City Sues Homeowner for Not Wasting Enough Water on Lawn

A couple in Orange, California have been threatened with a lawsuit from the city–because they tore up their water-wasting lawn and replaced it with wood chips and drought-resistant plants. The Los Angeles Times reports that Quan and Angelina Ha reduced their annual water usage from 299,221 gallons in 2007 to 58,348 gallons in 2009: an 80% savings. The city says the Has are not in compliance with an ordinance requiring 40% plant coverage. On Tuesday Quan Ha pleaded not guilty to a misdemeanor for violating county codes.

Sometimes when people have kids of their own,they start to question the kind of world they will leave to their children and children’s children. Mr. Ha explains: “We’ve got a newborn, so we want to start worrying about her future.” Not only is the non-lawn saving tens of thousands of gallons of scarce water, but it is also saving the family hundreds of dollars a year. Should they be sued for not complying with an outdated, even harmful, suburban aesthetic ideal?

A California Public Policy Institute report estimates that outdoor water use accounts for more than half of all residential water demand. Ironically the Ha family, by removing their lawn, are actually abiding by the recommendations of the state water agency. The State of California’s Water Use Efficiency website urges conservation efforts, including:”Water-efficient landscape designs using low water-use plants” and “Minimized turf areas.” Just what the Has had done.

Water is a key political and economic issue in California, as in other parts of the Southwest. The state has endured three consecutive years of drought and reservoirs are low. There is ongoing wrangling between agricultural and residential water interests, and concern grows that water will be the new oil, a conflict-prone linchpin and threat for the long-term viability of the state. While legal compliance is important, surely common sense is more so. Let’s hope this ridiculous charge is dropped in favor of responsible behavior, especially behavior that considers the needs of generations to come.

Photo: Brad Wieland, Studio A Inc. via iStockphoto

quick poll

vote now!

Loading poll...

no!
leaning no
leaning yes
yes!

no!
leaning no
leaning yes
yes!

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Kristen R.

12:34PM PDT on Apr 9, 2010

Only in America.

send a green star

Janice P.

5:47PM PDT on Mar 25, 2010

I recently discovered another avenue for proliferating water waste. When my mother was in the hospital, I was paying all of her bills. Her water bill is always much higher than mine. (She lived in St. Louis City, and I live in St. Louis County.) I thought the difference was merely the rate differences between the city and the county, but I discovered the real reason for the difference after she died. No one has been in her house for almost 7 months. Her water bill is still very high, so I called St. Louis City Water Department, to inquire about it. I told them that her bill should be almost non-existent, given that no one has been in her house and using water. They explained to me that the city is on a "fixed rate", that it is always the same, no matter how much or how little you use. This is insane. (St. LouisCounty is on a metered rate, charging for the amount of water you actually use.)

My mother's next door neighbor has a big swimming pool and a big hot tub in his backyard. They are always full. Even when my mother was still alive, she used comparatively little water. The result of this kind of billing practice is that it not only makes the smaller family subsidize the larger family, but it encourages a lot of water usage. I don't think St. Louis City - and other cities like it - understand the idea of conservation and limited resources. How do the water districts in your area charge? Are their rate methods in accordance wit conservation or waste?

Rajee S.

4:39AM PDT on Mar 20, 2010

Thanks Nancy! Nice read!

Anne H.

1:43AM PDT on Mar 20, 2010

The title of the article is a bit deceiving. The situation is following the process needed to make changes. Thank you to the Ha's for being a part of that change. Hopefully the neighbors accept the changes and rally behind the Ha's, the city should drop the charges.

Ruth B.

9:43PM PDT on Mar 19, 2010

Weird. We have water restrictions down here - watering lawns is banned entirely. You can water your garden between the hours of 6 and 8 am on two allocated days a week. Some housing developments specify that only hardy indigenous plants are allowed to be planted in the gardens. The Ha's would be welcome here.

Brit W.

3:11PM PDT on Mar 19, 2010

There are doing no harm. This is beneficial.

Barb F.

9:47AM PDT on Mar 19, 2010

I'm in absolute agreement,
i read about this a while back! why put senseless, subjective aestheticism ahead of thrift, ecology, and practicality? don't *sue* these people. sing their praises! give them their own PBS special! let them teach a class so that others may follow their example!

Sylvia B.

8:08AM PDT on Mar 19, 2010

It is a good thing I don't live in this area, because I probably would be fined left and right for only mowing my lawn once a month. However, I live on 10 acres of land, and part of it is set aside for the horse to eat.

Michelle M.

6:37AM PDT on Mar 19, 2010

Lawns have no business in the west...not enough rainfall. They are a remnant of our European roots. No need for lawns...and why do we have to have cities of ticky-tacky where everything looks just the same? BORING.

Doing GCSEs N.

1:00PM PDT on Mar 18, 2010

As long as they've done it right, I'm sure that it actually looks a lot better and more interesting than a boring old lawn!