My New Year's Resolution: Use less water when I shower. My plan: The "Navy shower."
1. Turn on the water
2. Immediately wet the body
3. Turn off the water
4. Soap up and scrub
5. Turn the water back on and rinse off the soap
6. Turn off the water

Happy New Year!

Damn. A letter to the editor in Tuesday's ER brought up an important point about the proposed Crystal Geyser bottling plant in Orland, and Lon Glazner beat me to the punch in blogging about it.

To paraphrase part of the letter: If the community is going to get up in arms over Crystal Geyser pumping 160 acre feet of water out of the aquifer and shipping it to points unknown, shouldn't we also have the same concerns over Sierra Nevada Brewery and Knudsen? Aren't their products just forms of flavored water, sourced from the same aquifer?

Before I go on, let me just state that I am not taking sides on this one--this is not a simple issue. But I am asking questions.

In reality, one could argue that there are few beverages whose existence can be justified from a sustainability point of view, especially when the transportation of these liquids is taken into account. I mean, what, besides plain water, is necessary for a healthy life? Perhaps an argument can be made for milk, but even when it comes to fruit juice, most nutritionists would agree that an apple washed down with a glass of water is healthier than a helping of oj at breakfast.

Are Sierra Nevada or Knudsen off the hook because they were established a few decades ago, before water shortage issues became mainstream media in the North State? Or is their impact in some way mitigated by the fact that they are good neighbors to the community, provide hundreds of jobs, pay their taxes, and are both proven leaders in other aspects of sustainability? Who is to say that Crystal Geyser won't do the same for Orland?

And while we're at it, what about other businesses that ship water out of the north state? The wine industry? Plums contains a decent amount if water that comes from underground sources. So do olives. Where should the line be drawn?

Or do we make Crystal Geyser the poster child for everything evil simply because they have the audacity to ship pure, unadulterated, Tuscan Aquifer premium H2O to other parts of the country that, just like us, already have clean (by government standards) drinking water coming right out of the tap? Or is it because they use plastic bottles, while Sierra Nevada and Knudsen use glass?

Before we start complaining too much, I would be curious to know:

--How much water in Chico is going towards the greening of lawns that exist solely for our viewing pleasure?

--Similarly, how much of our annual rainfall finds its way onto our concrete and asphalt world and becomes storm water runoff, destined for the Sacramento River rather than percolating through the soil to possibly recharge the aquifer below?

--How much water could be saved if everyone in the city of Chico took advantage of the fact that the California Water Service Company gives out free water-saving plumbing fixtures to any customer that asks?

Don't get me wrong--I think we should be concerned about Crystal Geyser's plans. But at the same time, we should not be discriminatory when it comes to monitoring with a critical eye who is drawing water from the aquifer, and what that water is being used for.

But I know. It is much easier to point fingers at a single business than it it to convince a city (or a culture) to change its habits.

We have been exploring the idea of getting a solar hot water heater for our home. Getting all of the facts to make an informed decision on this has not been an easy task. Here is what our thought process has been:

A year and half ago my front lawn was covered with cardboard, compost, and shredded cedar chips in preparation for converting our front yard into a low water-use landscape flourishing with colorful, drought-tolerant native plants.

Much of the backyard was covered over in a similar manner, sans the compost. In this case the goal was weed management, especially grass (I have hayfever), and bedstraw, the seeds from which were wreaking havoc on the dog.

The results:

We haven't gotten to the stage where we are ready to move forward on our landscaping project, however some California poppy plants did sneak into the front yard of their own accord. Weeds aren't too much of a problem, but if we don't get some other plants established in the next twelve months we might have some issues.

As for the back yard, I spent about an hour's worth of weeding at the beginning of the summer, and other than a bit of touch-up here and there it has been pretty weed-free. The one small exception is bindweed, which is an ongoing battle.

Overall, I would say this cardboard and wood chip thing has worked out pretty well.

I have found that the back of furniture stores is a great place to find large, clean pieces of cardboard.

