[Vision2020] Water Conservation

[French]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C43D8D.43DF3080
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I have been asked to forward the following message.

Dianne

----- Original Message -----=20
From: Bill French=20
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 10:35 AM
Subject: Water Conservation


May 19, 2004

Council, Mayor, City Supervisor, City Staff:

It was with utter disgust that I watched the discussion and adoption of =
Ordinance/Resolution 2004 on the public access channel Monday evening. =
While the original ordinance had shortcomings, at least it had something =
to do with water conservation. While the original draft prohibited =
watering pavement, washing "impervious outdoor ground covering", and =
irrigating outside of the watering season, the Ordinance as passed only =
prohibits daytime irrigation during the watering season. Effectively, =
all wasting of water related to irrigation must take place between the =
hours of 6:00pm and 10:00am. All other forms of wasting, such as hosing =
sidewalks, can still occur at any time. And if someone, like Joann Mack, =
wants to water their lawn in December, they still can.

The Resolution (and I'm baffled why you drafted and passed a separate =
Ordinance and Resolution) stipulates that "Every water user shall be =
required to keep sprinklers, faucets, valves, hoses and all apparatuses =
connected to the City water system in good condition . . . When it shall =
be found that any water fixture on the user's premises is broken or not =
in a serviceable condition and such condition results in the waste of a =
significant amount of water . . . such user shall be charged and shall =
pay the following surcharges . . ." I defy any of you to describe to me =
any real life situation where this regulation might reasonably be =
applied.=20

Has anyone attempted to estimate how much water we can expect to save =
with either of these actions? Has anyone researched to determine what =
other communities have adopted these ordinances and what results they =
achieved? Any time we have recommended conservation measures to the city =
we've been asked these questions. Why hasn't the author of the adopted =
measures been held to the same requirement?

The city tried daylight watering restrictions last year and the results =
were laughable. The city pumped a record amount of water last year, and =
I defy anyone to demonstrate that the daylight restriction saved even =
one drop of water. Supervisor Reidner seems infatuated with the daylight =
watering restriction, perhaps because it has no effect on those affluent =
enough to have an automated sprinkler system. All those people are =
required to do is reprogram their system to run between 6:00pm and =
10:00am. Those watering with a hose and sprinkler are just as likely to =
fall asleep while their hose is running and water all night, thereby =
using much more water than if they were allowed to water during daylight =
hours.

The daytime watering restriction also assumes that people base their =
watering decisions on the needs of their landscaping. Nothing could be =
further from the truth. Whatever impulse prods people to water, the =
actual needs of their plants seldom factor in. While watering in the =
early morning hours is usually (but not always) most efficient, few =
individuals will water less just because more of the water they apply is =
actually reaching the ground and soaking in.=20

If you want to define wasteful watering, how about including any =
watering that occurs prior to the onset of the hot, dry summer months? =
Last weekend I did some transplanting in my yard, but it was nearly =
impossible because the soil was much too wet for digging and working. =
Added to that, we've had a significant amount of precipitation in the =
last week (and are forecast to have at least another week's worth of =
cool, rainy conditions). But during the council meeting Monday night, I =
had a neighbor across the street operating their sprinkler system (on a =
well-established lawn that shouldn't need watering until June or July). =
They probably wasted more water in that one watering than your =
Ordinance/Resolution will save in an entire year! (They watered again =
last night and will continue to do so daily until late October. Any =
serious water conservation ordinance would target big wasters like =
these.)

Of greatest disgust were Jack Hill's vehement protestations against the =
"wrong-headed tone" of any kind water conservation ordinance. In Jack's =
perfect world, everyone would have the common sense to do the right =
thing all the time. In the rare event that someone slipped, passive =
education would fill the gap to make sure it didn't happen again. I =
don't know what planet Jack is from, but I'm sure there aren't any "E's" =
in the name. If people functioned the way Jack would have us believe, we =
wouldn't need any laws at all. People would always do the right thing =
because of their innate good sense and commitment to the common good. =
But as most of the rest of us know, people can't be counted on to behave =
this way. That's why we do have laws, and penalties for those who break =
the laws. We all abhor the thought of a child rapist. Why do we not also =
abhor the rape of a resource, the depletion of which will most =
significantly affect our children? Different forms, but child rape all =
the same. There are superficial family values and there are deep family =
values. Those of us with deep family values care about things like =
resource depletion. But then, Jack Hill is so uninformed on the subject =
of water that he doesn't even know where our water comes from. He was so =
adamant that most of our water comes from the shallow aquifer that he =
actually argued with the public works director when informed to the =
contrary. Jack - I'd be very interested to see those documents you have =
at home proving that our water comes mostly from the shallow aquifer. =
They're probably on the shelf next to the book proving that aliens built =
the pyramids.

