@Eric - I am not going to attempt to parse language with you - suffice it to say that I was advised regarding Code requirements and that my three way diverter passed inspection because only one fixture could be turned on at a time when tested by the inspector.

I am not a plumber nor do I want to become conversant with plumbing requirements - that's why I hired experts who ARE conversant with these issues to advise me :-). Therefore I bought what I was advised to buy by people who are paid to know these things who had no vested interest in anything other than enabling my bathroom to pass inspection and who had worked with plumbing inspectors for many years and were more experienced regarding the process than I could ever be - even if I attempted to read Code. FWIW, I am an attorney but only an idiot attorney would attempt to interpret Code in a vacuum without ascertaining what custom, practice and industry standard was in terms of interpretations.

If any other people are reading this in the future, the standard interpretation of the pertinent Code is that only ONE shower fixture can be operational at one time. If you want to fight standard interpretation, proceed at own risk.

Helen, I had a similar plumbing issue with the handheld on my tub filler. Inspector was insisting that I add a valve to prevent siphoning of tub water back up into the water system. I contacted the U.S. representative for the manufacturer, Samuel Heath, and this resolved the problem.

Response from manufacturer:

"The V654 hand shower that came with your V630-A tub filler does have a check valve built into it that prevents the siphoning of tub water back up into the water system. It is identified by the #5 on the attached diagram. We’ve never had an inspection problem with our hand showers, even in California."

I'm working on plans for my hallway bathroom. I plan to use a 2-way diverter and have found that several manufacturers now have a 2-way diverter and volume control on a single lever.

Helen, you are using one GC and one designer to establish what the standard interpretation is? I don't believe that is necessarily true and even if it were what if that interpretation is legally wrong? You are claiming you know for sure. I am challenging that.

Yes, I think the language in the code is very misleading, but somehow you think it is very clear. Since you are a lawyer I would think you would enjoy parsing legalese. As a point for discussion let's assume the code had stated:

The shower shall be designed to allow only one shower outlet to be in operation at at time. It may also be designed to allow more than one shower outlet to be in operation at a time.

Is there any reason to believe the second sentence conflicts with the first? If not then what makes you think a judge would interpret the first sentence alone to not also allow for the second sentence?

I will call Hansgrohe and get their position on it. I'm trying to get to a shared understanding of the code. Please do not try to claim you know for sure what the intent of the code is or what would happen in court. Neither of us do for sure, we can only gather evidence and present it for others to interpret. You have given your opinion and what you have heard from your GC/designer. Let's see what other evidence we can gather.

@Eric - I am relying on a person who has been in the business for over 20 years and has done numerous projects including commercial projects as well as private homes and multi-family homes. So yes, I am relying on expertise in terms of what is required under relevant California Code as interpreted by the numerous inspectors and inspections she has dealt with over the years. I have relied on her expertise as well as my GC's expertise and the licensed plumber and electricians to make many more critical decisions because I am paying for their expertise and body of knowledge so why would I think she is offering incorrect advice on what is a fairly commonplace issue in California - there is nothing esoteric about remodeling showers and baths and how many fixtures can operate at the same time.

You seem to be hell bent on interpreting the Code in a manner that is not in line with standard interpretations. Unless Hansgrohe is willing to give you a written opinion that your setup will pass inspection in your jurisdiction, their opinion is meaningless - all they can provide are the specifications.

And there are a slew of chandeliers and sconces currently available for sale in California which are not Code compliant with latest Code. That stuff is sold which isn't up to most recent Code is not a guarantee that the item is Code compliant. I highly doubt whether an attorney in Corporate parsed the language of the most recent Code and decided that they would sell in California based on your singular interpretation. Occam's razor means that it is sold because the company is not aware of latest Code or the distributor selling it doesn't know or care - it is not a warranty that it actually complies with Code.

