Thinning The Soup
Ben Sullivan wins KIUC election
Kauai Farm Housing Crisis
[Editor's Note: Below is a reprint of Island Breath: TGI #16 Kaui Land Use Plan 11/1/07 with our agland land use proposed from a presentation at the Eco-Roundtable Sustainability Conference in 2007. The last paragraph pertaining to planning future housing "Without the Grid" is the beginning of an answer to Hope's question. See also Island Breath: TGI #5: Mauka and Makai 5/8/07 and Island Breath: TGI #7 The Village 6/7/07 for more on our sugestions for Kauai agland planning].
image above: Detail of map from Kauai Sustainability Land Use Plan by Juan Wilson. Click to see all Kauai.
by Juan Wilson on 4 November 2007 in the Garden Island News & Island Breath http://www.islandbreath.org/2007Year/20-HookahiKauai/0720-16LEGSLandUSePlan.html Kauai Sustainability Land Use Plan On October 12th and 13th Kauai Community College hosted the LEGS (Locally Engaging Global Solutions) Sustainability Conference. It was sponsored by Apollo Kauai, and other progressive, environmental groups on Kauai. The conference included speakers, documentary films and panel discussions. I participated as a panelist under the subject of Land Use. This article will summarize what we might do on Kauai to achieve sustainable land use. An important part of the LEGS concept was keeping the movement going forward after the conference ended. Featured speakers were asked to provide handout material that could be the basis of continued efforts on specific subjects like energy, food production and transportation. One aspect of the LEGS continuity will be built into the upcoming Eco Roundtable Quarterly Meeting sponsored by www.MalamaKauai.org. Please attend this meeting if you are interested in the issue of sustainability on Kauai. It is scheduled for November 13th, at 5:30pm at the Peace and Freedom Convention Center in Lihue. For more information contact Keone Kealoha at 808-828-0685 or email keone@malamakauai.org A Definition of Sustainability It is probably a good idea to begin with a definition of "sustainability". In preparing for the LEGS Conference I worked on my own definition. Sustainability is: Using unrenewable resources no faster than they are recycled. Using renewable resources no faster than they are produced. Maintaining the health and biodiversity of the earth’s ecosystems. Maintaining the art and knowledge of human cultures. In general it is the idea of living within the means of our environment's resources, but more than that it means doing so while providing an enjoyable quality of life. Sustainability is not, however, a technique for the continuation of the status quo. That last bit is an important part of the responsibility we have going forward. The idea that going Green today means substituting a Prius for a Hummer and switching over to photovoltaics from the KIUC grid. That is maintainability, not sustainability. Going "green", as the corporations are envisioning it, won't cut it. More profound life changes are imminent. Resource Scarcity is Coming Crude oil is hovering at $95 a barrel. Ethanol, rather than solving the energy problem will simply make food much more expensive. There seems little doubt that with a falling dollar and the housing bubble burst on the mainland, energy and distribution systems will be greatly taxed. Here, on an outer island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, we will soon begin to feel the pinch on our "non negotiable" life-style. Sustainability here will have to focus on providing our own food, water and shelter. Because we import 90% of our food, we will have to increase food production by ten times to meet the needs of our current population. At the LEGS Conference Dr. Adam Asquith, a biologist, made a presentation that concluded that our island, with a great deal of effort, will barely be able to feed itself. It is clear that any significant population growth, accompanied by loss of food producing acreage, will not be sustainable. Environmental and population collapse will be likely. Current Land Use Plan Hawaii has four land use categories used throughout the state. They are: Conservation, Agriculture, Rural and Urban. On Kauai they break down like this: Conservation: is 55% percent of the island and includes mostly the higher center portion of the island. This area was generally too steep or too remote or too dry for agricultural use. Agriculture: is 40% the area of the island and includes all the areas that are relatively level and could be irrigated. Much of that was pineapple or sugarcane plantation once. Urban: is 4% of the island and represents the commercial centers, company towns and independent villages scattered around the island. They have been part of sprawl and strip development recently. Rural: is .5% of the island. It is the smallest category and is found generally in the lowland valleys where the Hawaiians once thrived. Water diversion from the valleys had much to do with unraveling that rural lifestyle in favor of the plantations. It is interesting that the Kauai General Plan focuses on the importance of maintaining a "Rural" lifestyle while so little of it remains (about 1/200th of Kauai). What people might mean by "rural" are the foothills of unutilized Agriculture fields framed by the distant mountains of Conservation forest. It is still a pretty sight, even to tourists caught in bumper to bumper traffic. But that vista is threatened. The large property owners that inherited plantation lands cannot make money growing sugarcane. Companies like Grove Farms and Alexander & Baldwin are itching to convert their thousands of acres into suburban development. What might save our agland as "rural"? Making it truly rural. Proposed Land Use Plan My presentation to the LEGS Conference was to change the Land Use Map for Kauai. Urban and Conservation areas would not be changed. The Agriculture land use designation would be subdivided into two redefined land uses, Forest and Rural. Forest Land Use It would be, like Conservation Land, non residential. Forest Land would primarily be covered with trees, shrubs and grasses. Forest Land would be low maintenance, used primarily to rehabilitate damaged ecosystems while yielding useful resources. Trees that grow easily and fix nitrogen could be encouraged to hold and rebuild topsoil.
