I will give this question adequate answers -- but not for a day or two. Excellent questions and an excellent idea to start a new thread. I'm pretty well swamped until after this Sunday...

IronBelly

What a perfect pun, Ironbelly :-) given the thread title.

KarinL

I'm on suspenders here. A post hallowe'en Ironbelly rising from the swamp to spout wisdom could add some necessary sauce to an otherwise dull subject. The clue is probably 'sustainability'. One way to improve sustainability is to design a garden without those annoying plants that require water to survive. He can't mean THAT surely. Oh well, only two days to go.

Water issues are much on my mind these days (years!) My rain gauge records for the garden show April-Oct. total rainfalls of:
2003 - 16"
2004 - 14"
2005 - 20"
2006 - 27" (!)
2007 - 11.6"

Variability seems to be as much of an issue as drought. There doesn't seem to be a 'normal' anything any more! Survival of the fittest is the general approach here. It'll be interesting to see what the water wisdom is from the Midwest.

A bit to one side of this discussion, yet pertinent. Today I was talking with a rep for wholesale nurseries. He said that many southeastern wholesalers are not taking orders for spring plant delivery because they do not have enough water for growing due to the serious drought. Looks as though there will be plant shortages and higher prices ahead in some areas.

Nandina...

One of our favorite wholesale nurseries sent us their last shipment not long ago. The place that had many of the cool, more unusual plants...the place whose trucks the GC staff couldn't wait to unload...they've shut down. For good. The drought was the last straw.

Makes me sad.

It does seem abit ironic that the Southeast USA, which so many of us consider to be water blessed with year round rainfall is now suffering from lack of water similar to the West Coast. Californians know that we will also be facing this sort of dilemma in the near future, but landscaping doesn't seem to reflect the current reality yet, and unlimited water from the northern California delta continues to flow unabated towards all those pools and lawns in southern California.

The new reality is that we will all be facing more limited water supplies for landscape purposes in our lifetimes, and ought to be ahead of the curve in designing for this new reality. Historic solutions will again become current ones, with more efforts to collect roof top rainfall, and utilize gray water for landscape irrigation. It wouldn't bother me at all to see large lawns go the way of the dinosaur in areas where they can't be sustained by rainfall alone, and planting choices reflect a sustainable maintenance and irrigation practice, rather than select landscape plants and trees on purely esthetic considerations alone.

We could be seeing alot more desert species in landscaping here in California, along with the myriad succulents and seasonally drought adapted mediterranean species that have always done so well in low maintenance gardens here. As well, regional native plantings might actually start to take hold in a bigger way, but I hestitate to go there myself as it is an issue so fraught with its own dogma. I personally have a very difficult time with the native plant police that advocate "entirely native" gardens as being the best approach.

I'm not too worried that long term droughts will be the end of the industry here in California, it just means that we will have to adapt our esthetic models to the new reality, and should in fact end up giving us a better, more integrated esthetic with our actual climate than the mindless lush subtropical garden with expanses of green lawn that have become the default mode for many gardens.

When I was working in FL, the region was reclaiming more than 50% of the treated wastewater (most AWT) for irrigation. With half a million people in the area, the water recalimed was in the range of close ot 10 million gallons a day. Not only did it provide irrigation water, it offset demand for potable water (which was in short supply) for those purposes. Further, nitrogen loads discharged to the surface water declined significantly resulting in gains in water quality and seagrass habitat.
There was another program to use native landscape design principles to reduce water consumption and fertilizer runoff. It turned out that the fertilizer from the nursery pots leached out from the native plots at a rate in the first year that was higher than compounded rates from turf, but the native material did require significantly less water in out years as opposed to the turf.

As we always say, hardscape and function comes before the plants, and so the flow of water on the site might be the issue as referred to by the original speaker, as much as plant selection. At least in areas like ours where water is kind of copious at times.

KarinL

My first thought was stormwater management, not drought.

Since rain has probably been an occurrence since shortly after the Big Bang, it seems that stormwater runoff management issues would be a fundamental area of study in the LA/LD process and not one LA's epiphany moment.

