Protecting "endangered creatures" in the aquifer vs. letting our trees die. (Houston: transfer, purchase)

[Bo]

Keep the discussion local to keep the thread open. This will be the only warning for the thread. City-Data's Politics and Other Controversies forum is the place to debate oil-drilling, until it becomes a LOCAL issue in San Antonio.

[Rustybolt]

Killing off threatened and endangered species isn't a solution and neither is letting our trees die. SAWS needs to be much more creative and resourceful and stop relying on jacked up rates to change behavior. The lack of water hurts our growth and development and it needs to be solved, not have band aids put on the problem. I was in Kansas City this week and the Missouri River is still out of it's banks. Wouldn't it be great if we could send that excess to us and other drought stricken regions...but I'm a dreamer, of course.

[Azure110]

Originally Posted by Rustybolt

Killing off threatened and endangered species isn't a solution and neither is letting our trees die. SAWS needs to be much more creative and resourceful and stop relying on jacked up rates to change behavior. The lack of water hurts our growth and development and it needs to be solved, not have band aids put on the problem. I was in Kansas City this week and the Missouri River is still out of it's banks. Wouldn't it be great if we could send that excess to us and other drought stricken regions...but I'm a dreamer, of course.

Not a realistic option to bring the water down from flooded areas, that will increase our rates due to the added logistics cost and people will complain about that.

I am for protecting the endangered species over green lawns and swimming pools but I have to draw the line when I need my drinking water.

[AnthonySA]

Originally Posted by Rustybolt

Killing off threatened and endangered species isn't a solution and neither is letting our trees die. SAWS needs to be much more creative and resourceful and stop relying on jacked up rates to change behavior. The lack of water hurts our growth and development and it needs to be solved, not have band aids put on the problem. I was in Kansas City this week and the Missouri River is still out of it's banks. Wouldn't it be great if we could send that excess to us and other drought stricken regions...but I'm a dreamer, of course.

The amount that you're allowed to water in Stage 2 (and even Stage 3) restrictions is definitely enough to keep trees in your yard alive. Some other more sensitive non-native plants will no doubt suffer more by watering only once or once every other week, but that's a risk that you take when you plant them in an area as drought-proned as South Texas. Even in Stage 3 restrictions, hand-watering is allowed at any time of the week, day or night.

Water rates are indeed high, but highly doubtful it's hurting growth. We've been among the fastest growing cities for several years now, and this town and region continue to grow much faster than the infrastructure can handle. The focus has to be on sustainability, not out of control growth, if you truly want this area to prosper.

Originally Posted by MattTx

Not a realistic option to bring the water down from flooded areas, that will increase our rates due to the added logistics cost and people will complain about that.

I am for protecting the endangered species over green lawns and swimming pools but I have to draw the line when I need my drinking water.

Drinking water shortages definitely won't be an issue in San Antonio, even if we have a 1950's redux, but wasting water still doesn't make any sense.

[AnthonySA]

Some great tips that protect the lawn while conserving water
Where to cut, postpone or refocus watering efforts - San Antonio Express-News

[OzzyRules]

I disagree with those who think that water for lawns is a waste. Green grass is one of the greatest joys I have known. Especially in a residential area. I get the feeling that we have a ton of water that is not being used, and the reasons why we aren't using it are really dumb.

[wellguy]

There is nothing wrong with wanting to conserve water and in turn protect endangered species. The fact that many Folks are wasteful when it comes to using water is the big issue. Although we pay for our useage we don't have the right or need to water everyday, water at an hour, etc. If those who are wasteful were more responsible (its not only outdoor use) there is a very good chance that SAWS would not have to put us into any Stage.
It is unfortunate but a fact that SAWS needs to raise their rates. Folks have no idea of the money spent to keep the utility going. There is a cost to pump the water, treat the water (Chlorine, Fluoride), store the water, pump it into the system, maintain the system, etc. There is also the cost of treating the wastewater. I know most Folks have no idea of how water is delivered to their home and what is done to it after the toilet is flushed. It ain't cheap. SAWS like any other Purveyor who pumps water from the Edwards has to pay a fee back to the EAA which of course is passed on to the Customer. SAWS collects the Stormwater Fee in which the majority goes back to the COSA. Due to the EAA placing pumping restictions upon SAWS, BexarMet, etc. they are forced to seek water from other sources and areas of the State. Like everyone else I hate to see an increase in our rates. At least SAWS Customers have the City Council to say yea or nay to an increase and to the percentage. SAWS doesn't always get what they ask for. I for one have Bexar Met (for now) and if they want to raise their rates then it will be done.

[DexterCat]

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

Does anyone think that limiting our water use (keeping the aquifer at such a high level) is justified just to protect species of insects that only live and exist within the aquifer?

nope. not justified at all. species that are specific to that particular area and provide no benefit to the outside world, sans their immediate environment, are fare game for genocide in the name of progress

Why are these insects so important?

environmentalists, who love to hinder progression in the name of some stupid bug that lives ONLY in the aquifer, say so.

Isn't it more important to water our grass and trees, rather than keep the water levels so high for an environmentally protected creature?

I would rather preserve our trees.

hm. plants that provide air for us vs some bug that does nothing but give environmentalists something to cry over and hinder progression?

[svg210]

Its cheaper to pay a fine, than to replace your whole lawn!

[Bo]

Originally Posted by svg210

Its cheaper to pay a fine, than to replace your whole lawn!

Maybe in terms of $$$, but not in terms of nuisance. The penalty for violating water restrictions includes a mandatory court appearance.