Lately there has been a lot of press on lawns in California. With the passage of AB 1881 (an Assembly Bill regarding water use in landscaping in residential and commercial properties) Californians are becoming more aware of their water use and looking into planting and landscaping alternatives in order to comply with these water regulations (and to save money).
While all of this is going on, some press has been coming to a couple in the City of Orange, regarding their lawn, or rather lack there of. The Has removed their lawn and left bare dirt in its place. When their neighbors complained about the bare dirt yard, the couple added wood chips over the majority of the exposed soil. This is when the City comes in - fining them and charging them due to a law on the books in Orange stating that 40% of a residential landscape area needs to be planted with live plants. Eventually the Has built a fence and added some "drought tolerant" planting (the LA Times lists lavender, rosemary, horsetail, and pittosporum) and now approximately 10% of their yard has live plants in it (I'm guessing that with the way they've planted those plants won't grow into much more of the space available in the yard - and certainly not anywhere close to the 40% required by the city). The City of Orange announced that they are dropping the lawsuit against the couple (most likely because its been giving them so much bad press) claiming that the property's landscaping is "up to code".
I find this whole situation kind of mind blowing. When I first heard about this - the press was that the couple were being sued for trying to do the "right thing" and rip out their lawn and replace it with xeriscaping. Needless to say, I was appalled. This definitley isn't the case. While the Has have stated that their water usage went down from 300,000 gallons in 2007 to 58,000 gallons in 2009 (which is great), I feel like that's not the only way this situation should be measured.
First, lets talk about lawns. I, for the most part, detest the lawn. Native turfs are rarely used, grass sucks water like no one's business, they are notoriously difficult to maintain, and studies are coming out now showing that the carbon footprint of a turf area's maintenance (including mowing, fertilizing, and irrigation) can out measure the beneficial carbon dioxide fixing properties and the tempering of the "heat island" effect in urban areas that turf has been known to have. Not to mention, out here in the West, they are usually ugly as sin.
{The "heat island effect" relates to the phenomenon when an urban area has a consistently significantly higher temperature than the surrounding rural areas, due to the large amount of reflective roof materials, structures, and emissions.}
Second, lets mention the benefits of landscaping in an urban area. Having living plants in an area cools the area (fighting the "heat island effect" and reducing the need for air conditioning), plants remove carbon dioxide from the air and store it, they stabilize slopes (preventing run off and erosion), they buffer water, provide habitat for fauna, and provide aesthetic appeal. Residential landscapes can also buffer wildfire spread (I realize that in Southern California that's a complicated and loaded statement, but in many conditions its a valid argument) and have cultural and utilitarian uses (think healing gardens and kitchen gardens).
It bothers me that the Has are now being made into martyrs for Southern Californians who want to save water. Why?
1. They pulled out their lawn and for over a year let soil sit exposed. Dried soil, aka dirt, creates dust, promotes run off, and is highly reflective. So basically, by lowering their water bill, this couple encouraged run off from their property into nearby storm drains, created a "breeding ground" for dust, and probably raised the temperature around their house. I'd be willing to bet that while their water bill went down, their air conditioning use increased a bit, and that consequently their electricity bill went up.
2. This couple is not promoting proper landscaping. It bothers me that the media has not focused enough on the RIGHT way to handle taking out a lawn. The responsible way would include xeriscaping (another loaded term that is usually totally misused), proper irrigation techniques and scheduling (drip or otherwise), and appropriate run off retention and reuse.
There are SO many people who are doing this right. With AB 1881 now in effect, and people starting to see the benefits of retro fitting their yards, people all over Southern California are starting to create amazing gardens. These are the people we should be making examples out of!
