1
   

don't tell me to save water, i got a lawn!

 
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jan, 2003 07:37 pm
msolga wrote:
Much of the waste & garden water-guzzling in the city, I believe, is people trying to maintain a lawn that looks like it's been transplanted from straight from England.


Yup, yup. This is true of America, too, that English ideal. Thing is, England is a wet wet wet wet place (and I'm soooooooo glad I don't live there) and the lush lawns they have don't work so well elsewhere.

I don't own the house in which we live now, so am limited in what I can do. Have converted the largish garden to native wildflowers, but the landlord would freak if I did anything more general (very large lawn). Plan to when we own a home, though.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jan, 2003 07:47 pm
sozobe

I hope you get to own your own place soon. It is so LIBERATING to be able to do the garden thing in a sane way, rather than living with someone else's folly. Anyway, I think "bowling green" lawns are highly overrated, don't you?

littlek

Your mother obviously knew much more about the correct aspect for her hydrangeas .... unlike this silly novice at my previous home. Oh well, we learn, we learn ...
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jan, 2003 08:43 pm
yep learning is what it's all about.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jan, 2003 08:44 pm
<edit double post>
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jan, 2003 09:00 pm
In some parts of the country, folks soon will be faced with a choice between xeriscaping and zeroscaping. Todays lush, gated, multi-golf-coursed communities could become the quaint, anandonded pueblos of tomorrow. Water is something folks tend not to think much about untill they don't have it. There's getting to be a lot more thinking about water ... that might be a good thing.



timber
0 Replies
 
CowDoc
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 12:16 am
This is really quite interesting to me. Three pages of drought discussion, and nobody has even mentioned agricultural use. The simple, unavoidable fact of the American west is that the population is outgrowing the water supply. Multiple subdivisions with the inevitable plethora of wells is depleting the aquifers in many areas. Somewhere along the line we will be faced with a basic choice: is it more important to have lawns and golf courses or to have food on the table?
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 12:23 am
CowDoc

First let me welcome you to A2K! It's a good place & I hope you enjoy yourself here.
Maybe most of us responding to this question are urban dwellers & aren't as familiar with the issues you've mentioned as you are? I'm not sure about that ... just a hunch. Anyway, tell us more!
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 01:04 am
One more consideration. Unlike Israel, the USA is not a water-deficient country in general: she possesses such major rivers as Mississippi and Missouri, the Great Lakes and other abundant water sources. Of course, some of the areas are water deficient. Is not it possible to bring water to the arid territories from the water-abundant ones by means of pipelines? Of course, such a solution does not mean that water should not be recycled and reused multiple times, but such a thing will permit the people living in dry areas, like, for example, Arizona or Utah, not to give up the normal American lifestyle.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 01:53 am
Technologically possible, steissd, but pumps, piping and ditches, and rights of way are beastly expensive just to maintain lawns.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 02:23 am
Well, I guess, there are some wealthy people in New Mexico, Nevada, Utah and Arizona as well, not all the upper middle and higher class people live on the East Coast... Russians, by the way, used to redistribute water resources in favor of the arid areas, and their financial abilities have never approached these of the USA, and Israel finds it possible to import fresh water from Turkey and to build water-freshening facilities for usage of the Mediterranean water.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 03:24 am
Interesting that you should be able to move water over such a distance, and over several national borders. Is it possible the water is being brought in for some reason greater than lush lawns?

Maybe the problems are more political than practical, as easterners don't seem enthralled about paying a share of much smaller projects in the west. Remember, to, that the areas of the US with large rivers and heavy rainfall tend to be east of the Mississippi River, and the country to the west of the Mississippi gets progressivly drier as you move to the west. Since the Mississippi in not much above sea level, getting its water to dsylexia in Denver would involve piping it some 800 miles and with a verticle lift of 5,000ft. Crossing the Rocky Mountains to get it into the reallly dry parts of the country would add another 5,000ft to the pumping requirements, and the ultimate result would be more people living in the west and demanding more water. Kind of depressing, isn't it.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 04:10 am
Water is used, of course, not only for keeping lawns, it has several other implementations (listing these would take hours of work). Maybe, it is possible to freshen salty ground waters or Pacific water instead using solar energy that is abundant in the states mentioned, if Mississippi water transfer is so much complicated, hence, expensive?
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 08:54 am
CowDoc wrote:
This is really quite interesting to me. Three pages of drought discussion, and nobody has even mentioned agricultural use. The simple, unavoidable fact of the American west is that the population is outgrowing the water supply. Multiple subdivisions with the inevitable plethora of wells is depleting the aquifers in many areas. Somewhere along the line we will be faced with a basic choice: is it more important to have lawns and golf courses or to have food on the table?


Well, the topic does refer to ways to waste water (In my opinion), agriculture is a bit of a neccessity - no? We have indeed over-populated, but providing water for food crops is a far cry from keeping lawns lush in the desert.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 09:06 am
as topics go awry as this one has, the issue i presented was not water usage or drought, the issue was that the colorado state legislature refused to enact a law that would ALLOW homeowners to NOT plant water using lush lawns. this is a Republican legislature who supposedly are in favor of the rights of the individual. there is definitely something wrong with this picture.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 09:13 am
I have absolutely no sympathy for these people. It is not that they were unaware of the fact that when you develop and build in arid and semi arid regions of the US water problems are sure to follow.
It is just the reverse in other parts of the country where people buy homes on a flood plane and then are surprised when they are flooded out.
You reap what you sow.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 09:25 am
dyslexia wrote:
this is a Republican legislature who supposedly are in favor of the rights of the individual. there is definitely something wrong with this picture.


Is the issue that simple? If I've read it correctly it isn't just a matter of individual rights. The State established (as many other states have too) laws that allow for "Homeowner's Associations" to exist and act as governing bodies over their housing tracts. In effect a Homeowner's Association has legal standing very similar to a city or town. Should a State Legislature decide that they can over-ride the ability of municipalities to make their own rules for local government? When a group of 500 people band together and establish such a local entity don't they have collective rights too? Were any of those individuals forced to live in these gated communities? What is the purpose of having local government if that body isn't allowed to make rules?

While the idea of forcing people to maintain lawns is just stupid IMO, I think it's a bit of a stretch to put this up as an "individual rights" issue.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 09:28 am
au1929 i have zero complaint to your post, my problem is that the rest of us are suffering from the decisions that you refer to. we have towns that are doing without water and have to rely on trucking in drinking water while the legislature refuses to allow people to not water their lawns.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 09:34 am
Sadly, in a Democracy, there is little practical means of protecting The Electorate from its own idiocy.



timber
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jan, 2003 09:41 am
dyslexia
I guess it is as usual self interest that rules the day. Hurray for me and ---- you. Here in the city of New York where we have an abidance of water and have never actually experienced drought conditions the reservoir levels are always monitored. As soon as the levels fall to dangerously low levels water restrictions are imposed.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 09:04 pm
Adding a link here to another thread -


woman jailed for poor lawn care
http://able2know.org/topic/99642-1
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Why I love Cape Cod - Discussion by littlek
My kind of town, Chicago is... - Discussion by JPB
Cape Cod - Discussion by littlek
Transportation options -- New Jersey to NYC - Discussion by joefromchicago
Why Illinois Sucks - Discussion by cjhsa
La Guardia or Newark? - Discussion by dagmaraka
Went to Denver, Christmas Week - Discussion by edgarblythe
Iselin, New Jersey - Discussion by Thomas
Question on Niagara Falls - Discussion by Slappy Doo Hoo
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/23/2019 at 02:36:38