With the hot summer still in swing, Palo Alto is forging ahead toward meeting its state-mandated water-use-reduction rates, the city’s Utilities Department announced on Thursday, July 23.
Palo Alto must reduce its citywide water use by 24 percent between June 1, 2015, through February 28, 2016, compared to water use for the same period in 2013. The city reached a nearly 36 percent reduction for the month of June, but more must be done to sustain the lowered water use in the coming months, utilities officials said.
“While all of Santa Clara County and Palo Alto’s water savings for June are encouraging, we still have a long way to go until the end of February, when the state will review agencies’ successes toward meeting water use reduction mandates. The entire community will need to work hard to achieve water savings during the hot summer months,” the city said in an announcement.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District is hoping to achieve a cumulative, countywide 30 percent reduction in 2015 to prevent further depletion of groundwater supplies, it noted in a press release ahead of a scheduled water-conservation update held on Thursday at its district office.
Each water retailer in the county has its own state-mandated water-use-reduction percentage. But in March, the water district board also asked county retailers to reduce water use 30 percent to help preserve local surface and groundwater supplies during the drought. The water district then asked retail agencies to help the county exceed its 30 percent goal to make up for the early months of 2015, when conservation rates came short of meeting the target.
In May, Santa Clara County’s 36 percent water-use reduction helped boost California’s overall savings to 29 percent, even before mandatory statewide conservation requirements began in June, the district noted.
As part of the countywide goal, Palo Alto is working to improve water-use efficiency at city facilities, including detailed plans for reducing irrigation in park areas that are not used for active play, utilities spokeswoman Catherine Elvert said.
The city is asking Palo Altans to help identify leaks or other areas of water waste through the PaloAlto311 app or by communicating on any drought-related topic by emailing drought@cityofpaloalto.org.
A full list of water-use restrictions, frequently asked questions and resources for water efficiency can be found at cityofpaloalto.org/water or by calling 650-329-2161.
The city will host a Water Conservation 101 workshop on Aug. 13 7-9 p.m. Details and registration are available at cityofpaloalto.org/workshops.
We have been trying, we really have.
However, summer has made it very difficult. With college students home for summer, camping trips, beach trips, hiking and backyard cleaning, we have been using more water on laundry, showers, and clean up. We have also had out of town guests staying on vacation for more than a week and that of course has also meant more showers and more laundry.
We have also had to clean out green garbage cans and the new pail due to the new composting system. The system is not drought friendly.
I know that our water usage will continue to be higher during the summer months.
With seven people in our family ( 4 adults, three small children), we have still managed to lower our water usage significantly.
We take fewer showers, most of the adults showering at the gym. Drought-resistant front yard since the nineties;, no lawn; bathing children once a week; hand washing pots, pans and cooking utensils; using paper plates and disposable utensils; water efficient toilets, shower heads, faucets, washer, etc; flushing only once per day; dog baths cut down to once per month.
Yet, we continue to get nasty letters from Palo Alto Utilities Dept, claiming we use SOOOOOQ much more than our neighbors!
Baloney! Few neighbors have seven people in their house, which we have informed them of repeatedly!
I honestly think the Utility Dept. makes this stuff up!
The problem with the American way of life is they have never had to do without. During WWII we had 3 inches of water to share in the bottom of our bathtub once a week for the whole family to bathe in. I just hope Resident and Back-Off pay a whole lot more for all the water their households are using.
Resident — what do you mean you have to clean out the pails and cans? I expect the outdoor stuff to be kind of dirty. If you’re worried about the indoor pails, you can get green liner bags for whatever you’re collecting your compost in. Might be worth the extra waste during this drought if the alternative is washing them.
This drought is no joke!
And still, Palo Alto has not initiated a moratorium on building basements in new home construction. That is PREMIUM ground water being spewed down the storm drains at an alarming rate of flow and speed. That water is how we keep trees and planted landscape (not grass) alive. Each site not only drains water from it’s own location, but from neighbors around it. THERE NEEDS TO BE A NEW PROCESS IN PLACE RE: BASEMENTS IN NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION. STOP pandering to the wealthy and think about the City as a whole.