When I first read the quote, I thought hardscapes, etc. too, but kept coming back to "sustainability". Then the idea of being conservative with a dwindling resource made more sense to me than planning for that sometimes event in which more rain falls than the ground can easily absorb.

But, Ironbelly will reveal all.

To understand water you need to study hydro-geology. That discipline studies the cycle of water (i.e. evaporation, rain, surface water migration, ground infiltration, migration to the ocean, then evaporation).

Is the cycle of water like the Lion-King cycle of life for a landscape design?

Point taken and the study of water is much more profound than knowing it's wet and all living things need it to a greater or lesser degree.

But with regard to understanding water without the benefit of any course of study, anyone who has had water in a basement or found erosion ruts in the landscape knows surface drainage on a gut level. And if you've seen ponding on your property or simply dug a hole, poured in water and watched how fast it perked through, you get a sense of soil drainage.

Never saw the Lion King, but know it advanced that there are four stages in a successful hydrologic cycle; precipitation, evaporation, run off, and infiltration. Man has impacted these stages by over reproducing its kind, over bulding to house/shelter its expanding population, over grazing, over harvesting, over industrializing, over polluting, over everything.

It's hard to think of our own little landscapes as contributing to what is already, or may become, a problem of wide consequence. I'm not fanatical in my views and I hope the day doesn't come when you can't plant a tree because it's roots are going to tap into an aquafir or a flower garden has to be denied supplemental waterings or plant growers can no longer grow the stock we love to buy each season...

" it seems that storm water runoff management issues would be a fundamental area of study in the LA/LD process and not one LA's epiphany moment."

Yes  but mostly no. Although there are certainly exceptions (as already demonstrated by some of the astute posters to this thread), addressing water management issues is most typically treated as an exercise in civil engineering  get it off site as quickly as possible. Backing up a bit further, even using the term, "storm water runoff" is quite telling. In most rainfall events, there need not be runoff on the typical residential home site. Sadly, this is almost never the case.

I have personally seen "storm water runoff" from a rain consisting of only 1/10th of an inch during the middle of the 2005 Midwestern drought. It hadnÂt rained for over 6 weeks and the parched soil had huge cracks. Yet, here we were, unbelievably disposing of this precious resource down the storm drains. Yes, very efficient and ever-so status quo design  but good design?

Isabella is exactly on track when she refers to the understanding of hydrology. ************************

I had the pleasure of hearing Jim Patchett speak on sustainable landscapes at a recent event celebrating the completion of a large civic project in Rock Island, Illinois. His firm oversaw the conversion of a contaminated, 7.5 acre brownfield industrial site into a park at the edge of the Mississippi River. The firm he heads is Conservation Design Forum, a multidisciplinary consulting firm from Elmhurst, Illinois. Mr. Patchett holds a degree in landscape architecture from Iowa State University and his firm is a collaboration of engineers, civic planners, designers, landscape architects, hydrologists and environmental scientists.

His firm has consulted on a number of large, often environmentally sensitive projects throughout the greater Chicago area. In addition, his firm has been actively involved with green roof projects throughout the downtown Chicago area.

So  the guy has credentials. However, it takes a bit more than a puffed-up resume to impress me. Over the years, I have heard more than my fair share of environmental cheerleaders. Although I have long considered myself to be an environmentalist, quite frankly, I consider many of the mouthpieces associated with this crowd to be an embarrassment. Al Gore, who chooses to let his environmental zeal exaggerate, misrepresent, distort and lie about the environmental "facts" to the extent requiring legal admonishments from British courts is but one of those who embarrass me. To Jim PatchettÂs credit, he chose to simply lay out the pros and cons; which on their own merits (including monetary feasibility) allowed one to arrive at their own conclusion. Interestingly, when all things (even initial installation costs) were considered, the most cost-effective approach took full consideration of the environmental aspects.

For example: A green roof conversion on top of a large building in the middle of the concrete jungle of downtown Chicago will not be cheap. However, if you start factoring in things like the massive air conditioning units, also located on these roofs, drawing in air that is some 50 degrees cooler, there begins to be a monetary benefit which exceeds the initial cost. Factor in reduced energy costs (both summer and winter) and extending the life of the roof; plus, throw in those intangible human factors of wildlife habitat and greenspace and the project looses money if you DON"T do it. (No politician doing double-talk here!) When you can lay out the distinct, financial advantages of an environmentally friendly construction approach, sans the warm & fuzzy "verbal diarrhea", things start to happen  whatever your political persuasion.

