Wait a second here, aren't lawns, ummm, green? I agree that lawns are no replacement for forests being destroyed elsewhere, but they are "greener" than concrete, right.

Also, one of the problems with deforestation is that forests help keep air tempratures lower, which in turn causes more rain, which helps the forest to grow. Forests, in effect, water themselves from the clouds. Reforesting is made more problematic by the fact that the young forests cannot keep the air temperatures down and need help with water. I see lawns also as a mechanism for keeping air temperatures lower on hot daya. I think we need more lawns and fewer parking lots.

A shortage of drinking water is a public health issue, not an environmental issue.

Lawns are only sort of green--they use a lot of water and a weed-free lawn is an un-natural monoculture obtained through major use of pesticides.

So, I get where the anti-lawn crew is coming from here, but I don't like these kind of ordinances. I prefer incentives that would encourage more sustainable planting. To some people a lawn really matters and they should be able to choose to have one--preferably with an efficient watering system and minimal use of chemicals.

Not sure about Menlo Park, but in Palo Alto the parks and school playing fields are grossly overwatered, often to saturation point in some parts even in the summer. For a city to regulate residents' watering their lawns or lawn size, they should start checking their own watering habits beforehand.

If you're interested in this topic, agenda item 7 at the Wednesday 1/6 Palo Alto Utilities Advisory Commission meeting is a discussion of an updated water efficient landscape ordinance for Palo Alto. I encourage you to attend. The meeting starts at 7pm in City Council chambers.

Asher Waldfogel
Vice Chair
Utilities Advisory Commission

It is unbelievable that California government officials exert so much control over the wallets and freedoms of people in this state! Someone else was right -- this just reeks of religious extremism (but in the form of radical environmentalism).

Unbelievable.

Big brother is watching you...eager to strip you of your liberty...and ready to pounce on your wallet with hefty fines. Is it any wonder that so many people are moving to states that don't squeeze every last tax dime out of you? Due to population redistribution, California is expected to lose two electoral votes (and two members of Congress) following completion of the census.

You would think that a state that taxes us so much would have something to show for it (or, at least, more than states that don't tax so heavily or take away your rights). Instead, our roads are pathetic...our public schools are lacking...our businesses are collapsing...our public services are inaccessible...the poor are worse off...and our state is $22 Billion in debt. Go figure.

I'm a liberal (by today's standard -- I used to be a moderate) environmentalist, I'm not rich, and, I don't agree with this proposed "scarcity ordinance". I think that the best approach is to tax water use until supply meets demand. Before you shout that it is unfair to the poor, consider how much more the rich owner of a mansion with a giant lawn will pay. Surplus money to be returned to the city treasury-- better to cut sales taxes by an offsetting amount for revenue neutrality. Sales taxes are by far more regressive than, e.g., high energy taxes (or water taxes would be).

If some rich person still insists on paying for a large, perfect lawn, that's fine-- at least he will be paying for it.

JustMe-- lawns are a poor way to expend water to get greenery -- trees are much more efficient.

Resident-- Palo Alto generally underwaters playing fields, but, doesn't do a good job of managing watering; there is often local flooding, even as other areas are bone dry. Apparently careful maintenance is too labor intensive and costs too much. I guess ....

Wouldn't global warming bring more rain to Santa Clara Valley?

Global warming is the main cause of the drought that California has been having in recent years.

I thought population growth and the increased availability of agricultural labor relative to water availability was the main cause of the drought that California has been having in recent years. It used to be sufficient for a single "70% of normal" year to replenish our reservoirs.

FYI: We had draughts here in the 60s and 70s as well.

The primary cause of any potential water shortage is the failure to continue developing catchments. Far more water could be captured with no adverse effect on the environment. As for climate change, that whole pop stand has collapsed under the weight of lies.

Walter,

Thanks for hitting the nail on its head.

We have left the job of expanding water catchment to the Chinese in China. We will try to fix our problems by blaming everything else and not investing in our country.

This process is called the decay of US.

"The primary cause of any potential water shortage is the failure to continue developing catchments."

I hate to bring this dialog to a grinding halt, but exactly where are these abundant catchment sites?

"Far more water could be captured with no adverse effect on the environment."

Try telling that to the salmon fishermen. The present dams have already cost them their livelihood.

