Community | March 03, 2010 | 48 comments

City suing couple for conserving water

source: http://www.care2.com/causes/environment/blog/couple-sued-for-water-wasting-lawn/

Image
itoldyouso
A couple in Orange, California have been threatened with a lawsuit from the city--because they tore up their water-wasting lawn and replaced it with wood chips and drought-resistant plants. The Los Angeles Times reports that Quan and Angelina Ha reduced their annual water usage from 299,221 gallons in 2007 to 58,348 gallons in 2009: an 80% savings. The city says the Has are not in compliance with an ordinance requiring 40% plant coverage. On Tuesday Quan Ha pleaded not guilty to a misdemeanor for violating county codes.

Sometimes when people have kids of their own,they start to question the kind of world they will leave to their children and children's children. Mr. Ha explains: "We've got a newborn, so we want to start worrying about her future." Not only is the non-lawn saving tens of thousands of gallons of scarce water, but it is also saving the family hundreds of dollars a year. Should they be sued for not complying with an outdated, even harmful, suburban aesthetic ideal?

A California Public Policy Institute report estimates that outdoor water use accounts for more than half of all residential water demand. Ironically the Ha family, by removing their lawn, are actually abiding by the recommendations of the state water agency. The State of California's Water Use Efficiency website urges conservation efforts, including:"Water-efficient landscape designs using low water-use plants" and "Minimized turf areas." Just what the Has had done.

Water is a key political and economic issue in California, as in other parts of the Southwest. The state has endured three consecutive years of drought and reservoirs are low. There is ongoing wrangling between agricultural and residential water interests, and concern grows that water will be the new oil, a conflict-prone linchpin and threat for the long-term viability of the state. While legal compliance is important, surely common sense is more so. Let's hope this ridiculous charge is dropped in favor of responsible behavior, especially behavior that considers the needs of generations to come.
http://www.care2.com/causes/environment/blog/couple-sued-for-water-wasting-lawn/
  1. groups:
    Community,   Green
  2. tags:
    City suing couple for conserving water
  3.     
    |

48 comments // City suing couple for conserving water

  • GreenNewEarth
    • 0
      GreenNewEarth  

    • Orange County you will thank the Ha's in about 5 years when there is a water crisis in Southern California. Until then, stop being such donkeys...

    • 1 year ago
  • stephhicks
  • Ed_Word
  • olddogdaddy
  • Michelle_Farrar
    • 0
      Michelle_Farrar  

    • the --real issue--is that you need 40% vegetative cover.
      I was on the laguna beach open space committee, the guideline there is greater, and it's designed to keep people from cheaping out and putting gravel, patios, etc and to keep some outdoor space LIVING, not torn up old growth forest chips..
      The law is not about lawn as the title suggests. I know a family in Orange County who tore up their grass and grow beautiful xeriscape plants and their own veggies. Certainly the natural landscape in the 18 mile long OC greenbelt is covered in living plants. Certainly this well-meaning, but mistakenly acting out of fear family eat veggies.

      The key emotion named is 'worry'. Better to have faith in nature.

    • 1 year ago
  • chi64
  • lizziehoffman
  • emilio
    • 0
      emilio  

    • How about growning food instead of grass? I'm all for mulch and wood chip yards and drought resistant plants (especially when they save hundreds of thousands of gallons of water)--- but when are California's gonna catch on that grass lawns are a decadent waste of resources? No one has a grass lawn in Japan-they all grow their own organic fruits and veggies. That means No unnecessary plastic packing No shipping out of season fruits from South America No wasting gas to drive to the market and NO GMO's in the goods you feed you and yours. That saves a lot more than just water.

    • 1 year ago
  • Maeveeo
  • jubal
    • +2
      jubal  

    • This law is bass ackwards. But what do you expect from Orange County the Republican and Right Wing Christian Capital of California.

    • 1 year ago
  • CarlosIsDown
  • skylardercheesemeister
  • MagicalSpoon
    • +1
      MagicalSpoon  

    • Here's one thing to think about: Water conservation is very important where this takes place because there's not that much of it. A consequence of that is dry ground that is highly susceptible to wildfires. Many municipalities in arid climates require these types of vegetation ordinances to provide an environment less prone to fire as well as soil erosion. Don't get me wrong, I applaud the Ha's for living true to their beliefs and doing what they can to reduce their consumption, but sometimes a middle ground needs to be found.

    • 1 year ago
  • bashirdr
    • 0
      bashirdr  
    • MagicalSpoon:

      Well, dirt wouldn't catch fire, but I bet those wood chips would. And you can't coat them because that would drain into the watertable. Erosion occurred to me too, but it's only a big problem if your yard is on an incline.

      I was actually in California just after a heavy rain. There were these beautiful verdant hills everywhere, and my friend told me that it never looks like that; it's usually just brown dirt. The point being there are plants and roots down there somewhere just waiting for rain. And roots stop erosion. A dirt lawn may be unattractive, but may also be the best option.

      Is that you climbing? Where at?

    • 1 year ago
  • MagicalSpoon
    • 0
      MagicalSpoon  
    • bashirdr:

      Excellent points. I was just trying to get across the idea that it might not be as simple as the title suggests- that the government is out to take money from people trying to conserve their resources. And yes, that is me climbing somewhere in CO, I don't remember where.

    • 1 year ago
  • afloyd60
  • lcabic12
    • 0
      lcabic12  

    • It seems to me that the government is so desperate for money that they will sue their own citizens for just thinking about the welfare of the future generations. I hope the charges drop in their favor-- they didn't do anything wrong, in my opinion.

