Friday, April 15, 2016

Re: [californiadisasters] Sierra snowpack shows improvement, but not enough t...



Kelcy--agreed.  Need to work on those HOAs and ordinances to allow for more intelligent water use, and for gardens/open areas which aren't traditional lawns.

Those who want lots of green stuff might want to look into some of the drought-tolerant grasses, although if they face grass height issues (no joke, folks! They're there!) they'll want a mowable variety.  There was a nursery up here who had some neat 2x3 foot plots of each kind and you could take off your shoes and walk on them, unmown, to see what you liked.

PA


From: "'Earthquake Solutions' earthquakesolutions@earthlink.net [californiadisasters]" <californiadisasters@yahoogroups.com>
To: californiadisasters@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 8:02 AM
Subject: RE: [californiadisasters] Sierra snowpack shows improvement, but not enough t...

 
At least as of a couple of years ago, and according to a highly placed official with Metropolitan Water District, over 90% of the water used in Southern CA, which has been through the costly treatments to make it potable, goes onto lawns and eventually runs off into the ocean if it doesn't evaporate first. 

In some areas of the country and indeed in some very limited applications in SoCal, there exist dual systems -- irrigation water and potable water.  Irrigation water is reclaimed, reused, and of course not for drinking.  In SoCal most of these locations are sites that would otherwise be large consumers of water, like golf courses, and the MillerCoors brewery in Irwindale that has a lot of acreage.  They've also done tremendous re-landscaping to use more drought tolerant tableaus that are attractive.  They are currently continuing to hold on to one much more limited area of grass where they usually annually erect large tents for catered fundraisers for local non-profits. 

Some locations using reclaimed water for irrigation are recapturing from their own processes and sites, while others are partnering with local agencies.  Use of drought-designed landscaping including swales has been very effective on several commercial sites in SoCal and also has been extremely useful in preventing mudflows in post-burn areas in Glendora after careful restoration processes by the San Gabriel Mountains and River Conservancy.
 
Then you have the absurdity that some cities have fined homeowners for switching out their landscapes because the existing city ordinances require a certain amount of grass per plot.  And they are often also discouraging or prohibiting the use of grey water. 
 
The bottom line though is that there ARE answers to at least some of our issues, even when small steps are taken, because many small actions can add up over time.  However, it takes some common sense and some level of commitment. 
 
April Kelcy
Earthquake Solutions
626-483-0626
www.EarthquakeSolutions.com
 
 
From: californiadisasters@yahoogroups.com [mailto:californiadisasters@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 1:13 AM
To: CaliforniaDisasters
Subject: Re: [californiadisasters] Sierra snowpack shows improvement, but not enough t...
 
 
Jason,

Lawns have only been a part of the California culture starting in the 20th Century... to a smaller degree in some places like Pasadena, for example, in the late 19th Century but that is more rare. I did not say lawns were not a part of California culture, but lawns were not a California Indian thing nor were they a Spanish Californio thing nor were they a Mexican Californio thing, but rather the concept was brought here from back East and before that from Europe.... my point is they are not native to California because people who lived here a long time were smart enough not to waste water on them and they do eat up a significant part of the urban water use as does other water-intensive landscaping. We need to start shifting how we do landscaping in the urban environment in the West and California in particular if we hope to keep going. Urban dwellers are not entitled to lawns unless entitlement is part of one's ethos: sacrifice is part of citizenship as much getting the goodies.  Our childhood attachment to lawns does not entitle us to keep doing something that is imprudent in a land of drought... a land that is experiencing an ever more weather extreme climate headed towards on par with that which occurred when the Anasazi were forced out of Arizona and other groups had to leave California due to chronic drought. We have to change the way we think about water if our current comfort level is to continue for any length of time. Parks should be the place people go to enjoy grass or get rid of grass at parks if everybody is going to insist on an entitlement to having a lawn. Golf courses need to be in the discussion, too. What other better things that are of comparable water consumption that are non-essential do you suggest we eliminate?
Kim
 
 
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:56 AM, Fizzboy7@aol.com [californiadisasters] <californiadisasters@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 
I disagree about the culture of lawns.   They are, and have been, a huge part of western culture in California.   Most of us grew up playing ball or games on front lawns and in backyards.   Picnics, pets playing, beautification, erosion control, and lowering surface temps have all been a grand tradition of having a lawn.  They serve many positive purposes.
I think there are better things to eliminate or conserve with.

Jason
 
In a message dated 4/14/2016 3:17:35 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, californiadisasters@yahoogroups.com writes:
 
Agriculture brings in far less revenue than what is generated in the urban areas and they use a lot less water doing it (ag to urban water use is a 5 to 1 ratio and that is out of the 50% of the total left over after conservation uses get their half. I'm all for ag but ag needs to be done in a way that accounts for the given climate in the given area and some types of crops may need to be no longer grown in California. One thing that cities need to do is eliminate all lawns... lawns are a relic of a culture based in Europe and later in the Eastern U.S. They are not appropriate west of the Rockies except for in the Pac. NW.
 
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Pamela Alley rnrq@att.net [californiadisasters] <californiadisasters@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 
No question in my mind that ALL aspects of water use are going to have to be re-evaluated, but the provision of already overpopulated areas with liberal amounts of water cannot be the primary concern. Ecosystems are important, even if some don't agree, and so is agriculture--that's what actually drives a huge portion of CA economy. Can we afford to keep crippling it? Questions like that are important.

Conservation is not necessarily a bad or pointless thing; it keeps us happy and fed in some cases; in others, it helps keep watersheds and various ecosystems intact which, if destroyed through lack of water, could have devastating ripple effects.

So yes, we all need to look hard at what we do and how we do it....but we also must remember that we aren't the only ones out here that need water.

PA

>________________________________
> From: "Kim Noyes kimnoyes@gmail.com [californiadisasters]" <californiadisasters@yahoogroups.com>
>To: CaliforniaDisasters <californiadisasters@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 10:54 AM
>Subject: Re: [californiadisasters] Sierra snowpack shows improvement, but not enough to declare California's drought over
>
>
>
>
>Agriculture uses 500% more of the water than urban areas and often growing water-intensive crops that are probably no longer appropriate to grow in California and they often benefit from antiquated water agreements drawn up in the 19th century when California and the West were very different than they are now. Another problem is that half of the water available in California is not even available to human use but is set aside for conservation. We need to look at that and see if we need to change that percentage. In other words, AG needs to change, urban growth needs to slow and get more efficient which it has but more is needed and water for conservation may need to be looked at for possible reallocation of some of it.
>
>
>
> Virus-free. www.avast.com
>
>
>On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Pamela Alley rnrq@att.net [californiadisasters] <californiadisasters@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Nope. You bring 'em up here, you STAY to deal with 'em!
>>
>>Like the cut-off idea, though, at least for the cities. Ag can have what they need within reasonable limits.... :)
>>
>>You'd think they'd have learned from Owens Valley but noooo....
>>
>>PA
>>



--



--




__._,_.___
Posted by: Pamela Alley <rnrq@att.net>


Be sure to check out our Links Section at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters/links
Please join our Discussion Group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters_discussion/ for topical but extended discussions started here or for less topical but nonetheless relevant messages.




__,_._,___
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)