66 replies to this topic

[Carl G]

There are water efficient sprinkler heads that are supposed to have a more even distribution of water to help keep your lawn green while using less water.  Maybe some people have chosen to spend the $2 per sprinkler to upgrade their system.  Or, maybe they water in the middle of the night for an hour and hope that no one will catch them.

[ducky]

There are water efficient sprinkler heads that are supposed to have a more even distribution of water to help keep your lawn green while using less water.  Maybe some people have chosen to spend the $2 per sprinkler to upgrade their system.  Or, maybe they water in the middle of the night for an hour and hope that no one will catch them.

 

There are water efficient sprinkler heads that are supposed to have a more even distribution of water to help keep your lawn green while using less water.  Maybe some people have chosen to spend the $2 per sprinkler to upgrade their system.  Or, maybe they water in the middle of the night for an hour and hope that no one will catch them.

 

The other good quality to look for in a sprinkler is one that will keep the spray on the landscaping and not get caught and easily blown away by a breeze.

[4thgenFolsomite]

I am watering twice a week primarily to keep the trees in the lawn alive.  however, since my lawn is now apparently largely drought-tolerant weeds, its green in big patches.   

[Homer]

How are you guys keeping your lawns green? I water mine twice a week as per the law and my lawn is dead and brown. Meanwhile many neighbors have very nice green lush lawns.

 

I feel like a fool for following the rules when everyone else is breaking them and maintaining lush green lawns.

 

 

I keep my lawn green by throwing down some Scotts green max lawn food every few months. If you properly fertilize and feed your lawn, It doesn't need as much water to stay green.

[mrdavex]

I only water 2x a week, and my backyard lawn is nice and green.  It is in the shade for most of the day.  My front lawn has 2 big brown patches, but also a fairly big green patch.  It is western exposure and gets a lot of sun, hence the brown.  

[SacKen]

I'm guessing that it has never been properly watered.  Over-watering needs over-watering to stay green since the roots are shallow.  A lawn can survive once-a-week watering (with some distressed browning, not dead brown spots) if the roots have been trained to be deeper.  Twice a week can easily keep it green.  Established trees and shrubs can easily go a couple of weeks without water.  Even during non-drought times, 3 days a week is more than enough once plants are established.  If you need daily watering, then something is wrong somewhere.

[Toadster]

Oak Chan Elementary has a river a few times a week - enough to wash a dog or car with !

[Wolf]

 

 

 

 

[ducky]

Linda Holderness wrote an article about S50 in The Folsom Telegraph in today's edition.  It was supposed to allay fears of inadequte water supply for S50, but I found it kind of concerning.  The last couple paragraphs:

 

"The most common follow-up question to water supply explanation is:  What if the drought continues?  The people I talked to answered this way:  The annexation area is the city of Folsom, and the city controls the water.  If there is no water, there won't be construction.  However no one expects the shortage to become that severe."

 

Okay.   Second follow-up question: What if things are looking up, construction continues and there is another severe drought and shortage?  It's kind of too late to unbuild then, isn't it?  That means more severe water restrictions than we saw this time around spread over more homes.  That means we will not only need a normal year, but an extraordinary year for the reservoir to fill again.  And remember that El Dorado County hasn't taken their allotment out of the lake and are still building as well.

 

"No one knows how long the drought will continue, but when the annexation area is ready for water, it will be there.  Even if it isn't used, it can never - by law - come back to us.  That's the bottom line."

 

I've heard this stated before, but no one ever cites the law.  What law?  Could we get the exact verbiage, please, and not just a vague reference?    

[TruthSeeker]

Linda Holderness wrote an article about S50 in The Folsom Telegraph in today's edition.  It was supposed to allay fears of inadequte water supply for S50, but I found it kind of concerning.  The last couple paragraphs:

 

"The most common follow-up question to water supply explanation is:  What if the drought continues?  The people I talked to answered this way:  The annexation area is the city of Folsom, and the city controls the water.  If there is no water, there won't be construction.  However no one expects the shortage to become that severe."

