Re: MGS/ Ran Pauker lecture in Berkeley

In a message dated 11/15/100 2:18:56 AM EST, davidfeix@yahoo.com writes:

<< Kurt, what type of lawns are these?  I would think
 that you could stretch out lawn irrigation to at least
 every 3/4 days in your area with the more drought
 tolerant grasses and deep watering to penetrate to 18
 inch depth.  Having to water every day would seem to
 indicate too shallow watering for your climate, as
 even in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, hybrid Bermuda grass
 could go 2 to 3 days between irrigation without
 looking too stressed, and we are talking 120F/50C at
 height of summer.  If you are only watering for 5 to
 10 minutes at a time and have loamy clay to clay
 soils, I could see the necessity for daily watering. >>

Hi, David.  My own lawn is blue grass.  We put it in as roll-out turf 15 
years ago.  Most turf grass lawns around here are either blue grass or blue 
grass/fescue mix.  Not the best choice for our area, I know, but "standard" 
nonetheless.  The soil here is a very heavy black clay known as 'Stockton 
adobe.'  When wet, it is almost impossible to work, and when dry, it's as 
hard as a rock and breaks with a glassy fracture!

I know bermuda grass is tough.  My in-laws used to live in the Imperial 
Valley (summer temps about like Riyadh, only with less rainfall!), and they 
flood-irrigated their bermuda grass lawn once a week.  It looked passable for 
a lawn in the desert, but it wouldn't win any awards.

Most people here have their lawns on automatic sprinkler systems.  I have 
sprinklers, but my own lawn areas are so small that I often just water them 
by hand.  I do skip days (sometimes even two or three days), but the 
appearance of the lawn suffers as a result.  With the advent of cooler temps 
and wetter weather, I water much less often.  In fact, I haven't watered my 
lawns for several weeks now.  It was the idea of once-a-month lawn irrigation 
during the hottest part of the summer that had me shaking my head in 
disbelief.

<<The loss of ground water has not been as great a
hazard for Valley Oaks, as habitat loss due to
development has probably been.  Rodent depredation and
 cattle grazing in fields with remnant populations has
also greatly reduced the growth of seedlings, so that
the populations tend to be all of one age, with now
young replacement trees coming along.>>

I agree, but ground water loss is definitely a factor.  An example can be 
seen at Oak Grove Regional Park here in Stockton.  Some twenty years ago, the 
park was set aside as a remnant of Valley Oak riparian woodland.  The 
beautiful old trees were large and closely spaced.  As part of the agreement 
that set aside the park, a local developer has been allowed to develop the 
area around the park right up to the park boundary.  In order to cover the 
maximum amount of earth with houses, he was allowed to divert the stream that 
formerly flowed near the park into another creek some distance upstream.  
During our last drought, nearly half of the majestic, centuries-old trees in 
the park died.  It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to figure out what 
happened.  Sure, there has been an aggressive re-planting program, but how 
many decades will pass before the park is even a shadow of its former glory?  
And without the groundwater, will it ever be able to sustain the groves it 
once did?

What were we talking about?
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index