I cut my use down a couple of years ago which means I cannot reduce it further and will be properly admonished. I recycle dishwater (on plants if not too much soap is in it), recycle bath water (washing clothes), don’t shower unless will be around people, and minimize flushing. Anyone know how to get the brown stain out of toilet??? Yet having done that for 1.5 years, cannot reduce use by 25 %.
I’m with “Back Off.”
We’ve had a County water advisor inspect our water system, toilets, faucets, garden watering, showers, et al. We have converted our back yard to drip irrigation. We have planted drought-resistant plants in our front yard and reduced our watering schedule and times. We STILL get these critical letters from the P.A. Untilities about how we are using so much more than our neighbors.
I’ve started to ignore the letters as a waste of paper and city money.
I take really long showers. We don’t reuse any shower water. The only thing we have done to conserve water is turning off the sprinklers, watering by hand, and letting the small lawn we had in the backyard die. Our water usage is 33% of what it was a year ago. That isn’t a 33% reduction, it is a 67% reduction. It isn’t the showers, it is the irrigation.
Everyone I know gets those critical letters from the city, claiming they are using more water than comparable neighbors. The letters are a joke. I just disregard them as they can’t possibly be true.
Agree with AllenE. We replaced our lawn with drought resistant plants, water usage has gone down by 30-40%. You don’t save much by showering less. Also hand washing dishes seem to consume more water than using the dishwasher.
@Really. I got a letter commending me for my water conservation efforts. Let your lawn die, you too can get one.
@AllenE – A green lawn makes me happier than a letter from the utilities department.
@YSK – objectively, it isn’t “PREMIUM” ground water being pumped. It is otherwise unused water being moved from one place to another.
We’re a family of 4 adults using 2 or 3 hundred cubic feet (CCF) of water per month. That is less than 20 gallons per day per person. We’re only irrigating our 3 trees and a few tomatoes with most of our water used indoors.
What is the average Palo Alto home water usage in daily gallons per person?
We are in a drought indeed, but it is really sad to see all the dead, stressed and dying trees in our neighborhoods because residents have stopped watering.
@Slow Down – Thank you very much for fielding that one from @YSK. The concerns of the anti-dewatering people have been addressed ad nauseam in a couple of Town Square topic threads yet they keep coming back with the same concerns over and over again.
I think the trees get their water from the water table and what you put on them is not enough to matter. That is what my tree guy said. He said all I could do is pray for rain. He said the roots look the same underground as the tree looks above ground which means there is no amount of watering I could do that would matter. He said some of the redwood trees are stressed. Those things are thousands of years old. This is a terrible drought.
Thanks AllenE
We have a beautiful tall American elm in our backyard and it is in terrible shape for the first time this year. Now, there are construction sites in the neighborhood pumping water into the storm drain. Do they lower the water table and cause damage to the trees then as well?
@Poor Trees.
I know the pumping doesn’t lower the water table because that is deep. But there are below the surface streams and that is what is being pumped. It bothers me to hear that this pumping does no harm because it just seems logical that some trees would be feeding on those streams. And while it is clear that it is not wasting water in that the water being pumped would go to the bay anyway, the local impact has not been explained. If I were near one of those sites, I would connect a hose up put it in my back yard, and let it run day and night.
@AllenE and @Poor trees – Trees (and other landscaping) receive very little moisture from aquifers. Even the roots of a large redwood tree do not reach down that deep. Trees primarily rely on surface sources such as rain and irrigation.
Your tree guy was right when he told you to pray for rain. The trees in this area are looking poor because they received very little rain over the past winter, not because of de-watering projects. Many trees in my neighborhood are looking poor and there are no de-watering projects around here as far as I know.
Redwood trees do not have deep roots, but certainly the lovely Valley Oaks have roots deep enough to reach the water level that is being pumped for basements.
It is reported in “Oaks in the Urban Landscape: Selection, Care, and Preservation”, By Laurence Raleigh Costello, Bruce W. Hagen, Katherine S. Jones, that Valley Oaks have been found with roots 18-20 feet deep.
