RE: Actually, I’d consider the toilet if the cost/payback were reasonable
Well, that’s exactly the point of all those who are questioning this legislation.
WHO GETS TO DECIDE WHETHER SOMETHING IS VALUE FOR MONEY FOR THEMSELVES?
The problem with Liberals is they sit on their elected thrones believing THEY get to decide for you.
AS I said before, liberals are anti-choice against almost everything except when it comes to killing babies.
I agree with you. But, then, they decided that we all had to have low flush toilets, and I cheated. I installed a fill tube/flapper valve from a toilet with a taller, but narrower tank. Managed to get in at least another gallon and a half of water in my tanks.
This is what I find interesting;
“dual-flush toilets result in 23-32 percent less water usage than conventional fixtures and the average water savings from replacing existing plumbing fixtures with dual-flush fixtures was 10,600 gallons per year per home.”
That’s a lot of water saved over the course of several years! And I’m in the Third Tier for Cleveland’s water system. Water is expensive, and so is the sewerage charge. Less water used would save me money on those two bills. I run a small water company, but unfortunately don’t live in that system. We have deep wells, and I bring my cooking/drinking water home from work. I tap it before it’s treated, and it’s wonderful water! And I’m growing increasingly stingy!