Interesting article about washer water usage in CA

[scott55405]

State plans suit over washing machine rules
By Elizabeth Douglass
Times Staff Writer

April 21, 2007

Hoping to salvage strict water-saving rules for washing machines, the California Energy Commission said Friday that it had notified the agency that blocked the rules that it would be filing suit.

The commission also said it had asked a federal court to review the action by the U.S. Energy Department, in the latest legal skirmish stemming from California's push for more stringent regulations covering water and energy use, air emissions and other environmental threats.

In this case, California asked the Energy Department for permission to set more stringent rules on water efficiency for household clothes washers, contending that the state has unique water and energy challenges that make federal regulations insufficient.

Without a waiver from the federal agency, states are prohibited from imposing efficiency standards that conflict with federal requirements.

"It is undeniable that California faces special, urgent and important water and energy challenges," the state told the agency. "In this era of dangerous and precarious energy dependence and dwindling water supplies, such specialized state efficiency standards matter."

Energy Department officials rejected California's waiver request in late December, ruling that the state failed to establish that it had "unusual and compelling water interests" and that the proposed state rules probably would eliminate cheap and popular top-loading washers from the California market.

The department denied California's request to reconsider the decision in late February, said Jonathan Blees, assistant chief counsel for the Energy Commission.

Blees said the state would argue in court that the federal government failed to consider information submitted by the state and mischaracterized the effective dates of the California regulations. He disputed the notion that top-loading washers wouldn't be able to comply with California's rules.

"An agency ignoring evidence in the record that's counter to its decision … is simply illegal," Blees said. "You're not allowed to do that when you make a decision."

Under federal law, an intent-to-sue notice must be sent to the agency 60 days before the state can sue in federal court.

Attempts to reach an Energy Department spokeswoman for comment were unsuccessful.

A 2002 state law ordered the Energy Commission to set rules for washing machines that would substantially cut water usage. The rules were set to kick in next year and required household washers to use no more than 8.5 gallons per cubic foot of laundry, a nearly 50% reduction in water use compared with models on the market in 2004, the commission said. The limit was to be lowered further in 2010.

The state hoped that the rules would help cut water use. But it also was eyeing the amount of energy that could be saved if less wastewater from washers had to be pumped to and processed at sewage treatment plants. There also would be less electricity and natural gas expended heating water for washing machines.

Appliance makers urged the Energy Department to reject the waiver request, arguing that the state "failed to show that a residential clothes washer water standard would significantly alleviate California's water or energy problems."

In addition, manufacturers said the standards would hurt the appliance industry and lower-income buyers by in effect prohibiting the sale of top-loading washers in California.

Blees said that the state's appeal of the waiver rejection was filed in the 9th District Court of Appeals in San Francisco and that the lawsuit would be filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[email protected]

 

[DADoES]

I think all the officials and members of these government agencies and commissions and departments should be investigated to find out what kind of machines they all own and/or use, and whether they're satisfied with the performance of said machines. Of course the majority of those individuals likely send out to commercial laundries.

And then ask them about comparison of other water use (dishes, toilets and bathing, swimming pools and fountains, car washes, lawn care, etc. vs. clothes washing.

 

[gansky1]

Interesting, thanks Scott.

I agree, Glenn, there are so many other ways to cut water usage - targeting washing machines isn't going to help all that much. To make a more meaningful impact, they should start by outlawing Suburbans, Hummers or other personal-use vehicles that average less than 20 mpg rating for city driving. That will have a positive impact in several areas of concern - energy dependance, pollution, etc.

Didn't Colorado enact laws mandating lower water usage for commercial washers?

 

[hydralique]

California already has standards for water usage of toilets and showers. You can't install any fixtures which don't meet the low-flow standards. Unfortunately there isn't much done about lawn sprinkler systems. Certainly they are needed, and in fact can save water by making sure people don't set a manual sprinkler on the corner of their lawn and then forget about it, but I've seen many over-sprinkled lawns.

