Water Managers Don’t be Fooled
Response to Perspectives by Amy Vickers article “New Directions in Lawn and Landscape Water Conservation”

It has been and up and down week for water, especially irrigation related water. Why? As a Professional Water Efficiency Consultant who has been preaching for the past 16 years for irrigators to strive to become professional through industry offered training and as the saying goes “make every drop count,” I thought the industry was finally starting to make some headway. The EPA will soon announce a Water Efficiency Program recognizing irrigation certification training and in turn letting the public know on a nation wide basis that there actually are professional irrigation folks out their that do care about saving water, a very limited precious natural resource.

But then BOOM! Out comes Amy Vickers article “New Directions in Lawn and Landscape Water Conservation” outright condemning the irrigation industry, those involved in it and those who use water to keep their landscape healthy. Why? Why such a turn around in 5 years since her excellent book on Water Conservation where her harshest words are to mention that as the housing industry prosperous and younger families can now afford to buy starter homes irrigation systems are being installed because these folks need to work two jobs to make ends meet and do not have time to water their landscape – “properly” and I emphasis properly. Hose end watering is no where near as efficient as a professionally designed installed and maintained irrigation system utilizing water efficient product and industry professionals soon to be recognized by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. If we are good enough for them to put our stamp of approval on us, why not for Amy?

Ouch, this one hurts and this one is personal! Since when can someone come along and voice their opinion and not back it up with facts? Where are the facts? Let’s look at the article and see exactly what is being said and I will then hopefully clarify what is really going on, from a neutral factual position not one of outright condemnation of an industry that is efficient but not by all practitioners – what industry is?

Just the Facts Please

As Amy stated in her award winning book which by the way was requested to be sold on the Irrigation Association (IA) in their website book store so it could be promoted to irrigators, the housing marketing is growing and therefore more irrigation systems are being sold. Correct. In this perspectives article of Amy’s she goes on to state that the “US population now at 300 million and projected to exceed 400 million by 2050, is it realistic to expect that such extraordinary levels of landscape water demands can or should be continued to be accommodated as water costs climb and supplies tighten?”

Water costs are not high enough. This is why we continue to see water wasted and not only through irrigation systems used to water landscape turf. The water supplied by cities to their customers from what I have been able to learn, in most cases does not recover costs and for most works at a break even point. If we were to charge for delivered water what it should cost, then folks would use all water, not just outdoor water more conservatively. Does this solve the problem? Water suppliers need to sell water – that’s their business. Luckily with a booming housing market the demand will continue and so will revenues.

She goes on to condemn the “water-rich” New England area by stating “is becoming beguiled by the ever-green product promises of the lawn irrigation industry despite more than 40 inches of annual precipitation and several months of snow cover that make mowing difficult.” Oh, where to begin? Firstly the irrigation industry does not only water lawns. In fact without irrigation the food on our tables might not be their without irrigation. Irrigation has been around for centuries and has proven to allow human kind to become stable instead of a nomadic in search of food. Uncovering Pompeii, stone irrigation systems were evident – used domestically for centre court gardens water features and for food production. Irrigation is not new.

5,000 BCE Irrigation begins in the Middle East. [Heiser 1990] 1000 BCE Irrigation begins in Mexico. [Heiser 1990] (BCE = Before the Common Era, or Before the Roman Era)

Larry W. Mayes in his writing on Irrigation in Egypt and Mesopotamia notes that the start of irrigation seems to be when efforts were made to control the flow of water in Mesopotamia and Egypt, where the remains of the prehistoric irrigation works still exist. http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Hy-La/Irrigation-Systems-Ancient.html

Furthermore, the article “Future Climates of the New England Region” by George Hurtt and Steve Hale demonstrates that New England does in fact experience droughts from time to time.

Annual Precipitation
Historically, annual precipitation in the New England region has varied widely and has included times of drought (Figure 4.4).
Note the prolonged drought that characterized the mid-1960s. Embedded within this range of variability, lies a long-term trend
(i.e. 100 years) of a modest (4%) increase in precipitation. The Hadley model predicts a continuing increase in precipitation (an approximate 30% increase) without evidence of the type of drought seen in the 1960s. The Canadian model suggests little long-term increase in precipitation (an overall increase of approximately 10%), but large fluctuations in precipitation with
events similar to the drought of the 1960s. http://www.necci.sr.unh.edu/necci-report/NERAch4.pdf

Modern day irrigation systems are outfitted with rain or moisture sensing equipment that will not allow an irrigation system to turn on once sufficiently moistened by a wet weather occurrence. This will certainly take care of the rainy days experience in the New England region and all other regions throughout the nation that experience what I tem timely rain. We would love to have timely rain occur on a scheduled basis determine by the plants water needs. Mother Nature does not go for this very often so – we have irrigation systems to efficiently apply the much required liquid of life that without the plants will not survive without in most cases, especially as the trend continues to mix non-native and native plants within the same hydrozone – an impossible task for us professional irrigators but we do the best we can.
“Several months of snow cover that make mowing difficult.” Now we all know that this is not done so why say it? Maybe this kind of statement is also implied about irrigation?

