Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

City considering permanent Water Rationing


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#1 Volare

Volare

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 23 April 2012 - 09:36 AM

Ok, I'll get this topic started out. You can view my comments to the City Council here.

Select the April 17th meeting, and skip to the Citizen Presentations at the end. That should be sufficent to get the discussion going!

Nice writeup in the Star-Telegram too.

#2 John S.

John S.

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 456 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Samuels Avenue FW

Posted 23 April 2012 - 12:07 PM

Ok, I'll get this topic started out. You can view my comments to the City Council here.

Select the April 17th meeting, and skip to the Citizen Presentations at the end. That should be sufficent to get the discussion going!

Nice writeup in the Star-Telegram too.


My spouse and I have lived around here since the mid-1980's and we've seen outdoor watering restrictions come and go. It's a fact that drought years occur in the region with regularity so landscape planning does need to take that into account. I'm disappointed that we have little apparent interest in rainwater collection cisterns because they were an important supplimental water source in the 19th century when groundwater resources were sometimes lean. I think every new home in Tarrant County with a yard beyond a certain square footage should be required to have a rainwater collection cistern installed by the builder. We certainly have enough outdoor backyard swimming pools around DFW but most of their water goes down the drain, literally. Of course, another water conservation principle is to landscape our yards with drought and heat tolerant plants. Our local PBS (Ch 13 KERA) station had on this past Saturday's Ask This Old House a segment filmed in the DFW area about putting in native plant species that use less water to survive. Completely aside topic-wise was the odd contrast between Roger Cook's distinctive Boston accent and a local horticulturist with his twangy Texas accent-but they were on the same page about plant care.

Like it or not, we live on the border of an arid zone which gets less and less rain as you travel westward. Climatic changes may cause this arid zone to expand and move further to the east in coming years and decades so we should take notice and plan accordingly. No argument about the continuing growth of the Metroplex with thousands of newcomers joining us every month. I personally have no qualms with 2 day a week watering restrictions. We do not yet have a rainwater collection system in place ourselves but have given it a lot of thought after last year's horrific drought. We lost our vegetable garden as well as some flowers and shrubs (Privit hedges) to the brutal heat and drought. I went to almost heroic lengths to keep a few patches of St. Augustine grass alive but will not do so again-it's time to work WITH the local climate and environment instead of against it, IMO. Good topic, Volare, thanks for posting it.

#3 360texas

360texas

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SW Fort Worth, Texas USA
  • Interests:Digital photography, computers since 1980, Panorama imaging, world travel. After 37 years retired Federal Service 1999.

Posted 23 April 2012 - 03:11 PM

With regards to swimming pools during drought... you mentioned

"We certainly have enough outdoor backyard swimming pools around DFW but most of their water goes down the drain, literally."

Well not exactly. Some pool water loss is through evaporation. We keep water in our pool all year around. We had our pool installed in 1988.

Rainwater is collected in the pool during winter and spring. Any filter cleaning.. pool water/DE discharge goes directly on the adjacent small area grass and our larger Xeriscaped landscaped bedding areas.

More than you probably wanted to know:
Diatomaceous Earth (DE) talc, non-toxic, safe substance made up from fossils of freshwater organisms and crushed to a fine powder that is used in pool filters and also is a Bug Killer that you can eat.

Source: http://www.richsoil....ceous-earth.jsp

This helps reduce our pool make up water and Xeriscaped requirements.

I did watch the City Council meeting video (thanks for the link). I believe public must be heard before the city makes a one sided decision about water restictions. I for one.. still need our subsoil watered to protect structure foundation even when we are away on holidays and work. Most of the time... we decide based on need when Xeriscape bedding and grass watering occurs.. not the city.
Dave still at


Visit 360texas.com

#4 youngalum

youngalum

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 320 posts

Posted 24 April 2012 - 02:24 PM

With regards to swimming pools during drought... you mentioned

"We certainly have enough outdoor backyard swimming pools around DFW but most of their water goes down the drain, literally."

Well not exactly. Some pool water loss is through evaporation. We keep water in our pool all year around. We had our pool installed in 1988.

Rainwater is collected in the pool during winter and spring. Any filter cleaning.. pool water/DE discharge goes directly on the adjacent small area grass and our larger Xeriscaped landscaped bedding areas.

More than you probably wanted to know:
Diatomaceous Earth (DE) talc, non-toxic, safe substance made up from fossils of freshwater organisms and crushed to a fine powder that is used in pool filters and also is a Bug Killer that you can eat.

Source: http://www.richsoil....ceous-earth.jsp

This helps reduce our pool make up water and Xeriscaped requirements.

I did watch the City Council meeting video (thanks for the link). I believe public must be heard before the city makes a one sided decision about water restictions. I for one.. still need our subsoil watered to protect structure foundation even when we are away on holidays and work. Most of the time... we decide based on need when Xeriscape bedding and grass watering occurs.. not the city.

Welcome to a hotter world. The only issue that I have with your statement is that people who claim they know how much and when to water their landscape tend to overestimate the actual need vs. the perceived need of watering. I am sure you do not fall into that category, but unfortunately we are dealing with the public and therefore you have to add in the dummy factor.

Get used to water restrictions as it will be the norm, not the exception. Water is the next precious resource that is dwindling in our country and the world.

#5 Keller Pirate

Keller Pirate

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 849 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Keller

Posted 24 April 2012 - 07:30 PM

Volare, I addressed the Keller City Council on this topic and made some of the same points that you did. The first problem I have with this proposal from the four mayors, is that it is being proposed by mayors. These people aren't in the business of supplying water to North Texas. At best they are wholesalers that buy the water from regional water authorities that are completely separate from city government. If Tarrant Regional Water District was out front with this proposal it would make more sense, since they are the people tasked with providing water for our side of DFW. I am also troubled that the mayors haven't really given a reason for stage one restrictions when the reservoirs are full. All I have heard is some vague statement that the population will double by 2060 or that our current capacity will be reached in 2035 and saving water today might put off building new capacity for 10 years. I really would like some explanation of how water saved in 2012 will be around in 2035.