@plan2remodel - Thanks for your response. My designer has the manufacturer's specifications which state that the vacuum breaker is preinstalled in the hand held I have installed and doesn't need an additional one. Unlike the issue whether two shower fixtures can operate at the same time, there is no question that Code requires the vacuum breaker - the issue is having the Inspector acknowledge that the vacuum breaker exists already. :-)

ETA - And to clarify the vacuum breaker is required to prevent waste water from running back into the clean water system so its requirement is one dealing with theoretical clean water and health of residents. The issue is not whether it is required in my bathroom - it is whether the fixture I installed has the mechanism built into it already which is the dialogue one has with inspectors in the normal course of business.

So much nicer when building code used to apply to health and safety instead of revenue.

In my area code is interpreted depending on which inspector shows up. In my experience it's only a rare inspector that actually has knowledge about what they are inspecting. Designers are not manufacturers and contractors often don't have the hands on skill of their workforce, nor do they have actual widget manufacturing background. Knowing how to install something does not mean one knows HOW it works.

Reading these posts I am so happy that I saw the crazy energy regulation movement's writing on the wall and stockpiled lights, plumbing etc. to remodel my way for future needs. People laughed at me for choosing future things just before it all hit the fan.

"Reading these posts I am so happy that I saw the crazy energy regulation movement's writing on the wall and stockpiled lights, plumbing etc. to remodel my way for future needs. People laughed at me for choosing future things just before it all hit the fan...."

Yes, that is certainly one approach. Not a great one... but one approach.

I don't' have an issue with the "crazy energy codes" at all. Quite the contrary - I see that what we had been doing in the past was "crazy". It makes me feel more secure that every time there is an increase in utility rates - I know that me and my family won't be overly burdened. Whenever I'm replacing a major system or doing remodeling I'm always looking at how to improve the efficiency going forward.

We are building buildings that will last for 100 years or more - and installing systems (plumbing / HVAC, Appliances, etc) that will last for 20-30 years. It's smart to design those building and systems for the future where clean water will be harder to come by, where energy will need to come from renewable sources and we generate much less waste. It makes no sense to design a building that will last 100 years based on energy codes that were already obsolete.

So much nicer when building code used to apply to health and safety instead of revenue.

I am not sure what is more critical to health than clean air and water and green efforts to conserve the environment or lessen the impact of climate change to the extent it hasn't already created inexorable detrimental changes.

While it can be frustrating somewhat when Code changes and manufacturers haven't caught up, I'm glad that California is in the forefront of requiring environmental measures. Since it is such a large market, the impact tends to trickle down to other areas since items are made which meet the most stringent environmental measures.

Almost everything I bought for my bathroom causes cancer. But only in California.

My big fear is that people from Kommiefornia will move to my state. They should all stay there and jump through all nanomanaged hoops. It's pretty amusing to read all these posts.

I am not sure what is more critical to health than clean air and water and green efforts to conserve the environment or lessen the impact of climate change to the extent it hasn't already created inexorable detrimental changes.

My energy provider sends statements regularly to us about out energy consumption. All our lights and fixtures are incandescent and most are on dimmers except for the kitchen. The different between us and the greenies is we turn lights off if we don't need them. The energy efficient homes are lit up like Xmas trees with lights on all over and even outside with their security lights.

We actually use real solar and wind power for climate control. That means opening and shutting windows and window coverings for you young ones. No energy efficient a/c here. It's a mild climate but some neighbors "energy efficient" air conditioners are on once the temps hit 78 LOL and their furnaces go on once it drops to 72. I have to laugh people who run their a/c at 70 but want their heat at 78. SMH

The last statement from a few days ago put our use for the past 6 months at quite a lot better than similar non efficient homes and only slightly higher than what they consider high efficiency homes. We did get scolded for using a bit more gas than our neighbors. Like a OMG!!! dollar per month. Well duh. I am the only one I know who has a 36 inch all gas range and uses it daily. Which by the way lowered my overall utility bill once I got rid of the 30" existing electric range.

