Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Uploaded: Wednesday, January 6, 2010, 9:54 AM                                             

Palo Alto ponders tougher water-use standards
New rules for landscaping would limit turf area, create water budgets

by Gennady Sheyner
Palo Alto Online Staff

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jan 6, 2010 at 11:30 am

Does California have the water to encourge and support all population growth? To avoid either a water shortage or a housing shortage we need to strengthen long-term water planning, streamline water adequacy screening for new development so that local planners look carefully at the situation without unreasonably slowing housing growth, realizing the potential of water conservation

and consolidating progress in groundwater management.

There is more room for regulatory actions—in particular,

withholding new water-rights permits, as a way to encourage

local entities to manage water resources responsibly.

How many housing units can Palo Alto responsibly add each year, especially given how many units were added in the past three years?

How much can local residents be expected to pay for new infrastructure because our water and sewage plants are overwhelmed.

Can our current quality of life (health, pleasure in living in a city without excessive air pollution and traffic but with schools which are not overcrowded and with walkable neighborhoods) allow us to decrease local farming and open space? How much is too much water conservation and water cost for Palo Alto residents?

Posted by SCVWD incentives, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jan 6, 2010 at 11:34 am

See Web Link for the SCVWD's water conservation incentives.

Posted by More-Bad-Policy, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jan 6, 2010 at 12:31 pm

This represents everything that's wrong with California these days, and Palo Alto in particular. We have a water reprocessing facility on the Bay shore, which could allow us to move as much reprocessed water back into Palo Alto, as we would like, to use for watering lawns. That water is otherwise dumped in the Bay, which does Palo Alto is absolutely no good.

The city does have some sort of project afoot that is intended to pipe reprocessed water back into Palo Alto proper, but when the project is to be finished is unknown. Furthermore, the extent to which the water is intended to be used is quite limited--compared to the fact that everyone in Palo Alto should be able to use recycled water for lawns, etc., if it is available.

This is a project that could take fifty years to complete on a pay-as-you-go basis. But certainly all public areas, such as the golf courses, school grounds, and public parks, could be watered with recycled water rather than fresh water. The cost of such a pipe line is probably something in the order of $500 a linear foot, or about $3M a mile. Given that the water is otherwise going to waste—this is an incredibly cheap source of water for Palo Alto and Palo Altans.

China is in the process of moving a major river from the south part of the country to the north part of the country, in order to bring water to an otherwise water-deficient area of that vast land. With California thinking, China’s government would tell it’s people to do without, not move the river to where the water is needed. This the difference between good forward-thinking, and what we now see as California/Palo Alto thinking.

This is just more craziness that demonstrates that there's very little left in this state to be proud of, or to expect good governance to serve us by being inventive and creative.

Posted by curious, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Jan 6, 2010 at 1:02 pm

I am wondering whether for new multi-unit housing, does each unit have its water metered and billed separately so each unit has incentive to conserve water? (Is there a requirement in the municipal code? Is the technology available/affordable?)

Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jan 6, 2010 at 1:19 pm

"Does California have the water to encourge and support all population growth?"

Yes. ABAG has so decreed. Mother Nature will comply or pay heavy fines.

Posted by A Palo Alto resident, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jan 6, 2010 at 1:36 pm

I would like to see a column in the Weekly, and a place online, where readers can make suggestions for sustainability in all areas, including water.

One small step in conserving water is to ask all food-serving retail establishments to serve drinking water only upon customers' request. That is, have the servers ask whether someone wants water or a refill, rather than serving it automatically.

Another suggestions: If possible, replace dual faucets with single-handle faucets, since it's easier to maintain the desired temperature setting while turning the faucet off momentarily during hand washing, tooth brushing and hand washing dishes. With dual faucets, the tendency is to keep the water running in order to avoid recalibrating the water temperature.

The City needs to monitor its own plant watering. In the summer I saw some City landscapes being watered in the middle of the day, at the same time that the Utilities department was urging customers to not water between certain hours (I think 10 am to 7 pm, but not sure).

Others, please share your suggestions. Small, individual efforts can add up to a lot of savings.