The heart of PatchettÂs message is that many design concerns (especially water) are too often dealt with in the status quo as something to be either concealed or gotten rid of  essentially waste products that require a means of disposal. While his projects are usually far beyond the scope of most folks visiting this forum, the core message remains applicable; even on a residential scale. We really need to examine "the way you are supposed to do it" and discern if the status quo is really cheaper  is certainly isnÂt any better. Unfortunately, local codes often get in the way.

"Understanding water" is somewhat regional and most definitely site specific. However, it goes without saying that it requires a realization that rain is a resource and not a waste product to be gotten rid of as quickly as possible. Quite frankly, just because you no longer see it, does not mean you are no longer paying for its disposal in a variety of hidden costs. By understanding the circuitous and often prolonged route that rain water naturally followed prior to European settlement of this continent, one can begin to incorporate cost saving methods into designs that take advantage of what the earth has the ability to do so well.

Especially these past few months, it should be coming dramatically clear that status quo isnÂt doesnÂt have a bright future for addressing an extended prolongation of the myriad of water issues we are currently experiencing. I share BahiaÂs revulsion at the idea of the plant police mandating use of only native plants. On the other hand, I shake my head in disbelief at designers and Master Gardeners who routinely recommend water dependent plants, like Astilbe and Ligularia, for homes in the middle of the prairie. As David has already noted, it is also ridiculous to insist upon bluegrass where it really shouldnÂt be grown. Do I want laws prohibiting those choices? No  but, I do want to raise the bar!

Clearly, water is potentially the biggest enemy of any structure and landscape if not properly controlled. However, we have choices about how to control it. Recent legislation has mandated some of this control, to varying degrees, based upon your locale. Historically, storm water control techniques have relied upon capture and transfer off site as quickly as possible. With the ever-increasing amount of impermeable surfaces (including lawns), we have succeeded in capturing more than we can safely dump into our streams in a short period of time. Now our governmental response has been to detain the collected water for a brief period to broaden the time span of the giant flush. Instead of detaining (temporarily holding) the water, we really need to start retaining it. In a nutshell, Mr. PatchettÂs design goal is to retain rain water onsite and site-specifically utilize it to best advantage without causing potential harm. Certainly a harmonious meshing of site grading, hydrology, plant & material selection all play major roles in a sustainable (Boy, I hate that term!) landscape.

OK, Tony  fire away! IÂll try to patch the gaping holes.

IronBelly

Ouch, I just cricked my neck from the vigour of my nodding in agreement. Like you, long been an environmentalist but embrassed by the current state of the movement. And it is more than time to start talking about the state of groundwater reserves and the effect on waterways and oceans of dumping the water that should be infiltrating. Thanks, IB, for an excellent report.

KarinL

Over the years, IB, I have walked many miles, literally, on this topic of storm water management. There are distinct facets which as you say are, "sometimes regional". Solutions vary, depending on location, soil types and methods of distributing storm water. Involved in the whole process are builders, civil engineers, planning boards, Corps. of Engineers, state departments of environment, each with its own agenda...especially the latter. In many areas the decision will be made to discharge water into a class C stream which joins a class B stream which empties into a class A stream (major river) which is dependent on upstream contribution, thus complete detention is not desirable. The authorities that I have worked with never indicated that storm water was "something to be concealed or gotten rid of..." Rather, when the building boom hit the intention was to put in place codes which allowed for the collection of and slow release of storm waters. There have been many designs developed to accomplish this. One major design flaw in the early retention ponds were the 'trickle tubes' which were of cheap construction and disintergrated in a few years. This whole process of storm water discharge has been a learning experience, but communities are getting on top of the many problems with laws; some good, some intrusive, some not well thought out. There still is more to do. As you point out, a homeowner may want to install a rain garden only to run into local laws that prohibit it.

CT. is the only state to mandate rain gardens in new construction. I just did a search trying to locate any updated information as to how it was working for them. Could not find anything helpful.

