Engagement and being a citizen

As I write this, (April 2, 2020) we are in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, which seems like to disrupt the normal course of our lives for the next year or more.  After you've taken care of yourself, your family, and your friends, I urge you to turn your thoughts to the institutions that you support. 

Aside (skip this paragraph if you want):  The title of this article taps into a feeling I have that societal engagement is part of a citizen's job and I credit the novel Corona virus for giving me the space to articulate this thought on virtual paper.  I'll leave it at that, lest this paragraph become more weighty than the others. 

I suspect that government and corporate grants will enter a down phase in the next year or two, so if you believe in a cause then you might want to consider investing in it.  This doesn't have to be money, though that is sometimes the easiest investment.  It could be a gift of your time to create a bit of content.  It could be engagement by showing up at (virtual, for now) events or commenting on a blog post or news article.  All of these activities are things I would consider investments but the sponsoring institution also sees as engagement, which is one metric that they will use assess success or failure, to solicit grants, or to sell advertising.  It's one thing to count web traffic, but it's quite a bit more powerful to count people that are willing to pay to support you.

Since this is a native plant blog, the examples below pull where they can from native plant and ecology-oriented examples.

Change your CNPS membership into a sustaining monthly donation.  Why do a basic annual membership ($50) when you can donate starting at $5/mo as a Perennial Monthly Sustainer ($60 annually).  As CNPS puts it, "[Monthly Sustainers] provide much-needed, predictable income for our programs. Your gift will be automatically repeated every month."  Sometimes constancy trumps total value, as it allows year-round planning with a steady budget.  Don't forget to patronize our local nurseries and other native plant institutions such as Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden (reciprocal membership policy gets you in free at other particiapating botanic gardens, including the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden) and Cal Flora.

Donate to a local organization.  Go big with an endowment in your will or go small by picking a favorite charity through smile.amazon.com.  The Palos Verdes Land Conservancy was my pick at smile.amazon.com, which donates a portion of each purchase to the charity of your choice - smile requires that you use the web version of Amazon to pay, so if I'm on my phone I will fill my cart from the app, then log in through the browser to pay.  At the opposite end of the spectrum is an end-of-life bequest.  The SCCNPS was fortunate to receive such a bequest from the Conze estate, and has used it to good effect to promote native plant gardening.

Engage directly with news media by visiting their web sites, commenting on articles, and most of all subscribing to a news service such as a newspaper or monthly journal.  Journalism and research aren't cost free and a subscription supports this directly with the added benefit that it  may get you past a pay wall to view more content.  I subscribe to the LA Times since I support hometown journalism as well as High Country News, a western states monthly news magazine.  Neither subscription is ghastly expensive and occasionally I give a bit more to HCN.   But remember, even viewing the news and commenting could be valuable.  Imagine in the newsroom: "Look boss, our article on California native plants got 1,500 more views and 20 more comments than expected! Let's feature more of that." If you are already a print subscriber to the LA Times, then I believe you can access the online version with no added cost.  LA Times is running a limited time special right now - 8 weeks online subscription for $1.  High Country News has made their COVID-19 content free and offers a year of magazine+online delivery for $37.

There are many other worthy organizations that I am sure I overlooked.  Please comment with your own suggestions.

Miss Rhumphius

I received a recommendation for a children's book the other day. 

Miss Rhumphius is a woman who scatters lupine seed all around town. Written by Barbara Cooney, it has very nice illustrations.  Available at the usual places one buys such things, you can read it to a child in kindergarten or they might read it on their own in later grades.

The book seems apropos because of the native Arroyo lupine that grows all over Palos Verdes, despite the tendency of the city to treat it like a common weed. Someday I fear it will all be gone in favor of non-native grasses. A lupine explosion might wake a few people up to the beauty that we have already for free in our back yard.

