Why Wasting Water Is So Damn Cheap
If water were more expensive, would it be easier to conserve?
WHEN I MET Sandra Turnbull on a cloudless summer day, she hadn't bathed in almost a week. Dirty laundry was piling up in the basement of her Oakland, California, home as she waited to run a full load in her high-efficiency washing machine. She'd let her back lawn go almost as yellow as the unflushed contents of her water-saving dual-flush toilet. In her living room, she served me a glass of water, half full; what I didn't drink would join the gray water she was collecting in buckets and bowls in the shower and kitchen sink to put on her fruit trees. "That's the way we save that little bit extra every day," she said. On a good day, her family of four used around 110 gallons—less than a third of what a typical American household of the same size does. Yet the local water utility claimed they were still using too much.
Last July, the East Bay Municipal Utility District responded to the worst drought in more than a decade by ordering most of its residential customers to slash their water use by nearly one-fifth—regardless of how much they were already using. The most profligate could easily meet the goal by drenching their lawns less, but water misers like Turnbull were faced with either paying new fees, appealing their bills, or figuring out ways to conserve even more. At an EBMUD meeting, she joined dozens of angry customers to scold the utility for "penalizing people like us, who have been conserving all along, and rewarding water hogs."
In recent decades, public awareness campaigns and rebates for water-efficient appliances have created a wave of voluntary water conservation across the West, helping forestall chronic shortages. But in the face of climate change, booming populations, and the collapse of rivers and deltas, the success of these conservation efforts has raised new questions about water conservation not just in California but across the country and the globe: During the dry years, what to ask of the most frugal customers? What to demand of the least? And most important, does it ever make sense to treat water like it's a bottomless resource?
Composed of dense coastal cities, such as Berkeley and Oakland, as well as sprawling inland suburbs, San Francisco's East Bay is one of the state's most balkanized water districts. Split demographically, meteorologically, and politically, it is a perfect laboratory for the thirsty West's squabbles. "You can see many parts of the state in our district," says Andy Katz, who represents Berkeley and parts of Oakland on the EBMUD board. "So if we can figure this out, much of the state will be able to borrow from us."
Long before most other water districts, EBMUD offered rebates for efficient toilets, handed out low-flow showerheads and garden nozzles, and ran ads exhorting customers to be a "water saving hero" by taking quick showers. It even gave customers "cash for grass" if they removed their lawns. (Lawns and gardens consume nearly a third of residential water in the United States.) Initially, these steps proved cheaper than building new dams or reservoirs. But lately, the bargain has evaporated; achieving the same water savings through incentives now costs up to 10 times more. In short, EBMUD has become a victim of both its success in motivating people like Turnbull and the continued reluctance of her suburban neighbors to close their spigots.
Typically, 25 percent of the East Bay's inhabitants suck down 60 percent of its residential water. For this, they are charged as much as 50 percent more per gallon than the most efficient users. During the recent drought they were asked to use 20 percent less and got a rate increase along with everyone else. Yet EBMUD decided not to charge the super soakers any additional premiums, blunting the incentive to save even more. Some economists, however, say water utilities can afford to charge their heaviest users far more. "There is no water shortage," says David Zetland, a water policy researcher at the University of California-Berkeley. "We're just doing the worst job in the world trying to allocate it. If you go down to a bar and Corona costs 12 cents a bottle, you're gonna run out of Corona. And that's the problem with water: It's just too damn cheap to care about." Even in Southern California's Irvine Ranch Water District, which sells water to its most frugal customers at below cost but slaps an additional 840 percent charge on the biggest users, 200 gallons at the top rate still cost less than a Frappuccino.
Breaking the addiction to cheap water can be tough. Less than half of California's water districts use tiered pricing. During the last big drought, in 1991, when EBMUD hiked its rates for customers who used more than 250 gallons per day, irate homeowners refused to pay their bills and four inland suburbs sued. The utility relented. "One part of the district was subsidizing another, and fundamentally that's not fair," says John Coleman, vice president of the EBMUD board, sounding like a ticked-off conservationist—except that he's defending the users who couldn't bear to see their lawns die.