A lot of green energy is simply feel good energy. My grandparents who burned leaves outdoors were cleaner energy wise than people today who remodel, rebuild and replace goods like changing their socks. This entire website is built on consumption. Bathrooms bigger than my parents living room, kitchens built as if for feeding the returning hordes to the castle, separate fully equipped bathroom for every child. The list goes on.

watchmelol you aren't wrong that much of this website has become about consumption. It didn't start out that way when it was "Garden Web" when I started posting here about 13 years ago. You also aren't wrong that "greenwashing" is a thing... and you have to really sort through all the marketing to get to the facts, as well as take behavior into account. An LED lightbulb saves a ton of energy, but does making it controllable from your phone improve on that... not really.

I do call out insane waste when people post about "multi-head showers" and "80 gal soaking tubs". Search for "gluttony" in the plumbing forum and you will see some of my posts about that.

However, when it does come time to update, replace and remodel -- doing it with an eye towards the future and real energy and resource conservation is important. Some of the new construction is being built as zero net energy, that's a measurable goal and not greenwash.

I know Jake I have been here for years also going back to when manchild "Spike" owned the site.

But even back then, the move to bigger, newer, shinier is better and form over function was beginning to take hold. As vehicles got smaller living abodes got bigger. Now they are trying to take the suburbs away and turn them into urban villages in many cities in California. Overpriced apartments combined strip malls taken apart and redesigned into shopping courts. LOL and shoddily built McMansions snugged up like row houses is what we will be left with.

The goal in my current city is seems to be to make middle/working class suburban living as difficult as possible. They want our homes, our land and our vehicles.

Thanks Jake for sharing your opinion about multi-head showers. I see now how your bias may have caused you (and others) to incorrectly interpret the CalGreen building code. I'm still waiting to hear back from Hansgrohe on whether their ShowerSelect valve, which allows two showerheads to be on simultaneously, meets code here in California.

Eric

Thank you for your patronizing and self-serving analysis of my comments.

So far you have been dismissive of everyone as well as common sense. Your entire argument hinges on a parsing of the code that nobody else agrees with and that would make that portion of the code moot: if you can run multiple shower heads at the same time then you could potentially have unlimited gpm through the shower. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that argument is not going to fly.

Although Sophie's language is't technically correct - she's right. You MIGHT be successful at a combination that doesn't exceed 1.8 gpm, but I sincerely doubt it -- especially if you go in with the attitude that you know better than everyone else.

Good luck with that.

watchmelol

I don't know what the building trends are there in your neck of the woods. I do know that residential design changes often and reflects what is going on at the time, as well as of the the wealth of the intended owner. Not all building trends are good just because they are new, but we will keep innovating anyway.

The oldest home I owned was a workers' cottage from 1890 and had tiny bedrooms and no indoor plumbing when it was built. It did have a parlor though for guests (crazy). Over the decades things changed including bedroom sizes, bathrooms, dinning room size, lot size, etc.

There have always been people who engage in excess: I need a 5000 sq ft house, a $60k kitchen, a shower that seats 6, etc. Yes, some of the new construction houses that are designed to impress are ugly, tacky, ostentatious and poorly built. They will be bulldozer fodder before their mortgage is paid.

I'm not a fan of 1950's - 2000's suburban development. I understand that you are, and that's fine. That type of development was a result of certain things that were going on at the time and certain ways of thinking -- including over-reliance on automobiles. If you are too young to drive - or too old -- or too poor to own a car -- or disabled -- then a suburban home is really socially isolating and impractical. Just like some of the other building trends, I think we are moving on from it.

I do like "village" type of development. But when that's done right it's not an exclusive thing. There should be a range of housing types that include middle-class and affordable housing as well as housing for seniors. The idea is to have a complete community instead.

Jake, you may like that, but others do not. If you don't drive then live in a city. People want different lifestyles. There can be places for everyone. Not all places have to be the same. And yes, I have a soaking tub, which I will use about once a week. But I don't live in a desert and try to have a green lawn there, so there's that.

Buford_NE_GA_7A

I didn't say that all places had to be the same. My point was that suburban style development was as much a "trend" as any other style of development over the decades. It was a reflection of what was going on at the time. It has some very serious drawbacks that have always been apparent (over-reliance on automobiles is just one issue) and are becoming more apparent as things shift.