Posted by musical, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Jan 6, 2010 at 1:47 pm

Looks like I'd better waste a lot of water today so that I can meet tomorrow's conservation goals/requirements/rationing. Those people who have already cut their consumption to a minimum are shooting themselves in the foot. The SCVWD web link given a couple posts up cites an arbitrary 10 percent water savings goal. Is an acceptable usage per person spelled out anywhere in absolute gallons per day? No, it always depends on what one is doing with the water, e.g. growing their own food or just rinsing the sidewalks sending it down the stormdrain. Also seems to depend on how much they used last year whatever its purpose. Yes, reprocessed water distribution will become necessary. Perpetual growth is by definition unsustainable. Fortunately we still have enough slack in the system that I'll be long dead before California hits a truly intolable population density. Foothills Park will be full of condominiums some day.

The average person is too busy with life to put much forethought into each of the important issues we face. And then we all wonder how we got into this situation. I've got no answers.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jan 6, 2010 at 2:20 pm

I agree with musical.

We have already done as much as we can to reduce water consumption - low flow everything plus front loading washer. Short of showering at the gym and going to the laundromat, there is not much more we can do.

However saying that, low flow showers are a doubtful saving. When staying with family members who have regular shower heads, I find I stay in the shower far less time as the full flow gets shampoo and soap off my body much quicker. In our low flow shower, it takes forever to get the shampoo out of my hair.

And another tip is to switch to shampoo/conditioner rather than using separate shampoo and conditioner. This means you can rinse once without having to do a second product and rinse. This equates to a shorter shower.

Posted by Anciana, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jan 6, 2010 at 2:32 pm

I love the idea of using the water that has been "reprocessed" to irrigate all the parks, school grounds and golf courses, etc. I would like to see that given a high priority. And I have already complained to one of our city council members about the fact that practically every new public project in the city has a fountain. Look at the re-do of Lytton Plaza. It's got a mini waterfall. "Why are we throwing water into the desert air?" I asked. There doesn't seem to be an answer. Conservation should certainly start with the City.

I have discussed with my friends "Musical's" idea about using LOTS of water now, so there will be something to cut back with when the time comes. I can't bear to do that. Right now I'm saving water in a half-gallon jug in the kitchen; when it's full, from various strategies, I go pour it on a deserving potted plant. I am very careful about every drop of water I use. When the mandatory rationing comes, I'll be among those who will be really hurt by the new restrictions. And I'm a gardener and want to be able to keep my garden beautiful.

I don't have any answers either . . .

Posted by Bob, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jan 6, 2010 at 2:49 pm

For the record: The Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course has used recycled water on its fairways for many years. The standard joke is "Don't lick your golf ball". And by the way, the golf course returns a profit to the city.

Posted by washo, a resident of the Esther Clark Park neighborhood, on Jan 6, 2010 at 3:05 pm

stop excessive clothes washing. the entire peninsula smellslike clothes dryers,horrible detergent odors,like a gas chamber to allergic people! no one is going to notice you wore your shirt more than one day! pure fear and vanity is destroying the earth! stop with constant clothes washing. once a month is enough, i know ive got a high paying job and only wash clothes once a month! you arent going to die from mildly ''dirty'' clothes but the earth will die of dehydration.or at least humans will!

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jan 6, 2010 at 3:07 pm

Residential water use is a small percentage of water use--the big user has been and continues to be agriculture. A lot of water cutbacks on the local side are pretty useless in light of overall water use.

That said, yes, on using recycled water for outdoor sites. We do waste potable water in a way that's unecessary--I don't need drinking water for flushing my toilet.

More-bad-policy,

The *last* thing I'd want to do is emulate China's water-use policies--moving a river is a sign of desperation in a country that's rendered 10 percent of its drinking water unusable. Both China and India face serious water shortage issues and will face even more down the line.

Posted by Wasted Water, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Jan 6, 2010 at 4:11 pm

"The Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course has used recycled water on its fairways for many years." Also, Mitchell Park, Greer Park and some of the other parks use recycled water.

I would love to water my yard with recycled water too. If there is a separate water delivery system to the parks why can't this be extended for use by residents to water their yards? I guess the problem is money. Well, if our City Council hadn't wasted so much money over the last few years extending a recycled water delivery system to home owners could be accomplished.

Posted by NC, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jan 6, 2010 at 4:27 pm

This is daft. Just forcing people to turn off lawn sprinklers in winter would save tons of water, since (a) turf is one of the least water-efficient forms of landscaping and (b) thru several months of the year it's unnecessary to water it.

But I continually walk around seeing businesses and residences spraying clean drinking water onto lawns which are already saturated and then run off onto paths.

Posted by ten18, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jan 6, 2010 at 4:38 pm

Several sources have noted that these dire predictions of water shortages will soon replace AGW alarmism, as the climate nuts continue to lose credibility. It will be interesting to see how this new water religion evolves over the next few years.