In the absence of a concerted, coherent movement to conserve water, saving remains largely an individual affair, led by activists such as "Greywater Guerrilla" Laura Allen. Her five-person house in Oakland is surrounded by a lush fruit and vegetable garden, yet typically uses less than 100 gallons of water a day. She accomplishes this feat with an illegal maze of pipes that drains her sinks, shower, and washing machine into her garden. When I dropped by to see the setup, I peed in her composting toilet, and a few days later she used my nitrogen-rich tinkle to water her almond tree. (See "Trickle-Down Theory.") This type of water recycling could slash water use, yet the state's permitting process is so onerous that only three gray-water systems have been approved in the East Bay.
Unable to wring more savings from the sippers and afraid to upset the slurpers, EBMUD is now falling back on the strategy it had long avoided: pumping itself out of trouble. If next summer is dry, it will take as much as an additional 100 million gallons a day from the Sacramento River, where low flows have decimated delta smelt and endangered salmon—which could further add to the woes of farmers trying to save water. (See "What's Your Water Footprint.") It's talking about building an energy-intensive desalinization project and raising its dam in the Sierra foothills. Ironically, economists say, the high cost of these projects will simply create what they're meant to avoid: more expensive water.
By early this year, water use in the East Bay had dropped only 11 percent—well short of EBMUD's goal. Then a burst of rain refilled its reservoirs, postponing any politically painful rate hikes for its biggest water users—at least for now.
In the meantime, Sandra Turnbull sees little reason to cut back and further subsidize "the big wasters." A few days after I met her, she noticed that the leaves of her backyard apple tree were beginning to curl. She grabbed four jugs of water from a stash she kept as an emergency earthquake supply, watered the tree, and then refilled them. "It felt like a necessity," she said. "I'm not feeling guilty at all."
Page 1 of 1 
Water is US.
-
tagged as:
- solution
In many ways water is like oil has been. When it is cheap and appears limitless we guzzle it down and don't place much thought or value on alternatives. So with water. But water is much more important to us than oil... as we and all life on the planet depend upon it and are composed of it.
Philosophically, devaluing water is devaluing ourselves. Our bodies are approximately 75% composed of water. Considering our water relationship and the current state of water affairs around the world, it becomes clear that the management of water may soon be the single largest social and economic issue over the coming centuries.
Water footprints provide an effective means to understand our water use. However they are only one part of the process. Not only is it important how much water is used, but it is perhaps more important how the water is changed in the process of using it. Using water and returning it to the natural systems clear and clean does little harm.
Once again considering the situation and circumstances, it is clear that water rationing is inevitable. The problem, as has been illustrated in these MJ water articles, is in the economics. As in many other resource-related aspects of our lives, we visualize numerous good working alternatives, but the implementations are heavily compromised by economic interests.
Raising our appreciation, understanding, and valuing of water is KEY to the future of humanity. We need to create a blueprint for keeping our water pure and clean while producing the products and services that we all need. We need to analyze both water usage and water contamination in the creation, production and consumption of our goods and services. And in addition to our water and carbon footprints, we need complete environmental footprints for all our activities.
Though we appear separate and segmented around the globe, issues like water unite all people. Water crosses all boundaries... between nations, between people and between all plants and animals. Water management is a global issue which requires a global solution. This is not the realm of economics, nor economically-obsessed governments. The sooner we as race (and residents of California) appreciate these basic facts and build global water coalitions based upon pure water and NOT upon economics, the better the future looks for humankind.
Why the heck are people
Why the heck are people willing to pee in a yellow toilet and not wash for days? This is America, not Africa. Even a run-down home in Oakland costs half a mil...I should know, I live in one. Why are people willing to put themselves through this? It's not like the entire WORLD is running out of water. Do you think they have this problem in Michigan? Seattle? How about Canada? Of course there's fresh water...it just isn't HERE.
If there isn't enough fresh water for northern California, then why are there so many people here? What mental disorder do these people have, to pay half a million bucks to live in a ghetto where you can't bathe more than once a week for fear of everyone dying of thirst?