But the new religion in this country seems to be "over-consumption" (of =
food, fossil fuels, and any other resource that can be mined and =
subsidized below its true cost) - the new opiate of the masses, along =
with "reality" TV. Most people don't seem to be able to look outside, =
see that it's raining, and make the decision that they don't need to be =
watering their lawn. But as long as water is essentially free, why =
should they? And as long as we have Jack Hills proclaiming the common =
sense of these disconnected imbeciles, who will really care?

All in all, the Resolution and Ordinance adopted by the city council =
Monday evening are a lie. They claim to:

  a.. Recognize that the Grand Ronde aquifer that supplies most of =
Moscow's water is declining;=20
  b.. Recognize the need to conserve water as a precious resource;=20
  c.. Desire to highlight the importance of conserving water resources;=20
  d.. Believe that appropriate regulation of outdoor irrigation will =
result in water conservation;=20
  e.. Believe that regulation of outdoor irrigation as provided herein =
is a reasonable measure which will not unduly interfere with the =
practices of Moscow citizens.
But then they do nothing to actually promote these principles. A classic =
case of seeming to do something while actually doing nothing. It would =
have been much more honest, and efficient, for the city to just do =
nothing.

Apparently, the city of Moscow believes in water conservation. It just =
doesn't believe in asking people to use less water.

Bill French

202 E. 7th



------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C43D8D.43DF3080
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I have been asked to forward the =
following=20
message.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Dianne</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----=20
<DIV style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A=20
title=3Dprairiedoc@moscow.com href=3D"mailto:prairiedoc@moscow.com">Bill =
French</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, May 19, 2004 10:35 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Water Conservation</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2>
<P>May 19, 2004</P>
<P>Council, Mayor, City Supervisor, City Staff:</P>
<P>It was with utter disgust that I watched the discussion and adoption =
of=20
Ordinance/Resolution 2004 on the public access channel Monday evening. =
While the=20
original ordinance had shortcomings, at least it had <I>something </I>to =
do with=20
water conservation. While the original draft prohibited watering =
pavement,=20
washing "impervious outdoor ground covering", and irrigating outside of =
the=20
watering season, the Ordinance as passed only prohibits daytime =
irrigation=20
during the watering season. Effectively, all wasting of water related to =

