Sacramento won't fine couple who let lawn die
Ablang
By Matt Weiser - mweiser at sacbee.com
Published 12:00 am PDT Thursday, July 3, 2008
Story appeared in MAIN NEWS section, Page A1
http://www.sacbee.com/378/story/1057802.html
Sacramento city officials on Wednesday admitted their code enforcement
policies may not be drought-friendly, and said they won't fine the
couple featured in Wednesday's Bee who let their front lawn die to
save water.
The story prompted a torrent of outrage from the public, who
overwhelmingly supported Anne Hartridge and Matt George, the east
Sacramento couple cited by city code enforcers after they stopped
watering their lawn.
More than 160 readers commented on The Bee's Web site as of 5 p.m.
Wednesday, from as far away as San Diego. Dozens called or e-mailed
the city.
"When you think about all the water being wasted everywhere, it's
horrible they would go after that poor woman," said Ursula Crabtree of
Carmichael. "If this person is being persecuted, something is wrong
with the system."
Steve Caraway, a Sacramento sales representative for Forever Lawn,
offered to pay the couple's fine and sell them an artificial turf at
cost. But he didn't know the city's codes forbid artificial turf in
front yards.
"That's odd because we have quite a few of them in Sacramento," he
said. "That is pretty crazy."
Ron Riola, who lives near McKinley Park, said he sees people
gratuitously wasting water every time he walks his dog, which he does
at least twice a day.
He said he has reported more than 100 cases of water waste to the city
in the past six years, and said none has been corrected.
"I wish I didn't have the time to do it because my blood pressure
would be lower," said Riola, who is retired. "It literally has to be
thousands and thousands of gallons wasted every day, all the time. You
see it and you just shake your head."
The city's director of code enforcement, Max Fernandez, told The Bee
on Wednesday the front-yard rules allow more flexibility than the code
language indicates.
The code states explicitly that front yards "shall be landscaped,
irrigated and maintained." This would seem to preclude yards that are
simply mulched, like Hartridge's, or those that use cactuses or other
drought-tolerant plants requiring no water.
"The key word is a 'maintained' front yard," Fernandez said. If a yard
is being tended and is not a nuisance, he said, it's OK.
He said his department has begun preparing a flier to give to people
who have chosen to let their lawns die so they will know their
landscaping options to comply with city rules. That should be
available next week.
Complaints about front yards have increased this year, he said, but
many pertain to foreclosed homes, not water savers. He said it's
important to have clear policies that treat each fairly.
He said Hartridge and her husband would not be fined.
"The mulch and hydrangeas and stuff like that is quite all right," he
said of the couple's yard. "If this drought continues, we're going to
have to change our policies when we get complaints like this."
City Councilman Steve Cohn said the code enforcement officer in this
case may have been "overzealous." He plans to meet with Hartridge and
George next week to discuss their situation, and said city codes may
need revising to be drought-friendly.
"I agree it's outrageous," Cohn said. "I think we probably would need
to revisit the ordinance if we want to make it clear that people don't
have to water at all."
He also said the Utilities Department may need more resources to
handle water waste calls.
The department's conservation unit has seven employees. Five are
inspectors who respond to complaints: three part-time and two full-
time. One of the full-time jobs is vacant.
Julie Friedman, the city's water conservation administrator, said her
staff gets about 1,000 water-waste complaints annually and responds to
each within one day. The department prefers to get such complaints on
its billing number, (916) 808-5454.
The first response is to meet with the property owner to explain the
violation or leave an informational door hanger. There is no follow-up
unless complaints continue on the same address.
The department gives water wasters up to three warnings before
considering a penalty. Then they could be fined up to five times their
water rate and even have their water service turned off. Both
penalties are very rare.
"The city usually bends over backwards to help people and educate
people," said Friedman.
For her part, Hartridge was glad to hear she won't have to spend "half
a mortgage payment" on a city fine.
"I feel thrilled that the city is taking it seriously," she said.
Ablang
The Associated Press
Last Updated 1:49 pm PDT Wednesday, July 2, 2008
http://www.sacbee.com/114/story/1056752.html
SACRAMENTO -- It seems there's a penalty for trying to conserve water
in Sacramento.
A couple who stopped watering their front lawn last month has been
cited for creating a public nuisance and is facing a $746 fine.
Anne Hartridge and Matt George say they let their lawn die after the
governor declared a statewide drought on June 4.
A city official says the dead lawn violates a city code requiring
front yards to be irrigated, landscaped and maintained.
The husband and wife bought their home in east Sacramento so they
could bike to work and shops. They have solar panels, efficient
appliances and dry their laundry on a clothesline.
Dave
Minor nit...the lawn isn't dead. Many people believe that when grass
turns brown it is "dead". No, it is more accurate to say that when
grass is OVER-watered, it changes from brown to green.
But it seems ridiculous for any community, especially in CALIFORNIA, to
mandate by law that water needs to be wasted by deliberately breaking a
water pipe outside your residence. That is essentially what you do
when you water your lawn...you cause a deliberate water leak, centered
on your lawn. Very wasteful. -Dave