And exactly which Oakland is this? No one has sent me a letter or come to inspect my pipes. I heard on a radio a while back that the Governator was worried about the water. That's it. Nothing in the mail, nothing on TV, no phone call, nothing. Is there really a water shortage? Can people who pay $3-5k/mo on mortgages REALLY not afford to desalinate or pump water from far, far away where there's plenty of it? If we love being near this arbitrarily high-value area (yay, there was gold 150 years ago, let's all live here now!) so much, can't we afford to pay enough for the water?
If not, let's just move. This is a big planet, and this continent in particular actually has some really verdant and well-watered areas. What's so special about this brown, dusty hovel anyway?
Green lawns are the sign of life
That lawns and gardens consume a third of residential water is not a BAD thing. Consider what we get back: a landscape that's biodiverse, alive and green, rather than dead and brown.
To some minds the lawn has become the enemy because to remain green grass requires water. But it is water well-used, for when you look across a healthy green lawn you are looking at a carpet of photosynthesizing plant life, which means at oxygen entering the atmosphere. In photosynthesis chlorophyll converts the energy of sunlight into plant mass (carbohydrates), but photosynthesis also maintains (and originally created) the oxygen content of the atmosphere on which the evolution of animal life depended.
When you lie on a lawn you can reflect that all around you the life processes being enabled by the grass-air interchange are happening literally under your nose and eyes -- an invisible, silent, intense, charged chemistry.
Thus when you remove a lawn, you are eliminating a site of photosynthesis and oxygen production. We remove lawns to make room for building -- extending the human as opposed to natural habitat -- and wherever that happens another segment of Earth's life-support system is gone. Now we even remove lawns because we don't want to water them. Municipalities have persuaded home owners to restrict water use because it must be shared among a population expanding without control. We are advised to replace the green photosynthesizing grass with native plants which have a short springtime bloom and then turn brown. But brown means dead, brown means no oxygen-producing photosynthesis. "Drought resistant" plants resist drought by going dormant. They are not photosynthesizing, and this is not actually a "green" or environmentally sound option in a planet too much of whose surface is being covered by desertification or by pavement.
When we rip up lawns in an excess of water-parsimony, we are destroying this life-carpet. We are replacing it with areas which will henceforth become either dust or mud, depending on the season. They will not be as usable as the lawn for recreation, for the "outdoor room" so pleasant to inhabit in summer. They will not add to the fresh, cool feel of neighbourhoods, which actually have consistently lower temperatures in summer if they have mown and watered lawns. These were exactly the reasons that lawns have historically been found in the most desirable residential areas of towns.
It is false ecology to starve neighbourhoods and gardens of water so that municipalites can permit a rate of development beyond what the natural resources of an area can sustain. If each property in an area needs to suffer water shortage and brown-fielding, then too much building is being allowed in that area. The answer is not water-restriction, which is nature-restriction; the answer is development-restriction.
Thank you,
Barbara
www.animalit.ca
Lawns are a sign of ignorance
Lawns contain and support near-zero biodiversity, they are NOT a sign of life.
Lawns consume bulk amounts of water that could be used to support "photosynthesizing" fruit trees or ornamental trees (which are more water efficient with their deep roots, AND have greater cooling effects through their shadows)
Traditional green lawns (like kentucky bluegrass) require intense irrigation in most climates (especially in the desert); native grasses maintain a manicured appearance while providing wildlife shelter.
Lawns require chemical and energy intensive fertilizers (external inputs), thus increasing the footprint of that lawn on earth's resources; they also require mowing & edging (moer wasted energy), and herbicides (which pollute water further).
If you would like to cool your "desirable" part of town, maybe you should plant a nice big tree on your lawn? At least that way, if you'd like to keep the lawn, you'll need less water to maintain it.
Natives also do not turn brown as fast as grass, go ahead and water if your sensabilities are too delicate for a bit of brown in your perfect green microcosm, but this is just another falsehood you're peddling around.