irrigation must take place between the hours of 6:00pm and 10:00am. All =
other=20
forms of wasting, such as hosing sidewalks, can still occur at any time. =
And if=20
someone, like Joann Mack, wants to water their lawn in December, they =
still=20
can.</P>
<P>The Resolution (and I=92m baffled why you drafted and passed a =
separate=20
Ordinance and Resolution) stipulates that "Every water user shall be =
required to=20
keep sprinklers, faucets, valves, hoses and all apparatuses connected to =
the=20
City water system in good condition . . . When it shall be found that =
any water=20
fixture on the user=92s premises is broken or not in a serviceable =
condition and=20
such condition results in the waste of a significant amount of water . . =
. such=20
user shall be charged and shall pay the following surcharges . . ." I =
defy=20
<I>any </I>of you to describe to me <I>any</I> real life situation where =
this=20
regulation might reasonably be applied. </P>
<P>Has anyone attempted to estimate how much water we can expect to save =
with=20
either of these actions? Has anyone researched to determine what other=20
communities have adopted these ordinances and what results they =
achieved? Any=20
time <I>we</I> have recommended conservation measures to the city =
we=92ve been=20
asked these questions. Why hasn=92t the author of the adopted measures =
been held=20
to the same requirement?</P>
<P>The city tried daylight watering restrictions last year and the =
results were=20
laughable. The city pumped a record amount of water last year, and I =
defy anyone=20
to demonstrate that the daylight restriction saved even one drop of =
water.=20
Supervisor Reidner seems infatuated with the daylight watering =
restriction,=20
perhaps because it has no effect on those affluent enough to have an =
automated=20
sprinkler system. All those people are required to do is reprogram their =
system=20
to run between 6:00pm and 10:00am. Those watering with a hose and =
sprinkler are=20
just as likely to fall asleep while their hose is running and water all =
night,=20
thereby using much more water than if they were allowed to water during =
daylight=20
hours.</P>
<P>The daytime watering restriction also assumes that people base their =
watering=20
decisions on the needs of their landscaping. Nothing could be further =
from the=20
truth. Whatever impulse prods people to water, the actual needs of their =
plants=20
seldom factor in. While watering in the early morning hours is usually =
(but not=20
always) most efficient, few individuals will water less just because =
more of the=20
water they apply is actually reaching the ground and soaking in. </P>
<P>If you want to define wasteful watering, how about including any =
watering=20
that occurs prior to the onset of the hot, dry summer months? Last =
weekend I did=20
some transplanting in my yard, but it was nearly impossible because the =
soil was=20
much too wet for digging and working. Added to that, we=92ve had a =
significant=20
amount of precipitation in the last week (and are forecast to have at =
least=20
another week=92s worth of cool, rainy conditions). But during the =
council meeting=20
Monday night, I had a neighbor across the street operating their =
sprinkler=20
system (on a well-established lawn that shouldn=92t need watering until =
June or=20
July). They probably wasted more water in that one watering than your=20
Ordinance/Resolution will save in an entire year! (They watered again =
last night=20
and will continue to do so daily until late October. Any <I>serious =
</I>water=20
conservation ordinance would target <I>big </I>wasters like these.)</P>
<P>Of greatest disgust were Jack Hill=92s vehement protestations against =
the=20
"wrong-headed tone" of any kind water conservation ordinance. In =
Jack=92s perfect=20
world, everyone would have the common sense to do the right thing all =
the time.=20
In the rare event that someone slipped, passive education would fill the =
gap to=20
make sure it didn=92t happen again. I don=92t know what planet Jack is =
from, but I=92m=20
sure there aren=92t any "E=92s" in the name. If people functioned the =
way Jack would=20
have us believe, we wouldn=92t need any laws at all. People would always =
do the=20
right thing because of their innate good sense and commitment to the =
common=20
good. But as most of the rest of us know, people can=92t be counted on =
to behave=20
this way. That=92s why we <I>do </I>have laws, and penalties for those =
who break=20
the laws. We all abhor the thought of a child rapist. Why do we not also =
abhor=20
the rape of a resource, the depletion of which will most significantly =
affect=20
our children? Different forms, but child rape all the same. There are=20
superficial family values and there are deep family values. Those of us =
with=20
deep family values care about things like resource depletion. But then, =
Jack=20
Hill is so uninformed on the subject of water that he doesn=92t even =
know where=20
our water comes from. He was so adamant that most of our water comes =
from the=20
shallow aquifer that he actually argued with the public works director =
when=20
informed to the contrary. Jack =96 I=92d be very interested to see those =
documents=20
you have at home proving that our water comes mostly from the shallow =
aquifer.=20
They=92re probably on the shelf next to the book proving that aliens =
built the=20
pyramids.</P>
<P>But the new religion in this country seems to be "over-consumption" =
(of food,=20
fossil fuels, and any other resource that can be mined and subsidized =
below its=20
true cost) =96 the new opiate of the masses, along with "reality" TV. =
Most people=20
don=92t seem to be able to look outside, see that it=92s raining, and =
make the=20
decision that they don=92t need to be watering their lawn. But as long =
as water is=20
essentially free, why should they? And as long as we have Jack Hills =
proclaiming=20
the common sense of these disconnected imbeciles, who will really =
care?</P>
<P>All in all, the Resolution and Ordinance adopted by the city council =
Monday=20
evening are a lie. They claim to:</P>
<UL>
  <LI>Recognize that the Grand Ronde aquifer that supplies most of =
Moscow=92s=20
  water is declining;=20
  <LI>Recognize the need to conserve water as a precious resource;=20
  <LI>Desire to highlight the importance of conserving water resources;=20
  <LI>Believe that appropriate regulation of outdoor irrigation will =
result in=20
  water conservation;=20
  <LI>Believe that regulation of outdoor irrigation as provided herein =
is a=20
  reasonable measure which will not unduly interfere with the practices =
of=20
  Moscow citizens.</LI></UL>
<P>But then they do nothing to actually promote these principles. A =
classic case=20
of seeming to do something while actually doing nothing. It would have =
been much=20
more honest, and efficient, for the city to just do nothing.</P>
<P>Apparently, the city of Moscow believes in water conservation. It =
just=20
doesn=92t believe in asking people to use less water.</P>
<P>Bill French</P>
<P>202 E. 7th</P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial></FONT>&nbsp;</P></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C43D8D.43DF3080--