Our house is being re-plumbed, but it looks as if our plan to irrigate our landscaping using the grey water from our bathroom sinks, showers, and washing machine are going down the drain.

Soap, gravity and economics are not on our side.

For those that aren't familiar with grey water, here it is in a nutshell: Water that is used for washing doesn't have to go to the sewer; rather, it can go back into the soil around your house. Landscape plants get the water, the you save some bucks by not having to pay extra for irrigating with potable water, and everyone is happy. (FYI--waste water from the kitchen sink, dishwasher, and toilets is considered "black water" and legally must be routed to a septic or sewer system.)

Sadly, its not as simple as it seems.

Soap is a concern. While we did use a garden hose to divert our laundry water to a maple and a redbud last summer, it seems that there are very few soaps on the market (I am talking all soaps, including laundry, hand, and shampoo) that are considered truly "grey water safe," and those that are tend to be a bit pricey. Others say to use biodegradable "natural soaps," and suggest that the soap gets diluted enough such that it isn't a problem. But what happens if you are irrigating with diluted soapy water in the same place for years, or even decades? More elaborate grey water systems are designed to filter out the soap, but this starts going a bit beyond my garden hose technology. Finally, it is not suggested that you use grey water for irrigating annual veggies, and I am also skeptical about irrigating fruit trees. This is problematic for me, as I am moving towards having something edible in every corner of the property.

A more personal issue is gravity. For grey water systems, you need some way to move the water from your house to your landscaping. Our house is on a flat piece of land, so moving the water to a non-food producing location of our yard would require a pump, which requires money.

Lastly, there is the issue of economics. As I have mentioned before in this blog, water is undervalued in Northern California. We are already connected to the sewer, and the cost of installing even the most basic grey water system to save water does not make economic sense for our home here in Chico in terms of the amount of water we would be able to conserve.

The smart choice, in my opinion, is to use less water overall, and to try rainwater harvesting--capturing rainwater runoff from the roof in barrels and using it throughout the summer to irrigate nearby plants. I am pretty sure that is the direction we are heading.

This all having been said, I do think that there is a time and a place for grey water systems, for example, in place of a septic system for new construction. And there are plenty of others who agree.

On a tip from my brother and sister-in-law, we are now saving the planet one butt-wipe at a time.

In an effort to continue to reduce waste, we have replaced disposable baby-wipes with 6" cloth squares cut from old t-shirts and a simple spray bottle filled with water. We simply dampen each cloth with the spray bottle as needed. The used squares go into the washing machine along with the diapers. Alright, so it's not like we are getting rid of our cars, but the little things count too.

Speaking of cleaning up, I saw this neat contraption on a toilet tank the other day:

In a nutshell, once the toilet is flushed, the clean water that is used to refill the tank is first piped to the faucet for hand washing. The average American flushes the toilet five times a day. If each person also uses a quart of water to wash their hands after each flush, then this little doohicky has the potential to save over 400 gallons of water per person each year.

It's not a new invention, apparently they are pretty commonplace in Japan.

A reader reminded me that over a year ago I posted a blog entry about ollas, and I never followed up.

To summarize: I didn't have much success last year, BUT, I do plan on trying again this year. Starting this week, in fact.

Reflection:
1) Olla's, I think, are best when you can fill the containers with water by hand, and thus are ideally placed in areas close to the house, where they can be easily monitored. A window box or a patio pot for example. Last year my ollas were set out in a part of my backyard veggie garden that was mostly on a drip/sprinkler system; keeping the ollas filled via hand watering was extra effort. A more skilled person might be able to rig up a drip for the ollas, but to keep everything consistent your whole garden would have to be planted using them.

2) It was a challenge to use the garden hose to pour water into the olla, (the opening is the hole in the bottom (top) of an inverted flower pot). I will be fashioning a cheap funnel to make this easier, like an inverted plastic bottle with the bottom half cut off.

3) I planted melon seeds around my ollas. The melon seeds didn't so so well anywhere in my garden (with or without the ollas), even if they had germinated they would have immediately been nailed by my yard's thriving slug population. I would recommend trying with starts rather than seeds.

