A&E

Getting creative with conservation

Students raise awareness of water shortage with art

Five Midpeninsula students are being recognized for their entries in a water conservation-themed art contest hosted by the Santa Clara Valley Water District.

The teens -- two from Palo Alto High School, one from Mountain View High School and two from Castilleja School -- were selected as first- and second-prize winners in the water district's first ever youth media contest, which was organized in an effort to "get the younger generation to think about sustainability of water and to help them adopt and promote a water-efficient lifestyle," according to Marty Grimes, a spokesman for the water district.

The contest, which ran from April to May, called for local teens and young adults to submit both posters and videos promoting water conservation, using talking points and information pulled from the Santa Clara Valley Water District's "Save 20 Gallons" campaign. The district took submissions from two age groups, a 14- to 18-year-old group and an 19- to 24-year-old group. In total, the district received 38 posters and five videos, which were judged by a panel of multimedia professionals and water district staff.

In the younger age bracket of the poster category, first place went to Paly student Nick Sundermeyer, for his piece, titled "Water=Life." Second place in the same age bracket and category went to David Tayeri, also from Paly, for his creation, "Running Out."

A video titled "Ripple Effect," created by Rachel Lee of Mountain View High School, took first place in the younger age bracket. The second-place video in the younger age bracket was co-produced by a pair of Castelleja students -- Sarah Shader and Lindsey Segal.

While district officials had hoped for more video submissions, Grimes said, the board was pleased with the number of poster entries. Furthermore, he added, the amount of effort shown by those who did participate was inspiring.

"It's encouraging to see the energy that the young people exhibited in developing their entries and their interest in being a part of the call for water conservation," Grimes said.

According to Grimes, officials with the district wanted to encourage local teens and young adults to think creatively about water use and conservation.

"Water is going to be a challenge in California in future decades," he said. "These are the youth that are going to have to deal with these challenges."

The winners are to be recognized at the water district's board of directors meeting this evening, June 24, at 6 p.m.

View the winning posters in the photo gallery above. Go to the Santa Clara Valley Water District's website to watch the winning videos.

Comments

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Big Picture
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 24, 2014 at 4:34 pm

Wow, that poster is both professional and beautiful - I'd put that up just as art. Congratulations to the kids.

I would love to see the kids assess conservation in the bigger picture of what is happening here. It's one thing if the population remained static and we all conserved. However, we are told to conserve while at the same time, the developers and growth-crazy Council are building like there's no tomorrow. (And no need for things like open space and awareness of natural landscape.) This is a desirable place that developers profit mightily from and lots of people want to move here. The fact is that the entire country cannot empty into this area, and there is a limit to the resources we have, but our Council seems oblivious to that fact.

This is an arid region. Quick math problem for the kids. If about 75% of water is used by homeowners and 25% by commercial building occupants, if all the office workers, homeowners and residents each save 10-20% but we add 20,000 more people because of construction in the pipeline and, oh, 40,000 more office workers, how much more water will we be using overall? Remember to add the significant water waste that goes along with new construction, as well as the water that goes along with the destruction of existing vegetation and necessary for the establishment of new vegetation.

For extra points, account separately for the number of extra faucets and showers resulting from high-density overzoned new construction and hotels (faucets accounting for more than 15% of indoor household water use and showering around 17% according to the EPA), and don't forget to account for the extra residents packing in their families to access local schools.

As a round number, you can assume that the average American uses around 100 gallons of water each day.

Perhaps someone could just look at how much more water the dozens of PC zoned developments the Council has approved in recent years are/will use than we will save if residents conserve more than they already do. My small sustainable natural fescue lawn in back is already dead and my garden is seriously strained, not sure how I can get another 20%. I'd rather look at the Big Picture.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jim H
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 24, 2014 at 10:11 pm

@ Big Picture - I don't want to get off the message topic immediately, but your numbers seem off. According to this article Web Link, 80% of California's water is used by agriculture, the remaining 20% is split between residents, government and businesses.

I do agree that there are too many people being crammed in to too few resources and not enough infrastructure.

Love Sundemeyer's poster. The colors make it feel like death is approaching...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Big Picture
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 25, 2014 at 12:21 am

@Jim H,
I don't think we have a conflict. I got the numbers from the EPA. Web Link They don't really conflict with what you've brought up -- The water use numbers are for building occupants and does not include agriculture. The percentage of use by faucets relates to residential use, as does showering. All of the above are what is relevant to Palo Alto overdevelopment, as we don't really have agricultural use within our borders and the 20% reductions are being directed at residential and business users.

Why is it that we don't have any Big Picture data or analysis tools, including safety and resources, by which to judge new developments???


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jim H.
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 25, 2014 at 12:17 pm

So, then if residents use 75% of the overall 20%, that would be 15% of all water being used by residents. A 20% reduction by residents (assuming ALL residents cut use by 20%), that would be an overall 3% savings in total water usage.

Now, if you get just a 5% reduction in agricultural use, through more efficient watering, you'd save 4%, or, just a bit more than a 20% reduction in all residential users.

Here's a good article by the Mercury News: Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Big Picture
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 27, 2014 at 4:34 pm

@Jim H,
Good article, with good points. Far be it from me to insert logic into how government plans.

However, you're actually dealing with the real Big Picture on water apportionment in the state, and I'm addressing the Big Picture of urban water use the kids are addressing in their posters.

The reservoirs from which our drinking water comes here in Palo Alto and nearby cities are not used in anywhere near the proportions you cite, they're dominated by residential use. Those reservoirs mostly provide drinking water to our cities, and our residential conservation efforts directly impact those water resources.

Hetch Hetchy, for example, is pretty much an urban water supply. It provides 80% of the water for 2.6 million people, according to Wikipedia. It delivers 31,900,000 cu ft of water a day to Bay Area residents. That's a lot of water, and saving 20% of it is a lot of water, too. I'm sorry, I don't to convert that, but if the assumption that 100 gallons a day per person is typical, that's a savings of around 50 million gallons of drinking water every day. But there's no real savings if we are adding so many more new people, the savings because of the sacrifice of residents is just dwarfed by all the high-density residential building being added.

All this high density development adds to the drain on our reservoirs. Our Council has been approving building as if resources are infinite. We are being asked to conserve on the one hand to the point of it affecting our quality of life, and on the other, the City keeps giving away zoning and making really dumb densification decisions that add far more people and use far more water than the existing residents can save through their sacrifices.

If the City gave us residents a choice of how we, as a town, would use less water, do you think it would be to halt the densification of this town or sacrifice even more in their individual lives? Because the former is going to use more water.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Big Picture
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 27, 2014 at 4:37 pm

I would love to see the kids program a Sim Palo Alto to take the different resources into account in the face of development.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Local picks on 2015 Michelin Bib Gourmand list
By Elena Kadvany | 5 comments | 3,111 views

WUE makes out-of-state tuition more affordable
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 2 comments | 2,823 views

Ode to Brussels Sprout
By Laura Stec | 18 comments | 2,420 views

Go Giants! Next Stop: World Series!
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,823 views

A Surprise!
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 1,023 views