I do have a car, thank you... but I've seen plenty of harried "soccer moms and dads" who taxi their kids everywhere because they can't drive and I've also experienced taking care of parents who want to age in place but can't drive any more. I've also known more than a few "alcoholic housewives" a spouse who doesn't work outside the house who gets bored from the social isolation of suburbs. The movies "Stepford Wives" and "American Beauty" were just a couple of the many commentaries about the suburbs. Geography of Nowhere was a really good book that takes a critical view of suburban development as well.

There are new trends that replace it that may or may not be good - just as there have been in the past.

I believe cites are obsolete. At one time the lawyer / banker / doctor / stock broker were centralized in the city. Telephone / Fax / Internet / Fed Ex has changed all this. No need for them to be adjacent.

My town, Minneapolis: Virtually no stores downtown. The Progressive's here have negatively rewarded many business, driving them out, and are using our tax dollars 'save the city' by converting it to an entertainment center. Football / basketball / baseball stadiums, restaurants / bars. The citizens of Mpls didn't want the stadiums, but the politicians managed to get around the referendum laws. There are virtually no doctors / dentists in the urban area. No 'big box' stores. No car dealers - all this has left for the suburbs.

There's no reason for me to go downtown, as it was in 1980.

There are now 2nd and 3rd tier suburbs that are much more convenient to live. The idea is to have a mile, mile and a half main road. Off this road are all the stores that left downtown, plus Costo, Home Depot, higher end grocery stores. You can go to any number of mid-high end restaurants - park for free / in a well lit lot / without getting hit up by panhandlers. Here too are the doctors and specialists - many in one building.

Suburbs are not really a trend. And again, if you don't want to drive, then don't live in a place where you have to drive everywhere. Despite your denials, you seem to want to control how others want to live. And also are very judgmental on others who are different than you, women especially. I don't judge people based on movies or books. I live in suburbs, I would not be happy in a more densely populated area. I don't want people living on top of me. I see these apartment complexes going up here in the boonies and I don't get it. I like my space, I have a yard, I like to garden. So yes, a car is necessary. And I'm fine with that.

Well Buford the Progs want you to have your share of Section 8 housing, and crime.

I know that this is way off topic - but that's ok.

Buford_NE_GA_7A You seem to be jumping to a lot of conclusions and inferring things that I didn't say.

Of course suburbs as we see them now are a trend. They took off after WWII and were enabled by the automobile culture, including the interstate highway system. They coincided with the baby boom and racial desegregation of the 60's - 70's.

Recently (20-30 years) there has been big movements out of the suburbs in general though. Just as people moved out of the city decades ago. Many people have moved back into the city. There have been some new developments as well - the village or new urbanist type of developments. We will probably always have suburbs. They aren't going away and yes, some people prefer them.

As far as "controlling how people live..." so here's the deal with all of that: Some lifestyles suck up a lot of resources. Most people who do that often don't realize how much that lifestyle is being subsidized. Suburban style development has never been sustainable and requires huge subsidies in roads, infrastructure and services to make it work. I don't care if people want to live in the suburbs, I do care about making sure we aren't subsidizing unsustainable development. I'm also done with making livable communities "unlivable" so that other folks can have a quick commute.

geoffrey_b I was just in your city - it was a pretty vibrant place and nowhere near obsolete.

I also live in a midwestern city - and it's all but the most affluent suburbs that are dying. The city is growing and expanding. What were "upscale" neighborhoods 30 years ago have vacant malls, outlots and fast food joints. Much of what people moved away from the city to avoid is in the suburbs and even worse in the rural areas. That 1960's - 80's ranch house on an acre of land isn't in high demand.

What is interesting here are some of the new developments that use traditional design on smaller lots (many even have alleys). The down side is that almost all of the new housing is high-end. It's not even middle class - it's not blue collar and it's not low-end professional.

