Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Uploaded: Wednesday, February 11, 2009, 9:04 AM

County votes to impose water rationing
Specifics of restrictions to come in March for Santa Clara County residents, businesses

Posted by YouShouldKnow, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Feb 11, 2009 at 9:42 am

Why wouldn't we ration? Besids the necessity from two horribly dry winters, we Wouldn't want to deprive Southern Californians of their lush green lawns!

S. Cal should seriously look into doing more to capture and save their own damn rainwateram

Posted by resident, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Feb 11, 2009 at 9:50 am

I already let my lawns go dry during the summer time. The only plants I water are my fruit trees. I turn off the faucet when I brush my teeth.

Other than letting my husband go to work smelling bad for lack of taking a shower, I think the city will have to let the park grasses go dry to catch up to what my lawn looks like before I do anymore rashioning.

Posted by resident, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Feb 11, 2009 at 9:53 am

I'm already way ahead of most Palo Altans when it comes to saving lawn water. Just driving through Old Palo Alto and even looking at my neighbor's lawns which are all nice and lush green during the summer tells me so.

Posted by Parent - DISGUSTED, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Feb 11, 2009 at 10:14 am

Hey, City of Palo Alto - what's say we build a TON of NEW DENSE HOUSING!

Posted by Palin, a resident of another community, on Feb 11, 2009 at 10:37 am

People move to Palo Alto because there are lots of jobs in Palo Alto (more jobs than houses). If you want to reduce housing, you have to reduce jobs first. Maybe George Bush was right in creating this recession and starting the massive layoffs.

Reducing housing without reducing jobs isn't going to help since people will just move somewhere nearby and use the same water supply.

Posted by Parent - DISGUSTED, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Feb 11, 2009 at 10:42 am

Ok, in fact. Lets go one better. Lets build a high speed rail line on the Caltrain ROW, that will (ON PURPOSE! INTENTIONALLY! BY DESIGN!) ACCELERATE dense housing growth in Santa Clara County and in the cities up and down the Peninsula.

Because obviously

a) we (the inhabitants) have unlimited capacity for population growth here.

or

b) Who Cares!? Once we (the developers) get the dense development built, we (the developers) can take the money and run. Water, traffic, schools, open space, not our problem.

Posted by Palin, a resident of another community, on Feb 11, 2009 at 11:45 am

HSR will not increase the demand for housing. People move to where the jobs are and Palo Alto has more jobs than houses. If anything, HSR will reduce the demand for housing because it allows people to move farther away from their jobs.

If you want to blame someone for the housing density and traffic in Palo Alto, blame those greedy corporations who hire more people than the local community can house. Those employees buy up all the local houses. The ones that can't find a house in town, drive in from out-of-town and cause more traffic.

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Feb 11, 2009 at 12:04 pm

Residential water use is a small piece of the pie. High-density housing actually helps with water conservation because the big residential water suck is outside. If your backyard is a tiny cement patio, there's no lawn to water. (Sorry Parent, I agree with you about the traffic congestion and overstraining public services and schools).

Anyway, agriculture uses the huge bulk of water in this state. Places like Palm Springs where lawns exist in the middle of a desert don't help.

Anyway, traditional lawns do take too much water--and chemicals (which actually bothers me a lot more--there's lots of beautiful xeroscape landscaping. Drip watering is great and some of the new washers use amazingly little water.

With rationing there's usually an upper amount you can use so efficiency's key.

But anyway we get stuck with water rationing because agriculture interests in this state are very powerful and don't like to do much. They usually get the water at an insanely cheap rate as well. It's just another way we pay for our seemingly cheap food.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Feb 11, 2009 at 12:09 pm

Even without a dry winter, demand for water in California is getting higher every year. We have more people and more housing every year, so demand is higher. We have come to expect certain standards of water consumption for hygiene, recreation and cosmetic reasons (eg we like our cars to be clean) and on top of that we have farmers using water for agriculture. The fact of the matter is that water is in great demand in California and the demand is increasing. The mindset of the population must be changed to conserve water.

