EPA Moves to Regulate How Long You Spend in the Shower

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Can we call it totalitarianism yet?

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants hotels to monitor how much time its guests spend in the shower.

The agency is spending $15,000 to create a wireless system that will track how much water a hotel guest uses to get them to “modify their behavior.”

Everything works less well in a world under the thumb of envirotyrants:

The EPA also has a WaterSense program that challenges hotels to track their water use and upgrade their restrooms with low-flow toilets and showerheads.

Also, the Beltway bureauweenies think your sheets and towels are too clean:

READ THE REST HERE
http://moonbattery.com/?p=56272

 

[Webster]

In a perfect world, hotel chains would tell the EPA to go cram those measuring devices up where the sun doesn't shine... *shakes head in disbelief* ....is there any way we can scrap the current system and just start from scratch again?

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

How the state's ever allowed a organization that should not even exist is beyond me.

 

[Jazzy]

The EPA is not a creation of the Constitution or the founding fathers. It should be disbanded as a terrorist organization (much like the IRS) for causing American Citizens undo cost and stress.

 

[mrldii]

I'm confused...I don't live in a hotel, so I don't see how the EPA is telling me how long of a shower I can take.

From what was posted, it appeared the EPA is studying how long hotel patron's spend in the shower, to determine if significant water-savings can be achieved by modifying behavior/installing devices to prevent unnecessary waste of water, a precious resource.


I'm not seeing the problem, as stated in the title.

 

[Webster]

From what was posted, it appeared the EPA is studying how long hotel patron's spend in the shower, to determine if significant water-savings can be achieved by modifying behavior/installing devices to prevent unnecessary waste of water, a precious resource.

Its' not the government's place to do that, my friend; if a hotel wants to regulate things like that, let 'em...but the government doing it? Hell to the no!

 

[mrldii]

From what was posted, it appeared the EPA is studying how long hotel patron's spend in the shower, to determine if significant water-savings can be achieved by modifying behavior/installing devices to prevent unnecessary waste of water, a precious resource.

Its' not the government's place to do that, my friend; if a hotel wants to regulate things like that, let 'em...but the government doing it? Hell to the no!

Yes, it IS one of the government's roles to regulate resources;  good God, it's what determined that there'd be States of the Union to govern, to begin with!


But, as I'd stated in my previous reply, I didn't follow the 'ergo-ispo-facto' application of logic that you'd created when cut-and-pasting an article and then drawing your own conclusions to what it was really saying;  I read it myself, and didn't follow the same dotted line you did.

But, then again, I'm slow to emotionally and knee-jerkingly react to non-existent stimuli.

 

[Webster]

From what was posted, it appeared the EPA is studying how long hotel patron's spend in the shower, to determine if significant water-savings can be achieved by modifying behavior/installing devices to prevent unnecessary waste of water, a precious resource.

Its' not the government's place to do that, my friend; if a hotel wants to regulate things like that, let 'em...but the government doing it? Hell to the no!

Yes, it IS one of the government's roles to regulate resources;  good God, it's what determined that there'd be States of the Union to govern, to begin with!

As long as its' a constitutional function of government, I'd have no problem with it...but where, my friend, in the Constitution does it say that the government has the right to dictate to hotels - and to everyone else, for that matter - how much fricken' water one can use? That should be a decision left to the individual, not to some faceless bureaucrat sitting in an office whose likely never been out in the real world.....at this rate, it wouldn't surprise me if government tries to force people to use less water; it'd be just like the cretins' in Washington to do just that...

 

[mrldii]

I doubt that I will find any language in The Constitution which specifically states whether or not the government can dictate to hotels how much - or little - water they allow their patrons to use; The Constitution was never intended to be an all-inclusive document, which is why it was written to allow for the addition of Amendments.

For that matter, I'm hard-pressed to find in the article you presented where it says the government is going to tell hotels how much water their patrons may or may not use. That was your knee-jerking, emotional response to what you believed you read within the article, by reading between-the-lines and through your own filters when making your summation of what it really means.


Sorry, I don't operate the same way you do. It's beginning to look *like* that fact is going to cause a problem for one of us,


no?

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

I'm confused...I don't live in a hotel, so I don't see how the EPA is telling me how long of a shower I can take.

From what was posted, it appeared the EPA is studying how long hotel patron's spend in the shower, to determine if significant water-savings can be achieved by modifying behavior/installing devices to prevent unnecessary waste of water, a precious resource.


I'm not seeing the problem, as stated in the title.

People just never see the problem at the beginning until it is well entrenched in our lives. It starts with a study, then a suggestion and finally telling us how long and how much of such item we can have. This is way above the federal government business to get involved in. The left likes to say stay out of our bedrooms well stay out of my shower. If I am willing to pay the price to use 1 gallon or a 1000 gallons the free market not the government should be involved in such things. 

 

[mrldii]

People just never see the problem at the beginning until it is well entrenched in our lives. It starts with a study, then a suggestion and finally telling us how long and how much of such item we can have. This is way above the federal government business to get involved in. The left likes to say stay out of our bedrooms well stay out of my shower. If I am willing to pay the price to use 1 gallon or a 1000 gallons the free market not the government should be involved in such things. 