You seem to know more about what the new ordinance will look like than I do. An ordinance written for actual drought conditions can't be just rolled over when there isn't a drought, without unintended consequences. You mentioned the zebra mussel invasion in Lake Texoma. Texas Parks and Wildlife recommends power washing boats after they have been pulled from lakes to prevent the spread of this invasive species to other lakes. Current restrictions do not allow power washing or hose use on cars or boats. Zebra mussels can clog intakes and pipes when they get going, wouldn't it be a tragedy if we created a real water shortage by not allowing boats to be power washed after coming out of the lakes? You also brought up that the current law is specific as to when a stage one restriction takes affect and specific as to when it ends. Currently the City Manager is in violation of the law as it is written, by allowing us to stay in stage one with reservoirs are at 97% capacity. In my research I turned up that all water laws in Texas emanate from the state legislature, why is this idea coming so far down the food chain.

Just last Fall the Trinity River Authority claimed that the passage of proposition 2 on the November ballot was crucial to meeting our water needs for the next 50 years. The voters passed prop 2 that allows the State Water Board to issue bonds without voter approval to pay for future water projects. So, what is the truth, after just voting to meet our water needs for the next fifty years, why are a bunch of mayors getting into the water policy business? The cities of Houston and San Antonio have revoked their stage one restrictions as have most of the smaller cities around Austin. Austin wants to do something like these 4 mayors are pushing. On the TRWD site it mentions that in 1959 when Houston built Lake Livingston and Wallsville they agreed that those lakes would be subordinate to TRWD reservoirs in the upper basin of the Trinity River. It appears that we are going to release water from our full reservoirs into the Trinity, because of restrictions, sending our water South, so that Houston can have no restrictions.

360 mentioned foundation watering and this is permitted currently with soaker hoses and probably will continue to be allowed. As to evaporation he brings up a good point, pools do, but have you thought about how much water evaporates off the top of the lakes? The TRWD website gives a daily report on the reservoirs that serve our side of DFW. It is http://www.trwd.com/DailyReport.aspx
If I am reading this report correctly (probably not) it tells us how many gallons of water they pump to Ft Worth and Arlington each day, MGD. If you scroll down they have a section, Evaporation (AF) I'm guessing AF is acre feet. One acre foot is 325,853 gallons. Yesterday 1092.86 AF evaporated from Bridgeport, Eagle Mountain, Lake Worth, Arlington and Benbrook reservoirs. I think that water would be better off evaporating off my lawn that off the lakes. At the least I would like a hydrologist to explain why I might be wrong, not a mayor.

I want to hear from TRWD about our water future, not the 4 mayors of doom. I support the current drought plan in a drought year, this just seems like a feel good measure from people that have better things to do.

Good work Volare, I know we will lose this battle, but we didn't fall for the group think and weak excuses these 4 mayors are tossing out for their feel good legislation..

Edited by John T Roberts, 26 April 2012 - 07:23 AM.
One comment was in poor taste.


#6 Keller Pirate

Keller Pirate

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 849 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Keller

Posted 25 April 2012 - 05:17 AM

I am encouraged this morning after hearing Arlington failed to even get a second on the motion to impose year round watering restrictions. Maybe citizen outrage can beat the mayors. :swg:

#7 Volare

Volare

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 25 April 2012 - 08:21 AM

I was quite shocked to see that Arlington turned it down (at least for now). After Dallas went down without a whimper, I figured the dominoes were going to fall east to west until Fort Worth could only say "well everyone else did it, so we must too!" I guess this throws a wrench into that plan.

To answer some of your questions, TRWD is behind all of this, as is Region C of the Texas Water Development Board. I think these folks have the good sense to know that since they aren't elected, and have no regulatory authority, they should let the cities do the dirty work. But the City and the TRWD like to play both sides of the coin. The City says "we can't get out of Stage 1 because TRWD says we have to be there." Which is frankly wrong- the City is the regulatory authority, and the TRWD isn't even following the ordiance any more. We've been out of Stage 1 parameters since late January! I'm quite furious at the bait and switch that they have used on the citizens of Fort Worth after presenting the Drought Plan in Dec of 2007, what they have put into place is nowhere near what they said.

I've been annoyed by actions the Council has taken in the past- but usually I find out about these things too late to do anything and it has already happened (a quick search on this site will bring up a few of my past complaints). I was more fortunate this time to barely catch wind of this and try to race in front of it and alert the rest of the citizens. Even then I didn't really think anyone cared- after all it's been a wet spring and no one has really had to water yet. But I was very heartened to see that at least in Arlington the citizens showed up and made their voices heard. I sincerely hope that the citizens of Fort Worth will do so as well at the next council meeting on May 1st where I'm quite certain they will try to pass this thru with no alternatives given.

#8 Volare

Volare

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 25 April 2012 - 08:28 AM

By the way, you did a great job of interpreting the Daily Reports from the TRWD website. I've been following those reports since Stage 1 began. Interesting numbers can be found there in regards to the discharges from overfull lakes. Did you know that a couple of weeks ago that the waters were overflowing the lakes at such a great rate that the entire daily treated water usage for the City of Fort Worth (approx 200 million gallons per day) was flowing downstream every 2 hrs and 20 minutes? You are absolutely correct that we cannot save water today to use next summer. Or even this summer. If we were using underground aquifers maybe a different story, but we are fully dependant on surface water here. We need more of it. But we get more by building more, not by letting what we have evaporate away in a feel-good "conservation" move.