Comment on LA Times article "Deadly California fires prompt bold thinking about prevention: Shelters, strict zoning, buyouts"

Comment on the LA Times, "Deadly California fires prompt bold thinking about prevention: Shelters, strict zoning, buyouts"

The answer isn't one thing, but rather all of the above, and the article does a pretty good job of highlighting actions that the state could take: Suggesting we rethink and update our approach to urban planning and fire-hardening of structures as well as location and siting of structures. There are plenty of contributors that don't receive mention: There's the now well-known idea that we are grappling with a legacy of lands management that have made our forests susceptible to recurring high-intensity fires. Also not mentioned are invasive grasses that contribute to fuel loading and spread of fire. Nor is air pollution noted, which can increase the growth of invasive and fire-prone plant species through dry-fall of nitrogen-containing pollutants from the air. But those aren't really the point of the article, either.

What we can address is local (state wide) standards. The recurring cost of lives and property lost that is otherwise avoidable will make such an effort worth while, despite higher up-front costs. We shouldn't just rebuild without thought. After all, isnt't a definition of insanity doing the same thing again and again while expecting a different outcome?

However, as the article notes, state flow-down of minimum standards for emergency egress, materials, design, and land use is bound to come up against fierce opposition from local planning advocates. That's a natural reaction, but the smarter thing to do is to change our approach in the face of new information.

Water consumption in the presence of leaks

water consumption

The whole house was replumbed Oct 28-30 due to numerous obvious leaks that I found and plugged.  From the data I conclude that there must have been 12 hundred cubic feet (hcf) of water lost over the previous 3 months due to leaks, since my baseline usage is about 7 hcf.

All of that went into the soil under the house which happens to be be quite porous, fortunately.  Too bad the leaks didn't occur during winter when they would count towards my baseline consumption for water allocation purposes, a touchy subject with me since my normal 6-7 hcf/month is already at the low end of local usage.

Doomed to failure

Of course I signed up, since there's no down side.  However, I think it's doomed to failure.

I received the following offer from my natural gas company:

"clean-coast economy"

An apt phrase, but new to me.  I'm just taking note of it here since it seems to capture a lot of ideas in a simple phrase.

As seen in the LA Times in this opinion piece by Steve Lopez.

“I think California’s clean-coast economy is hanging on by a thread right now,” said Ocean Foundation senior fellow Richard Charter, who has worked for decades to protect coastal waters from offshore oil and gas drilling.

Google's Ngram viewer doesn't have enough results to graph "clean-coast economy" or its variants, suggesting that it's a newer term of art and a few directed searches for the phrase "clean-coast economy" suggest that it's a newer term.

Never underestimate the power of a well-made turn of phrase to capture the zeitgeist of the moment.

Colorado rain barrels

Bad Mom Good Mom sent me a link to an article on rain barrel legislation in Colorado. It's a quick but balanced perspective.


Full URL below:
https://blog.yourwatercolorado.org/2016/06/17/rainbarrels-and-rainwater-harvesting-for-water-conservation-and-stormwater-management/



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

You can have good policy or you can have good customer service

I live in a community that was given a 36% water use reduction target by the state.  Since I've always been careful with my water I thought that I would get credit for good behavior.  Not so, and poor policy is to blame.  So far as I can tell, my water allocation is determined by simple-minded application of the rule: Cut water usage from the 2013 average by 36%, but don't let the allocation drop below 6 hcf per month for any household.

Of course this benefits people who wasted water historically and penalizes those who conserved.  I was one who conserved, and so my water allocation was set at the floor of 6 hcf per month.  I've added a third person to my household, am now housing a teen, and water use is consequently up. Naturally, I petitioned to have a larger allocation.  I got it: Now I have 7 hcf per month, which adds up to about 57 gallons per person per day.  We would have to be reasonably eagled-eyed conservationists to hit that number, which is possible, but what about the fairness issue?  It doesn't take a super genius to intuit that most people aren't being held to similarly low requirements.  If we're all suffering together, then solidarity, brothers and sisters!  But if you are holding me to a tougher standard then f*** off, I'll sue.

A little Googling let me determine that the average usage in my zip code in the middle of last year was 24 hcf (bill insert in 6/2014).  Applying the state-mandated 36% reduction target to the average usage is 15 hcf, more than twice my increased allocation.  This is consistent with a neighbor's report (they are newly arrived in the neighborhood) that their allocation is 14 hcf.

Finally, I received a letter containing this graphic in my mail:

In case you are curious, the entire first page, minus my address information, is shown below in a clickable image.

