Automatic toilets may be convenient and hygienic, but they also waste
billions of gallons of water per year. Why hasn’t this issue been fixed
yet? Automatic flushing toilets, long a fixture in public restrooms, waste
billions of gallons of water per year.
We’ve
all been there. You walk into a public-restroom stall, and the
automatic toilet flushes before you come anywhere near it. It flushes
again a minute later, then again after that, and perhaps again as you
exit the stall.
When they first appeared in the 1990s, automatic-flush toilets were
marketed as a more hygienic, no-touch alternative to conventional
commodes. They quickly gained popularity in airports, malls, office
buildings and other facilities with high-traffic public restrooms.
Today the US Environmental Protection Agency estimates the US has 27m
so-called flushometer toilets installed in its restrooms. Many of the
older models still in service use 3.5 gallons per flush or more – well
beyond the current federal standard of 1.6 gallons. But even newer, more
water-efficient models have a reputation for the so-called “phantom
flush,” which can waste gallons of water at every restroom visit.
“People now expect the flushes numerous times while they’re in the
stall,” says John Koeller, a California-based engineer and water
efficiency expert. “It’s pretty obvious to water efficiency people that
they’re big water wasters.”
Just as the cumulative effect of a few sprinklers overwatering the
sidewalk can add up, a few hyperactive flushomatic toilets can translate
into hundreds of gallons of wasted water every day. That might still
not make it anywhere near the world’s biggest waster of water, but it’s a
frustratingly clear and public example of waste.
As Ed Osann, a senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) water program, puts it: “In terms of the absolute amount
of water involved, it’s not large, but it’s sort of like a sprinkler in
a public park that’s over-spraying the sidewalk and running into the
street.”
Measuring a phantom impact
Koeller and Bill Gauley, a colleague in Toronto, Canada, developed what they call the Maximum Performance Testing
protocol to independently evaluate toilet water efficiency. Using it,
they have conducted one of the only independent studies comparing water
use by manual-flush versus automatic-flush toilets.
A 2010 report measuring water consumption in the bathrooms of a Tampa office building
– before and after the installation of flushometer devices – concluded
that the toilets’ water use increased by more than 50% after automatic
flush systems were installed.
The technology needed to fix phantom flushing already exists: Koeller
says that sensor technology has improved in the five years since he and
Gauley conducted their study.
At least one device, by Wisconsin-based manufacturer Kohler,
minimizes the chances of a movement-triggered misfire by locating the
sensor above the toilet facing up so that users must wave their hand
over it to prompt a flush.
But despite the availability of better technologies, many older
models remain in use because of the high price of upgrading. It can
easily cost hundreds of dollars to replace a single toilet.
“Modern automatic sensors are pretty reliable, but the problem is
there’s so many of these devices from earlier generations still out
there,” says Doug Bennett, a conservation manager at the Southern Nevada
Water
Authority. “At some point they won’t be available in the marketplace
any more, but it’s a slow process. Just like it took a long time before
you didn’t see Gremlins or Pintos on the road.”
But NRDC’s Osann disagrees with the claim that this problem is
restricted to older devices needing to be retired or adjusted. “We’re
seeing this in relatively new buildings that were built within last
three or four years,” he says.
Mark Malatesta, a product compliance engineer at toilet maker
American Standard, thinks another underreported cause of unintended
flushing is improper installation and maintenance. “It’s usually
building maintenance or plumbers installing them, and a lot of times
there’s just a lack of knowledge about how the products work,” he says.
“Once installed properly, you should be good to go.”
Labeling falls short
Meanwhile, the EPA is also working to reduce toilets’ water use. In December, its WaterSense program
– the water efficiency counterpart to its Energy Star label, which
alerts consumers to energy-efficient appliances – drafted new
specifications for flushometer toilets.
In order to qualify for the WaterSense label, new toilets would be
required to use no more than 1.28 gallons per flush. The EPA estimates
that replacing all the old, inefficient commercial flushometer toilets
in the US with WaterSense-approved models would save 41bn gallons of
water per year.
While the EPA’s proposed specifications could reduce the volume of
water in each flush, they don’t do anything to directly address all the
water that goes down the drain with every phantom flush.
Because of this, the NRDC’s Osann opposes EPA’s decision to include
flushomatic toilets in the WaterSense program. “We would not want to see
the label attached to devices subject to phantom flush episodes that
are clearly wasteful,” he said.
Meanwhile, Koeller dismisses claims by some manufacturers that
flushomatic products actually save water, and caution consumers to be
wary of greenwashing.
“I know of no green building code or standard that rewards
sensor-activated flush valves,” he said. “The absolute best sensor will
only duplicate the one manual flush. It can do no better. But it
certainly can – and does – do worse.”