#9 David Love

David Love

    Skyscraper Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,656 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Downtown Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, gothic structures, Harley Davidsons, active with Veterans Affairs. Making things out of wood and carbon fiber.

Posted 25 April 2012 - 04:01 PM

I don't "technically" have a yard in Tarrant county, so I'm not totally up to speed on why we want to restrict water usage during times when there's an abundance of water.

You may find this of interest:

What are the rules for building water storage cisterns into new construction? Are we allowed to harvest water, then use it when we choose? I work in a building that has storage ponds which are tapped to water the lawns, a number of times people were stopping trying to find out who to complain to about them water during restrictions, so much so they had to put up signs about the water coming from their own ponds / lakes.

Better Business Bureau:  A place to find or post valid complaints for auto delerships and maintenance facilities. (New Features) If you have a valid gripe about auto dealerships, this is the place to voice it.


#10 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,520 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 26 April 2012 - 07:26 AM

This topic is heading toward personal attacks, so I deleted a statement and one post.

#11 Keller Pirate

Keller Pirate

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 849 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Keller

Posted 26 April 2012 - 04:38 PM

I read the S-T story about the Arlington council meeting and was surprised that just 7 speakers caused the council not to act on the water restrictions. I would have thought that if council members were committed it would take more than 7 speakers to turn the tide. I have been to council meetings where the public has spoken for or against a proposal for up to an hour and then the council does what they were going to do anyway. The other thing I was a little surprised about was that the arguments tended toward emotion, more than facts and figures. That is understandable, since the pro side hasn't really produced any facts or figures to explain the need for the restrictions. Today, I look in the editorial section of the S-T and find an editorial saying that 7 vocal Arlington residents cowed the city council into stalling a common sense measure (water restrictions.) The S-T version of common sense is that during the drought, restrictions saved 35-45 million gallons a day. No other fact or figures about why that would be a good thing in perpetuity. Just more emotion the other way.

One speaker in Arlington used an example I have privately. The city is not telling customers that they are limited in the amount of water they can buy, after you buy the water they are telling you how you can use the water, you paid for, on your property. if the electric company told you that you can buy all the electricity you want, except that you can only run your air conditioner 2 days a week, people would revolt and politicians would be up in arms. There is no doubt that reducing the amount of water sold by 8% will negatively impact the budgets of TRWD and the City to maintain water infrastructure and water rates will have to rise. When I lived in California in the late 80's the regional water provider said things were looking bad one year and asked customers to voluntarily cut back 10% to get by for the year. At the end of the year they announced that we had saved 20% year over year, but a 20% reduction in sales had really hurt the budget and they were sorry to raise rates to make up for the loss of revenue.

On the State Water Board site they have population and water use projections for eveyr town and region going forward for the next 50 years. They also classify different categories of water usage. I did note that as municipal use rises over the next 50 years, irrigation use falls at a similar rate. Municipal included all treated water use including lawns and irrigation is primarily agriculture use. None of the many reports and statements that are out for you to read from the State and regional water agencies and their planners and indicate any fear that water won't be available for the next 50 years. The TRWD website is touting the IPL pipeline that when completed will allow them to serve another 1.5 million customers. The current drought law was designed at the state level and flowed down through the water agencies to the cities and towns. It was designed for an actual drought situation, not for time when water is abundant, we can't save water year to year. City councils should not be enacting water policy, they are only middlemen without responsibility for creating supplies.

I saw a quote the other day. "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong." H.L. Mencken. I think that applies to this situation.

#12 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,765 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 26 April 2012 - 09:01 PM

Unrestricted watering of lawns will and does allow for waste. Of course not everyone who waters their lawns is being wasteful. But many are. The population in this area is going to almost double by 2030, by recent estimates. Many of those in-migrants are going to want their own little grassy kingdom, and this is going to lead to more waste potential. The cost of allowing this is astronomical, in taxpayer costs to buy productive agricultural land and then flood it, and in the costs from initial sketch to completed structure of a huge earthen dam. We are currently not maintaining the water reservoirs we have now: Lake Worth is so filled with silt (covering unspeakable and unknowable pollution, most likely) you can almost wade across it in August without getting your shirt wet. Dredging our existing reservoirs is needed to keep the surface to volume ration low so evaporation is not such a factor during the summer months. But the answer often given for addressing the (almost and increasingly common) water shortage problem in the area is to build more reservoirs. Smart!

Smarter yet... Lets ask the Supreme Court to force another state with more water to have to sell their water to us. Then we will have to build massive pipelines to take their water away. This is not taking into account what those folks have to say about it. The problem is that there is a huge and growing metropolitan area in a region with insufficient, and arguably declining, water resources available to support the sort of habits we have developed over time. This is not really about personal freedom or whatnot, this is about sustainable utility support systems.

What can we realistically do? As has been pointed out, restricting the uses a water customer can put their water to is not as tasteful to some as other ways of encouraging more rational uses. Many people plant yards with native plants that are more adaptable to hot, dry summers we enjoy in this area. This does help by reducing the need for irrigation. Watering restrictions are probably not much of an issue for those folks. Others, myself included, collect rainwater for use on yards (I have around 500 gallons capacity that comes right off the roof, non-chlorinated, actually better for plants than tap water). If this were widely adopted it would significantly impact the amount of expensively treated drinking quality water needed to water plants. If expanded to commercial and industrial uses as David Love hinted at the effect would be substantial. But that means doing something... Doing nothing is not going to work.

The municipal utilities offer significant discounts to accounts that use LARGE amounts of water, like golf courses and fracking sites. That's smart too...not. Rather than telling people what they can and can't do with their water they bought and paid for, what about seriously enforcing the laws already on the books about wasting it, like watering streets and sidewalks. What about charging for water on an upward sliding scale: The first thousand gallons could be free, but each thousand gallons additional is charged marginally more with no cap. THAT would encourage, and even better, make economic sense of incorporating water saving features into the design of buildings, and of retrofitting existing properties to be more water efficient.