@Midtown Mom – You are absolutely correct about Oaks. They are one of type of tree that has a taproot system. My apologies, I should have mentioned that. But for most trees upwards of 80 to 90% of their root systems are found within the top 2 to 3 feet of the soil.
Redwoods don’t have have a taproot, and have a very wide root spread, up to 50-80 feet, that provides stability, but also have roots that reach 12-15 feet deep.
I just looked up what kind of root system my American elm would have. It appears it is a shallow root system. Since our elm is close to our property corner, and since our neighbor in the back has stopped watering his backyard, I assume that our elm suffers from the decreased amount of watering.
I do not blame my neighbor for following suggested cuts in water usage. However, it does seem that less watering IS having an effect on our local trees and it is a shame. Tree provided shade cools shaded areas considerably. We are losing beautiful trees and we are also losing a way to keep our town cooler.
@Mizu
Half the redwoods at Palo Alto Sq are dead or dying. Yet the rest of the
landscaping seems OK, implying that regular, normal landscape watering is taking place.So what is causing the redwoods to die off? Seems to indicate
that the water table is dropping and that the redwood roots were deep
enough to tap into it, maybe 9-10 feet deep or maybe deeper. Any thoughts on this?
Dewatering can effect adjacent properties structurally due to subsidence and on landscaping due to even a temporary drawdown of the water table.
Seems to me that risk is an infringement on the neighbor’s property rights
right from the start.
@Mizu
According to the NOAA we got 98% of normal rainfall last winter (Mountain View-Moffett -http://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/awipsProducts/RNOWRKCLI.php) which is the highest percentage in the state.
The drought hurts so much not because of last winter, but because of several very dry years in a row (esp. winter of 2013-2014) and more because of a lack of snow cap in the Sierras. But that does not affect our local rainfall.
Public Service Announcements (PSAs)on the radio and the City of Palo Alto say that we have to water trees during the drought: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47832
I want to know how much water that ugly giant overbuilt hotel the previous City Council allowed to build many times the zoning will be using. I have saved all I can — I’d like to see the City offset that water use of all that development they approved, starting with the Councilmembers who approved it….
@Just Saying,
Thanks for the link. It’s quite a slap, though, to read that when the City Council decided not to buy the Maybell orchard when they had the ability to acquire it without competition after Measure D. There’s around 100 established trees, still alive, no watering, in a neighborhood that could use the additional open space and community space.
Dead lawn, stressed out/dying plants and I just barely
made the limit.
Why, because we already cut back, upgraded the drip system in previous years.
The water gods in Sacto have no clue what real folk have done (or not).
Clue: One size does NOT fit all. Households have people and things living there that have various needs that differ from house to house. Some folk upgraded their water using devices, while other still have the original 1950’s, high volume plumbing fixtures.
“Slow down”, “Mizu” and others named “misconceptions” and “aquifer” (another thread) wouldn’t by chance be a contractors / architects / or real estate agents benefiting from the construction of these basements which require removal of groundwater?
Seems suspicious.
It is amazing that anyone would support pumping groundwater to build a basement within a residential neighborhood with nearby trees and concrete foundations at risk of fracturing – especially during a severe and prolonged drought.
@Water Conserver
You nailed it. It’s a self-interest argument carried to a ridiculous
extreme. And the City of Palo Alto looks the other way. It’s business
as usual.
o I believe that many citizens of Palo Alto are truly doing their best to be careful with water.
o My hairdresser told me recently that she received a note from the City of Palo Alto commending her on her “careful” use of water and other utilities. However, she also told me that she is never home, hence the “careful” use, which she realizes is not reality.
o Finally, I would not be surprised if the citizens of Palo Alto will ultimately get an increase in their water bill, because the City cannot honor its contract with the supplier of our water.
o I have seen that before with Palo Alto’s garbage contractor.
o Nevertheless, let’s be good stewards of the gifts our earth provides us.
I think that those who think that showering at the gym or using paper plates, etc. to do their bit to save water is a false economy. The water gets used regardless of where it is used and filling our landfills with paper products is not a good idea either.
