Re: Sustainable Landscapes?

This is a long and complicated discussion but let me make a few points, then we can "discuss" more over time.
The issue of greywater is undergoing review and reconsideration at a statewide level. There is a big push to replace outdated regulations with newer, functional, and practical regulations that allow greywater use but it is going to take some time. For many years, a guy in Santa Barbara has been promoting and designing greywater systems. Check out www.oasisdesign.net . I've never met him but he has been doing it longer than anyone I am aware of.
The issue of irrigation is one of my favorite topics and one I discuss often. Robert Kourik has updated his drip irrigation book and I suggest you get a hold of a copy. It is called Drip Irrigation for Every Climate and Garden.
Regarding water heaters, we have an 1970 vintage solar water heating system from the first time the state was giving incentives for solar systems. It came with the house when we purchased it in the early 1990s. Except for a couple of hose pinhole leaks, we've had absolutely no problem with it (let me find some wood to knock on). When we moved in, the solar water was fed into a big old gas water heater so we had two boiling cauldrons of hot water at all times. We replaced the gas water heater with an on-demand that has needed some repair over the years but has supported us through two children from birth to now almost ready to fly the nest. 

I couldn't imagine living without an on-demand water heater
That said, we too have the "heater on one side, bathrooms on the other side" issue and it takes about 4 gallons for the hot water to reach our master bath. I collect it but not often enough (my husband hates sharing the stall with a white bucket). It would be fantastic to have a water heater at each sink/shower like they do in Europe.
When my parents built their home in the mid-1970s, they installed a circulating pump so that hot water was always just seconds away from the bathrooms. It also heats the slab so the floors stay warm.
None of these are new ideas, just ideas that were once considered to be luxuries and now strike us as necessities!
the idea of using your septic tank for a water cistern is one I find alarming! If you are going to dig out the old tank and install a clean, sanitized tank, that's one thing. but for heaven's sake, PLEASE don't use the same tank. That is a terrible idea and one I can't imagine you'd ever ever get a permit or permission to do from a health standpoint.
BTW, I personally like the fact that we are on septic. The fact that we can take care of our own "stuff" rather than contribute to the overall waste stream appeals to me greatly. Not everyone is in a position to do that, but ours works really well, and the plants that are situated above the leach field seem to appreciate the nutrients. 

Nan






On Jul 4, 2009, at 7:16 AM, Michael Vella wrote:


Thanks for suggesting a discussion or sustainable landscaping.
I use California native plants because I love them, but also because once established they are often drought tolerant. When I bought my house it had a much larger lawn area than it does now, and slowly I am replacing the lawn with borders and beds of California native plants. My garden is planned for the long term, so small trees will continue to grow while the sun loving bushes that do well beside them now, will eventually mature and die as the trees mature and overgrow them and shade those places. I hope to water less and less as the garden matures, the trees establish, the shade increases, etc.
I also looked into using grey water, wanting to partially re-plumb my house, but I have run into barriers of administrative sorts. Our county encourages water conservation but then when I tried to get going on using grey water I was discouraged from pursuing it.
One big one seems to be California's regulations on effluents and local health departments. I think, but I could be wrong. I was advised that such grey water could only be used in underground drip systems with no surface distribution, that kind of thing. I haven't abandoned the idea yet.
I have a septic tank currently, that eventually will be replaced with s sewer hookup, and I am hoping to use the septic as a cistern, leaving it in place, for rain water catch, and eventual garden irrigation. But doing this presents problems too.
Anyone with advice on the kind of irrigation system that might address grey water issues above, as well as be best for mediterranean plants in terms of aridity loving plants and sustainability, let's hear it.
I am redoing an old system right now, and trying to decide what sorts of dispersal I need and want. Maybe there's a way to set it up so I can use grey water AND nurture the long term garden plants.
[A thought I had the other day was regarding these big monster homes one sees going up in California to replace single story ranches and California bungalows (this in itself is a sorry state of affairs) where a second story bathroom has to run water for five minutes before hot water arrives. There should be regulations that if a bathroom is X number of feet (and once again I am especially thinking of these monster homes gobbling up the state I am native too) it must have point of use water heaters. My own modest house has a water heater at one end of the house, and bathrooms at the other end and each time I take a shower I have to run the water down the drain until warm water arrives. What a waste. (In France they have had chauffe-eau for decades and decades.) I am working on putting those small water heaters in each bathroom, to conserve both water and gas.] 


Thanks.