The perspectives goes on to state “8 bil gal of water a day are devoted to lawn and landscape irrigation.” There is no indication where this information is coming from. I would love to know the source and how they have determined this number. Besides, good irrigators do not water every day as our rule is infrequent and deep, just deeper than the plants root zone by about 1 inch to promote healthy plant development. Plants hate to be drowned by over watering which can occur due to a natural watering occurrence or hopefully not but incorrect scheduling of the irrigation system by non-professional irrigators, a problem every industry has but at least we are doing something about it. It takes time to change the habits of people, but at least we are working on it and on a very large scale now with the assistance of the USEPA. After all, Rome wasn’t built in a day and our irrigation woes won’t be fixed that quickly either.

Next, as Amy states, “confronted with an aggressive industry that spends billions annually to advertise water-guzzling landscape products, (both the Irrigation Industry and the Water Features Industry is referred to here), what conservation program budget can compete and redirect the public’s attention to the pressing need to scale down outdoor use?” She goes on to say that “none can and water managers and officials need to do something to plug the widening drain from irrigation excesses.”

It is hard for me to quote her on this stuff because it is so wrong that it hurts. I can only surmise on behalf of the Irrigation industry but, since my involvement over the past 17 years, which have been very interesting dealing a lot with water issues, almost all the manufacturers have made a concerted effort to build efficiency into their entire products lines. They spend their advertising dollars, and I am certain not anywhere near the tune of billions – mainly because our entire industries sales are probably not anywhere near that amount. We have established SWAT – Smart Water Application Technology that looks at the most efficient methods for irrigation watering to occur when required. In fact, irrigation systems are so sophisticated now, within the last few years, which is actually old due to the fact that it seems every 6 months a new product or device is engineered and introduced to the market place, that we can control systems from anywhere in the world through the internet and other communication means.

A Positive Approach

A positive approach to New England’s unsubstantiated irrigation problems would be to have the state fund an ET (evapotranspiration) weather station system similar to CIMIS (California Irrigation Management Information System.)

“The California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) is a program in the Office of Water Use Efficiency (OWUE), California Department of Water Resources (DWR) that manages a network of over 120 automated weather stations in the state of California. CIMIS was developed in 1982 by the California Department of Water Resource and the University of California at Davis to assist California’s irrigators manage their water resources efficiently. Efficient use of water resources benefits Californians by saving water, energy, and money. “
http://wwwcimis.water.ca.gov/cimis/welcome.jsp

Residential SMART controllers have been available for the past few years to the homeowners who have been identified as the largest users of outdoor water, something we state as well, to automatically have the irrigation reschedule the application frequency and runtime to “Water with the weather- not by time” as ids the case for almost all other forms of controllers. It’s new and it’s exciting and it has proven itself well in the California marketplace to the extent that I am told by 2010 all irrigation controllers will be required to be self adjusting to the locations measured ET rate. This again is something that New England state could adopt.
http://www.irrigation.org/gov/default.aspx?pg=swat_intro.htm&id=105

Not only does the Irrigation Industry not spend money pushing inefficient watering devices that can easily be left on, do not apply and even covering, do not apply the right amount of water at the right time and many other inefficiencies, we do spend money promoting the efficient use of water at all times. Note the “July smart irrigation month” thrust from the Irrigation Association (IA) that is already taking place, well before this article appeared.

Water features have also been in existence since ancient times as depicted here in this photo from Pompeii of “The House of Vetii” water feature full centre courtyard still intact today. So “now appearing on our landscape horizon” is inaccurate as theses features have always been in existence. The growth in folks investing in landscapes so they could recreate their home properties to resemble a cottage like setting and stay at home rather than travel began in the early 80’s if not earlier.