Basically showering less, using shampoo/conditioner rather than two separate products, washing hair less often, turning shower off while lathering hair and body, reusing towels, using a mug of water for teeth brushing and rinsing rather than the bathroom tap, doing larger laundry loads for whole family rather than each person doing their own small load, are much more likely to save water.
Allowing our lawns to dry is perhaps a false economy as grass and trees do a lot to keep the homes and yards cooler in summer.
I would like to know though why Foothill Park lake is not low as I expect they are keeping it full by supplying it with water. Keeping the grass green there makes sense as it provides grazing for deer which in turn keeps the deer and their predators, mountain lions, out of residential areas.
I too appreciate how much water conservation there is all over Palo Alto, I thank you as I see your browning drier lawns, which encourages me in my water thriftiness, Thanks Neighbors! 🙂
showering at the gym doesn’t save water–it just saves on YOUR water bill. the issue isn’t what you are saving on YOUR bill, it is the water YOU are saving everywhere.
Could the pumped water from the basements be placed barrels for future use watering trees or other plants?
@Water Conserver – Not me at least. I have no financial interest in this. I’m just someone who studied Water Resources and Hydrogeology when I was in school. I also did a small bit of research about the hydrogeology of this area at the USGS. Sorry if that disappoints you.
@more to this – I don’t know what is happening to the redwoods at PA Square but it certainly isn’t being caused by dewatering projects across town. I live about a five minute walk (downstream aqufier-wise) from PA Square and the water table is typically 15 to 17 feet deep here. At PA Square the water table should be at least that deep if not a bit deeper. In college I was taught that even large redwoods had roots that usually reach into the 6 to 8 feet deep range.
@Wim – Good information! It certainly surprised me when I read the NOAA data. I would not have bet on that, but I definitely have full faith in NOAA’s numbers. I will add that I found that Palo Alto’s 2015 year-to-date totals are now 2.43” of rainfall which is about 25% of the average YTD figure of 9.63” so it has been quite a bit drier since January 1, 2015.
Sorry it took me awhile to get back to both of you. Just had a bad weekend that stretched into this week.
Lots of percentages being thrown around, but how much water volume are we talking about? I found one chart on the Palo Alto utilities website labeled “Cumulative Water Use for 2015″, showing a total of 2,300,000 CCF through the first 28 weeks of the year. That’s about 356,000 CCF per month, or 5.8 CCF per resident per month.
If the average home/apartment/condo use is 1 CCF per person per month, then 83% of usage is non-residential. What is the real number? Can the utilities department give us the breakdown among parks, schools, restaurants, hotels, and other businesses?
How about something really demoralizing like telling us how many Palo Alto residences are billed for more than 50, 80 or 100 CCF per month? (Then we could start the guessing game of who they are.)
@musical – The 1 CCF per person per month figure seems a bit low. I couldn’t find it, but I recall recently reading that the average Palo Alto single family home uses somewhere in the neighborhood of 12-13 CCFs per month. Of course factoring in apartments and condos would definitely reduce that figure. For myself, I’ve never been able to get under 2 CCFs per month even during the winter months.
Thanks, Mizu. 1 CCF residential use probably is low, even with minimal landscaping. Unless working full time and using corporate facilities for much of one’s water needs. The comment above by bikeCommuter has 4 adults using 2-3 CCF. Everyone has a different situation, which makes fairness difficult to assess based on raw numbers. But I’m still curious what the averages are, and the balance between business, residential, and civic.
@musical – It would be interesting to see the breakdowns as you mention. I sure more than a few people would be surprised at those figures. I had missed bikeCommuter’s comment. For a family of four to use 2-3 CCFs is commendable.
Individuals often do unusual things to make things look skewed.
One family above says they shower at the gym. That does nothing to save water, just makes their own water consumption look better.
Another family I know of has grown up kids living locally who bring their laundry to parents’ home instead of Laundromat. Once again, that can skew that home’s water consumption.
Showers and laundry fluctuate. Even a family away on a week’s vacation will notice a huge difference in one month’s water consumption.
Some of this discussion is irrelevant.
