Water is one of the most important natural resources on our planet and it is necessary for the survival of all life. Even more precious is water clean enough to drink, to cook with and to bathe. Why then, in a state prone to severe droughts, would we use half of our drinking water outdoors? Why would we pump water hundreds of miles from its source, treat it so that it is clean enough to drink, just to spray it on our lawns?
In a state where climate change is projected to lead to more frequent and intense droughts, we must face up to the fact that thirsty grass is no longer appropriate in California.
The lawn is thought to have originated in Europe, which makes sense because the moist, mild climate supports open, close-cut grasslands. Some of the earliest lawns as we've come to know them were the grasslands around medieval castles in France and Britain, kept clear of trees so guards had an unobstructed view. Closely shorn grass lawns, like those in most yards across the U.S., first emerged in 17th century England at the homes of large, wealthy landowners. Before lawnmowers, only the rich could afford to hire the many hands needed to scythe and weed the grass, and only the rich could dedicate such resources to a luxury with no productive value—so a lawn was a mark of wealth and status.
Today, lawns are a representation of the American dream—a home with a yard full of green grass and a white picket fence. But in places like California, it's time for that ideal to change.
As our population grows and climate change brings us more frequent and intense droughts with interceding years of heavy rain, our outdoor spaces provide an opportunity not only to stretch our limited resources, but create the climate resilient, locally sustainable communities we'll need to flourish in the years to come. How do we do this?
There are three important elements of a sustainable landscape
- Replace turf with native/climate-appropriate plants
- Retain rainwater and stormwater onsite
- Install meters to measure water use
To make the biggest impact, these elements must be incorporated into state regulations. In California, state regulation of landscape water use is done primarily through the publication of a "Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance" (MWELO), which as the name implies, is to be adopted and enforced by local government agencies. However, under state law, if localities fail to adopt this model ordinance or something equally stringent, the provisions of the Model Ordinance take on the force of law anyway. So the model ordinance is, in fact, a statewide regulation by default—a minimum set of requirements that are applicable in every jurisdiction.
As part of the state's emergency response to the drought, Gov. Brown has called for a directive to tighten state rules to make new landscapes more water-efficient. Directive 11 of the April 2015 Executive Order (shown below) requires an update of the MWELO to increase water efficiency in new and existing landscapes through more efficient irrigation, graywater use, onsite stormwater capture, and by limiting turf. The Department of Water Resources (DWR) has responded with a draft proposal that points the way to better landscapes and water stewardship, but falls short of several needed changes that would transform our turf heavy outdoor spaces to sustainable, pollution reducing, climate-appropriate landscapes.
Directive 11: The Department shall update the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance through expedited regulation. This updated Ordinance shall increase water efficiency standards for new and existing landscapes through more efficient irrigation systems, greywater usage, onsite storm water capture, and by limiting the portion of landscapes that can be covered in turf. It will also require reporting on the implementation and enforcement of local ordinances, with required reports due by Dec. 31. The Department shall provide information on local compliance to the Water Board, which shall consider adopting regulations or taking appropriate enforcement actions to promote compliance. The Department shall provide technical assistance and give priority in grant funding to public agencies for actions necessary to comply with local ordinances.
Where the DWR Proposal Falls Short
1. The Water Budget
As the name implies, this is the quantity of water that a new landscape must be designed to stay within. With a reduced water allowance, developers and designers of new landscapes will need to employ more efficient irrigation technology and select plant materials that require less water. The levels proposed by DWR are likely to rule out turf grass in commercial developments, while allowing about 25 percent of a new landscape to be turf in residential developments.
But with attractive alternatives to water-hungry turf now widely available, the continued installation of ornamental turf in new landscapes has to be seen as a wasteful practice. Functional turf has its place, now and in our future, for playing surfaces and places where people assemble. But turf as an ornamental ground cover should be disallowed in state regulations covering new landscapes, and DWR has stopped short of that goal.
2. Onsite Retention of Stormwater
Preventing rainwater from running off into gutters and into oceans and streams (picking up debris and polluted substances along the way) simultaneously improves water quality and reduces the waste of water that is otherwise shunted away to storm drains. The avoidance of waste requires the treatment of rainwater and stormwater as resources.
