Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Editorial: California should say goodbye to grass that’s only there for looks

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 45 posts

Re: Editorial: California should say goodbye to grass that’s only there for looks

#11

Post by sentientslug »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #5
nwellinghoff wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you report some numbers relative to total water use that justify that statement? Golf is a very popular sport and they often use reclaimed water not suitable for drinking. The grass also has a “function” as its the surface for the sport. Do they really account for that much water usage vs everyone having a lawn that does nothing?

Golf, he said, consumes less than 1% of all water used in California, but nearly 25% of Coachella Valley water. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-10-09/steve-lo... I have mixed feelings about golf courses, but there is a thimbleful of actual data for you.

Okay, and what percentage of drinkable water do the golf courses use?

Re: Editorial: California should say goodbye to grass that’s only there for looks

#12

Post by bsder »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #9

For water, grass doesn’t matter. Golf courses don’t matter. Californians water “shortage”, like its housing crisis, is a political choice. In this case, it’s entirely a problem of agriculture. (The other arguments against ornamental lawns are valid. As someone allergic to many grasses, I have no love lost for lawns.)

Agreed. There are lots of arguments against the "ornamental grass lawn", but consumer water usage is a very weak one. Doubly so because consumers pay real rates for their water usage.

The water "shortage" in California is an "agribusiness water shortage". Shut down a bunch of farms and California has plenty of water.

Re: Editorial: California should say goodbye to grass that’s only there for looks

#13

Post by vGPU »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #5
nwellinghoff wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you report some numbers relative to total water use that justify that statement? Golf is a very popular sport and they often use reclaimed water not suitable for drinking. The grass also has a “function” as its the surface for the sport. Do they really account for that much water usage vs everyone having a lawn that does nothing?

Golf, he said, consumes less than 1% of all water used in California, but nearly 25% of Coachella Valley water. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-10-09/steve-lo... I have mixed feelings about golf courses, but there is a thimbleful of actual data for you.

You forgot the line right before it.

> Kessler said the valley has less than 1% of Southern California’s population, but 28.6% of its golf courses.

The entire article actually made me feel better about golf courses existing than before I read it, and I think golf is stupid.

Re: Editorial: California should say goodbye to grass that’s only there for looks

#15

Post by iraqmtpizza »

someonehere wrote: post #2

Get rid of golf courses first. I saw many on my road trip from one side of the state to the other. We also need more water storage because we just had a ton of rainfall and let it run out to the ocean this summer.

[flagged]

Re: Editorial: California should say goodbye to grass that’s only there for looks

#16

Post by hedora »

inamberclad wrote: post #6

While our water coffers are full, we should look at replacing more of the ornamental, non native plants that people have with natives grassss, flowers, shrubs, and trees. California is a botanical bounty and there's no reason why we need such an artificial monoculture when native plants support local wildlife, require fewer resources and less upkeep, and often look better as well. Not to mention that they often smell…

The tall, dead yellow grass in California is non-native avena. A pesticide that selectively killed it (and actually succeeded in killing nothing else) would be an ecological miracle.

Having said that, people in the cities should plant natives and consider replacing lawns with native wildflower mix and paths. They attract beneficial insects, and those attract and support native birds. It’s also much lower maintenance.

Native insects and birds typically cannot survive on non-native plants. From animals’ perspective, your lush non-native garden may as well be asphalt.

You can find local natives for your neighborhood’s microclimate here:

https://calscape.org/

Re: Editorial: California should say goodbye to grass that’s only there for looks

#17

Post by pstuart »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #10
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #9

For water, grass doesn’t matter. Golf courses don’t matter. Californians water “shortage”, like its housing crisis, is a political choice. In this case, it’s entirely a problem of agriculture. (The other arguments against ornamental lawns are valid. As someone allergic to many grasses, I have no love lost for lawns.)

They could probably dramatically reduce the amount of water used by agriculture while still having plenty of agriculture. Decades ago, I saw an article about making little basins to capture rain water in the right amount to sustain a tree in the desert to grow fruiting trees in places like the Middle East using natural rainfall in order to increase productivity of arid lands without stressing the environment. I don't…

Yep, the incentives need to change -- water contracts need revisiting.

And those basins and other flow control techniques should be embraced ubiquitously in the west; we could green a lot up if we collaborated properly.

Re: Editorial: California should say goodbye to grass that’s only there for looks

#18

Post by asu_thomas »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #10
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #9

For water, grass doesn’t matter. Golf courses don’t matter. Californians water “shortage”, like its housing crisis, is a political choice. In this case, it’s entirely a problem of agriculture. (The other arguments against ornamental lawns are valid. As someone allergic to many grasses, I have no love lost for lawns.)

They could probably dramatically reduce the amount of water used by agriculture while still having plenty of agriculture. Decades ago, I saw an article about making little basins to capture rain water in the right amount to sustain a tree in the desert to grow fruiting trees in places like the Middle East using natural rainfall in order to increase productivity of arid lands without stressing the environment. I don't…

> They could probably dramatically reduce the amount of water used by agriculture...

Politically, "they" could not and that is the problem. Think about this. Who is "they?" Who could have the political power and will to do something like that without the support of the agriculture industry?

Re: Editorial: California should say goodbye to grass that’s only there for looks

#19

Post by DoreenMichele »

asu_thomas wrote: post #18
DoreenMichele wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could probably dramatically reduce the amount of water used by agriculture while still having plenty of agriculture. Decades ago, I saw an article about making little basins to capture rain water in the right amount to sustain a tree in the desert to grow fruiting trees in places like the Middle East using natural rainfall in order to increase productivity of arid lands without stressing the environment. I don't…

> They could probably dramatically reduce the amount of water used by agriculture... Politically, "they" could not and that is the problem. Think about this. Who is "they?" Who could have the political power and will to do something like that without the support of the agriculture industry?

Why do you think "they" refers to anyone other than farmers?

Re: Editorial: California should say goodbye to grass that’s only there for looks

#20

Post by asu_thomas »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #19
asu_thomas wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They could probably dramatically reduce the amount of water used by agriculture... Politically, "they" could not and that is the problem. Think about this. Who is "they?" Who could have the political power and will to do something like that without the support of the agriculture industry?

Why do you think "they" refers to anyone other than farmers?

Fair question.

If you're talking about actual laborers, most of them aren't even citizens and this is not a priority for them.

If you're talking about the corporate boards who run the agriculture industry, this increases cost without increasing profit so this is not a priority for them.

I just can't think of how the agriculture industry could possibly get behind this.

Post reply on HN