#13 Volare

Volare

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 27 April 2012 - 07:26 AM

... Rather than telling people what they can and can't do with their water they bought and paid for, what about seriously enforcing the laws already on the books about wasting it, like watering streets and sidewalks. What about charging for water on an upward sliding scale: The first thousand gallons could be free, but each thousand gallons additional is charged marginally more with no cap. THAT would encourage, and even better, make economic sense of incorporating water saving features into the design of buildings, and of retrofitting existing properties to be more water efficient.


EXACTLY!

#14 Volare

Volare

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 27 April 2012 - 11:00 AM

... You also brought up that the current law is specific as to when a stage one restriction takes affect and specific as to when it ends. Currently the City Manager is in violation of the law as it is written, by allowing us to stay in stage one with reservoirs are at 97% capacity. In my research I turned up that all water laws in Texas emanate from the state legislature, why is this idea coming so far down the food chain.


I wanted to also address this issue of not coming out of Stage 1.
When S1 was implemented back in August when the lakes dropped below 75%, I wanted to know when it would be turned off, so I looked online and found a 80% figure (since removed from TRWD website).
In January, the levels had risen above 80%, I emailed TRWD and started asking questions- when are you going to turn it off? They said they were waiting to make sure they wouldn't have to go right back into S1. Sounds reasonable enough. But the rains continued.
With levels approaching 100% in February, I emailed TRWD again and received no response.
I started emailing my city council folks and started hearing about plans to amend S1, and that they didn't want to come out of S1 until those amendments were made.
With levels over 100% in March, I was fully annoyed and being completely ignored by folks at both the City and the TRWD. I started filing Open Records requests with the City to compel the release of information.
You are correct that they are not in compliance with the ordinance as written- any reasons for not remaining in Stage 1 when conditions no longer exist should be documented, and that has not been done. Frankly I think they are just doing all this because it is easier to just stay at two days a week permanently than to actually think about what makes sense for when we are not in drought and adjust accordingly when we are.

#15 360texas

360texas

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SW Fort Worth, Texas USA
  • Interests:Digital photography, computers since 1980, Panorama imaging, world travel. After 37 years retired Federal Service 1999.

Posted 27 April 2012 - 01:29 PM

Fort Worth City - City News Jan 11, 2012
"Lake Worth Dredging begins this spring" $12.5m from gas royalties (See dredging Map)


"Dredging is scheduled to begin in early March and last 10-12 months.
Sediment will be placed at Silver Creek Materials Inc., a Texas Commission on Environmental Quality-permitted facility."

Partial Quote

“The long-awaited dredging of Lake Worth is the first step in establishing useable prominence to Lake Worth,” District 7 Councilmember Dennis Shingleton said. “This dredging will allow for better recreational use, improved water quality and increased volume in the lake for storage purposes.



Did they actually start ??


http://fortworthtexa...t.aspx?id=92782
Dave still at


Visit 360texas.com

#16 Keller Pirate

Keller Pirate

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 849 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Keller

Posted 28 April 2012 - 12:24 PM

You are correct that they are not in compliance with the ordinance as written- any reasons for not remaining in Stage 1 when conditions no longer exist should be documented, and that has not been done. Frankly I think they are just doing all this because it is easier to just stay at two days a week permanently than to actually think about what makes sense for when we are not in drought and adjust accordingly when we are.

Volare, you have done a lot more work than I have, Thank you. PP your ideas are too reasoned since this is an issue based on emotion, but I like them. In fact I found something interesting on the Environmental Defense Fund website. They said "strict watering restrictions don't take nature into account....Austin is considering a pilot project that gives discretion to users regarding when they water as long as they don't exceed a monthly water budget." I mentioned the story about the 20% voluntary reduction in California to make the point that a logical outreach to customers with true facts and media participation can work. The water folks here seem to want to hide in the background and let these mayors carry their water for them. :wacko:

I looked at the presentation the Dallas City staff made to their council. Nothing in there about future needs, other than they will need more in the future, no projections with numbers. They said usage was up 18% in 2011 during the drought, gee. That should allow them to pronounce the 2 a week plan a huge success at the end of this year. If we have a normal (100 degree) summer and they don't save at least 18% I would consider it a failure. According to their PR they are shooting for a 16% savings. The big surprise, to me, was that Dallas didn't go on Stage one until December. They also will grant variances to people under the new law that have lawns so big they can't water it all on their assigned watering days. They expect to lose about $15M a year in revenue. Their report also mentioned that TRA said they would go along with whatever TRWD decides to do.

I saw the mayor of Keller at an event Friday and he came over and wanted to talk about water restrictions. I asked him if he wanted to be remembered as the guy that made lawn watering a crime in 2012. He said no and we had a good conversation.

Here is an old piece of propaganda that will make you scratch your head.

http://www.ntmwd.com...onservation.pdf

#17 Volare

Volare

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 01 May 2012 - 03:07 PM

Today at Pre Council there was a more extensive briefing from TRWD and FWWD on the proposed permanent water restrictions. There were still no alternatives presented to the council. (Either all or nothing.) There were some great comments during the Q&A session afterward by Councilmembers Scarth and Zimmerman indicating that this is an issue that is by no means a slam dunk with the council.

The Star-Telegram recently published an editorial by Bud Kennedy berating the Citizens on Arlington for getting involved by commenting to their council. Apparently Kennedy would prefer the sheeple to keep quiet and go along with whatever the gov't says.

Please watch the video online and get involved by contacting your council member!

BTW, Mayor Price said her emails are running about 7 to 1 in favor of permanent restrictions. So if you aren't in favor, you need to drop her a line. For the second most Republican county in the USA, folks around here sure want the government in their business!