How do you propose to curb development? That is a wholly seperate issue beside the point; we can always conserve more (when we can't that would have been an admirable goal reached)
If you want a large expanse of boring lawn, move back to feudal europe, where the whole BS tradition was started, where the climate is amenable to grass growing rampantly, and was used as a sign of wealth and superiority (since you had enough serfs to mow the sod). Perhaps you have an inferiority complex?
In any case, sod off with your pseudoscientific claims about the benefits of lawns over a native planted yard.
Signs of ignorance & lawns
Hi Anonymous (re lawn sign of ignorance): you're absolutely right that city lawns need large shade trees to stay green. Long live the urban canopy! And as someone else pointed out here, lawns are context-dependent (i.e. natural to Pacific northwest, and Europe, not to the desert).
Re. mowing and digging out weeds (no pesticides needed thank you), edging etc. -- did you know some people actually enjoy this gardening? It's healthy exercise, it's very calming in a zen sort of way (makes you less angry - do try it). Studies have shown that in neighbourhoods with lawns, the neighbours chat more. They discuss their lawns I guess -- why not? And the robins hopping about them, pulling out worms, because under lawns is not dirt, but life. As for mowers, they act like grazing animals' teeth, they take only the tops of the grass plants (yes, grass IS a plant) causing them to become bushier (in nature, more nutrition for grazers). It's all so symbiotic and such a cheap, easy way to get a ton of photosynthesis, a whole carpet of it.
Giving up on the effort to curb development is unfortunately giving up on nature. But maybe Bill McKibben is right, and nature is over.
Sod is sacred, did you realize?
Sodding off now, thanks for the feedback,
Barbara
www.animalit.ca
There are far better things to plant than turf grass
Turf grass is actually relatively happy in Wisconsin, where I live--water is plentiful and it doesn't get very hot most of the time--but I still put a fair amount of energy into trying to decrease the square footage of my land covered in this high maintenance ground cover.
Turf grass has shallow roots and can't deal with drought. In heavy rainfall, turfgrass sheds almost as much as unplanted ground, sending the water into the gutters and contributing to flash flooding. Look into rain gardens to see what deep rooted perennials can do to send water back down into the subsoil to replenish the aquifers.
What turfgrass does best is withstand traffic, and I know I'll never have a lawn-free property, because I live in Wisconsin, and it's great for croquet and fetch and setting out a picnic on a blanket. If you live in Arizona or New Mexico it's pretty crazy to try to grow turfgrass, unless you're at a high enough elevation (and even then I'm skeptical).
It sounds like you're advocating for expansive lawns as a sort of neighborhood swamp cooler. Sounds pretty extravagant to me. First let's price water appropriately, then the over-rich can create oases in the desert.
It's false ecology to try to
It's false ecology to try to grow a patch of green, water hungry grass in a desert, which much of California is. I too live in Wisconsin and I never water my lawn, ever. If it dies, so be it, but it never (completely) does because we get enough rainfall to support it naturally.
Wasting water in the E Bay can destroy a river upstream
East Bay MUD ratepayers need to realize that nearly every drop of water they use today comes from the Sierra's overtapped Mokelumne River. Are they ready to destroy three more miles of the Mokelumne and put another nail in the coffin of the Delta and California's salmon just so they can enjoy big lawns and irrigate hobby vineyards?
Wasting water in the East Bay may lead to the destruction of three more miles of the Mokelumne if EBMUD proceeds with its plans to expand Pardee Reservoir. The new, costly 400-foot dam would kill mature riverside trees, destroy nesting habitat for birds, drown important historic and cultural resources, and eliminate critical fire evacuation routes. And it would reduce critical freshwater inflow to the Delta while destroying restoration habitat for salmon.
The new dam would also destroy a real place beloved by foothill residents and used by them every day. We don't have large public parks like those in the East Bay. The river is the place we teach our children about nature and go to cool off on a hot day. It's where we get away from the stresses of everyday life. And visitors to the river help support our local economy.