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jan 6, 2010 at 7:02 pm

ten18,

Water shortages have wrecked more than one civilization. This may be news to you, but this is quite well documented and sufficient water is already a problem in many areas.

If you knew your California history, you'd know that water usage and distribution have been hugely important.

Posted by More-Bad-Policy, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jan 6, 2010 at 8:47 pm

> If you knew your California history, you'd know that water

> usage and distribution have been hugely important.

Once might suggest that the words "contentious" and "controversial" would be better than "important" here. The reality is that about 85% of the water in California is consumed by farms, which generate about 5% of the GDP. This is not to suggest that farms are not important, but it is to suggest that if some of the least productive agricultural uses of water were terminated, then there would most likely be enough for urban use.

> Mitchell Park uses recycled water.

It is possible that water tankers bring small amounts of water to the park for use. But there is no underground piping at the moment that provides all of the outside water needs for these parks from the Water Quality Center near the bay.

As to the profit of the Golf course .. it's illusory .. since the property is worth about $500M and there is no attempt to get the users of that course (about 75% non-residents) to actually pay for the repatriating some of the "sequestered capital" that is tied up in this particular land use. This is one of the more major misuses of public land in Palo Alto.

Posted by Selfish Landlords, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Jan 6, 2010 at 8:57 pm

In my neighborhood we have many rentals who have timed water sprinklers that turn on automatically during the night.

When I asked one of these renters why she hadn't turned her water off during the winter she told me that the landlord had locked their lawn watering sprinklers on permanently and they can't turn it off.

She's pretty mad about it because the landlord makes them (the tenant) pay the water bill which they can't turn off when it rains!!!! I guess there may be many automatic sprinklers in rental housing that can't be turned off.

Posted by Kurt, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 6, 2010 at 10:00 pm

"If you knew your California history, you'd know that water usage and distribution have been hugely important."

OhlonePar,

I was born and raised in California. I am very in tune with the water issues. I think it makes many of our other problems small in comparison. Water wars can become shooting wars.

I think the most efficient way to reduce demand for water is the price mechanism. There should be a 1X rate for a low-use typical family of four, then an exponentially progressive rate for anything above that. This will both reduce demand, and bring in monies to build water infrastructure, especially water recycling schemes.

Farmers should be priced on a best practices standard (1X), then exponentially above that level.

The wrong way to go about it is to start engineering useage types, like lawns. If I want to grown a lush lawn, but cut back on onther uses, while keeping my overall useage down, why is that a problem?

Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jan 6, 2010 at 10:56 pm

"Several sources have noted that these dire predictions of water shortages will soon replace AGW alarmism, as the climate nuts continue to lose credibility. It will be interesting to see how this new water religion evolves over the next few years."

Quaint water mythology like this is nothing new. In the nineteenth century, Manifest Destiny decreed that settling the arid West was feasible because "the rain follows the plow."

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 7, 2010 at 1:27 am
Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

I would be reluctant to see non-potable water piped to residences because of the high likelihood of cross connections with potable water systems. Years ago I suggested that 4 to 6 inch plastic pipe be run from the treatment plant inside storm drain trunks to storage tanks at civic and large commercial users. This could be accomplished for little more that the cost of materials because no trenching would be required and the reduction in storm drain capacity would be minimal.

Posted by SnootyArchibald, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jan 7, 2010 at 10:11 am

In the town of "I am better than you" water should not be a

topic to distract us from other most important issues. We will water our lawns at all times year round, keep our magnificent pools full, even if we have to pay to use Sam Pellegrino in them.

Posted by Anciana, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jan 7, 2010 at 12:37 pm

About the capital "sequestered" in the municipal golf course land: I'm not a golfer, but I think that setting land aside for recreational use is valid, and in this particular instance, provides valuable open space. I don't want our Baylands surrounded by stucco palaces or huge condominiums. Money isn't EVERYthing . . .

Posted by jardins, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 7, 2010 at 1:56 pm

Absolutely Palo Alto should lead the way with stricter than state standards; I'm disgusted that the no's outnumber the yes's on this vote. So much for our Green City and Zero Waste mentality!!

Posted by Midtowner, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jan 7, 2010 at 8:27 pm

To Jardins:

People would undoubtedly be more willing to cut back on their water use (that many of us have already cut significantly by the way) if the industry that used 80% of California's water was asked to be more water efficient: agriculture. But no, year after year after year agriculture keeps getting a free pass and they keep growing cotton in the desert.