I live in a 1000 square foot house. Just like some who enjoy a soaking tub on occasion, I may enjoy a rain shower and body spray simultaneously on occasion. It doesn't mean I don't believe in water conservation, but I'm also not some kind of puritan that can't indulge in modern conveniences on occasion.

I haven't been dismissive of everyone. I have tried to engage others in the conversation. You seem to claim there is no room for interpretation of the code. I'm just saying it isn't that obvious. You have to agree the wording of the code is very poor. If they didn't want two shower heads simultaneously they should have just said it:

"The shower shall not be designed to allow more than one showerhead to be on at a time."

Anyway, we hardly have enough input to come to a clear conclusion (Jake and Helen don't really add up to a consensus). Let's just wait for more evidence to come in.

I'm re-reading the original post. I'm assuming that the "2.0 gpm" has been changed to "1.8 gpm" but the rest has remained the same.

"Single shower heads shall have a maximum flow rate of 2.0 gallons per minute at 80 psi. Shower heads shall be certified to the performance criteria of the U.S. EPA WaterSense Specification for Shower heads. When a shower is served by more than one shower head, the combined flow rate of all shower heads and/or other shower outlets controlled by a single valve shall not exceed 2.0 gallons per minute at 80 psi, or the shower shall be designed to allow only one shower outlet to be in operation at at time. A hand-held shower shall be considered a showerhead. (CGBC 4.303.1.3.1 and 4.303.1.3.2)"

What I see from this is:

A.) 1 shower head - 1.8 gpm.

B.) More than 1 shower head on a single valve: total no more than 1.8 gpm

OR

C.) Multiple shower heads that, combined are more than 1.8 gpm - can't operate at the same time

If you install your valve body that allows more than one shower head to operate at the same time, you may do that (and your chosen valve body can be legally sold in California) but you are limited to a combined 1.8 gpm. (B above).

That's super clear to me. I don't see how anyone could interpret that to mean anything other than that. It's also very clear that the intent is to limit a shower to 1.8 gpm.

@Jake - Mpls a 'vibrant' city. Yeah - would you like your property taxes to increase $800 in two years? The large warehouses: transportation / manufacturing / distribution are all located in the suburbs. Additionally, these are high paying jobs in automation, robotics, software, management, sales. I assure that the suburbs are alive and well and self contained with stores that offer superior goods. And you never have to travel into town.

Glad to see this discussion has stayed so on-topic ;-)

From chatting with my plumber, the decision really comes down to the building inspector. And he says the inspector for my city won't pass a shower with 2 shower heads, even if you're each head is 1 GPM (cause they know you'll just switch out the heads after the inspection.)

He recommended installing a single output valve (that allows only one head at a time) and then switching it out for a multi-output valve after inspection.

Nice that your plumber is giving you advice on how to get around code </sarcasm>

Here's an idea... You live in a state with water supply issues - how about suffering through with just one shower head like 99% of the rest of us.

I talked to the CA Energy Commission and despite the horrible wording of the code, it is apparently intended to prevent a single valve from outputting more than 1.8 gpm (e.g. at most one 1.8 gpm showerhead turned on at a time). I wish them the best of luck in enforcing this.

I talked to Hansgrohe and their ShowerSelect valve can be installed with a 2.0 gpm limiter which would mean even if I turn on both showerheads at the same time I will only get 1 gpm out of each which essentially makes this simultaneous mode nonfunctional as the showerheads are designed to operate at 1.8 gpm, not 1.0 gpm. I haven't heard back if they now have a 1.8 gpm version of the limiter to meet the recent code change.

Look, I get it that 1.8 gpm is tough to do - esp when the manufacturers don't have a lot of product in the pipeline yet. The old standard of 2.0 gpm seemed pretty good to me.

The wording on the code was very clear - it's just that both you and the OP wanted something very different and couldn't accept hearing that it wasn't going to fly. The OP is still plotting his way to circumvent the code as if that was a perfectly reasonable and morally defensible thing to do. We are still at the 2.5 gpm standard here and there are still people who piss and moan about that and try to get around it.