The worst I ever saw was in Santa Monica, and cost the owner quite a bit in foundation costs for a house addition. The original design was for a conventional slab on grade, but when excavation for footings revealed mushy soil several feet down the geologist had to revise his recommendations for the structural engineer. The end result was that the addition required a structural slab which tranferred its' load to deepened footings rather than the soil. There were no known streams or sources of groundwater, so the only explanation was that the soil had been consistently saturated by the sprinkler system for decades. The main issue here is that sprinkler systems are stupid, with no way to measure actual moisture levels in the soil, and are mostly adjusted by gardeners. No gardener ever, ever wants his client to complain about a brown lawn, and he's not paying the bill anyway, so he adjusts the system for "generous" watering. I'd love to see some kind of new standard with moisture sensors in the ground hooked to the control circuitry of the system.

Much as I would love to see fewer Suburbans and Hummers and Range Rovers on the road, I doubt that they have much to do with water usage. Overall I have real issues with government directives which prohibit things rather than taxing them to encourage lower consumption. If someone really wants an inefficient washer, then he may have a real reason for it, and he should be allowed to buy it. A reasonable consumption tax on the purchase would ensure that people who don't really care would buy the more efficient machines, and also give an incentive to manufacturers to make the most efficient machines possible and thus save their customers the expense of the tax.

I also have big issues with government requirements which set seemingly srbitrary standards for anything. What research is the water usage target based on? Inquiring minds want to know!

 

[DADoES]

My point is that all these gubbermint officials trying to make a name for themselves need to look in their own households before taking control of everybody else's. Who was it in the story recently involving a governor or some such spewing a diatribe about saving energy and resources, when his own household consumes more energy in a month than a typical consumer uses in a year? Something like that.

I have a sprinkler system, but one need only take a cursory glance at my yard to tell that I rarely have it running!

 

[toggleswitch]

Agreed. Less legislation and more innovation and long-term thought.

Burn garbage. Generate electricity (therby cutting down/eliminating imported foreign oil). Use normally wasted heat from generating electricity to distill ocean water.

There is money for war over ridiculous issues of ego. Use the money instead for a solar panel (courtesy of Uncle Sam) on every roof in the country generating electricity and feeding it into the nation's power-grids. Think long-term and plan ahead. This is what gov't is for. Not to tax me to feed those in my country who don't want to work and to finance war afer war after war and to limit my freedoms and lower the overall standard of living. Good leadership solves problems BEFORE they happen, not putting a "Band-aid" on a huge visible cancerous tumor and telling us it was inevitable and "we fixed the problem."

Rant over. UGH! Don't get me started......

But overall I'm with Gansky. I want the right to use an incandescent light-bulb /lamp becaue my vehicle IS a four-cylinder put-put. Don't legislate the stupid stuff. go for the big OBVIOUS stuff first....

Make insulation mandatory. Demand heat-pumps instead of straight resistance electric heat. Better yet, don't allow electric central-heating heat (except in hydro-electric areas!) when oil or gas is available. Force bulders to have gas NOT electric hook-ups for dryers and hot-water heaters when gas service is already exisitng or to be installed in new or renovation construction. Demand skylights amd/or or sola-tubes in the top floor of buildngs. Put common-area and rest-room lighting in public buildngs on motion sensors. Need I go on?

 

[dalangdon]

The American southwest is on a collision course when it comes to fresh water - unless they figure out a way to do mass scale desalinization, there will be much more draconian measures coming down the pike than what kind of washing machine you can buy.

I believe these kinds of regulations are good, inasmuch as they force the manufacturers to create a quality machine that can work within the framework of the regulations. We went through the same thing with the auto industry regarding safety features, yet no reasonable person will argue against seatbelts and airbags.

We can try to hide behind ideology, but let's face it: somthings gotta give. I'd much rather has regulation on appliances than mandated population control.

And - in my opinion - saying that a politician should have to meet some sort of gold standard in virtue before they can vote on common-sense regulation is, at best, naive. If we are going to do that, we should preclude any divorced politician from voting on marriage issues ;-)

 

[hydralique]

Question for Toggleswitch . . .

Does New York have energy analysis requirements for new construction? I would think that this would be common in the northeast, given the harsh winters you guys have (not to mention humid summers). Here in California new construction must go through the "Title 24 Energy Analysis" before a building permit is issued.

The analysis is done by a licensed professional using state certified software. Basically, they take into account the value of the insulation in the walls and floors, heat gain on windows (overhangs help here), insulation value of glazing, type of heating and air conditioning, and efficiency of the water heater. My usual consultants charge about $250 to do this, and need a reasonably developed set of plans. The latter is only a problem when dealing with an addition, in which case you have to provide them with a set of as-built plans for the complete building plus the proposed addition.