On-site retention and infiltration is already required by many stormwater permits applying to large new projects in major cities. By including this requirement in the Model Ordinance, we can ensure that rainwater is put to beneficial use in new developments of all types throughout California. DWR's new draft Model Ordinance encourages, but does not require, rainwater catchment and storm water retention. Unfortunately, previous "recommendations" in the Model Ordinance have not been effective.
Given the magnitude of the state's need for maintaining adequate water supplies and for improving the quality of stormwater discharges, a reasonable requirement for on-site retention for new development just makes sense. A clear standard for retention and infiltration in the Model Ordinance will help ameliorate both the water quality and water availability challenges facing the state. This is an opportunity that should not be missed.
3. Metering Outdoor Water Use
You can't manage what you don't measure. DWR took a positive step by including new requirements for separate measurement of water applied to landscape irrigation. Unfortunately, under the proposed revision, the installation of meters are limited that to larger properties. This requirement must apply to all parcels covered by MWELO. The only way a landscape can be managed to ensure that it stays within the water budget to which it was designed is by measuring the amount of water being applied.
Can you imagine trying to manage your finances if you never saw a bank balance? Inexpensive meters are available for this purpose, and the capability for property owners to conveniently read such meters and analyze their data through mobile devices is growing.
While DWR proposes that most new commercial landscapes have meters, the new proposal exempts most residential landscapes from any measurement requirement. Yet residential landscape water use is even larger than commercial landscape use as a share of total urban water usage. Installation of a meter to measure the water used to irrigate new residential landscapes should be required.
We are in the fourth year of an epic drought ... with no end in sight. And we know that we are likely to see more frequent and intense droughts in the future. We must find a way to use our precious and limited drinking water supply more efficiently; and surely using it to water plants that serve no purpose other than aesthetics isn't the best use for half of that supply.
We must make better use of alternative sources such as graywater and rainwater, we must measure what we use, and we must move away from large swaths of turf and toward beautiful landscapes filled with native, drought-resilient plants.
New landscapes are an opportunity to build smarter communities right from the start, and a stronger model landscape ordinance can point the way.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
8 Major Cities Running Out of Water
Drought-Stricken California Orders Largest Recorded Water Cuts for Farmers
Though made in large part of plastic, glass, ceramics, gold and copper, they also contain critical resources. The gallium used for LEDs and the camera flash, the tantalum in capacitors and indium that powers the display were all pulled from the ground — at a price for nature and people.
"Mining raw materials is always problematic, both with regard to human rights and ecology," said Melanie Müller, raw materials expert of the German think tank SWP. "Their production process is pretty toxic."
The gallium and indium in many phones comes from China or South Korea, the tantalum from the Democratic Republic of Congo or Rwanda. All in, such materials comprise less than ten grams of a phone's weight. But these grams finance an international mining industry that causes radioactive earth dumps, poisoned groundwater and Indigenous population displacement.
Environmental Damage: 'Nature Has Been Overexploited'
The problem is that modern technologies don't work without what are known as critical raw materials. Collectively, solar panels, drones, 3D printers and smartphone contain as many as 30 of these different elements sourced from around the globe. A prime example is lithium from Chile, which is essential in the manufacture of batteries for electric vehicles.
"No one, not even within the industry, would deny that mining lithium causes enormous environmental damage," Müller explained, in reference to the artificial lakes companies create when flushing the metal out of underground brine reservoirs. "The process uses vast amounts of water, so you end up with these huge flooded areas where the lithium settles."
This means of extraction results in the destruction and contamination of the natural water system. Unique plants and animals lose access to groundwater and watering holes. There have also been reports of freshwater becoming salinated due to extensive acidic waste water during lithium mining.
But lithium is not the only raw material that causes damage. Securing just one ton of rare earth elements produces 2,000 tons of toxic waste, and has devastated large regions of China, said Günther Hilpert, head of the Asia Research Division of the German think tank SWP.
He says companies there have adopted a process of spraying acid over the mining areas in order to separate the rare earths from other ores, and that mined areas are often abandoned after excavation.
"They are no longer viable for agricultural use," Hilpert said. "Nature has been overexploited."