So I'm using about half the amount of similar homes and I'm being chastised instead of lauded?  Really, I'd like to turn on a hose into the street just to protest.  The curse words flew but after I calmed down I called California Water Service where the nicest customer service person defused me.  She placed re-application for an additional allocation increase into review by management because that's what happens when you've been give the generous upper of 1 hcf already.  Apparently the backlog of management review cases is so large that it will take us into 2016, at which point something will happen.

The something they are probably hoping for is that El Nino will bring sufficient rain that our reductions will not be extended by Governor Brown (they are scheduled to end in February).  The something that I am afraid will happen is that I'll continue to be held to a higher standard than my neighbors and I'll have to participate in a class action lawsuit to change an obviously flawed policy.

California Native Plant Week and the long game

California Native Plant Week (CNPW) is upon us, but it always seems like it's late to me.  In northern California where winter seems to hang on a bit longer, I think the timing might be more apropos, but for me in the Los Angeles area it's always seemed like the garden has hit its peak several weeks ago.

Not that CNPW isn't a good idea.  As a state-wide acknowledgement of the richness of our natural environment, it's an excellent advertising tool.  Still, pity the naive Joan Q Public who admires a native plant in bloom during CNPW then tries to plant it in the following week in mid-April.  She is near certainly doomed to failure for a multitude of reasons. 

Mostly, Joan may not fully realize the long game that one plays as a native plant gardener:

April, year 1: It's CNPW.  First lay eyes on a plant you admire.  Plant your selection in your garden  Ah, satisfaction!  You ought to be enjoying that plant soon, right?
June, year 1: Plant dies more often than not and dissatisfaction ensues.  If not, then it doesn't grow much in summer anyway so you might as well have waited until Oct-Nov.
Oct-Nov, year 1: Replant, if you are dedicated or a glutton for punishment.  If you are patient and haven't lost the inspiration since April, then plant for the first time.
April, year 2: It's CNPW, but your plant has only just settled in after a nice winter, and it's not an abundant bloomer after only 6 months in the ground.  Don't rip it out in disappointment.  Wait some more.
June, year 2: Plant has to make it through the summer.  You are careful and it does.  Hurray!
November, year 2: Plant establishes and grows due to winter rainfall.  Ahhhh.  Almost done.
April, year 3: Plant blooms.  Double Hurray!  You are done after only 3 years.

At this point the reasonably patient Joan Q Public may ask, "Why plant a Toyon when a Cotoneaster will fill in so much more quickly?"

I'm voting no on Proposition 1, California's $7+ billion water bond

Some good might come of the bond, but I'm willing to wait until policy makers have it right, or at least better, before I say yes.  Here's the reasons that resonate with me to say no, based on my reading:

Using general obligation funds rather than ratepayer funds to pay for water supply is inherently a subsidy and often sends the wrong cost signal to consumers. Paying the full cost of water supply through one's utility bill provides a better incentive for conservation and efficient use. There are exceptions to this statement, and the one I would have liked to see addressed is the the Delta Conveyance, but that is explicitly prohibited from being funded by the terms of the bond (probably because it is so controversial in N Ca.  Voters at some remove can see that the way the state currently gets water from the Delta ought to be fixed, somehow.)

No one knows how the California Water Commission would evaluate proposals to spend the 2.7 billion dollars allocated for the "public benefits" of new storage (surface or groundwater). While there is significant political pressure to allocate the funds for certain proposed (and controversial) surface storage projects, including Sites and Temperance Flat reservoirs, many believe those projects cannot pass any reasonable economic hurdles. 

Requirements of the bond can be read to favor improvement of or new surface water storage facilities rather than ground water storage, desalination, or waste water reuse.  This is an area in which the bond is not very clear and we will only learn the criteria against which proposed facilities are ranked after the bond is approved, if ever.

The bond doesn't do enough for conservation of water, arguably the most effective approach to the current drought.

The bond doesn't address our current drought in any other meaningful way.

