This is a similar situation to that posed by the automobile.

If you want everyone to use whatever they wish, be prepared to pay more, until the day comes when you can't GET more.

You're from SoCal. You should be familiar with the idea of running out of what some thought, or think today, is an unlimited resource, the only problem being "government" standing between you and it. Well, surprise - it's not unlimited.

There is a bottled water company in CA shipping several million gallons a day to other states. Isn't that nice?

I completely agree with you. I used to work in the dorms as a student and whenever we replaced broken/faulty showerheads, the first thing to go was the little rubber flow restricter. Found that doing that had happier residents, and less issues with hard water build-up. I've done the same wherever I move, usually buy something like one of these off eBay (below), remove the rubber gadget and voila. Sometimes even buying two and rigging a makeshift pvc dual showerhead. It isn't pretty, but it feels wonderful...

http://www.ebay.com/sch/sis.html?_nkw=Brand+New+Round+Chrome+Finish+Rain+Shower+Head+7%22+Large&_id=220937624794&&_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2658

Taking about Brazilian Showers (No, not that, eew), the country is also notorious for this health hazard:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8031/7915234474_df7b833a7f.jpg

Mind you, that's an old model. These days the electric shower heads have gotten much more modern.

Surprisingly this wasn't in a Simpsons episode. Instead it was done by King of the Hill:

http://kingofthehill.wikia.com/wiki/Flush_with_Power

Nice comment, Rad.

An article on hard water vs. soft water:

http://www.watersoftenercritic.com/soft-water-vs-hard-water/

It's funny, I thought HARD water was better for getting the soap off your hands.

Anyway, while I certainly don't appreciate it when a faucet in a public bathroom gives so little water that I have to spend 30 seconds or so washing my hands, the only real feature I'd like to have with my showerhead that I don't is a hose so I could bring it down and have more control (the type where you can SIT down and relax is the best kind, IMO, especially since there's no danger of slipping and falling), but I suppose that might need to be replaced regularly because of buildup problems or some such.

Lenona,

If you are having buildup issues with hard water there are several ways to deal with it. For those shower heads on a hose you just drop the head into a bucket of vinegar for a while to dissolve the deposits. Every 3-6 months should be sufficient.
Using vinegar and dryer sheets makes getting calcium deposits off of shower glass pretty easy.

I'm kinda interested in the electronic 'water conditioners'. Like this dohicky.
https://www.amazon.com/Eddy-Water-Descaler-Electronic-Softener/dp/B003Z96GR4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1496853598&sr=8-1&keywords=electric+water+softener

Apparently there are a lot of junk products out there. But some of these make the deposits no longer stick for a few days. Hence solving buildup issues. Unfortunately no one really understands how they work so they probably aren't that efficient at whatever they are doing.

Back on topic, the solution to bad government policy isn't more bad government policy. Yes, almost all of us get our water from some sort of government agency. And there are all kinds of politics tied up in how that water is priced and produced. But limiting the PSI on our showerheads isn't a solution to poorly priced water.

I don't know how old the low flow toilets you had to deal were were but I recently had to replace a commode and got a 1.28 gal flush model. It's amazing! It's been engineered properly I suppose but it clears out anything I've uhhhnnnn "thrown" at it so far.

Meddlers seem to be secret ascetics--for everyone else. They don't want you using things or doing things because...well, their justifications are always absurd.
For example, why water restricting shower heads? Because the government prices water so cheaply (to be nice) that no one conserves. In response, the gov tries to force you to use low-flow toilets. The justification for impossible gas mileage, way back in the 1970s, was the oil crisis and also urban pollution (burn less gas=less pollution). Then the very same goal was tied to climate change. In Europe they have mandated vacuum cleaners that don't vacuum.
I think all this stems from a belief that nature is sacred so you can't touch it.

I think it stems from a belief that their job is to push people around. And if they haven't pushed enough people around they must not be doing their job and could be fired.

Years ago when low flow shower heads were first introduced I had to replace the shower head in my bathroom. At the hardware store all I could find were shower heads touting their ability to save water. I finally went to the clerk and asked him if they had any shower heads labeled "water waster." Sadly they didn't.

Oh, yeah - does this mean we should be able to buy and drive the vehicle of our choice, now?
Or are we still insisting other people not be wasteful... like that?

http://www.networx.com/article/common-problems-with-low-flow-toilets
=== ===
Common Problems with Low Flow Toilets

[edited] San Francisco made national news this month for a lingering stench. The push for efficient toilets has helped save 20 million gallons of water per year, but also left what the city euphemistically calls sludge backing up in the sewer system without enough water to flush it down.