EBMUD needs to look to local options for dry-year water supply, including more efficient industrial and institutional water use, increased water recycling, and yes -- tiered rates that encourage the real water-wasters to conserve -- instead of destroying more of this beautiful river. All of those sources are more reliable in times of climate change, too. The Mokelumne watershed won't produce more rain or snow simply because EBMUD builds a bigger dam.
See www.foothillconservancy.org for more information. And if you're an East Bay resident, e-mail tim@savethemoke.com for ways you can help.
I am absolutely sure that
I am absolutely sure that mankind will understand the problem with water very soon - in a short time we understand everything
Water use & water cost
What's an appropriate use & appropriate cost for water is context-dependent. In places where water is normally abundant (e.g., England, the Northeast) lawns are probably an appropriate use and there's no reason for water costs to be high. In California, where drought is increasingly common & excessive water use is killing the rivers and the Delta, it's a different story. Are green lawns worth species extinction? I don't think so. Water pricing sends a message. When the cost is low, the message is, "Use all you want; there's plenty to go around." In California, that message is no longer correct or appropriate. California's water problems are as much a failure of political will as anything else. People don't understand how much damage their "normal" actions cause, and (as with gasoline) are reluctant to change their behavior. In addition, (as with gasoline) there are lots of money-heavy special interests involved. (If the price of water goes way up, water-demanding suburban tract housing becomes much harder for developers to sell.)
In many ways, the solution involves reforming campaign finance laws to get poliical control out of the hands of special interests.
Most people have no second
Most people have no second thoughts when using water or rather when wasting it. However in this situation of water scarcity, we no longer have the luxury to use and waste water as we like. Now, each of us needs to do our bit to save water and bring about a change in our lifestyle. There are numerous simple yet inexpensive ways in which we can conserve water to read them visit
http://tr.im/vIXN
Grass and Water
-
tagged as:
- solution
We have evolved from the savannas of Africa to need green grass. When grass was lush and green on those long ago savannas food was plentiful, life was good. During droughts the land turned brown, food became scarce and homo sapiens turned violent. That deer your neighbor tribe just killed could have been yours.
To stop watering lawns or eliminating them altogether is to go against nature completely. To do that is to increase crime, increase depression, and to ultimately destroy society as we know it. We should close all museums, all art galleries, eliminate all art and music from our lives long before we eliminate green grass. To go against our basic nature is an abomination.
Give me a friggin' break
The African savanna is green for only part of the year---the rainy season. The grasses go dormant in the dry season. Next you're going to argue for some sort of seasonal affective disorder, but instead of being short of UV light in the winter, folks get depressed in the unirrigated summer. . .
Green Grass
-
tagged as:
- result
Don't write "friggin'", use the word you mean or use no adjective at all. To write that I meant that while grass is dormant we would then become immediately violent is an ignorant "strawman" argument. It is in "concrete jungles" over time that prove my case.
Lawns are supposed to go
Lawns are supposed to go dormant in dry summer weather. I'm in Texas on stage 2 water restrictions. My St. Augustine is about 8 inches high, laying over nicely and protecting the soil it grows in from the worst of the heat. It's still green, but it's shaded, most of that not in the shade is lovely yellow or brown. That's okay. It's not dead, it's lying low for better times. We've all got to be sensible about water, take better care of the potable and use the gray water for things like plants and trees and flowers. And we definitely need to quit putting stuff like fluoride in it.
Watering grass v. natives and why change?
Some of the remarks make me laugh aloud--because otherwise, I'd cry.
RE: such a cheap, easy way to get a ton of photosynthesis, a whole carpet of it.
Lawns aren't either of these. They aren't cheap: the costs to our water supplies of all those chemical fertilizers and weed killers are very dear. They aren't easy: they take away from biodiversity and habitat.
When you replace your lawn with natives, you are restoring one area to a habitat for local insects, birds, and other organisms who will provide sustainable benefits, such as reseeding your natives and fertilizing them naturally. And easy, why plants that have grown together for centuries do just fine without human intervention. The neighbors can chat over the fence about politics!