Again, I don't live in a hotel.

It is a fact that water is a precious resource and it is a fact that water is a scarce in some areas and plentiful in others and it is a fact that we don't have the infrastructure to move it from one area to another.  It is also a fact that in drought-stricken areas, people won't - on their own - cut back on using those resources.

If people would do it automatically and on their own, there'd be no need for the government/a federal agency/a local agency to have to mandate conservation TO them.


So, on that we agree:  'people DON'T see it, until it's too late'...it really was in their control, all along.  Instead of bitching when mommy and daddy have to come in and fix it, we should all be responsible (citizens) enough to do it on our own, instead of bitching about it, after the fact.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Again you are missing how this kind of personal rights gets destroyed.

The market should determine how valuable a resource is. If it is valuable and precious resource then prices go up and hotels raise prices and put in water saving devices or even limit water time for each room. You put government in control of such things the product still gets ruined and the prices still go up.

But there is nothing to fix here except what government itself screwed up.

 

[mrldii]

I'm not missing anything, other than the opportunity to join you on the knee-jerking emotionally-reactionary train.

Nowhere in the cited article does it state - nor even allude to - the *fact* that the EPA is going to tell ME how long I can take a shower; yet, that's what the title of this discussion indicates it will be addressing.


Water - if, indeed a valuable resource - should have a higher price put upon it to protect its value? High how? High enough that "those lowlifes" (i.e., the people of a color/religion/gender/sexual persuasion/economic class) that you don't like can't afford it? Or, high enough that "those lowlifes" (i.e., your neighbor who won't keep his dog from barking at all hours of the day night) that you don't like can't afford it?

"Capitalism" is the means by which we control and divvy up our natural resources to ensure there's enough to go around?!?





You are kidding, riiiiiight?!?

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

You sure are missing the point. Every single government regulation or program has made things worse in America but yet people keep looking towards them for the solution even if no solution is needed.

Again they never do when government gets involved in regulating something. But yet we have a government discussing openly that they want to have control of private homes thermostats. Federal income tax when it first came out was promised to never go above 3% of your income. Social Security was meant to be small back up for people who had saved money in the first place. Not a program where Almost every American ends up taking more then they ever put into it buy the time they die. Or means of identifying Americans and needing to be used for almost everything in todays world. Obama care would never have death panels but yet they do.I mean the list goes on and on of how rights are taken away in a small way in the beginning and grow into the monstrosity it is today.

How high or low depends on everything else sold out there. What the free market demands. And when the free market is in control the people you call low lifes are usually the ones that can afford it. Just like if the free market truly was involved in health care many more could afford it then they can now.

Capitalism is a means of making a product affordable for everyone. You want to ruin that every time then get government involved with a abundance of unnecessary rules and regulations.

So no I am not kidding.

 

[Webster]

You are kidding, riiiiiight?!?

Yeah, I'm kidding...
The point that I was trying to make was that it should be up to the individual and/or business to make that kind of decision, not the government...this reminds me of the whole low-flow toilet debate from some years before; if someone wants to buy a high-flow toilet (and pay for it through higher water bills), they should be able to. Likewise, if a hotel wants to regulate the amount of water one uses in the shower, they should be able to do that themselves and not through the heavy hand of government.

Its' a question of choice here, my friend, something I think you and our betters in Washington seem to have forgotten...

 

[mrldii]

Yeah, I'm kidding...
The point that I was trying to make was that it should be up to the individual and/or business to make that kind of decision, not the government...this reminds me of the whole low-flow toilet debate from some years before; if someone wants to buy a high-flow toilet (and pay for it through higher water bills), they should be able to. Likewise, if a hotel wants to regulate the amount of water one uses in the shower, they should be able to do that themselves and not through the heavy hand of government.

Its' a question of choice here, my friend, something I think you and our betters in Washington seem to have forgotten...

That's nice that you feel that way...and even nicer that you took this opportunity to share your thoughts with me.


However, I came to this thread to be enlightened about how the EPA was working to regulate MY shower-taking time.  I read the article that you'd posted as evidence of this *fact*, and found nothing even close to the alluded-to new happening, as indicated in your selected title.


Even though very new here, I have found that you have a tendency to *dominate* this particular forum and that you utilize this same style of hyperbole, emotionalism, and over-reactionism to each and every subject you proffer up for discussion.

In less than a day of it, I'm bored beyond tears by it.  I came to this forum looking for intelligent discourse and discussion...a place to bounce ideas and thoughts off others to either allow me to change my positions on matters or to become even more committed to them;  as evidenced, there will be none of that as far as you're concerned.

Enjoy *your* forum, with its 3 participants! 

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

However, I came to this thread to be enlightened about how the EPA was working to regulate MY shower-taking time.  I read the article that you'd posted as evidence of this *fact*, and found nothing even close to the alluded-to new happening, as indicated in your selected title.


But you are wrong it very clearly does show what the epa is planning to do. 


Even though very new here, I have found that you have a tendency to *dominate* this particular forum and that you utilize this same style of hyperbole, emotionalism, and over-reactionism to each and every subject you proffer up for discussion.


The state of our country and it's push towards socialism shows there is hardly any over reactionism here but will admit to a lot of emotionalism when showing our decline.