China is not the only country with low environmental mining standards and poor resource governance. In Madagascar, for example, a thriving illegal gem and metal mining sector has been linked to rainforest depletion and destruction of natural lemur habitats.
States like Madagascar, Rwanda and the DRC score poorly on the Environmental Performance Index that ranks 180 countries for their effort on factors including conservation, air quality, waste management and emissions. Environmentalists are therefore particularly concerned that these countries are mining highly toxic materials like beryllium, tantalum and cobalt.
But it is not only nature that suffers from the extraction of high-demand critical raw materials.
"It is a dirty, toxic, partly radioactive industry," Hilpert said. "China, for example, has never really cared about human rights when it comes to achieving production targets."
Dirty, Toxic, Radioactive: Working in the Mining Sector
One of the most extreme examples is Baotou, a Chinese city in Inner Mongolia, where rare earth mining poisoned surrounding farms and nearby villages, causing thousands of people to leave the area.
In 2012, The Guardian described a toxic lake created in conjunction with rare earth mining as "a murky expanse of water, in which no fish or algae can survive. The shore is coated with a black crust, so thick you can walk on it. Into this huge, 10 sq km tailings pond nearby factories discharge water loaded with chemicals used to process the 17 most sought after minerals in the world."
Local residents reported health issues including aching legs, diabetes, osteoporosis and chest problems, The Guardian wrote.
South Africa has also been held up for turning a blind eye to the health impacts of mining.
"The platinum sector in South Africa has been criticized for performing very poorly on human rights — even within the raw materials sector," Müller said.
In 2012, security forces killed 34 miners who had been protesting poor working conditions and low wages at a mine owned by the British company Lonmin. What became known as the "Marikana massacre" triggered several spontaneous strikes across the country's mining sector.
Müller says miners can still face exposure to acid drainage — a frequent byproduct of platinum mining — that can cause chemical burns and severe lung damage. Though this can be prevented by a careful waste system.
Some progress was made in 2016 when the South African government announced plans to make mining companies pay $800 million (€679 million) for recycling acid mine water. But they didn't all comply. In 2020, activists sued Australian-owned mining company Mintails and the government to cover the cost of environmental cleanup.
Another massive issue around mining is water consumption. Since the extraction of critical raw materials is very water intensive, drought prone countries such as South Africa, have witnessed an increase in conflicts over supply.
For years, industry, government and the South African public debated – without a clear agreement – whether companies should get privileged access to water and how much the population may suffer from shortages.
Mining in Brazil: Replacing Nature, People, Land Rights
Beyond the direct health and environmental impact of mining toxic substances, quarrying critical raw materials destroys livelihoods, as developments in Brazil demonstrate.
"Brazil is the major worldwide niobium producer and reserves in [the state of] Minas Gerais would last more than 200 years [at the current rate of demand]," said Juliana Siqueira-Gay, environmental engineer and Ph.D. student at the University of São Paulo.
While the overall number of niobium mining requests is stagnating, the share of claims for Indigenous land has skyrocketed from 3 to 36 percent within one year. If granted, 23 percent of the Amazon forest and the homeland of 222 Indigenous groups could fall victim to deforestation in the name of mining, a study by Siqueira-Gay finds.
In early 2020, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro signed a bill which would allow corporations to develop areas populated by Indigenous communities in the future. The law has not yet entered into force, but "this policy could have long-lasting negative effects on Brazil's socio-biodiversity," said Siqueira-Gay.
One example are the niobium reserves in Seis Lagos, in Brazil's northeast, which could be quarried to build electrolytic capacitors for smartphones.
"They overlap the Balaio Indigenous land and it would cause major impacts in Indigenous communities by clearing forests responsible for providing food, raw materials and regulating the local climate," Siqueira-Gay explained.
She says scientific good practice guidelines offer a blueprint for sustainable mining that adheres to human rights and protects forests. Quarries in South America — and especially Brazil — funded by multilaterial banks like the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank Group have to follow these guidelines, Siqueira-Gay said.
They force companies to develop sustainable water supply, minimize acid exposure and re-vegetate mined surfaces. "First, negative impacts must be avoided, then minimized and at last compensated — not the other way around."
Reposted with permission from DW.