The real problem is that folks feel entitled to showers with multiple shower heads when there are very real water issues in parts of the South and West that, from the looks of things, are going to get a lot worse since we are in denial about climate change. When there isn't any water you will be one of those people yelling at the elected officials to do SOMETHING. This is them proactively doing something.

Luxury is a totally invented construct. Consider... just consider.... the idea of luxury as being consuming less rather than consuming more. Being efficient, effective and low-impact while still having nice design is far more impressive and luxurious to me than conspicuous consumption.

Although the wording of the code itself is somewhat confusing, the interpretation provided in the Guide to 2016 California Green Building Standards: Residential is pretty clear. Quoting from that document:

"For example, if only one valve supplies a shower enclosure or shower area, the maximum water flow, regardless of the number of showerheads and other outlets, is 2.0 gpm at 80 psi. If two (or more) separate valves provide water to separate showerheads and other outlets, the maximum flow rate for each valve would be 2.0 gpm at 80 psi. If the operation of two or more showerheads and body sprays controlled by a single valve results in more than 2.0 gpm 80 psi total water flow, then only one showerhead may operate at one time with a maximum flow rate of not more than 2.0 gpm."

To get back to the original poster's questions:

Can you have two 2.0 gpm* showerheads connected to separate valves? Yes.

Can you have two 1.0 gpm showerheads connected to the same valve? Yes.

Can you use a diverter that allows more than 2.0 gpm from the same valve [Eric's scenario]? No.

* [For consistency I'm using 2.0 gpm, but note that the limit is 1.8 gpm as of July 2018.]

This is what you get for living in Kommiefornia.

Thanks @Kevin. Yes this was my conclusion as well. Just to troll the code writers a little more. What happens if the water pressure from the city is 60 psi rather than 80 psi? Am I now doomed to lower water flow than those living in other cities where the city provides 80 psi?

Basically what it boils down to is the code is absurd and attempts to micromanage citizens. I can have separate valves to give me more than 1.8gpm, but not separate showerheads on the same valve to do the same? How is that logical? Ultimately I think we will just do whatever we need to to get around the code. That doesn't mean I'm wasting water, it means I'm not going to be told how to use water inside my own house.

"What happens if the water pressure from the city is 60 psi rather than 80 psi? Am I now doomed to lower water flow than those living in other cities where the city provides 80 psi?"

Reading comprehension isn't a strong point I take it.

You are limited to a maximum of 1.8 gpm @ 80 psi. You could also have 1.8 gpm @ 40 psi as long as it doesn't exceed 1.8 gpm @ 80 psi.

The code also adopts the WaterSense specification by reference: That specification notes that at 20 psi the showerhead deliver more than 60% of the max flow rate. At 45 psi it must deliver greater than 75% of the max flow rate.

"... The code is absurd and attempts to micromanage citizens..."
Some version of this comment has been made by every scofflaw regarding every code or law they didn't like.

"...I can have separate valves to give me more than 1.8gpm, but not separate showerheads on the same valve to do the same?..."

I think that you will find that you can not. You are already aware that inspectors are looking for folks trying to skirt the code by requiring partitions or at least 48" between valves. Although not in the text of the code, I don't think you would win an appeal if it was clear that you were trying to get around the intent of the code by installing multiple valves in the same shower space.

Again, while this all seems to be heavy handed to folks in the midwest where we have plenty of water - it's reasonable in water constrained areas. This is code for new construction that will last 60-100 years or more. It's reasonable that the new code has to be forward looking.

Just for grins, I looked at the drought map for California... in mid December probably 85% of the state is in drought - From D0 - D3.

No, reading comprehension isn't my strong suit, because most people don't know how to write clearly. So am I allowed to have 2.0 gpm at 100 psi? Is 80 psi the maximum allowed under code? If 80 psi is the maximum allowed, why even reference a PSI? Just say the maximum flow allowed is 1.8 gpm.

