The Water Efficiency Blogs

While I applaud the EPA's efforts to move in this direction, $200/yr. in water savings is not a significant inducement to attract me to a WaterSense home. We can do better. This is especially true when you look at the excellent, water-efficient irrigation components that are out there and the attractive low water use plant varieties that are available on the market today. Granted, many of these irrigation components and plants do not find their way to the big box stores where they will be widely used---but they should be. They are out there. Moreover, they would be more available to the average homeowner if the new home market led the paradigm shift towards these products. Some home builders in my community are beginning to effect this change. I think EPA can do better to raise the bar. When I see $500+/yr. water savings, then (as a consumer) I'll take more notice. Landscapes these days CAN be more water efficient and attractive without becoming a rock and cactus garden (no offense to those that love cacti).

When the price paid for water equals the actual cost, this EPA move will look better. Landscape water in some regions a luxury that borders on waste. Private property rights need to be equal to property responsibilities! Potable water need never be used on lawns! with or with out cost figures. I am a water auditor and I have never seen a landscape spray system over 50% efficient using DULQ method. More needs to be done enforcing water loss too, here I am referring to cities, and everyone! Greg Chick DBA Ramona's Plumber

The WaterSense program, still in its infancy, is a decent start, if not a very courageous one. I agree with Kristi that we need to reach high. I think, for instance,the Calif. Model Lands.Ordin. is truly reaching. CA legislators showed the courage to enact it in spite of special interest's opposition, Obviously, real promises have yet to be delivered. Independent consultants can help un-muddle the equipment and long-term management practices decisions property owners and corporations need to make SOON, during DESIGN. Then I believe the move forward should be predicated upon measured beneficial water and embedded energy use (read: scientific and economic resource utilization as measured and verified, near or within stated budgets). Finally, the only thing to do is reward those (read: more propertry managers entering into performance contracts; emergence of an actual market for these advanced horticultural services) with the demonstated skills and abilities to help Owners and corporate Boards of Directors develop the landscape (and/or crop) QUALITY, at targeted, socially responsible resource use efficiency levels, befitting our capitalist society. But, not to be remiss, nitrogen and phosporus management, along with soil organic matter content improvment, & soil water and air balance all go hand-in-hand. These advisors inform Managers, for a fee, as a professional. They only have their time to sell. Then, expect realistic nods to plant and wildlife communities, preservation and restoration of natural systems air and water quality, and hope among future generations of mankind.

It's true about landscaping as a luxury - in my community higher water rates do nothing to deter millionaires from blanketing their properties with lush green lawns...in the middle of an arid, desert environment.

Are there any hard numbers on the effectiveness of rebate programs for low flow fixtures?