As a retired physician who used to build houses with Habitat for Humanity, I bring both a medical perspective and hands-on building experience to this topic. Those experiences shape how I think about sanitation, reliable plumbing, and the practical effects of public policy.
I believe it is time to reconsider the federal rules governing how much water toilets can use. Conservation is a worthwhile goal, but regulations should be judged by their real-world results—not simply by the number of gallons used in a single flush.
The federal toilet standard dates to the Energy Policy Act of 1992, which established a limit of 1.6 gallons per flush for new toilets beginning in 1994. EPA’s WaterSense label promotes toilets that use 1.28 gallons per flush or less.
Those numbers describe water use per flush, but they do not, by themselves, tell us everything about reliability or overall efficiency. To me, the central question is performance: Does the toilet remove waste reliably, work with the building’s plumbing, and use water responsibly over time?
If a toilet requires repeated flushing, its actual water use can exceed what its advertised flush volume suggests. That possibility does not mean every low-flow toilet performs poorly. It means we should compare actual results rather than assume that a lower gallons-per-flush rating always tells the whole story.
Reliable toilets are not a luxury. They are a basic part of sanitation in homes, schools, workplaces, and public facilities.
When a toilet repeatedly clogs or leaves waste behind, the consequences extend beyond inconvenience. People must deal with cleanup, unpleasant conditions, interruptions, and sometimes plumbing bills. Any serious evaluation of efficiency should account for those costs alongside water savings.
We should also distinguish a poorly performing toilet from a problem elsewhere in the plumbing system. A sound policy should encourage accurate diagnosis and effective solutions—not assume that either more water or less water is always the answer.
My position is that the federal gallons-per-flush mandate should be repealed or substantially revised in favor of a more flexible, performance-based approach.
Water availability, building conditions, and plumbing systems vary. Policy should leave room for those differences rather than impose a single national limit as the overriding measure of efficiency.
States and local communities should have the flexibility to address genuine water-supply constraints. At the same time, homeowners, property owners, and plumbing professionals should have greater freedom to choose equipment suited to their circumstances, subject to appropriate sanitation and building requirements.
Where a higher-volume flush is demonstrably needed for reliable operation, regulations should allow a practical path to its use. Where lower-volume toilets perform well, consumers should remain free to choose them and benefit from the savings.
A better regulatory approach would evaluate reliable waste removal, resistance to clogging, and total water use, including repeat flushing. It would also consider compatibility with different plumbing systems and building conditions, as well as maintenance and repair costs alongside water savings.
Before making broad claims about the effects of existing standards, policymakers should examine evidence on those measures. The case for reform should rest on demonstrated outcomes, not anecdotes alone.
For me, this is a question of limited government, individual choice, and accountability. Federal restrictions should face scrutiny when they limit consumer options. Their benefits should be demonstrated, their costs acknowledged, and less restrictive alternatives seriously considered.
I am not arguing against conservation or suggesting that every toilet needs more water. I am arguing for the freedom to choose effective solutions and for standards that reflect how those solutions work in practice.
We should conserve water while protecting sanitation, respecting local conditions, and allowing people to select reliable equipment. That is the practical, liberty-minded approach I support.
By Loren Jay Chassels, DO, MST, FAAIM, FAWM
Disclaimer: Member articles are published to encourage debate and discussion within the party. The views and opinions in each piece belong to the author and do not always reflect any platform plank or official LP stance. We encourage people to challenge the status quo — including our own.