I read your linked blog. You even admitted in your blog:

“Conservation probably does matter in cities in areas of clay, loam or sandstone soils.”

Those 3 soil types probably account for 85% (or more) of the soils found in densely populated urban areas in California. Therefore, my argument in FAVOR of converting grass lawns to desert landscapes for water conservation has merit and makes perfect sense – while your argument against this practice loses significant steam. No wonder ‘recharge’ is not a popular topic of interest during a drought. Most areas do not rely on it as their primary water source and most communities have soil types that are not compatible with it and call for strict conservation during times of drought.

And, as I clearly stated, we need to find better ways to catch the water runoff during the rainy season BEFORE the useable water flows out into the ocean. Billions of gallons of water are lost long-term due to poor recapturing systems (other than ‘recharge’).

You should be promote grass lawn to desert landscape conversions in all communities with clay, loam or sandstone soils, which accounts for most of California’s urban areas. I have no idea why you’re fighting me.

Not twisting anything. You told me that converting grass lawns to desert landscapes is not a good idea since it adversely impacts the ‘recharge’ rate of the water basins that some communities rely on for a decent percentage of their water. IOW, we should forfeit saving the water from grass lawn waterings because it impedes the water basins from getting replenished during the wet seasons. If what you say holds true, then SGV Water Company and the Pasadena Water District must encourage their residents to continue watering their lawns and would not encourage them to plant indigenous or desert plants in their landscapes to save water. I went to the SGV Water Company’s website. They do the opposite. They have imposed water restrictions on outdoor waterings and do encourage their residents to plant water friendly plants. So what you say makes little sense to me. I will do more research today and report back to you.

“Calculate a 15% loss of groundwater return flow per year and see if you still advocate eliminating 25% of lawns.”

First, you’re not going to lose that much “recharge” even if the ground is bone dry during a wet season. The ground will suck up the water like a sponge. Will there be some runoff? Sure. But that’s why we need to find BETTER ways to CAPTURE more water for human use. In the meantime, you’ve LOST the opportunity of saving millions of gallons of water by not incentivizing homeowners to convert their grass lawns to indigenous plant landscapes that use very little water. If what you say has merit then all the water districts would not restrict people from watering their grass or financially incentivize them to convert to desert landscapes. I concur that raising water rates is not the answer. And home rain barrels is more a ‘feel good’ method that shows little net gain. But when you consider the average grass watering probably consumes 150 gallons of water twice or three times per week – when you multiply that by a million households (or more) that’s A LOT of water! So I will continue to disagree with you on this one until you show me the necessary proof (Boulder, Co is not proof) heh. Why not write a blog on it if you are so certain that you are right?

And rationing is the answer eh? Twice the population since our last reservoir was built and we just have to quit watering lawns … hmmmm … but at least the natural state of things is preserved for the save the earth crowd, right?

You might want to read what water engineer David Powell has to say on the topic.

He is a retired former head of the San Diego office of the California Department of Water Resources, formerly also with Bookman Edmondson Engineering, and formerly Chief Planning Engineer for the Alameda Water District.

Read here: http://calwatchdog.com/2014/03/12/will-ripping-out-home-lawns-conserve-water/

Powell taught me personally about “return flow”

If you want to have a discussion please don’t twist what i wrote.

Farmers learn not to plant the seed corn this year that will be needed the year after.

Same with water.

We don’t have enough water to irrigate landscaping in dry years. Once again it is critical wet years that count.

Do you like your cheap $20 to $120 per acre foot groundwater or would you prefer our $1,000 per acre foot treated imported water or your $2,000 per acre foot desalted water?

Good comment.

The key is to recapture water used for residential landscaping not just rain runoff.

Southern Californians pay a hefty premium to imported water from the Sacramento Delta and to be able to recapture it and use it twice lowers the effective water rate for water ratepayers.

The best way to recapture landscaping water is to put it into the ground in areas of alluvial soils and DURING WET YEARS.

Calculate a 15% loss of groundwater return flow per year and see if you still advocate eliminating 25% of lawns. Getting rid of lawns, paying higher water rates to spur conservation, rain barrels, etc. are the modern day religious asceticism. That is why it is appealing.