#18 Volare

Volare

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 01 May 2012 - 03:47 PM

Wow, another hammering question from Scarth at the end of the meeting: how can we still be in Stage 1 if we aren't in drought anymore?? (the very question I've been asking since JANUARY!) :blink:

Answer: "The Water District is lifting the Phase 1 (sic) on June 1st."
Again, this is a City Ordiance, not a TRWD ordinance, so I'm not sure this changes anything. TRWD can change their status and the City could continue to ignore their own ordiance. Still I guess it's better late than never... oh wait... <_<

(I'm sure the push will be on to get permanent restrictions in place for all cities prior to June 1st.)

#19 360texas

360texas

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SW Fort Worth, Texas USA
  • Interests:Digital photography, computers since 1980, Panorama imaging, world travel. After 37 years retired Federal Service 1999.

Posted 02 May 2012 - 12:56 PM

I guess I would need to see a schedule of district meetings specifically assigned to publically discuss this topic of "Rationing water".

I also suggest we poll forum members from all the city precints... to learn what their residential water pressure value is during May 2012.

At the residential outside hose bib water pressure determines the volume of water being delivered at the hose bib valve. Water pressure guage can be found at Lowes, Ace, and Home Depot for about $10.00.

The higher the water pressure to more volume of water is passed through the valve. The higher the volume of water.. the higher the monthly cost for water.

I say this because: Last year I measured using a pressure guage 90 psi. I called the city water folks and they came out and verified the pressure reading. But after much discussion I was told to have an expensive valve pressure reducing valve installed to prevent inside sink fixtures from blowing out. The City Water folks said that the city water department did not have any control over the city service line pressure. I later talked with a mechanical engineer friend of mine who said there should be a line pressure contol station at the water tower and other stations down stream that control the water pressure through out residential areas. Today I checked our home water pressure at the end of a 100 hose and sure enough.. 90 psi.

Now we have before us... "Rationing water" issue because the (maybe???? guessing here) lack of FUTURE annual rain fall and low lake storage. Maybe the city should take another look at city distribution water pressure. Typical city water distribution to residential areas should be around 45 - 70 psi... just guessing by looking at the charts printed on sprinkler heads.

Here is a spec sheet for a typical sprinkler head... Says Max pressure is 75 PSI and normal operating pressure is 30 PSI. But very few people have a 1 head designed sprinkling system. This why systems are designed by a Texas licensed Irrigator.

http://www.toro.com/...15-Foot-Quarter

What is means to me is that unless you have water pressure reducing sink and shower fixtures.. you too have 90 PSI at that fixture.

Higher water pressure you have at your residence.. the higher volume of water is deliver Used/wasted, the more it costs per month and we are back to Rationing water again due to over usage.



Wow, another hammering question from Scarth at the end of the meeting: how can we still be in Stage 1 if we aren't in drought anymore?? (the very question I've been asking since JANUARY!) :blink:

Answer: "The Water District is lifting the Phase 1 (sic) on June 1st."
Again, this is a City Ordiance, not a TRWD ordinance, so I'm not sure this changes anything. TRWD can change their status and the City could continue to ignore their own ordiance. Still I guess it's better late than never... oh wait... Posted Image

(I'm sure the push will be on to get permanent restrictions in place for all cities prior to June 1st.)


Dave still at


Visit 360texas.com

#20 youngalum

youngalum

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 320 posts

Posted 02 May 2012 - 03:41 PM

BTW, Mayor Price said her emails are running about 7 to 1 in favor of permanent restrictions. So if you aren't in favor, you need to drop her a line. For the second most Republican county in the USA, folks around here sure want the government in their business!

It seems if you are an old person, an tea party fan, failed regional water board candidates or fan of Texas seceding you favor unlimited water anytime and anywhere regardless of the circumstances.

While the rest of the rational folks can foresee the future water issues this state, country and world are going to endure. There is a reason folks are buying up water rights in the west!!

#21 360texas

360texas

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SW Fort Worth, Texas USA
  • Interests:Digital photography, computers since 1980, Panorama imaging, world travel. After 37 years retired Federal Service 1999.

Posted 02 May 2012 - 04:33 PM

I forgot to mention that upgrading your individual sink fixtures will cost you about $100+ each to bring it into EPA WaterSense compliance, just because the City apparantly apparantly refuses to balance the residential water distribution system to between 40 - 75psi.
Dave still at


Visit 360texas.com

#22 Volare

Volare

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 02 May 2012 - 06:04 PM

It seems if you are an old person, an tea party fan, failed regional water board candidates or fan of Texas seceding you favor unlimited water anytime and anywhere regardless of the circumstances.


Wow, you are 0-5 on your pidgeonholing there "youngalum." Sorry!
Tell ya what, how about we use the same water conservation as Phoenix, AZ, El Paso, TX, or Albuquerque, NM?
I'm guessing you have not a clue about those cities and their conservation, just like you have no clue about the demographics of a fellow poster on this board.

#23 Volare

Volare

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 02 May 2012 - 06:44 PM

I forgot to mention that upgrading your individual sink fixtures will cost you about $100+ each to bring it into EPA WaterSense compliance, just because the City apparantly apparantly refuses to balance the residential water distribution system to between 40 - 75psi.


Very interesting observations on your water pressure there 360. If anything I would say my water pressure is low. Last summer there were times my sprinkler rotors were shooting at about 2/3 of the normal distance. I figured it was due to everyone on my side of the street (all odd numbers) watering simultaneously on our watering day.

#24 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,520 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 02 May 2012 - 09:51 PM

Please stick to the topic and let's not start making any personal comments about others on the forum.

