In defense of the shower
To protest the Department of Energy’s crackdown on shower faucets that splash what is deemed to be excessive amounts of water on the soapy bodies of Americans, I’m taking a full 20-minute shower tomorrow.
Well, maybe. I’m actually a conservationist. But if I did—and there’s no regulation to stop me—I would use much more water than a normal person using a fancy shower, with multiple nozzles and extra water pressure.
And that’s just one of my complaints about the DOE’s crackdown on shower heads. It contains a loophole the size of the bathtub.
The federal government’s rules for shower heads call for a maximum throughput of 2.5 gallons of water per minute, at a maximum pressure of 80 lbs. per square inch. That rule has been on the books since 1992. But the DOE seems to have adjusted its definition of “shower head,” counting multiple nozzles as one, and thereby making the high-end body-spray system suddenly non-conforming. Four shower head makers were fined by the DOE in May.
Ladies and gentlemen, somebody needs to stand up in defense of the luxury shower. But there are perils. Environmentalism and green building are large and growing industries, with powerful allies. Saving energy has become a national pastime, and rightfully so. Water conservation is a growing passion, boosted by the Environmental Protection Agency’s very commendable new WaterSense label.
It’s not an ideal stage for someone to walk across while waving the flag of opposition to a green regulation. But here it goes anyway.
Point one: The long arm of the law should not extend into the bathrooms of America. Individual liberty is at stake. Let the people chose their showers, and let the manufacturers respond to consumer preferences under the tried and true principle of free enterprise.
Point two: Shower heads are the victim of selective prosecution. In this little drama, they are like the incandescent light bulb casting shadows in a 500-sq.-ft. media room, next to a massive entertainment system with surround sound. It’s easy to pick on the wasteful light bulb. Less so the 500-sq.-ft. room.
Point three: As mentioned above, efforts to limit water usage by regulating the shower heads ignores the most important factor in the equation: time. To a large degree, it is behavior that causes waste, not equipment. The cause of conservation would be better served if the Department of Energy were to promote an educational campaign to encourage water conservation around the whole house.
Point four: Plumbing manufacturers have made significant advances in shower technology in recent years. By precision design of nozzles, for instance, they can now elongate the water drops, covering more area with less water. There are surely more advances to come—advances that can lead to increased comfort, as well as increased efficiency both in heating and water usage. Tying the hands of the manufacturers impedes this progress.
Every argument needs a slogan. Here’s mine: When shower heads are criminalized, only the criminals will have shower heads. And what kind of a world would that be?