The process is mostly pretty benign, providing that you're using double or triple pane glass and a gas water heater. On an addition, my guys can usually get single-pane glass to calc out OK if they spec a super-efficient water heater. That is useful if the original house has nice old divided-lite windows which need to be matched. They have told me it's nearly impossible to get an electric water heater to calc out OK, and I would assume the same with resistance electric heat. A heat pump is OK. They don't actually specify a certain brand or model of appliance, but rather give minimum energy efficiency standards which are reproduced on the plans. Without the Energy Analysis paperwork, no Building and Safety department in the state will accept a set of plans for plancheck.

I have no idea how common this sort of thing is in the nation, or how much energy it really saves, but it is probably worth the trouble and expense.

 

[launderess]

No offense meant to those living in CA, but am getting sick and tired of this silly nonesense limiting water use by appliances. Much of the West including many parts of California are settled in areas which are either desert or naturally short on water. Yet CA still promotes large scale farming, housing developments (and the lush lawns/gardens which go with them), golf courses and all sort of things that do not belong where water is naturally scarce.

 

[westyslantfront]

I lived in Palm Springs, California for 8 years. Pools were filled, lush lawns watered daily by inefficient irrigation systems where plenty of water just ran into the gutters and arroyos, people love washing their cars.
So where is this so called water conservation.
As for the new front loaders that take on less water, with their long cycles, I guess they use more electricity than
a direct drive top loading kenmore with a 35 minute complete cycle. So where is the energy conservaton and savings?

Ross

 

[hydralique]

Thinking Globally . . .

As noted above, I have a natural aversion to prohibiting inefficient cars, appliances, etc., instead of just taxing inefficiencies. Water supply issues affect far, far more parts of the country and world than just California, however, and eventually we as a nation will need to address it or face nasty consequences. We pretty much ruined a chance to become a leader (or even competitive) in efficient automotive technology after the '73 oil crises, and it would be sad to be equally unconcerned about water issues today.

Just a couple of days ago I saw an article in the paper about water supply issues in south Florida. Who would have thought that? It's wet and humid, and contains perhaps the nation's biggest percentage of swampland. The issue at hand was a request to use more Everglades water than conservation rules allow. According to the article, the stakes are high in that if more Everglades water use is prohibited, groundwater near important wells may be depleted to the extent that the aquifiers are polluted by salt water from the ocean. That would be a catastrophic event for people who depend on that water to live. Too much water from the Everglades and wildlife is endangered.

Parts of the Houston area have sunk over the past half-century due to pumping of groundwater. I believe this also occured in south Louisiana, which didn't help at all during Katrina.

I've even heard of concerns in New York City, not over the supply of water itself but rather the condition of the infrastructure under the city. Parts of it are very old, but the demand is such that it is impossible to shut down some parts of it for replacement, making repairs difficult. Rather like our freeways here in LA. I can't recall the source of this story so maybe it is exaggerated, but certainly it is a situation lots of older cities could find themselves in as population density increases drive water useage up.

FWIW, the farmland of the Central Valley in California is among the most productive farmland in the world, and feeds much of the west. The water mostly comes from the Sacramento Delta, and yes there is a lot of competition for it. There is more water in the northern part of the state and up into the Pacific Northwest, but as with most cooler northern climates those regions aren't conducive to the level of agricultural productivity the Valley supports. You can bring water to warm, sunny climates, but can't take the climate and sun to cooler, wetter regions.

 

[tolivac]

I am on the side of not having State or Fed govts dictating and regulating what types of appliances or other equipment you can buy-freedom of choice rules!Let the Market decide.Many folks don't like being told what types of appliances,light bulbs,cars,etc to buy.Proper use of what you have may be more important.I wish I could link to it-found it on the web homepage one day quite a while ago-The state of Nevada conducted water usage studies and found the EXTERNAL use of water was the real culprit in water use or "waste"After all why grow grass in the middle of a desert-its going to require lots of water and fertilizer,not to mention the pollution from the gas motored equipment needed to mow and maintain it.External water use was defined as watering lawns and gardens,washing cars and filling swimming pools.Internal use of water-such as showers,baths,washing hands,dishwashers and clothes washers wasn't that much of a factor.California is in the situation where they have BOTH desert and fertile ground.The Southwest can have this problem.I just feel make the energy water saving equipment available but not required.Let people have their choices-TL or FL washers,Water saving or water hog dishwashers.