Change comes about, IB, when citizens crawl out of the sofa and TV watching (which is leading to the dumbing of America), go down to local government meetings, ask questions and work to get themselves placed on planning boards...or, better yet...run for local office. I can give you dozens of campaign techniques, IB, culled from running major political campaigns.

As a final thought...this subject of storm water control plus many other problem solving exercises seems to lack one dimension...application of common sense. Too many head-in-the-clouds theories which are not cost effective. Been there, been though it. Interesting...

What were you expecting from me by way of disagreement exactly Dan? First, I agree that the term 'design' when applied to the landscape goes way beyond making a garden look pretty. If you look at recent events in California you can see that certain genius loci are ignored at peril. Retaining water leads to obesity in humans but is less painful than dehydration; were the common sense that Ann suggests more available perhaps its application would have prevented the problem that we are now belatedly attempting to address. If you want to go to press with this Dan: "An inconvenient truth" was recommended as essential viewing but the judge said that some of it is not true in the way it is presented. Be careful not to confuse baby and bath water.

How many homeowners want to be responsible for the run-off on their property? Not too many, on another thread there was discussion about the disconect with people and the natural world. Will landscape maintenance companies offer rain garden services in CT? Are governments going to require cisterns on all new construction, and what about cross connection between the treated public water supply and cistern water? These proposals require more personal responsibility than many will not want to do.

(I have been wondering and wondering where my abandoned cistern is in my yard. All the neighbors have one, where is mine? There must be one, the people who built the house were avid gardners and very frugal. Its gotta be there somewhere.)

I think that philosophy (complete infiltration) is also going to be outdated (in large areas of the country) very fast. As was noted, water is a resource, people are going to find that allowing it to infiltrate may STILL not be the best use of that resource.

As a way to control run-off and wastewater discharge some large areas have developed regional re-use systems. However, they have found these systems useful not only in getting rid of water, but now in providing water when natural resources are scarce and ill-timed. The re-use water may also offset demand for higher quality potable water. I recall the budgets (5 years ago when I was closer to that field) for this displcement were cost effective compared to developing alternative supplies for potable water.

I find it quite interesting that folks living to the east of me with substantially higher population densities (Fact: The population of hogs exceeds the human population in Iowa.) focus on concerns quite different than what I hear locally. To be sure, all of the varied concerns are equally valid. They also clearly indicate that a site-specific and/or regional approach trumps a one size fits all mentality of : All you gotta do

In my Midwestern region, we do not worry about collecting water in reservoirs for later use, other than recreation. Potable municipal water is almost exclusively still drawn from wells although many of those municipal wells have had to be recently deepened. A few of the larger cities rely on river-sourced water.

It is perhaps helpful to realize that, other than early spring snow melt; storm water runoff is largely a recent phenomenon. We tend to think that rivers and streams are there to catch runoff, when historically, this occurrence was largely absent. Most laymen believe that rain water soaks straight into the ground and goes into the water table and aquifers. While some of this does take place, a good portion of that rain water traveled laterally underground and continuously seeped into the small streams and tributaries. The water was cleansed and the depth of streams did not take this wild yoyo ride they currently are on. Infiltrated storm water is not "gone"; it is largely just taking a lot longer to get into the streams.

In IronBellys little corner of the world, I am trying to lead by example. The best site-specific thing that I can do is retain the rainfall on my property. The next best thing that I can do is try to educate and encourage others in my community to consider similar actions. These actions can be both economically feasible and rooted in common sense. --- Sorry Im not going to be able to solve Atlanta, Georgias current water crisis.

Tibbs asked the question: "How many homeowners want to be responsible for the run-off on their property?" My response is, "Not enough." However, I am finding that the apparent lack of willingness is caused by lack of information more than it is by actual resistance. After giving my little rain garden presentations, I see absolutely no resistance once the fog of ignorance has been lifted.

Studies conducted by Dr. Joan Nassauer of the University of Michigan (see link below) have surprisingly shown that one of the major factors motivating people to take action is a sense of social responsibility. In other words, people took action because it would help others and was clearly the right thing to do. Herein lays a world of opportunity (responsibility ?) for those of us fascinated with landscape design.

IronBelly