We need to be able to collect "gray water" and run off and find ways to use it rather than "clean water". As I look out the window and watch a heavy downpour with water running down the street straight into the culverts and into the Bay, we should be utilising more of this in a productive way before its ultimate destination.

Reusing the water we do have should be researched and information made available on how everyone, homeowners and businesses, can do this would be a great start. Even something as small as a rainfall collection tank for watering houseplants and landscaping would be a great start.

Posted by Elisabeth- a resident, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Feb 11, 2009 at 12:18 pm

Instead of all that negativity, how about making some water-saving suggestions?! There are many small steps we can take that can add up if we put our minds to it. For example, let's encourage restaurants to only give customers drinking water and refills if they request them, when a server offers it. Maybe some of our environmental leaders can "lead" in this regard. Another example: if possible, change to single lever faucets, so as to be more motivated to turn water off while washing hands, faces, etc., since the same temperature will be maintained. Also, don't turn water on full force when that's not necessary. I'd like to see a whole blog or column of water and energy saving suggestions.

Posted by Douglas Moran, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Feb 11, 2009 at 12:18 pm

The issue of is there enough water to support the level of growth has been brought up several times in recent years

(for example during a Stanford Research Park project and at a forum on growth sponsored by Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN)).

The response by City Planning officials has two parts. First, State law prohibits them from taking water supply in considering individual projects. Second, based upon the City's _contractual_ arrangement with San Francisco, Palo Alto's allocation of Hetch Hetchy water is enough to support additional growth. With the ongoing climate change, the predictions are for smaller snowpacks and thus less water in the HH system. When I asked about this effect on how much water Palo Alto would get in reality--instead of on paper--I got no answer.

State law similar prohibits consideration of impacts on schools.

The State policy on growth is firmly controlled by the real estate industry: developers, construction companies and unions, ...

The States demands (via ABAG) on how much additional housing PA should provide is based upon an projection of 40% growth per generation (2x in just over two generations; 3x in three). Their justification is California's economy requires this high level of growth rate. They are (studious?) oblivious to this being a classic Ponzi scheme (eg Bernie Madoff) that inevitably has a catastrophic collapse.

Palo Alto in just starting an update to its "Comprehensive Plan" (its strategic plan). Although I am participating, it is to keep it from being more favorable to unsustainable growth. I don't have real hope that this will prevent such: A long line of City Councils have been willing to give exceptions to developers who wanted bigger profits.

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Feb 11, 2009 at 12:30 pm

Just to put it in perspective, agriculture accounts for 80 percent of the water use in this state. Within that remaining 20 percent, there's also industrial, commercial and wetland preservation use. So we can all save water, but it's just not that big a dent. Which doesn't mean we shouldn't conserve, it's just the nature of the problem.

Posted by William, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Feb 11, 2009 at 1:28 pm

Percentage reductions penalize those of us that are already being conservative! For households it would be fairer to have specific usage numbers based on family size.

Posted by rem, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Feb 11, 2009 at 1:46 pm

Why don’t we have a honest Santa Clara Council and Santa Clara Valley Water District Board of Directors that will honestly say “Developer (Contractors) Lobby, Developer (Contractors) donate and we will approve!!!!”

It would be great if the Santa Clara Council and Santa Clara Valley Water District Board of Directors learned a new word – NO or new phase – DISAPPROVED….

There is no sane reason for this PROBLEM except MONEY, MONEY, MONEY and not care about the people of Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale or ANY of the other communities …..

Posted by energyman, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Feb 11, 2009 at 8:29 pm

I tore out the front lawn 2 years ago and planted drought tolerant plants. Everything is on a drip system. How much lower can I go? Shall I let my fruit trees die? Not plant a veggie garden?

First, we must:

Stop the So Cal Antelope Valley residents from watering lawns in 105 degree heat. Put more restrictions on all the new housing developments. Stop wasting water on the Oregon Expressway medians. Cut HP's ration by 50%. Use Lozano's to wash your cars. Find a solution and support it!