4) One of my two ollas leaked out the bottom.

This Year:

I am giving it another go. I have fixed my leaky olla by resealing it with silicon aquarium goop, and retested both for leaks before placing them in the soil. They are set by the front stoop and should be much more convenient to water--I plan to craft a funnel attachment in the next few days. The ollas will provide water for tomatoes and basil.

If I don't give an update by the end of June, zip me an email.

Previously on this blog I posted about how to save thousands of gallons of water (and up to $5) a year by placing sealed jars, bottles, or bricks in your toilet tank.

I know from experience that it is possible to get a bit overzealous with this concept, such that your toilet can no longer do its duty once you've done your's, so to speak.

But for homes with two toilets, here is a simple solution: Designate one toilet for pee, and the other for more ambitious goals. Into the pee toilet tank you can feel free to load it up with as many rocks, jars, etc. as you can so long as you don't interfere with the flushing mechanisms. ( We have three jars of various sizes in our pee toilet). For the second toilet, which would get used less often, a single, sealed jar of water would probably suffice.

The precautionary principle states that "If an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action." The precautionary principle serves as a point of law in the European Union, and guides many EU policies. It has also been adopted as an ordinance for the City of San Francisco and was cited in a decision in an Australian environmental court case.

I would argue that it would serve us well to apply the precautionary principle right here in Butte County. The Tuscan aquifer would be a good place to start.

It is unfortunate that the Butte Environmental Council was unable to persuade a Glenn County Superior Court judge to require more environmental review for a project by Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District to pump water from seven test wells into deep aquifers in Butte, Glenn and Tehama counties. According to BEC, GCID’s proposed project will extract a volume of ground water that approaches or exceeds the current utilization by the city of Chico, creating the likelihood of a significant adverse environmental impact.

Quoted in the Chico Beat this bast September, District Manager Thaddeus Bettner stated: "Just to be fair, we want to operate [the wells] so potentially they do cause impacts," Bettner said. "If we just operate them for a month we could say, ‘Oh there is no impact.' It's such a small amount of time. But realistically, to be honest and open about it, you need to operate them in such a manner that you look at a worst-case scenario. We'd want to do that because it's in the public interest to know those impacts."

Despite this being a "test" scenario, manipulating our aquifers in this manner doesn' t make sense to me, especially considering that they a) aren't very well understood in the first place; and b) provide water to thousands of people and supports the livelihood of hundreds of farmers (not to mention the tens of thousands of people that rely on the production of those farmers).

Even if BEC is wrong in their claim that these wells may cause a significant adverse environmental impact, I don't like the risks. There must be a better way to study the Tuscan and Tehama aquifers than by pumping water out of them.

We are now into our second year of being homeowners in Chico, and can start seeing how some of our sustainability efforts are panning out in terms of our water bills.

The Good News

Even though this year the garden has quadrupled in size and we are babying 27 young fruit trees that we planted over the winter, our water use was down 19% in April as compared with this time last year, and 12.5% in May. The biggest reasons for this difference has been the elimination of the front lawn, the partial neglect of the backyard lawn, and the use of drip irrigation for many of the vegetables which allows for more efficient watering.

The Bad News

My wife and I used an average of 424 gallons of water every day last year, enough to fill just over 7 wine barrels every 24 hours. A huge percentage of this was used on the lawn and veggies in the summer. For example, in June of 2007 we averaged 981 gallons per day (!!!), while this past February we averaged only 123 gallons per day. In a recent letter to the editor, Chico resident Gene Lucas writes that the average California home uses 471 gallons per day. Lucas goes on to recommend that Chicoans strive to achieve less than 300 gallons per day. I concur, but at our house, at least, we have a ways to go.

Our hope is that as the trees and landscaping mature and their roots deepen, the will be able to do a better job fending for themselves in the summer. Also, we plan to continue to add landscape features such as swales and build plant communities that shade the ground from the sun, thus enabling the ground to hold winter rainwater later into the summer.

I will also plant fewer water-sucking zucchini next year.