be, and my contacts in the industry pretty much agree. So where does that leave us?

“Do we leave it alone and continue to install toilets that use more water than necessary because that’s what the industry is willing to make? Or do we establish a standard that each manufacturer has to obey?

“We’ve been talking about toilets. There are hundreds of other questions about sustainability as we civil engineers proceed with our careers. Do we simply accept that the basis of design for our water and wastewater treatment plants is 100 gallons per day per capita? Or can we think of how to reduce the amount of water we use, or the number of new lanes we have to add to the freeway, or the number of rivers we must dam?

“In the next couple of seminars, we’ll pick apart the 100 gallons per day per capita number to see how water usage and wastewater generation might be decreased.

“See you next Wednesday.”