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Feb 12, 2009 at 1:51 am
Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

Southern California has planned and paid for her water, sometimes to excess [I contributed to the Save Mono Lake fund] while Northern California has halted Round Mountain and Auburn dams, even as we benefit from the prudence of our ancestors. I am ready for the mob vote from LA brushing aside our dog in the manger attitude and taking all our water South where it will be appreciated. We don't deserve it.

Posted by PointOfView, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Feb 12, 2009 at 9:40 am

It is possible to limit development because of a water shortage.

Carmel carefully documents the number of faucets and water sources on each parcel for grandfathering, and maintains by law drastic limits on the number allowed per parcel for new or remodel construction.

In this way, water does impact development, because with five faucets allowed on a property, you cannot build a 12-unit condo. It won't meet building codes.

Of course, Palo Alto provides preferential variances to high density developers, but that's a separate issue.

Posted by Midtowner, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Feb 12, 2009 at 10:23 am

I have three immediate neighbors who overwater their yards. Each and every day, there is water runoff from their front yards onto the sidewalk and into the curb, where there is a almost permanent muddy puddle from all that overwatering.

I mentioned to one of the neighbors that the water going down the curb is of no use to his yard and plants. He did not change a thing.

Truly amazing how irresponsible so many people around here are. I will almost welcome rationing because of it. It will at least force all the spoiled Palo Altans to reconsider their ways a bit.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Feb 12, 2009 at 10:28 am

Most of our city parks and school playing fields are grossly overwatered. Even in the middle of summer, these fields are continuously waterlogged in places. The city could save a great deal of water by watering less and fixing this problem.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

In Louie's camp, a Hooverville on North B street in Sacramento from the mid 30s into the 50there was a water faucet on each street from which buckets were carried home. Is that the conservation you want? Lawns serve a purpose moderating the climate and absorbing runoff and holding down dust. Alas, I accepted a $1400 fee to help remove a dam behind Carmel that could have been rehabilitated. Nature builds dams all the time and life goes on, and water cycled is still water.

Posted by Jules, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2009 at 12:54 pm

Wait, if we let all our lawns go dry, there will be no place for the selfish dog-walkers let their dogs poop. The dogs won't want to hurt their butts on the prickly dried grass.

Posted by Greg, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2009 at 1:06 pm

Drought? What drought? Have you looked out your window lately?

I do agree with many of the above comments that most people use most of their annual water on their lawns and gardens.

Posted by w, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on Feb 14, 2009 at 10:53 am

too much washing maschine use and laundry soap fumes from clothes dryers.that burns up protective layer over planet ,affecting climate.its amazing that reducing washing machine use wasnt in the official water saving info given by ''authorities'' !! shows you ,they diont know whats going on.and your life is at stake! dont rely on authorities

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Feb 14, 2009 at 11:28 am

I tend to agree that using washers (and dryers) can be an easy way to cut down on water use. Too many people wear a pair of jeans, a sweatshirt for only a couple of hours and then throw it into the laundry. The same with towels, which are used once and then laundered instead of hanging over the shower rail to dry and use again. If we always asked ourselves if something can be worn or used again without laundering, that would be an easy way to cut down on water use.

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Feb 14, 2009 at 12:57 pm

Walter,

You don't need lawns to moderate the climate. There's more appropriate landscaping for this arid region. (They have a nice example at Gamble Gardens) Lawns take a ridiculous number of pesticides to be weed-free. Monocultures aren't great for other reasons.

Weed lawns, native grasses can be decent alternatives. Or at least keep your lawns small. (Not thst hard with our lot sizes.)

There's also just a lot of poor watering. Water trees deeply, but less frequently to encourage deeper root growth.

There are some incredibly efficient washers out there--ours uses fewer than 10 gallons of water per wash (LG). And, yes, the clothes are clean.