Michael

On Jul 4, 2009, at 12:02 AM, yarrow@sfo.com wrote:
I've been looking forward to a discussion of water and landscapes. Here are some random thoughts.
Graywater is one solution that lets you water your landscape. A huge problem no one addresses is that drinking water is used to flush toilets and do laundry. I read an essay once that suggested drinking water needs to be filtered a lot more than it is, and nonpotable water does not need all that treatment.
From ancient times, a garden was an oasis, so by definition it included a water feature and was lush and produced food. That's what I think about when I think about gardens, so I have trouble calling those arid stonescapes with scratchy plants a garden. Maybe an outdoor room, or (if it's native plants) a habitat.
Michael Reynolds's earthships in the New Mexico desert are fully self-sufficient in energy and water, and they include gardens and sun spaces. So there are ways to have water and lush gardens without piping in water from other places. A fairly recent documentary on his buildings made from mud, aluminum cans, glass bottles, and tires is entitled Garbage Warrior.
It's a matter of scale. Here in northern California, I live in a neighborhood where big houses are surrounded by lush lawns and water- hungry plants. People spend hundreds of dollars a month to keep it green. For the most part, the bigger the yard, the less it's used. And then we have a community garden that accommodates around 150 gardeners on the amount of land used by 2-6 of those big houses.
If you've ever had a food garden, you know how small a space can be incredibly productive. So if you're working within the piped-in- water paradigm, the area around the house can be the food garden oasis, and farther out you can have the habitat garden. That way, the plants are not merely decorative. 

Tanya
Sunset zone 17

At 7:47 AM -0700 6/26/09, Ben Wiswall wrote:
Hi All,
I'm hesitant to post this on the list-serve, as I'm afraid I will alienate many people I would rather not. Nonetheless, I've been mulling this topic over for some time, and would appreciate the dialogue.
At an MGS Meeting in San Diego, I heard an early proponent of ecological gardening lecture on sustainable landscaping. He gave a good test for a garden's sustainability: leave the garden alone for one year, then come back and see how it looks. Is it alive? Completely overgrown, or just needing a thorough clean-up?
I haven't tried this on my own garden, but I did see the experiment performed on a conventional southern California garden. A house in our neighborhood went into bank foreclosure in Autumn 2007: the sprinklers were shut off in November, and I monitored the garden over the following year. By August, the plants that still looked good in full sun were Brachychiton populneus, Leucophyllum, and Myoporum parvifolium. Sheltered by the house and garden walls, Ficus nitida, Duranta, and Pandorea pandorana looked presentable. Roses, Nandina, Pittosporum, Phormium, and Hemerocallis were all severely stressed by late summer, but revived with cooler Fall weather. A young Jacaranda, a Liquidambar, the Trachelospermum, and the lawn were all dead. (The house has since been sold, the lawn replaced and the sprinklers are back on.)
This got me thinking: what would happen to all of southern California if we all ignored our gardens for a year?
I suspect the result would be a brittle, tinder-dry urban forest; left alone, it would be fuel for devastating fires. 

We in southern California depend on water transported long distances.
I once consulted a contractor about building a cistern, and he gave me an informal quote of well over $20,000 US to build an underground cistern capable of holding a winter's worth of rain from our roof. This water would provide for less than five weeks of indoor water, OR about 15 cm PER YEAR in the garden. And we would still require distant water.
So what is sustainable? If sustainable means self-sufficient, we aren't: southern California cannot support its nearly 20 million inhabitants without importing most of its water.
Of the water used in the state, 77% goes to agriculture, 3% goes to public works, 10% is used industry and commerce, and 10% is used in residences. Of that 10%, about half, or 5% of the total, is used in home landscaping.
Water, like all natural resources, should be used prudently, with consideration both for protecting rare species and for the larger sphere of life we all inhabit. It is likely that water will become scarcer in the near future. Still, if every homeowner in the state were to replace their lawns (and bananas, avocadoes, azaleas and impatiens) with myoporum or gazania, we might save 2% of all the water used in the state. I don't much care for lawns, but should I care so much for saving so little water? Especially as a 10% reduction in agricultural water use would yield a far greater savings than ALL the water currently used in residential gardens.
In regions on the cooler, moister side of the mediterranean spectrum, dry gardening is more popular: at the hotter, drier end of the spectrum gardens tend to be a celebration of water. Living at the drier end of the spectrum, I try to like dry gardens, but find they leave me thirsty and unsatisfied beneath the blazing sun of inland southern California. I would also feel unsafe against wildfires in a garden that wasn't irrigated at least 3 times a month.
So what to do? I have a need for a certain amount of moisture in a garden, enough to make me comfortable in the heat of summer and to feel safer against wildfires, yet I don't want to waste a precious resource. But even a semi-dry garden requires far more water than can be provided for locally. 

Any thoughts?

Ben Armentrout-Wiswall
Simi Valley, Inland Ventura County, Southern California
PS It can be a nuisance to get there, but I have a corollary photo set on flickr.com titled Notes on the Urban Forest. The photos are all captioned, but it works best as a slide show: 

www.flickr.com/photos/27474976@N07/sets
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index