After years of classes, students inevitably come across a diverse collection of buildings — each borrowing its architecture and fixtures from various time periods in the colorful history of our campus.While it is undeniably enchanting to spot Cold War era signs directing you to the nearest fallout shelter, one element remaining in many of the University’s restrooms presents a piece of nostalgia that is not particularly endearing. For the fair women of our university it’s a figure shrouded in mystery. To most Lady Tigers, presumably, it’s an unknown sight. But to the men navigating the crowded bathrooms between classes, there exists an oft too common presence in the midst of our restrooms.I’m talking about the trough.For those uninitiated, the trough is an open fixture found in male bathrooms that allows multiple users to urinate at the same time. Resembling the container used to feed multiple farm animals at once, it’s usually flushed by a continuous stream of water.Its purpose is clear: to keep the bathroom operational as a well-greased machine. In achieving this goal, the trough is a marvel of American ingenuity that embodies her industrial spirit and never-ending quest for efficiency.The concept of communal toilets dates back to early Western civilization. While our current system may seem primitive, it’s safe to say there has been at least some progress since the days of the Romans with regard to restroom autonomy.It would be nice to think we’ve arrived at a place in our evolutionary history where rampant individualism would be reflected in our bathroom facilities. Not having an individual partition just seems so 20th century. Let’s not kid ourselves — the trough serves a necessary purpose in certain circumstances. For example, when Death Valley is packed with fully “hydrated” Tiger fans, efficiency is paramount. It’s a common goal of the restrooms’ patrons — a matter of necessity really — to get in and out as quickly as possible.Like most rights and privileges, depending on the circumstances we Americans are willing to make concessions.But there are situations where the presence of the trough is an unwelcomed sight. In the restrooms of Allen Hall, for example, it seems more appropriate to call on the trough’s more reserved cousin: the urinal. The urinal offers users greater privacy while aiming to reduce the amount of water used. Because many troughs are located conspicuously in the middle of some bathrooms, often located cozily near sinks, many will admit they often forgo the trough. They instead elect to use the toilet.Backing up this theory with sound statistics is clearly problematic — hanging out in a stall for several hours might draw suspicion from the authorities given the recent spate of national bathroom controversies.But, at least in theory, it’s reasonable to assume there may be an increase in the use of toilets for jobs that could be handled by urinals as visitors elect to avoid the trough.This could potentially be costing the University big bucks.The gap between the amount of water used per flush for urinals and that of the toilet has narrowed during the years as a result of advances in plumbing technology. But between the outdated fixtures and parts, the difference can be as great as two gallons.If retrofitting bathrooms with urinals occurred, would the University save money on its water bill by reducing the use of toilets by disenchanted trough avoiders? Would overall bathroom moral go up?”There are a lot of variables,” says David Stevens, the University’s plumbing czar. It’s very hard to put a number on potential savings when taking into consideration things such as the decisions by students to flush or not depending on the type of fixture.Coupled with the high initial cost of installing a urinal it is not the University’s policy to actively replace troughs. When they break they get fixed or replaced. But today no troughs are being installed in places they didn’t exist previously. When bathrooms are initially built or renovated the individual urinal gets the call.While eliminating the trough may not be the best way to go about trimming the budget, Stevens said updating other parts of the University’s restroom facilities would save the University money. Stevens has suggested hiring a consultant to analyze the University’s water use from the top down. The consultant would holistically analyze the University’s facilities and then improve its water efficiency. This would likely entail getting newer parts in addition to changes in fixtures. In light of the recent hiring of a consultant who charges several thousands of dollars per day to analyze the campus’ transit system, the prospect of a bathroom whiz coming to offer the campus notes on how to improve water efficiency seems both logical and progressive. Whether the trough is inadvertently costing the University on its water bill, there should be a thorough examination of our facilities to address fixes that won’t only save money in the long run but will also reduce the environment footprint of the University.Such an examination should also take into consideration the appropriateness of the trough’s continued campus presence.While the economic consequences of the trough are inconclusive, it appears the era of the trough is in decline.—-Contact Mark Macmurdo at [email protected]