As for photosynthesis, putting in native plants, using low, shrub, and tree heights will increase that, will mitigate wind in your area, and will create shade for moisture retention.
I encourage people concerned about either lawns or water to read Derrick Jensen's work, especially Forget Shorter Showers.
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/4801
Until we realize individual water usage is a very small part of the picture and that industry and agriculture use 90% to 95% of all water, we're stuck and helpless.
Educate yourself, and involve yourself in political action to ensure corporate lobbyists don't continue their awful run on our elected officials, bribing and skating their laws into effect.
Where I live ag pays next to nothing for water because most aren't even metered, and the others aren't monitored. They all just tell the County and Regional Water how much they think they've used. They then pay at a rate that if applied to me, would mean my water bill for a month would be $0.0043 instead of $50 (flat rate, I'm not metered either).
Seaseal
"The people who surround you define the
quality of your life."
Watering grass v. natives and why change?
Some of the remarks make me laugh aloud--because otherwise, I'd cry.
RE: such a cheap, easy way to get a ton of photosynthesis, a whole carpet of it.
Lawns aren't either of these. They aren't cheap: the costs to our water supplies of all those chemical fertilizers and weed killers are very dear. They aren't easy: they take away from biodiversity and habitat.
When you replace your lawn with natives, you are restoring one area to a habitat for local insects, birds, and other organisms who will provide sustainable benefits, such as reseeding your natives and fertilizing them naturally.
As for photosynthesis, putting in natives, using low, shrub, and tree heights will increase that, will mitigate wind in your area, and will create shade for moisture retention.
I encourage people concerned about either lawns or water to read Derrick Jensen's work, especially Forget Shorter Showers.
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/4801
Until we realize individual water usage is a very small part of the picture and that industry and agriculture use 90% to 95% of all water, we're stuck and helpless.
Educate yourself, involve yourself in political action to ensure corporate lobbyists don't continue their awful run on our elected officials, bribing and skating their laws into effect.
Where I live ag pays next to nothing for water because most aren't even metered, and the others aren't monitored. They all just tell the County and Regional Water how much they think they've used. They then pay at a rate that if applied to me, would mean my water bill for a month would be $0.0043 instead of $50 (flat rate, I'm not metered either).
Seaseal
"The people who surround you define the
quality of your life."
your post / article
First, re the article you recommended in Orion Magazine, was written in such generalities that the only specific point I gained from reading it is that golf courses use a lot of water. The rest of the article seemed to be suggesting that individual citizens bear no responsibility for water and energy conservation, and have no power to conserve, even if we wanted too.
While I would agree that corporations and big agriculture get an unfair advantage with resources, I can not agree with the extreme conclusion that we citizens are thereby an afterthought on the causes and solutions to meaningful conservation. My thought is to close the loopholes of the powerful lobbies AND to promote smarter usage of our resources as individuals.
so she could love you A man
so she could love you
A man was wandering around in a field,
thinking about how good his wife had been to him,
and how fortunate he was to have her.
He asked God, "Why did you make her so kind hearted?"
The Lord responded, "So you could love her, my son."
"Why did you make her so good looking?"
"So you could love her, my son."
"Why did you make her such a good cook?"
"So you could love her, my son."
The man thought about this. Then he said,
"I don't mean to seem ungrateful or anything,
but why did you make her so stupid?"
"So she could love you, my son."
This is the exact same
This is the exact same problem on a global scale with carbon emissions. The slurpers such as the US want everyone to reduce by a set percentage, ignoring the existing per capita usage differences between countries.
F'ing California eco-politics
Whatsherhame can go ahead and wipe her butt with her bare hand as far as I'm concerned, and for that matter she can do it onstage in front of her fans. Here's the 'deal': Unless you want a future that looks like parts of India, or a revisit of medieval Japan, there needs to be better infrastructure planning. What does that mean? It means things like learning how to evaporate seawater to provide forthe sanitary and industrial needs of the citizens. Since 3/4 of the earth's surface just so happens to be covered with water, and there's no physical point in California from which the citizens are more than a couple hundred miles from the ocean, and since there's so many college graduates working and living in California, maybe California can go ahead and do the whole national leader thing on desalinization. Yes, it was probably a mistake to pick land for their state that's technically desert, but you can't change the past, you can only make changes 'going forward'. Sooooo....how about de-sal? Yes, the nature-lovers will be up in arms about more industry defiling unspoiled natural beauty, but I think I read they have something like 31 million people there. Nobody knows how to boil water or connect water pipes? Please.