"As for climate change, that whole pop stand has collapsed under the weight of lies."

Sure. Any fool can tell it's cooler now than even 6 months ago.

An expert recently explained that global warming involves greater extremes of temperature and weather, cold as well as hot. It doesn't mean that it's consistently warmer -- it's warmer overall, but there are more extreme weather conditions in the process.

Steven got it right in stating this is a public health issue, not an environmental issue.

Unfortunately, the media loves fights, so the Weekly twists the story to portray it as enviros versus property rights owners and throws in "global warming" to stoke the fires.

Bottom line: We live in a water-limited state subject to droughts and, given that, we need to prioritize water use.
So what's the appropriate priority: For basic needs (drinking/bathing/washing) or for watering oversized green lawns?

Why stop at lawn sizes?

Limit the amount of showers a week, and limit the number of people in a household?

The MP council is on the wrong track on this.

The biggest water catchment site in California is the snow pack of the Sierra Nevada range. The problem is that with climate change, the snow melt will occur quicker, allowing less storage of water and faster runoff. The result will be more flooding, less water storage, and less ability to withstand droughts. The potential for building downstream reservoirs exists, but is very expensive. That's what the upcoming water bond is supposed to address.

In the meanwhile, large amounts of highly subsidized water are being used in California to grow low-value, thirsty crops like alfalfa and rice. If we eliminated all alfalfa and rice production, and reallocated water, there would be enough water for efficient use by all of the rest of California agriculture and still save the endangered Delta smelt.

There is no reason to water lawns during the day, when it mostly evaporates. There are incentives, like the SCVWD's Cash-for-Grass program, for replacing lawns in Palo Alto. Those incentives are not available in Menlo Park, as they do not have the funding source. Similarly, Menlo Park and East Palo Alto don't have a funding source like the SCVWD to deal with flooding on the San Francisquito Creek.

P.S. See Web Link for the SCVWD's water conservation incentive programs.

See also the companion article Web Link on the Palo Alto Online site.

Environmentalism is a religion.

In reading and scanning the posts, I see nothing mentioned about what kind of "lawn" is better to plant for the environment, that uses less water and rarely needs mowing. There is a California native called, I think, fescue, that only needs moving twice a year, and uses far less water once established, if I remember correctly from what I've read. People can also plant "meadows" of various types of natives that also only need mowing twice a year and require less watering. Or one can just plant clover; same benefits. A city ordinance should take these alternatives into account and not outlaw them too.

Contact the California Native Plant Society for a listing of appropriate low-water-use plants. The choice may be constrained by the local "weed ordinance".

Web Link

Lawns were a landscaping concept imported from England where there is plenty of rain to sustain such carpets year round. Much of California is a desert, and water has been imported for many reasons including agriculture, lawns, and golf courses. We can all learn to live without grass where it hasn't been growing naturally because of an ecoclimate's scarcity of water. Planting trees is better for the climate.

Much more of this crap and I'm moving. What a joke.

Agreed!

I am already planning my escape.

This place is absurd.

Farmers can't count on their watering supply because of a trumped up fear from the salmon fisheries..and we have a California dustbowl and more expensive food.

Residents live in fear of being told what they can do with their properites, down to how many blades of grass you can have ( how stupid is this????????)

I have no doubt that next we will be limited to so x gallons of water per person per household.

Why not? What is the difference?

When I hear " it is for the public good" now, I just run screaming to the other side, knowing it is actually about control and taxes, not about good sense.

Our water table has been diminishing since I got here.

How about catchments?

How about wiser use at the source..somehow pumping more than half of N. Ca water to LA is a little odd, let alone to other States. Let people move to where the water is.

We have followed the water, food and ability to shelter since the beginning of mankind, why try to change that now?

Simplistic, I know, but what fight what works, but instead we are going to count the blades of grass on your lawn.

Geez

Addendum: Sorry, just remembered an appropriate addendum. This reminds me greatly of the "solar roof" push with tax credits and a great desire to "regulate" them into being.

And the hilarious part is that people were, and still are, cutting down trees or major parts of trees to get the sun to their roof so they can use the solar panels..to air condition the homes that are now warmer because they are no longer shaded!

Great example of truly stupid, short sighted "smart" green government.

Just stay our of our way and let us think for ourselves.