#25 pelligrini

pelligrini

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 205 posts

Posted 03 May 2012 - 02:04 PM

I forgot to mention that upgrading your individual sink fixtures will cost you about $100+ each to bring it into EPA WaterSense compliance, just because the City apparantly apparantly refuses to balance the residential water distribution system to between 40 - 75psi.

Not exactly, many sink fixtures could easily be adapted with a listed WaterSense aerator for a fraction of a $100.

Reducing pressure could also lead to unintended consequences. The first that comes to mind is fire sprinkler design. Many residential areas have buildings (apartments, etc.) equipped with sprinklers. They were designed based on pressure and flow tests for the specific site. If you reduce the pressure, the resulting flow rates will be reduced possibly compromising the fire system. Delivered pressure isn’t static throughout any individual area system either; it depends on elevation, demand, capable flow, etc. I got some pretty low flow rates in my upstairs shower last summer, especially on Wednesdays and Saturdays when the half the neighborhood with even numbered address were trying to keep their yards and trees alive. It has some of the WaterSense reducing washers in it too.

Reducing pressure doesn’t automatically translate into reducing waste either. If I am filling up a pot to boil some pasta I still need a certain amount of water. Reducing the water pressure will just take it longer to fill. Same goes for my lawn, if I am trying to deliver a certain amount of gallons to an area reduced pressure will just take longer to do so. I agree that there could be some waste reduction in reduced pressure, but I don’t think it would be as significant as you think.

If you are measuring 90 PSI you probably ought to have a regulator installed off of your city tap.

#26 360texas

360texas

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SW Fort Worth, Texas USA
  • Interests:Digital photography, computers since 1980, Panorama imaging, world travel. After 37 years retired Federal Service 1999.

Posted 03 May 2012 - 05:11 PM

Agree with Fire stand pipes dry or wet. Reducing area water pressures might not be a good idea.

Over a couple of recent years we installed low flow designed fixtures [Moen, Kohler] and you might find others too that have built-in pressure reducing fixtures. More expensive yes, but I really got tired of replacing washers every 3rd year or so. Moen has a lifetime valve replacement warranty. Not sure whoes lifetime.
Dave still at


Visit 360texas.com

#27 360texas

360texas

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SW Fort Worth, Texas USA
  • Interests:Digital photography, computers since 1980, Panorama imaging, world travel. After 37 years retired Federal Service 1999.

Posted 03 May 2012 - 05:16 PM

AS you might have heard... Fort Worth is removing the Stage 1 water restrictions as of 4 May 2012. Starting tomorrow you can water any day of the week.

Conditions? Can not water from mid morning through late in the day... like maybe previous 10am through 6pm.

Which makes sense.. that time frame is the highest evaporating time of the day.

Good Thinking City of Fort Worth !!
Dave still at


Visit 360texas.com

#28 360texas

360texas

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SW Fort Worth, Texas USA
  • Interests:Digital photography, computers since 1980, Panorama imaging, world travel. After 37 years retired Federal Service 1999.

Posted 04 May 2012 - 10:06 AM

Regarding the fire sprinkler water pressure comment. Of the facilites we constructed there was always an installed emergency fire pump that energized the indoor fire suppression piping and sprinkler system. In some other facilities we installed a Halon like fire suppression system.

I guess some building fire sprinkler systems rely on city water pressure to drive the fire sprinklers. Not sure.
Dave still at


Visit 360texas.com

#29 pelligrini

pelligrini

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 205 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 02:45 PM

I certainly do hope the city won't pursue going back to a permanent Stage-1 policy. It seemed like a ham-fisted approach to a conservation policy. I do understand the need for water conservation, but there are probably better and more effective ways to go about conservation. Keeping a restriction from 10-6 isn't a bad idea. We had that as a voluntary standard for some time before. I would think the most effective means to conservation would be by billing. Additional usage above a determined level would be done at a highly increasing rate, and low usage would be at a low rate. Usage standards could possibly be based on lot size, house size, pool, etc., most of that data is already in the county tax records.

Personally, I hated the set Wednesday and Saturday watering schedule for my house. I don't have a large lot, maybe 1/3 of an acre. I have a tough time getting it all watered in one day (during allowed hours). I don't have a landscape sprinkler system either. When we've had the fixed restrictions before there were many times when I was contemplating on needing to water or not. There was a possibility of rain in the near future, but if it didn't happen I'd have to make the plants wait the full week.

Sprinklers- A lot of them do rely on the city pressure. Most of the multi-family that we've sprinkled with NFPA-13R have not had pumps added. One taller 4 story complex did need a pump. The few houses that I have seen sprinkled have used NFPA-13D, which came off the domestic supply.

#30 John T Roberts

John T Roberts

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,520 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Bicycling, Historic Preservation

Posted 04 May 2012 - 08:40 PM

I'm with you, Pelligrini. My property is a little bigger, also without a sprinkler system, just a touch shy of 1/2 acre (two inner-city lots) and I just barely made watering it all in the allotted time frame for one day. My days were Thursday and Sunday. I would set my cell phone alarms for 12:01 AM, 2:00 AM, 4:00 AM, and 6:00 AM, then I would move the sprinkler at those times and turn it off just before 8 when I left for work. At 6:00, I would turn it back on and finish up the yard by midnight. It was a lot of work and I lost a lot of sleep. Fortunately, the weather started cooling down soon after the restrictions started and I didn't worry so much if I didn't finish on my day.

#31 360texas

360texas

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SW Fort Worth, Texas USA
  • Interests:Digital photography, computers since 1980, Panorama imaging, world travel. After 37 years retired Federal Service 1999.