"...endangered by climate change and manly and shit"

On The Public Record is back with a three part commentary on California water issues.  Recommended reading.
Are farmers in the SJV more deserving of my sympathy than the failing restaurateur down the street being squeezed by food prices? He and his family work 14 hour days too. Do they deserve my sympathy more than Syrians drawn into a civil war started when Syrian farms started failing from drought? Do SJV farmers deserve my sympathy more than migrating birds that are starved of food and resting places as they migrate this fall?

...You could [write about] rugged resource extractors on boats that their grandfathers built, idled by drought, pulling up to some nostalgic ice cream parlor in the Delta. The story could be the exact same, only with mournful ship bells clanging for atmosphere. That group is the direct competition for water with growers, equally picturesque and endangered by climate change and manly and shit. Why care about one and not the other?

It's Global Warming, Stupid

It's Global Warming, Stupid is the title of a November 01, 2012, article by Paul M. Barrett in Bloomberg Businessweek magazine. Barrett cites a sea change in the attitudes of the American mainstream of thought about the veracity of global climate change, and uses Super Storm / Hurricane Sandy as an example of its impacts, though with appropriate caveats on the differences between weather and climate.   He also cites authorities other than the usual scientists, since a vocal minority of Americans seem to believe that mendacious scientists have a political axe to grind when it comes to believing that cause and effect are related:

 ...forget the scientists ostensibly devoted to advancing knowledge and saving lives. Listen instead to corporate insurers committed to compiling statistics for profit. On Oct. 17 the giant German reinsurance company Munich Re issued a prescient report titled Severe Weather in North America. Globally, the rate of extreme weather events is rising, and “nowhere in the world is the rising number of natural catastrophes more evident than in North America.

 Barrett's article is in line with other polls that show the same trend.  Meanwhile, we scientists have been waiting for the rest of the U.S. to catch up. 

If we ever want to do something about climate change, it will be a large undertaking.  For a science and engineering approach to the large problem of our energy future try the Do the Math blog.

Water Reliability 2020 - desal is alive and well

At the recent SCESC informational meeting I was given a little information on Water Reliability 2020, a program sponsored by the West Basin Water District (a local water wholesaler who probably sells to your water retailer if you live locally, except for Torrance residents).  The intent of the program organizers was to get a written commitment from me to support a three-pronged conservation, reclamation, and desalination plan that West Basin is promoting to reduce our local reliance on imported water.  Once you commit to support this effort they place your name on their website in a scrolling marquee.  Normally I'm in favor of this sort of corporate environmental commitment, but I didn't sign because the program sounded too good to be true, the description was simplistic, it wasn't the main reason I was at the informational session, and the session leader didn't seem extremely conversant with water issues.  So I didn't ask for more information nor did I sign a postcard in support. Instead I went poking around on the web for more information. I didn't find anything that would stop me from supporting the effort, but read below for the details.

Could AB 1881 be made retroactive?

Over at On The Public Record, there's some freewheeling conceptual thoughts about the impending drought situation in California.  In comments, Emily Green suggests that Assembly Bill 1881 be made retroactive. Not having a particularly good memory, I went and looked it up.  AB 1881, signed into law in 2006, mostly has to do with outdoor water use efficiency and it mandated that by Dec 31, 2010, that all municipalities have an ordinance on their books that was at least as strict as a suggested model law.  Most new and rehabilitated landscapes are now subject to this water efficient landscape ordinance. Public landscapes and private development projects including developer-installed single family and multi-family residential landscapes with at least 2500 sq. ft. of landscape area are subject as well.  Homeowner provided landscaping at single family and multi-family homes are subject to the [State or local standards] if the landscape area is at least 5000 sq. ft.  As it turns out, I blogged about it earlier, mostly with a hopeful thought that it would make a difference, as I recall.

There's already retroactive component for landscapes larger than 1 acre, which I suppose applies to public parks and the landed gentry, but the language says that they "may" be subject to a water audit, not that it is compulsory.  Also, existing landscapes get additional latitude with regard to water used - about a 10% bump up from AB1881 standards for new construction with regards to the evapotranspiration rate and a [presumably very] relaxed set of water use criteria dating from 1992. 

I have discovered a proof of how truly remarkable the water savings could be if it were made retroactive which the margins of this post are too small to contain.* Perhaps we need wait only three centuries for a complete explanation.

