Replies

Reducing the amount of treated drinking water that it takes for three hundred million people to flush their toilets and at the same time reducing the same amount of sewage water that has to be treated and cleaned is a great benefit.
It may have had a benefit, for those paying for the operation and maintenance of their sewage system. Maybe not. If it made more sense for them to buy an "old-tech" toilet using more gpf, then so be it. If it became prohibitively expensive to provide the required amount of properly treated water to supply all those older toilets, people would voluntarily opt for the newer models. This was never a government issue.

Using up to seven gallons to flush a toilet just isn’t necessary,
Taking 15 minutes in the shower isn't necessary, either. Do you have a proposal to address this issue?

Read #50.

Low flow toilets that work well are available - though it took a really long time... It took computer simulations/design to finally get it right.

Stressing resources and infrastructure for no reason is ridiculous, I live in Southern California where the government can make decisions about the gross waste of our imported water.

I will be glad to see the last of the old 7 gallon toilets and even the five gallon toilets gone.

Barbara Streisand pays almost $2000.00 a month for water, plumbing advances that can passively reduce that waste of our imported water is part of engineering advancement.

The government was making mandates on toilets long before the the limits on water usage.