An argument that holds water

I therefore emailed some of my female colleagues, in the UK and abroad, in the engineering, architecture and related building professions, to ask whether there was scope for even considering a ladies’ urinal, as Jeff's letter suggested, to reduce mains water consumption in buildings.

Multiple emails were exchanged and recurring themes emerged. The early-stage consensus was that we advocate a common-sense approach to achieving mains water consumption savings, starting with an analysis of what is actually using water in the building; how to reduce the demand for mains water; and how to potentially meet this demand without using mains water.

We feel new buildings should have dual-flush sanitaryware that uses 6/4 or 4/2 litres per flush, so 10 women would ideally only use a total of 20 litres. This represents a two-thirds saving over Jeff's estimate of 10 women using 60 litres.

However, these savings would only be realised if the dual-flush controls were clearly labelled, and a bit of awareness and education were to take place.

For existing buildings, sanitaryware should be replaced at the end of its life with dual flush cisterns for similar water savings. Where feasible and appropriate, non-potable water (such as rainwater) should be used for flushing, as this would further reduce mains water consumption.

These basic steps should be taken to reduce water consumption in buildings before we start down the path of designing a new item of sanitaryware, particularly as the challenges relating to acceptance by the general public are considerable.

These are merely our preliminary thoughts on the matter. We would be delighted to participate in an all-female CIBSE/SoPHE initiative to examine in more detail the challenge of reducing mains water consumption in ladies’ washrooms.

Ellen Salazar, Rebecca Gower, Jo Arbon, Claire Das Bhaumik, Stephanie Thomas-Rees, Rachael Wilson, Samantha McDonough, Sandra L Hyland, Kate McCartney, Mary Hancock, Sandra Gomez