The “Snoopy only lands on Toxic-Free Lawns” cartoon says nothing about water. The wording off to the side has been added to say “Natural lawns with minimal or no irrigation save water” is not related to what Snoopy is saying. After all, if we did not water the lawn and it was as hard as a rock as it can get to be, Snoopy would have a bad landing and bounce his way right out of the children’s yard. There is a new lawn seed just being introduced into the marketplace called Ecolawn which is said to require less water. It still needs water to establish itself. Hopefully in the future folks will convert over to some type of lawn that is les thirsty so that we can get lawns off of the required watering schedules needed in some parts of the country at certain times of the year. The carton explanatory wording goes on to note that “nearly 70 Canadian municipalities now ban lawn and garden chemicals. They have not banned watering to try to maintain a healthy lawn while combating the weed epidemic that is now taking place throughout many of those municipalities evidenced here by the photo of my neighbors’ front yard and boulevard in Toronto.

So what can be done?

Recommendation 1: Limit the number of watering days per week – or month.

Ok, if this is the way we have to go to handle a drought situation so be it. But it is not the best method. We need to look at the whole picture like some communities have done. They look from the ground or in this case the soil up. Soil amendment, plant type, climatic conditions, size, and use are all considered - the plants environment where they are to live. Will the plants home be a friendly one or a hostile one? A friendly one takes very little water to allow the plant to survive – sun/shade loamy soil location. A good irrigator if asked for input will offer this kind of advice, but we are not asked and the plants go where the color scheme dictates not the plant species health requirements.

Those of us who strive to make every drop count, which there are finally becoming more and more of us, water based on ET.

How much water left the soils surface through evaporation and was used, transpired by the plant to keep cool and to carry life sustaining nutrients. We know how big our glass is, or how much water in inches we have to loose before the plants will experience a big problem known as PWP or permanent wilting point. We water on a “Just in Time” basis similar to how the big box stores manage their inventory. Our inventory is our plants water reservoir or supply. Now let’s restrict the number of days we can water. Ok, let’s not deliver to a big box store for 6 days. The plants now run out of water. The result – water savings – at what cost? The plants life! There are better methods and a consultation with some of the leading edge irrigators throughout the nation and other parts of the world would be a good place to start. Let’s all get together and work out a good response to water shortages – one that works – not one that kills.

Recommendation 2: Reduce area allowed for irrigation.

California has been successful in restricting the area of a front lawn and not allowing a back lawn in housing developments In the southern part of the state. It works! Why? If we have less landscape to irrigate less water will be required to keep the plants alive. We are all for this and hope to see the trend continue in the hot dry states where this type of positive approach to landscape management, not irrigation mismanagement is required.

“The proliferation of overbuilt irrigation systems onto America’s home landscape is resulting in a burgeoning water deficit coast to coast” states Amy.

Irrigators do not design home landscapes or any landscape project. These are designed by landscape designers. We irrigators are taxed with the task of keeping the plants alive or in some cases paying for their replacement. The main reason for over taxed water supplies is population growth where there is not enough water, naturally to sustain this size of population. This is evidenced in Sandra Postels excellent book “Pillar of Sand” http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393319377/103-1122647-0731821?v=glance&n=283155, and other books written about the greening of the deserts and how this type of growth in the long run is not sustainable.

Recommendation 3: Upgrade Xerigation Principles

A question is posed that “is Xeriscape’s 25 year old approach still fully relevant to remedy today’s culture of landscape water abuse?” Also, we are to consider the progress made with toilets I n the last few years.

This I can speak on because I have been part of a water efficiency committee for the CWWA discussing just this approach to making toilets more efficient. First, toilets were identified as the heaviest water users in a home. If water was to be saved then toilets needed to stop being so thirsty. They have worked extremely hard and fast to reduce the water consumptive use of toilets from their heavy drinking days of 5 to 7 gpf (gallons per flush) as is stated in the perspective. Why has this occurred so quickly? Because government got behind this issue similar to what the EPA is now doing with their water efficient program with a direct focus on irrigation products and irrigation certification programs. Toilets now can use as little as 1.6 gpf as long as they have been designed correctly to carry the waste away and for a certain distance with this reduced flush volume.

Can we do the same with irrigation emission devices? Yes, and we already have done so. We have products that will operate utilizing as little as .5gph (gallons per hour). Will this little bit of water be enough for the plant to survive. This depends on the plant type and many other factors that are not in the irrigators control. This takes a joint effort from the Designer, and Maintenance Company as well as the Home Builders so that the plant has an appropriate place to live. We, irrigators can only do so much and believe me we are trying hard and we always have water efficiency on our minds.