Posted 07 June 2012 - 12:42 PM

Here in Wedgewood I got a solid 1.5 inches of needed rain in our rain guage this morning. I wonder how much of the run off made it to the lakes ? Lake levels now ?
Dave still at


Visit 360texas.com

#32 Volare

Volare

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 07 June 2012 - 10:32 PM

95% as of this morning. It will take a couple of days for the runoff to reach the lakes. I would expect them to go up maybe a percent or two. You can get the daily report here:

http://www.trwd.com/DailyReport.aspx

#33 Volare

Volare

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 05 January 2013 - 05:51 PM

This issue is about to get fired up again. Water levels are down to 77% (trigger for Stage 1 is 75%). Head of the Water Dept will be addressing the City Council this Tuesday to discuss this issue. Given that Stage 1 primarily targets lawn watering, enacting it now with do absolutely nothing to consumption as lawns are dormant, but I'm sure they want to get it into place before watering begins- regardless of what water levels do this spring.

 

Conservation learned from the summer of 2011 worked so well that in 2012 the City had to contemplate raising water rates because users were conserving too well.



#34 360texas

360texas

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SW Fort Worth, Texas USA
  • Interests:Digital photography, computers since 1980, Panorama imaging, world travel. After 37 years retired Federal Service 1999.

Posted 06 January 2013 - 04:08 PM

Yes, and I recall it was the City Water department that was asking for a raise because customers were conserving water "to much" [as you said].  The water department was running short of income revenue.  City flat out REJECTED' the water departments request probably due to poor [my opinion] water department money management and future planning.

 

I think it is premature to get water restrictions in place. Better wait for a few months as April and May are usually wettest months. 

 

As you so aptly put it... who waters their dormat grass in the winter ?


Dave still at


Visit 360texas.com

#35 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,765 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 06 January 2013 - 11:14 PM

In this area we have two types of problems with rain: not enough or too much. We never seem to stay in the middle ground for long, and you can bet that things are only going to get worse in the future. Year round restrictions are smart. We live on the edge of a semi-arid area and the desert is edging closer. With this many people concentrated together in a region water is not a luxury, or a cheap commodity to waste. Millions of dollars are being wasted trying to sue Oklahoma so we can take their water. Conservation, reuse, and local smaller-scale storage of rainwater is where this has to end up. The reservoirs can be a backup but we need to stop being so dependent on them. Cheap water that can be taken for granted, not just in Fort Worth or Texas, is a thing of the past.



#36 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,071 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76123

Posted 06 January 2013 - 11:17 PM

I'm working toward native plants in my garden- a lot of sage, lantana and amaryllis.... the stuff that grows wild in the fields.


My blog: Doohickie

#37 360texas

360texas

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SW Fort Worth, Texas USA
  • Interests:Digital photography, computers since 1980, Panorama imaging, world travel. After 37 years retired Federal Service 1999.

Posted 07 January 2013 - 09:52 AM

Agreed,  we went Xeriescape in April 2004.  One of the best approach to landscaping for a couple of reasons.  

 

1.  Maintenance... means weeding, lawn mowing, fertilizer, and yes watering our back yard.  I was planning for when I get too old to go out and do those tasks.... fewer tasks the better.  Our goal was to reduce the lawn fertilizing, mowing and watering to less than 50%.  That means repurposing the lawn area to planted areas using native regional perineals.  The word 'evergreen' comes to mind or stays green all year around.  We also wanted  seasonal color.  That means that various native plants flower at slightly different time frames... so a plant or shrub is flowering this month, another shrub flowers next month and so on.

 

2.  Best reason: All this means that I only have to do 20% of the work.

 

9 years later... all the shrubs have matured.  Flowering shrubs are doing their thing.  And I am not working as hard.   And watering?  Yes, we still have to water but not nearly as much when that area was full grass area.  Best plantings we found were:  Wax and Craype Myrtles,  Smoke Tree, Little Gem Magnolia.  Red Dwarf Barberry, Indian Hawthorn, Sage,  Green / gray Santolina,  Autumn sage, lambs ear, Lantana, Red and Soft (White) Yucca's and fruit bearing Locquats.  Emphasis also on DWARFS plantings.

 

We have found that Texas Autumn Sage [red, pink and purple] and Red Yucca's attract humming birds.   Locquat's attract bee's and butterflys.  Lantana are great for butterflys too.  We have Wax Myertles and Craype Myertles.  One of them flowers and the other gets grey seed bunches.  Our resident Mocking Bird likes plants and shrubs that produce fruit.

 

I have shown this before.. but here is a link to our Xeriscape page.   On the lower right corner of the page find Original site photo  and an Xeriscape Plant list you might consider.
 

http://360texas.com/...scape/index.htm

 


   


Dave still at


Visit 360texas.com

#38 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,071 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76123

Posted 07 January 2013 - 10:19 AM

Ah, that should be useful.  Thanks!


My blog: Doohickie

#39 Volare

Volare

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 20 May 2013 - 10:22 AM

This issue is getting fired up again. Expect Fort Worth to go to Stage 1 within 2 weeks. Despite talk back in January of engaging the public and getting input on revising the ordinance, the City Council on Tuesday the 21st will be asked approve revisions to the ordinance with no such input having occurred. I wish I could say I'm surprised.

 

My guess is that if we go into Stage 1 now we will never come out of mandatory twice a week water rationing again- the mayor seems determined to make it stick judging from some comments she has made in meetings. If you want to clean the pollen off your house you better do it before Stage 1 goes into effect, or you'll have to get a variance- brilliant use of city resources there.



#40 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,071 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76123

Posted 20 May 2013 - 11:28 AM

I haven't watered yet this year.  I've been cultivating native and low-moisture plants for a few years now- Amaryllis, Lantana, Verbena, Mexican Heather, Dianthus Sage, Roses, etc.  My lawn has never been the best but it looks okay when it's all mowed down to a uniform height.  This has been a great year so far.  I finally coaxed some of the wild, light purple Verbena into the yard, and my Dianthus has blown some seeds around and is spreading.  This kind of gardening is far more rewarding to me than simply dropping annuals in and watering them for a few months.