I should have mentioned that most of the adults in our household have ALWAYS showered at the gym. When we do, we wet down, turn the water off, soap up, shampoo hair, turn water back on and rinse. The water is off longer than it is on, except on hair wash day for me ( I have long hair which takes longer to rinse). However, two days per week we take NO showers at all. The children are down to Sunday night baths only.
The point is, we co serve water like crazy in spite of having a household of seven people, and are rarely home during the week, except to eat and sleep. Yes, there is a lot of laundry, but the washer is a new water-efficient model, and we wait u til we have a huge load before washing clothing and bedding.
Still, we get nasty letters from PAUD saying that we use more water than our neighbors and need to reduce the amount. It simply cannot be reduced any more: we have had plumbers out four to es since February, because our water usage is too low to keep some of the drains and the sewer line clear. PAUD seems to keep getting their facts wrong, despite several corrections, on the size of our lot and the size of our family!
Back off–we have the same problem that you do–we have cut back on our water usage and we still get these letters telling us we are using too much water.
We even have gone so far as to go to the bathroom only when we are out of the house.
Our house is not that big and my son and DIL live with us with their children.
We also have modern appliances and have been conserving for years.
I do not know what to do
The Home Water Report that we receive from the City of Palo Alto compares our water usage to our “Average Neighbors”. By the very nature of this report, one-half of the households will use more water than the average. The city as a whole is doing great! The evidence is the 36% city-wide savings!
Back Off,
Have you tried calculating your actual water use and see if it matches the statement on your utility bill? Perhaps you have a leak somewhere.
Numbers Check: twice since 2012 we have had a PAUD employee come and check under the house for leaks. He found none. We replaced all of the plumbing and pipes in this house twice ( and the wiring once) since Y2K.
A lot of other people besides us are getting similar letters and believe they have been prefabricated.
The one person I know who got a congratulatory letter is actually living off a well in his back yard that he reopened in 2013.
Ducatigirl: That is disgusting! Just don’t flush unless you “deposit” something. EEEEEEEEWWWWWWW!
@Water Conserver:””Slow down”, “Mizu” and others named “misconceptions” and “aquifer” (another thread) wouldn’t by chance be a contractors / architects / or real estate agents benefiting from the construction of these basements which require removal of groundwater? “
Um,no. None of the above.
Ad Hominem attacks are the last resort of a failed argument.
The reality is that I studied the hydrology of San Francisquito creek out of concern about flooding. Plus a strong interest in low-water irrigation . I have a yard without lawn and only drip – I studied the plants and impacts and made this conversion years ago without any money from the city: it was just the right thing to do.
The argument we are having (repeatedly) about dewatering basements is one motivated by facts and correct use of data (Mizu, SlowDown, Me) on one side vs. emotion, conjecture, paranoia and fear-mongering on the other side.
I have seen little fact-based reasoning from your arguments, but now you are paranoid about me being a realtor? Really? Couldn’t be farther from the truth.
Conjecture , paranoia and speculation is no way to run a city and is certainly no way to manage a crisis as serious as this drought. Putting the focus on the wrong problems (basement construction) is a distraction from solving real problems; and is a serious infringement on personal rights .
It smacks of ‘burn the witch!’
I don’t know these people building basements, but I can see reasoned and logical arguments and come to their defense.
Let’s stop blaming the innocent, stop ad-hominem attacks on people who have made respectful reasoned arguments (Mizu has brought some impressive, professional data to this discussion) and focus instead on solutions our community can do.
Like put in no-lawn drip irrigation gardens, efficient appliances and other infrastructure that saves water over the long term.
Landscaping is the primary water hog of the burbs. Save your trees and flush your toilets but cut the outdoor watering. Our small lawn and garden is still alive on a 1X per week short watering, so they really don’t need much.
Save the trees, we need them for shade!
Plant drought tolerant trees in the fall
“The one person I know who got a congratulatory letter is actually living off a well in his back yard that he reopened in 2013.”
I have always received a congratulatory letter and I typically use 1CCF (sometimes 2) per month. This is in line with my own accounting of my water use.