The comment about 120, 000 gal/year for a lawn in a desert area is about the best irrigation efficiency that can be achieved has nothing to do with irrigation efficiency. As I have stated, if the plant is put into a hostile environment it will require excessive watering to keep it alive, let alone healthy. I am all for not installing lawns where they are not needed, do not kelp them manicured if they do not need to be – let their be some natural areas throughout properties as long as they fit the location. In California when the wild fires spread out of control it has been document that homes have been spared the fires wrath because of a healthy non dried out landscape.

Recommendation 4: Stop the escalating lawn chemical-watering cycle.

This section discusses the use of pesticides – I think it should be herbicides, on lawns. Other than the recommended watering in of the chemical after application this is not relevant to irrigation issues. I whole heartedly agree that the use of chemicals for beautification is not great for the environment. However in some instances there is no other way to achi3eve the end result. This said, then the end result needs to be rethought out. These chemical applications if they are going to continue can wait for a timely rain or a required irrigation cycle dictated by the plants water use characteristics and the locations weather. Being from Canada – eh, I am fully aware and involved through our landscape association, as a water efficiency expert and as a resident homeowner in Toronto.

Recommendation 5: Promote natural lawns and landscape: Irrigate by rain only.

I wish we could only water by timely effective rainfall. Note the wording, timely, based upon the plants varied watering requirements due to the plants stage of growth which is forever changing the water requirements which is why we have so many ways to schedule an irrigation event. We have state-of-the-art automatically updated controllers that have schedules upgraded based on the information that we input into a controller and the actual weather information sent via phone, radio, cell phone, internet, either net and other means to the controller. Did you know we spend about 90 minutes inputting site specific information into the new ET controllers being installed in residential and some commercial applications? We have to know about the soil, plant type, sun, shade, slope, irrigation system precipitation rate (PR) and a lot more to input a good schedule. We are like a designer, plumber, electrician, agronomist, horticulturalist, builder, landscaper and grounds maintenance person all rolled up into a nice neat package called a Professional Irrigator.

Speaking as a past board member of the Irrigation Association, most irrigators are on the band wagon promoting water efficiency. We are now being given a huge opportunity to get our message out loud and clear about being even more efficient with how we sue water. As you will have noted reading this article, we are not the only player that dictates how much water a landscape requires. We can not do this alone and welcome those who would like to assist us and the green industry as a whole in “Making every drop count”, by forming a coalition of experts dedicated to dealing with these problems that Amy has so clearly stated and that I have commented upon.

The talk of “taking bold new steps to strengthen rules that limit outdoor water use, scale back the size of irrigation systems, stop the vicious cycle of lawn water and chemical use, and set new landscape design standards” is very bold indeed. It goes on to say “we will not only fix a badly broken system – we will also affirm nature

We have been taking bold steps easily for the past 10 years and beyond with some very impressive developments recently. Limiting outdoor water use is good, but let’s be realistic how we approach this. The IA has developed a brochure for handling droughts in a progressive manner, not an ambush method. Irrigators, as stated earlier, are taxed with watering what is designed. If the designer goes with native plants that only require water for their establishment or grow in period then great – we will design a system to meet this requirement. Many systems now a day and from ancient time utilize collected water. We do not need to use treated water delivered by the cities – this will certainly help. Why not utilize what Mother Nature delivers through rain water harvesting and storage into cisterns or rain water collection system. How about that treated sewer water (tertiary water)? Why don’t we utilize irrigation systems to spread it around in a controlled method so that it can slowly infiltrate into the soil, watering the plants, cleaning it as it travels deeper replenishing ground water supplies so that it is a continuous cycle. Would this not be more progressive than take fresh water, treating it, using it once and then sending it off somewhere where it does not return – like the ocean, and becomes a loss of water rather than water that will be able to remain to be utilized again and again? This is not just an irrigation problem! This is a life style one and we irrigators are willing, able and ready to help be the solution not part of the so-called cause.

Credit:
Lorne Haveruk, CID, CIC, CLIA, WCP, a certified irrigation designer, certified auditor, certified contractor and a water efficiency consultant principal of DH Water Management Services Inc., a water management, training, business startup and consulting firm. They specializes in teaching others the fundamentals of irrigation, designing water efficient systems, and facilitating central control system implementation for clients throughout North America and Europe. To view more of our product, forms, articles and training opportunities go to www.DHWatermgmt.com. Contact the author directly here.