 

I planted some yellow daisy-ish flowers that I got from Costco, most of them are doing pretty good so far.


My blog: Doohickie

#41 Volare

Volare

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 20 May 2013 - 11:40 AM

I concur with you Doohickie that is has been a good year for the rain. I've had to water some, but not very much and more on my drip setups than anything.

 

Unfortuntely while it has been enough to keep most lawns, trees, and shurbs happy, it hasn't been enough to fill the lakes. This is what happens when 100% of your water supply is subject to evaporation (not the case in all cities). We could shut off all of the city water tomorrow and the lakes will still dry up if there is no rain. And we don't need it to rain on downtown Fort Worth either. Anything that falls there is lost to all of the reservoirs that make up our water supply. We need the rain to fall about 40 miles southeast of Dallas, where 80% of our water supply comes from Richland Chambers and Cedar Creek Reserviors. Strange quirks of our system...



#42 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,071 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76123

Posted 20 May 2013 - 12:24 PM

Actually, my point isn't that it's been a good year for rain; it hasn't been really.  My point is I'm trying to transition my vegetation to low-moisture plants.


My blog: Doohickie

#43 Volare

Volare

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 20 June 2013 - 03:08 PM

I guess I would need to see a schedule of district meetings specifically assigned to publically discuss this topic of "Rationing water"....

 

Here come the public meetings: June 25, 27 and July 8 (online). All at 6:30 pm. Message me if you'd like to join The Resistance.



#44 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,765 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 20 June 2013 - 05:28 PM

The S-T was soliciting letters of up to 150 words addressing the regional water problem in light of the SCOTUS decision denying Texas water districts the right to force access to Oklahoma supplies. The following is my contribution. These letters are supposed to appear in Monday's edition:

 

 

The current concern with water supply is additional evidence of our unsustainable model for urban development.

 

One might say we have two water problems in north Texas; too much or not enough. Water from rainfall is allowed to flow off roofed and paved-over properties into the streets and then down to the creeks. Residents are taxed to channelize creek beds to allow water to flow faster and deeper, causing floods downstream. In the meanwhile no attempt is made to capture this water and store it for later use.

 

Water for public utility use seems to be defined as water from elsewhere. Texas cities should be producing at least a third of their own water needs from inside the city limits. Smarter development, conservation, reuse, and rainwater harvesting are all practices that, combined with a sensible water rate system that rewards lower volume usage, would help cities reach that goal.



#45 Volare

Volare

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 25 June 2013 - 03:41 PM

Water meeting tonight 6 pm reception, 6:30 pm program begins

 

Heritage Trace Church of Christ, 4201 Heritage Trace Parkway



#46 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,765 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 25 June 2013 - 08:39 PM

Not sufficient lead-time or I would have attended.



#47 Volare

Volare

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 26 June 2013 - 06:55 AM

There is another meeting on Thursday, June 27th, again starting at 6 with the presentation at 6:30. This one is at Unity Church of Fort Worth, 5051 Trail Lake Drive (just outside 820 and east of Hulen mall). There will be a final online meeting on July 8th also at 6:30.

 

Be advised that all of these meetings are designed to elict proof for the cities permanent water rationing plan. A "fascilitator" has been brought in from Austin and the questions as well as the "consensus" group exercise is designed to shut out anyone who doesn't want to go along with the group. The outcome is preordained. Google the "delphi method" before you go so you'll know what they are doing to you.
 



#48 gdvanc

gdvanc

    Elite Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 610 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Arlington

Posted 04 July 2013 - 12:16 AM

I'll admit that I initially supported permanent water restrictions, but backed off after some thought. While I acknowledge that we are not prepared for the impact of anticipated regional population growth on our water supplies, I'm not convinced water restrictions during non-drought years will have the benefit they seek. I'm not a hydrologist or ecohydrologist or hydroecologist -  I don't even know what those mean - but if our lake levels are above 90% at the top of the cycle with our current practice, the benefit of water restrictions during non-drought years will flow downstream. I'm sure our downstream neighbors will appreciate that, but it doesn't solve our long-term issue.

 

It should be clear that water restrictions are quite effective during drought conditions. Here's a bit of that sciency stuff to support that: USE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF MUNICIPAL WATER RESTRICTIONS DURING DROUGHT IN COLORADO. [It's a PDF.] And while their research does strongly support the use of water restrictions during drought years, the authors offer some caution about trying to get the same savings during non-drought years. I think there are probably issues with it beyond the two or three they mention.

 

I'm all for looking for ways to reduce our per-capita demand on our water supply. Give some incentives for cisterns and for landscaping that requires minimal irrigation. A number of good ideas have been proposed. Long-term, though, we're going to need to expand our water supply with or without reduced per-capita consumption.

 

 

One thing I did learn while 'researching' water use was that 1" of water per week is a rule of thumb for watering your lawn. That seems like an awful lot to me. I'm not sure if our local conditions warrant a different number. I'm sure it makes a difference which of our local soil types you have. But 1" works out to something like .623 gallons per square foot. Do the math. I'm too sleepy myself, and my wife waters the lawn anyway. I wonder how many people bother to measure the output of their sprinklers to make sure they're delivering the right amount of hydration?

 

 

(Also - just curious - which uses more water: streetcars or buses? Can I spread that debate here?)



#49 Volare

Volare

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 19 March 2014 - 08:58 AM

The cram-down is coming. They decided what they were going to do years ago. I doubt anything can be done to change it at this point.

 

http://www.star-tele...adlines-default



#50 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Near Southside

Posted 19 March 2014 - 09:13 AM

Speaking as somebody who is not a fan of lawns and has never watered their lawn once since they've had one, I can't say I'm bothered.


I play '60s-inspired power pop in The Diabolical Machines

Yes, I was the Fort Worthology guy





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users