 

[sudsmaster]

By far the largest user of water in California is agriculture. If I recall correctly, it uses about 10 times more water than residential consumers. And a lot of that water is wasted - no metering, either. California is one of the world's leading producers of rice... guess how much water that takes?

Not that I'm anti-agriculture - quite the reverse would be true. But I think a lot of agribusiness doesn't want to change anything unless forced to do it. So they continue with flooding fields, overhead sprinkling, lots of runoff, not because they have to, but because they can.

On the flip side, many in this world are lucky to get a gallon and a half of potable, clean water a day. I'm single and I use about 80 gallons a day. Where does it all go? Well, down the drain in the bathroom, moslty, I suppose. I have a front loader main washer (Neptune), and a water efficient main dishwasher, so those are not big consumers, I don't think. I have vintage top loader washers and dishwashers but they get used just for fun maybe a couple times a year. Even most of my irrigation is done from a well on the property - which doesn't factor into the 80 gallon/day figure. I confess my one area where I splurge is in the shower. The first thing to go is the water restrictor plate in the shower head.

In any case, as I write this it's raining heavily outside. A last gasp of our wet winter, I suppose; it's been unusually cold the past week or two as well. Can't wait for the drought to resume ;-)

 

[tolivac]

yes for showers--I am guilty as well-take out the water restrictor.I LOVE the powerful showers that result without the flow device.I figure-hey-I am paying my water bill-I should be able to use what I want-and I have 3 TL washers.Use them a few times a week.My water bill averages about $24 per month.I don't water the grass or gardens-they do just fine.Watering is a primary water waster and polluter-the runoff from yards and gardens is a major polluter-esp if fertilizer is used.I remeber one showerhead I bought-it had a fixed restrictor-the drill press fixed that!

 

[gadgetgary]

~Does New York have energy analysis requirements for new construction?

I'm not use if an analysis is done, but there are certain basic standards.

I'm, in touch with an architect at the moment regarding a building in NYC that is being gut renovated. I will ask her about conservation compliance and standards. I'm also not sure if such things are required by law and enforcable in this state, or if "voluntary" to get tax ands/or other financial benefits.

 

[toggleswitch]

Speakimg of having a talk about logging-out........

That was my post just above. Someone ELSE also forgot to log-out...

*AHEM*

 

[toggleswitch]

We needs to edjumicate the publix.

Speaking of water and lawns, It is said that 1 inch (2.5 cm) per week is sufficient.

Further said- it is better to water once a week in large/long doses to encourage root growth down, so the roots can better absorb water. Watering quickly and frequently encourages root growth at surface which is not recommended.

Oh and Ross- Westyslantfront, your rear yard/ garden which is xeriscaped (designed for no or low water) is FABULOUS. It was interesting (read:scandalous) to see much older homes in Phoenix, Arizona (the desert) with FULL lawns...

Xeriscaping - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Cybrvanr]

Instead of California placing water restrictions on washing machines, they need to ban using purified water for lawn irrigation. Also, there's not sense in flushing toilets with purified water either. "Grey Water" systems should be required for anyone that wants to water their lawns. These systems recover the used, soapy water from appliances and such to be used for other sources, like toilets and irrigation. This is the ONLY way I see solving the problem. In one day of irrigating a lawn in a fancy planned community with valuable purified water, one could take several showers and do multiple loads of laundry...it's such a waste!

The other thing I would like to see done too is to regulate the amount of lumens per square foot of outdoor lighting a business can have while it's open, and while it's closed. Some of the fuel stations around here have enough lighting to melt the pavement at night. Other businesses leave their parking lot lights on and their interior lights on after the business has closed for the day. Yes, I now that some light is needed for security purposes, but not ALL of them!!!

 

[hydralique]

Thanks, Toggle!

I appreciate you taking the time to ask about this. At the moment it is of more than just casual interest. I have a friend here in LA who inherited her childhood home in NY, and is considering doing some work on it. I'm trying to give her all the guidance I can on the issue. I've ordered a copy of the NY state building code, but I know from experience that what is written in the code and what happens in the real world can differ!