The city is dealing with its lack of flow with $100 million in system upgrades, and a controversial $14 million plan to pour bleach into the sewer system to neutralize the odor and disinfect the water.
=== ===

Saved/year: 20 MM gal x .03/gal = $.6 MM
Cost of bleach/yr: $14 MM projected
Sewer upgrades: $100 MM

ppic.org /main/publication_show.asp?i=1108

California water use in 2010: Residential 9 MM AFeet, Agricultural 30 MM AFeet

AFeet = Acre Feet = 1 Acre flooded to 1 foot with water = 326,000 gallons.

So, 20 MM gallons saved is 61.3 AFeet, less than 100 AFeet.
Residential used: 9 Million AFeet. Saved: 62 AFeet.

Government forced conservation is an expensive religion of social control and tax extraction, of no positive effect, and not science.

In the old toilets, they made up for bad design by simply using lots of
water for the flush. This doesn't work in the modern efficient
toilets... and there's a lot of bad design out there.

However, there's also an independent testing facility that actually
tests the flushing capacity (in grams) of toilets. That gives you a MaP
rating for each toilet type.

MaP computes that the average load is 300 grams. However, you don't
want a toilet that won't go beyond the average load (and some on the
market don't even manage that). I wouldn't consider a toilet that
didn't do at least 700. My own is rated at 1000, and it's been the most
effective of any I've ever had, even the water wasting ones. All this
despite the fact that it only uses 1.6 gallons.

You can find MaP ratings various places. Here's their 2013 test
results at
http://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/uploadedFiles/Resource_Center/Library/products/MaP/2013-08-05-MaP-Tank-type-Toilets.pdf

This hotel where you have problems flushing obviously didn't do their
homework and went for ultra-cheap rather than ultra-effective or even
reasonably-effective.

Gratitude to Ron for that clear & helpful information.

The thing about water usage is: it depends on where you are. People in Oregon, for example, do not have a water shortage. People in Arizona, sure.

The solution is an economic one: where water is scarce, charge more money for it. That will restrain idiots who want a huge lawn in Phoenix, and may cause them to use low-flow showers. Meanwhile, in Portland, people don't need to care.

As usual, government mandates are counterproductive, because they lead to idiocy like this.

BTW, if you have a showerhead with a non-removable restrictor, just take a drill to the damned thing. Done in 10 seconds.

I'm always amazed at the belief that people won't conserve resources unless the government forces them to. A free market would take care of that problem. And as Random points out, a government solution is almost inevitably a one-size-fits-all solution. When a resource is plentiful, why restrict its use artificially? I can point to washing machine ads from the 1950s that tout the water-saving ability of certain models. People in Arizona bought lots of those models. People in Tennessee, not so much. Everyone got what they wanted.

Sixclaws: If ever there was anything in human history that was a stunningly bad idea, suicide shower heads are it. Even worse an idea than the old line-voltage underwater lights that they used to put in swimming pools. If I ever go to South America, I will take cold showers before I will risk my life with one of those stupid things.

The solution is an economic one: where water is scarce, charge more money for it. That will restrain idiots who want a huge lawn in Phoenix, and may cause them to use low-flow showers. Meanwhile, in Portland, people don't need to care.
__________________________________________

And what about places that fit neither description, but where people want to use as much water as they might use in Portland?

Economic solutions only work where the person making the decision also
suffers the consequences. If you own a home, your choice of air
conditioner and toilet will be (or should be) made with the cost of
electricity and water in mind.

If you're one of the vast legions of renters, it's a different game.
I've seen buildings where the landlord supplied air conditioners, but
the tenants paid for their own electricity. The window units in that
building were about the least efficient on the market, but they were
cheap to buy. And, of course, it's rare for a tenant to install their
own choice of toilet.

> People in Oregon, for example, do not have a water shortage
You will if we have our way

I recently bought a new toilet. did a lot of online research. I was amazed at how many people are out there talking about their toilets. the reviews were endless, and priceless.

"comfortable to sit on for long periods of time"
"save your money, buy a five gallon bucket and some trash bags"

I'm in IT, learned a looong time ago that if I want to criticize software I'd better be on the latest version first.
a) You had better know if the problem has been addressed by recent development before you corner the lead developer in an open session at the annual conference.
b) It's not their fault you can't/haven't upgraded.

Same thing with these new fangled effieicnt devices. My koehler would neuter your complaints.