This is a problem that people are going to have to learn how to solve. Yes, it involves work, getting your hands dirty, going through a couple boxes of pencils and using(GASP) 8.5x11 paper or even COMPUTERS! to work your answers out on, but I have great faith in the knowhow and general technical ability of the citizens of CA to figure out how to make seawater drinkable, seeing as how they've exhausted every land-based aquifer there was to draw upon. But, unfortunately, seeing as how people are themselves composed of mostly water, and they get thirsty and need showers and clean clothes and stuff, it's not a problem that's going to go away by itself.
Once upon a time, or Tyme, people in Europe thought that bathing was The Devil. Today, people have Olympic-sized swimming pools, and no qualms about jumping into them, and frolicking about like some sort of uninhibited heathen creature of the seas. Let's hope there's more sea creatures than medieval europeans running around in California, and nobody playing economic resource wars, either.
Klaatu marachas necktie
We have a population surplus not a water shortage
All this talk of how to distrubute, price, conserve water ignores the real problem - TOO MANY PEOPLE. We didn't have a water shortage in the past even though we experienced long hard droughts. Why is it that now we need to rip out grass and take a sponge bath? Because we have failed to keep our population under control through birth rate and immigration. Really, it doesn't have to end with us all living in a concrete waste land drinking our own recycled sewage.
Conserving Water
-
tagged as:
- solution
For those of you who are so worried about us "wasting water", a renewable resource that literally falls from the sky... Maybe you should start worrying about conserving air? Didn't you hear? There is an AIR shortage! Conserve! I think you would REALLY help the planet if you just stopped breathing entirely. Do your part, will you?
Knock it off with the environmental hysteria, will you? I love the outdoors and the environment too, but too many of you are taking it WAY too seriously and WAY too far these days. Take a deep breath and start thinking things through before you speak, will you? Come on. No shower for a week? No laundry? Don't water your grass? That is just foolish.
tiffany jewelry
of tiffany jewelry on ebay are cheaper than tiffany jewellery outlet store, why is that?
You will find the newest tiffany jewelry on sale fashion release on their official website.
I am planning to give my wife a big surprise with tiffany and co as a birthday gift, but I don’t know which one to choose, any ideas?
louis vuitton
-
tagged as:
- result
We are providing all kinds of louis vuitton handbags, wallets and purses in ourgucci Online Store, all items of which have the most popular styles and are the newest and at discounted prices.
We also provide helpful shopping guide tips for you to choose and compare our bags and other accessories. Get your sale of replica handbags today and you will never be disappointed with it.
fff
-
tagged as:
- result
We are providing all kinds of louis vuitton handbags, wallets and purses in ourgucci Online Store, all items of which have the most popular styles and are the newest and at discounted prices.
We also provide helpful shopping guide tips for you to choose and compare our bags and other accessories. Get your sale of replica handbags today and you will never be disappointed with it.
Welcome to our company, our
Welcome to our company, our company Huayi Trade Co.,LTD are good at selling the top quality designer bags (Balenciaga ,Chanel , Chloe' ,Christian Dior ,Dolce&Gabbana , Fendi , Gucci , Hermes , Galliera GM ,Miu Miu , Prada ), they are mirror image bags which are identical to the real onesLouis Vuitton Galliera GM . Our company locates inthe leather town in China, Speedy 25since 2003 we did this business we have won great trust and popularity from our customers from all over the world. We areexpanding our business, any inquiry for wholesale business is warmly welcome, Louis Vuitton Speedy 25just contact us, you can get our prompt reply.We have enlish speaking representative to answer phone call, or we can call you if convenient for you.
