Question

The following letter to the editor appeared in the Daily News on October 15, 2005. The author proposes that an alternative type of landscaping be used in the city’s public areas.
To the Editor,

Many of us are unaware of it, but there is a problem growing right under our feet!

The area of California in which we live is dry and arid, and yet we see grass growing in large areas around homes and office buildings. This practice is not only wasting water but is costing the city too much money—money that could be used for other projects.

Grass provides appealing scenery for our community and visitors, but at a high price. It uses large amounts of our already overtaxed water supply. The grassy areas in the downtown district, for example, may be nice to look at. But can we really enjoy them to an extent that justifies the use of approximately 265 million gallons of water per year?

On the other hand, ripping out all the grass may satisfy the true desert enthusiasts and save a great deal of water, but that would make the area look barren. As a solution that will save water while keeping our public areas attractive, we should consider xeriscaping.

What is xeriscaping? It is landscaping that uses plants and shrubs to save water, reduce fertilizer and pesticide use, and reduce landscape maintenance. Xeriscapes consist of native trees, shrubs, perennials, and grasses that are preconditioned to survive in their local environment.

With the right selection of design, plants, mulch, soil maintenance, irrigation, and appropriate usage of grasses, we can efficiently incorporate water conservation.

One key principle to effectively incorporating xeriscaping, as mentioned before, is plant design. If we simply group plants that need the same amount of water, we can water them only when needed. We will not overwater them because they will not be in the same bed as other plants that require more water. Grouping plants also allows us to use drip irrigation systems, which have been proven to use about half the water that traditional sprinklers use.

Xeriscaping can reduce water used for landscaping by 50 to 80 percent. This reduction in water usage can be astonishing when one considers the amount of water our community uses on landscaping—about 265 million gallons per year at a cost of $304,935. If we cut water use in half, we will save 132.5 million gallons of water and $150,000.

The second and best reason for xeriscaping our downtown district is the drought that we are presently experiencing. The need for people to conserve water is crucial. Our city leaders need to set an example by reducing the city's own water consumption.

It is time that our community leaders put into practice the qualities that they hope to instill in their citizens. I propose that members of our city council add xeriscaping to their future landscaping plans as well as areas to that have already been landscaped. Grassy areas are needed only in the park where children play and families have picnics.

Replacing 200 of the 400 acres of grass will also save the city endless hours of mowing, pounds of fertilizer, and approximately $20,000 of maintenance costs per year, on top of the $150,000 saved by reduced water consumption. Surely the city council can spend $170,000 per year on something more useful to our community than grass.

Water conservation has been ignored too long. Efforts to conserve water must begin now.

What is the author’s main point in this letter?


The city council should plant less grass on city land.


The city should use drip irrigation to more efficiently water the grass.


The city council should use the money it saves from xeriscaping on conservation.


The current drought is a dramatic reminder that the city should avoid wasteful water use.

Answer 1

The area of California in which we live is dry and arid, and yet we see grass growing in large areas around homes and office buildings. This practice is not only wasting water but is costing the city too much money—money that could be used for other projects.