And do they make showerheads that produce 1.8gpm at both 60 and 80 psi? No way. So at 60psi I am only getting maybe 80% out of my 1.8gpm showerhead. The code isn't fair to people living in different cities.

I take it you just listen to authority regardless of what you are being told to do. Every law must be just huh? They should have just left the code at 1.8 gpm per showerhead. New construction generally isn't plumbed for multiple showerheads so this is an unnecessary part of the code.

Jake,

Installing two showerheads on separate valves isn't skirting the code. It's allowed by the code, and explicitly addressed in the example I cited. Again:

"If two (or more) separate valves provide water to separate showerheads and other outlets, the maximum flow rate for each valve would be 2.0 gpm at 80 psi."

For some anecdotal evidence I'll mention that the architect I talked to here in Monterey County confirmed that he has used this in his designs, and that it passes inspection.

Thinking of flow, and pressure, it seems to me that when a code specifies a set volume per minute, it does not matter if you want to do that by limiting the quantity of water per minute at a higher pressure, (like a massage jet) versus having a larger volume of water at a lower pressure (like a rain head) as long as the total volume does not exceed 1.8 gallons per minute of elapsed time. You can take it fast and hard, or slow and easy - your choice.

Except the reality is that I doubt there are fixtures available which have a flow of less than 1 gpm which is why the reality is that one is limited to one fixture of no more than 1.8 gpm at a time.

I would be interested in knowing what kind of water conservation measures exist in countries which actually do have Communist governments. I am not sure in which polical science treatise one learns about Kommiefornia government as it is not a political structure I am familiar with and all it does it display your lack of knowledge regarding political science.

@Helen: I would be interested in knowing what kind of water conservation measures exist in countries which actually do have Communist governments.

All you have to do is take a look at France and the Yellow Vests. Or Venezuela where millions of people have fled their own country. Socialists believe they have all the answers. A 19th century philosopher once said: "the plans are different, but the planners are the same."

You sure are taking the long way around to say that you don't like the limits that are needed for a society to thrive and that you feel you are above others, that your needs come first.

geoffrey_b ,

So let's just be clear about some things: You have no idea what you are talking about other than regurgitating Fox News.

To begin with: California is not communist, neither is it socialist. Neither is it a dictatorial government. To your way of thinking, "Communist" is simply anything you don't agree with.

Second: California has a serious water problem. It's always had a water problem. There's no reason to believe the water problem is going to get better - in fact it's expected to get much worse.

Some of the issues with the water problem include: Inherently low precipitation; Drought; long standing water-rights issues; Competing uses (agriculture vs cities); and population growth.

What they are doing now is not sustainable, they are depleting aquifers and rivers. The Central Valley is sinking because of the amount of water pulled out of the aquifer. Parts of it has sunk 30'. At times it's sunk as much as 2 feet a year.

If California were a country, it would have the 5th largest economy (not bad for a "communist" state). It also produces much of our produce, wine, nuts and other agricultural crops.

Solutions such as desalination plants are crazy expensive -- as it is with energy... the least expensive unit of water is the one that you don't use. The good people of California, through their elected representatives and democratic processes, have adopted an energy code that includes water conservation. Of course not everyone likes it, but it sure beats the alternative - which is to turn on the tap and have nothing come out.

You, like so many people, sit on the sidelines and throw stones at the people who actually do the work and figure things out and provide leadership. You are offering no solutions, only simple minded criticism of the folks who are actually coming up with solutions.

@Kevin Henry- https://www.houzz.com/user/webuser-322795617 Finally, a concise answer with sited evidence! I have read and re-read the California Plumbing Code and The Green Building Standards, but the verbiage can be interpreted to mean different things. I hadn't looked at "The Guide to The Green Building Standards". I think a guide written by the ICC to clarify the code is as black and white an answer and would likely stand up to any inspector. I have a large shower and I really want a "his" and "her" side, just like our dual sink vanity. This clarifies that there is no problem with that.