 

Okay.   Second follow-up question: What if things are looking up, construction continues and there is another severe drought and shortage?  It's kind of too late to unbuild then, isn't it?  That means more severe water restrictions than we saw this time around spread over more homes.  That means we will not only need a normal year, but an extraordinary year for the reservoir to fill again.  And remember that El Dorado County hasn't taken their allotment out of the lake and are still building as well.

 

"No one knows how long the drought will continue, but when the annexation area is ready for water, it will be there.  Even if it isn't used, it can never - by law - come back to us.  That's the bottom line."

 

I've heard this stated before, but no one ever cites the law.  What law?  Could we get the exact verbiage, please, and not just a vague reference?    

 

 

Who is Linda Holderness? Is she a water conservation expert?

 

This statement seems really stupid no?  "No one knows how long the drought will continue, but when the annexation area is ready for water, it will be there. "

[ducky]

 

 

Who is Linda Holderness? Is she a water conservation expert?

 

This statement seems really stupid no?  "No one knows how long the drought will continue, but when the annexation area is ready for water, it will be there. "

 

To my knowledge, she is the ex-wife of Bob Holderness, former mayor of Folsom.  I don't know what she does as a profession other than she used to help put out the city newsletter before it went electronic. From 2005 to 2008 she made $184,538  publishing the newsletter according to Resolution 7675 on 10/11/2005. For all I know, she still helps put it together.

 

Add:  She also did the PR for Andy Morin's earlier campaigns for board of education and city council.  She used to be an editor at the Sacramento Bee.

[supermom]

Linda Holderness wrote an article about S50 in The Folsom Telegraph in today's edition.  It was supposed to allay fears of inadequte water supply for S50, but I found it kind of concerning.  The last couple paragraphs:

 

"The most common follow-up question to water supply explanation is:  What if the drought continues?  The people I talked to answered this way:  The annexation area is the city of Folsom, and the city controls the water.  If there is no water, there won't be construction.  However no one expects the shortage to become that severe."

 

Okay.   Second follow-up question: What if things are looking up, construction continues and there is another severe drought and shortage?  It's kind of too late to unbuild then, isn't it?  That means more severe water restrictions than we saw this time around spread over more homes.  That means we will not only need a normal year, but an extraordinary year for the reservoir to fill again.  And remember that El Dorado County hasn't taken their allotment out of the lake and are still building as well.

 

"No one knows how long the drought will continue, but when the annexation area is ready for water, it will be there.  Even if it isn't used, it can never - by law - come back to us.  That's the bottom line."

 

I've heard this stated before, but no one ever cites the law.  What law?  Could we get the exact verbiage, please, and not just a vague reference?    

This is a classic pass the buck- answer.

The correct answer to this drivel should have been--

Hey, did the lake get bigger and can hold more water?

'Because even if we get out of this drought, what about the next one-after the development is done?

How will that water get parceled? Oldest houses first?

[Barb J]

"Even if it isn't used, it can never - by law - come back to us."

That's fine with me! Leave it in the lake for the flora and fauna, for the boaters and fisherman. How much money does the City lose in tourism when boats need to be pulled from the lake early? Gas stations who don't have customers fillin up their vehicles and boats, grocery stores who don't have people buying their lunches to take out on the lake? What about the poor Delta Smelt downstream who are dying when we can't release enough water to save them?? Ok that last one was a joke but seriously??? Keep ALL of te water NO50 where we voted to keep it! NO50!!!

Barb J

[cw68]

I totally agree with Barb above, except that I don't think keepin the smelt alive is that much of a joke.

[tony]

I totally agree with Barb above, except that I don't think keepin the smelt alive is that much of a joke.

I'm with CW and Barb (mostly). But I think the bigger issue is that, legal or otherwise, by using conserved water for S of 50, we are missing an opportunity to diversify our water supply at the landowner's expense. Instead, we will now end up with 100,000 people completely dependent on a single water source that has more and more people throughout the region dependent on it every year. It doesn't matter how small our portion is if we get to the end of a six-year drought and the lake is is too low to draw our 1% (or whatever the fraction is).