Naomi Klein on climate change public policy

Here's an article on climate change policy and politics that appeared in the November 28th edition of The Nation. My friend Mark drew it to my attention recently. It has a clear synthesis of current and (recent) past politics related to global warming as well as a manifesto for green action. Given the time between the article's publication and now, it should be clear that I don't follow global warming policy discussion on a regular basis. Perhaps because of this, much of the article's reasoning seemed fresh to me and I found it insightful. Indeed, if you ask the Heartlanders [climate change deniers], climate change makes some kind of left-wing revolution virtually inevitable, which is precisely why they are so determined to deny its reality. Perhaps we should listen to their theories more closely—they might just understand something the left still doesn’t get.... [Close to 4000 words snipped out] In short, climate change supercharges the pre-existing case for virtually every progressive demand on the books, binding them into a coherent agenda based on a clear scientific imperative.... [hundreds more words]

Capitalism vs. the Climate

Bee road?

An astute observer on my native plant garden list suggests that this is a concept useful in the U.S.

'Bee road' plans to save key pollinators

Co-operative's Plan Bee scheme will set up corridors of wildflowers as a food-rich habitat for honeybees, hoverflies, butterflies and moths.

Back to my blog vacation.

City of Los Angeles low impact development

LA Team Effort is the blog site that serves as community outreach and a focal point for to City of LA's effort to publicize best practices and methods of compliance with the soon-to-be adopted low impact development (LID) ordinance.


Beginning with a May 20th launch meeting, the City of Los Angeles will coordinate the volunteer efforts of LA residents, stakeholders and non-profits in the formulation of a LID Handbook. While the Handbook itself will be technically oriented, we have a few different roles so that you can get involved in this critical process regardless of your level of LID expertise

Once more reminding us that all environmental concerns return to water, the focus of LID is heavy on water:


LID can be described as the use of practices that encourage site sustainability and smart growth in a manner that respects and preserves the characteristics of the City’s watersheds, drainage paths, water supplies, and natural resources. Or in simpler wording: bringing nature back to our City to help with urban runoff management, water conservation, and improving the quality of the City’s waters. LID reduces the impact from urban development and provides the benefits of:

	Replenishing groundwater supplies
	Improving the quality of surface water runoff
	Stabilizing natural stream characteristics
	Preserving natural site characteristics, and
	Minimizing downstream impacts.

Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance

Barbara posts about water use that she observes in Pasadena over on Weeding Wild Suburbia. In the comments is reference to the California State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, which is news to me.

http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/landscapeordinance/

All cities in California must adopt it or equivalent by Jan 1, 2010! That's real soon now. However, notice was only given on Oct 8, 2009, which is not a lot of time for cities to react. This mandate is the outcome of legislation passed in 2006 (Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 1881, Laird)). Apparently the state has been slow to publish the guidelines required to implement it.


From the glossy brochure:
Existing landscapes are also subject to the Model Ordinance.
Water waste is common in landscapes that are poorly designed or not well maintained. Water waste (from runoff , overspray, low head drainage, leaks and excessive amounts of applied irrigation water in landscapes is prohibited by
Section 2, Article X of the California Constitution.

Any landscape installed prior to January 1, 2010, that is at least one acre in size may be subject to irrigation audits, irrigation surveys or water use analysis programs for evaluating irrigation system performance and adherence to the Maximum
Applied Water Allowance as de fined in the 1992 Model Ordinance with an Evapotranspiration Adjustment Factor (ETAF) of 0.8. Local agencies and water purveyors (designated by the local agency) may institute these or other programs to
increase efficiency in existing landscapes.

All new landscapes will be assigned a water budget.
The water budget approach is a provision in the statute that ensures a landscape is allowed sufficient water. There are two water budgets in the Model Ordinance; the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) and the Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU).
The MAWA, is the water budget used for compliance and is an annual water allowance based on landscape area, local evapotranspiration and ETAF of 0.7. The ETWU is an annual water use estimation for design purposes and is based on the water needs of the plants actually chosen for a given landscape. The ETWU may not exceed the MAWA.