If one needs a guide to The Green Building Standards maybe they should just consider making the Green Building Standards more clear/accessible/searchable. I guess both lawyers and the bloated number of government employees each need a share of the taxpayer coffers

@Jake: You people in California deserve what's coming to you. The state is vastly over populated. We call it the 'big and warm and easy.' Your debt is near is near bankruptcy. Your governor Jerry Moonbeam is off the rails. The $100 billion dollar bullet train is also off the rails. I'm glad you are there, and all the other Californian's - I just don't want them to come to my state when the 'big one' comes, and you have broken roads / electric / sewage.

@geoffrey_b

Oh dear, so I'm guessing you haven't even been to California. You really should visit, because again, I think you would find something very different from your "Fox News" reality. You really should get out more.

Perhaps more than most states, California has completely different areas. There is the very liberal and vibrant Bay Area, there is the agrarian central valley and the rugged Northern part of the state- just to name a few. Your caricature is pretty inaccurate.

When I listen to Jerry Brown speak, he seems really smart and seems to have a solid grasp of what the challenges are that face the state. What's more, the people of California seem to feel he's the right person for the job. Who are you to criticize their choice?

I think you are really grasping at straws. Certainly the amount of debt they carry is high, but you have to put it in perspective of the 5th largest economy. They have a bond rating of AA- (seems pretty far from bankruptcy) while your state has a ratting of AA+... Room for improvement, for sure, but hardly worthy of your hateful rhetoric.

I don't live in California, I have family there and I have been there multiple times. I live in a very "red" midwestern state. We have low taxes, we have crumbling roads, bad schools, and really bad public health. Young people get their education and leave because of the lack of opportunity and culture. The environment here has been trashed and we have close to a dozen EPA Superfund sites.

I live in a major city in this red state and there is virtually no building inspection or code enforcement at the residential level. The result is that our insurance is high and home prices are low. Trust me when I say it's not a good situation.

But we have low taxes, so the rest of the human misery is worth it. Or, at least that's what they tell me.

@ Aimee Martinez

I think where the code isn't clear is the issue of more than one valve.

If the intent is to have "Jack and Jill" showers in the same shower area, I think that you will be ok.

if the intent is to have more than one valve servicing the same shower (one valve for the rain head and one for the body sprays, for example) I think you will have trouble.

There are reports of inspectors measuring the distance between valves and/or looking for a dividing wall to create separate shower spaces.

Again, the intent of the code is clearly to limit a shower to 1.8 gpm. If you are staying within those guidelines I think you will likely be fine. If it's obvious that you are trying to get around the intent of the code you are taking your chances.

Hi there, I generally don't participate but I read a lot of the comments. I'm an interior designer in Northern California. I design showers with double shower heads that work separately for my clients to take showers in the same shower. The shower valves are at least 60" apart which prevents them from being run together by one person. I have done quite a few of those and passed code without issue. They consider that two people taking showers at the same time is the same as one after the other. the 1.8 gpm max flow rate applies to each shower head. On the over consumption issue, there is definitely a trend for larger bathrooms and showers in general in California. I do design a lot of them:(

@Lucile Glessner Design Thank you for your helpful comment! ...Have you gotten any indication for a minimum distance apart that inspectors would be ok with? I can only get about 24", maybe 30" apart, but we're using rain shower heads so it's not like we can center both their flows on one person. ...They each have a handheld body spray so maybe one can point both of those at oneself but that doesn't seem like a practical, luxurious experience that the code seems to be targeting...

You need a larger space for a true 2 person shower. Rain heads are not pleasant to stand under, and have wet your hair and flow into your eyes. Just like standing in the rain. You may want to rethink their use.

I plan at least 60” between shower heads as the purpose of the code is that one person is not able to use both at the same time with double the water flow permitted.

If your GC is competent they have a relationship with the plumbing inspectors - not in terms of bribing them but in general they have had them inspect prior work.

Have your GC contact the plumbing inspector and find out exactly what would pass inspection.

That is part of what you are paying the GC for - to have the expertise to interpret Code correctly and be able to talk to the inspectors and if for some reason, they didn't, it is their responsibility to rectify at their expense.