An interesting dilemma is discussed in this Article in the
“The Maryland Department of the Environment can say we don't have enough water, but that means you have to build those houses out in rural areas, with well and septic, on 1- or 2- or 5-acre lots. That's called sprawl.”
'There seems to be a real disconnect between state water policy and the state Smart Growth policy,' Jesse J. Richardson Jr., an attorney and planning professor at Virginia Tech, said at a water summit in Westminster yesterday. 'The Maryland Department of the Environment can say we don't have enough water, but that means you have to build those houses out in rural areas, with well and septic, on 1- or 2- or 5-acre lots. That's called sprawl.'”
There have been a lot of advances in low flow plumbing fixtures and water conservation technologies. A few facts:
Residential water usage accounts for 47% of all water supplied to communities (75% in urban areas)
The average family of 4 uses approx. 400 gallons/day.Approx. 40-60% of residential water usage gets “flushed” down the toilet
Conventional toilets use 5 gallons/flush.. Low flush toilets use 1.6 gallons and “dual flush" fixtures use less.
** I installed low flow toilets in my home and they work better than my old standard (5 gallon) fixtures.
A google search or a search of the EPA website will bring up a plethora of different strategies and fixtures to reduce water usage.
Perhaps we should start looking at putting limits on the amount of water new (and maybe existing) developments can use in an effort to limit their affects on our limited natural resources. The Federal Government as minimum requirements but perhaps we should go farther. We should be looking toward areas of the county with severe water shortages for ideas, like Arizona and the Southwest .
With today’s high real-estate costs, we walk a dangerous path if we limit residential construction further. There are a lot of people moving into our area and they do need places to live. It is already difficult for a lot of our public professionals (teachers, police officers, etc) to afford a home in our community. Where will these people live if we allow the building stock to be severely restricted and allow prices to escalate out of control (supply vs. demand). By controlling the amount of water new homes use, we’d be better able to focus development around core areas and limit further sprawl.
I would support mandatory and permanent water usage restrictions if it provided more homes for our communities with less sprawl. The right to have an affordable home is more important then the right to have a green lawn. As long as the water regulations where mandatory across the community, I wouldn’t have to worry about having the only brunt out lawn on the street.