    • 1 year ago
  • TasteHi
    • 0
      TasteHi  

    • it'll get worse...we keep blaming gov't for all of our problems and demand that they solve our problems...then we're not happy with the solutions they come up with......it's a vicious cycle, and it'll end up killing this country.

      I'm glad that this couple decided to do something in the name of self sufficiency however they simply waited too long and cared too late. Now it would take a large movement on the part of the community they live in just to get the spotlight put on that law and changed.

      Good Luck

    • 1 year ago
  • theghostofjohnlennon
  • bashirdr
    • 0
      bashirdr  

    • Stupid law; I hope they beat it, and good for them for cutting back.

      Current Users: how much water do you use? I use about 800 gal/month which works out to 9600 per year. Even 58,000 seems outrageous, nevermind 300,000! I live in a rural apartment.

      Is it me, or are we seeing a lot of community ordinance stories on current lately?

    • 1 year ago
  • Gordie_Caie
    • +1
      Gordie_Caie  

    • Follow the money...
      If everyone did this, California wouldn't be able to make money on the shortage!.
      Water is a crisis in that state and it is aided/colluded by the California government.

    • 1 year ago
  • Weepowopo
  • itoldyouso
  • Guyatthebusstation
  • manny0409
    • 0
      manny0409  

    • so even though the companies themselves promote the idea of conserving water and other energy sources and then when people do, they dont like it because its not convenient for them? hypocritical to the max...I guess its bad for the company that the family is doing what is right for them and saving money and being environmentally friendly at the same time because its cutting into their profit...

    • 1 year ago
  • Eddie_Miller
  • lifestudentno83
  • Hostile
    • +4
      Hostile  
    • lifestudentno83:

      So instead of forcing one family to grow some grass, we should force all the other families to destroy their gardens?

      Why does anybody have to be forced to do ANYTHING in this scenario? What business is it of the neighbours if the Hans want to turn their garden into a skate park? I say it's entirely up to the Hans what they do with the land and building that they own. The end result might be ugly, but that's the price of living with other human beings, much like I might not appreciate my neighbour's god-awful haircut but I know I don't have the right to force her to get a better one...

    • 1 year ago
  • lifestudentno83
  • Hostile
  • lifestudentno83
    • 0
      lifestudentno83  
    • Hostile:

      So perhaps not FORCE people to make their lawns anything. But I think that in a place that waste a lot of water when there is not much to give, you should start thinking about ways to manage water responsibly. The Ha's lawn is not barren; it is just filled with mulch and plants that do not need constant watering. If more people took this kind of idea and ran with it, we could save millions of gallons of fresh water a year, and save millions in water bills a year.

      I guess people should be free to waste money all they want. However, I think it is irresponsible of them to waste the water like that.

    • 1 year ago
  • common_sense_please
    • +3
      common_sense_please  

    • Just another example of the HOA and/or some low level government bureaucrat with a need to show off their shiny government badge doing something stupid.

      Seriously we just saw this same--I'm all powerful because I'm in government and suddenly I really give a rats ass about some "majorly important" type regulation that hasn't been enforced for years or decades because it gets my name in the paper or in the news-- crap play out nationally with Senator Bunning.

    • 1 year ago
  • RaceBannon
  • ahappymintleaf
    • +1
      ahappymintleaf  
    • RaceBannon:

      I have to agree. Depending where in Orange they are located, every aspect of their property's appearance can be tightly controlled. To get one's house painted where my parent's live, you need signatures from the houses next to yours, the ones in front, and authority from the neighborhood counsel. It's so bullshit. Suburbia at it's literal worst.

    • 1 year ago
  • treewolf39
    • +1
      treewolf39  

    • All across the world, laws need to be reaccessed to protect limited resources. That the city would consider a law suit over an out-dated law shows the lack of intelligence in the people working there. Water conservation is paramount.

    • 1 year ago
  • Hostile
    • +2
      Hostile  
    • treewolf39:

      Those resources belong to the people, and if the people want to conserve those resources then that decision belongs to them, not to the state. Laws governing resources and resource consumption will only make criminals out of innocent people and further the unjustifiable expansion of state power.

    • 1 year ago
  • treewolf39
    • 0
      treewolf39  
    • Hostile:

      You have got to be kidding. These here resources belong to the people holding the biggest gun. I agree that the people should own them, but the greedy bastards would just kill each other for control. Trees are a natural resource but start cutting them down to build your house and you will find the state or the feds own them. You think you own your house or your land? Try not paying taxes and see how long you can keep it.

    • 1 year ago
  • Hostile
    • -1
      Hostile  
    • treewolf39:

      I'm arguing for the principle of property rights... I'm not arguing that those rights are honoured by western law. Obviously they're not. What you don't seem to realise is that I'm arguing that the resources belong to INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE, not "The People" AKA the totalitarian State. No, there should NOT be laws protecting resources, because the state has no right to own resources. When you pay your water bill you buy that water, and what you do with it and how much you buy is entirely up to you. No government has the right to interfere with this exchange of property.

    • 1 year ago
  • treewolf39
    • 0
      treewolf39  
    • Hostile:

      Governments have the rights the people give them. If people are not willing to fight and die for their perceived rights then they will lose them. I totally hear what your writing but this is a matter of the way it is. Most of us are sheep who pay our taxes and try to be decent to our fellow man. Fighting for rights is wonderful. The Native Americans have been fighting for their rights for 400 years.

    • 1 year ago
  • CalgarC
  • cclark_productions
  • itoldyouso
  • Eddie_Miller
  • Elligirl
  • itoldyouso
  • fiat_lux088
  • itoldyouso
more from Community:
from the community

top videos