Crop trees and grasses would be harvested at a replacement rate. That could include kiawe, jute and hemp in the short run. As the soil becomes more productive and water is retained other species including koa and sandalwood could be grown. Forest land would be a buffer from more invasive human activity near Conservation Land. Forest Land could also connect and reinforce Conservation land that has become isolated or threatened. About half of the currently designated Agriculture land would be converted to Forest. These would be areas adjacent to existing Conservation areas and generally on the upper foothills of agland. Slowing water runoff from Forest Land would be an engineering challenge, but prove invaluable in retaining soil and making lower food production areas more productive. New Rural Land Use The other half of the Agriculture Land area would be designated Rural, but a slightly redefined Rural. New Rural Land would be the source of food for the island. Large scale monoculture crops like corn will not be able to feed us in the future. That technology requires too much fuel, fertilizer and pesticides (all crude oil derivatives). Rural Land would be dedicated to small-scale organic permaculture farming, the only healthy and sustainable option for the land and people of Kauai. Rural Land would allow farmers to live where they farm. It would allow for subdividing current Agricultural Land. The challenge is to permit such uses and avoid paving over our agland with more suburbs. Protecting Food Production Rural Land could be protected with several tools. I will mention two here. The first is Productivity Assessment. This tool would be unnecessary if our population was not so large and our island so small. But here we are. Java and Bali practice approximately what we would call permaculture. They are on rich volcanic soils and have pretty reliable rainfall. These locations support 250 people per square kilometer. That‘s about one person per acre of land. There are 81,000 acres of Rural Land in this proposal. Given the variation of productivity on that land, it is actually doubtful we could support our current population levels even if Rural Land was used to grow our food using organic permaculture techniques.
Further research is needed but preliminary investigations indicate that of these 81,000, there may be less than 10,000 acres that are actually productive, high yield soils. These are mostly river bottom areas where pre-contact Polynesians did the majority of their agriculture. This relatively small amount of rich soil will become increasingly viewed by the members of our island community as a strategic security asset. Structures here will be small and devoted almost exclusively to the enhancement of food productivity. Parking lots? Driveways? Hotels? Sprawl. Not gonna happen. Productivity Assessment Today, to protect and maintain our communities, our county government is very careful to attend to its prime source of income - property taxes. We carefully assess land and buildings. We keep account of ownership and taxes due. We insist on building permits and infrastructure improvements, with an eye on protecting the "golden goose". A great deal of effort must go into this accounting for the commonwealth of the community. I suggest the same effort be made to keep food growing areas productive. All properties should be assessed for soil richness, topographical slope, wind, water access, and sunlight. Food production values should be assigned to each acre of Rural Land. In the future, I suggest, we focus on the food productivity of Rural Land with the same effort we now attend to the monetary value of property. If you want to live in a place in the country, you'll have to do some food growing, soil building or animal rearing. Planning Without "The Grid" The second tool I'll mention to protect Rural Land is not delivering "The Grid" to every lot in every neighborhood. By "Grid" I mean the roads, private utility lines, county water and sewage system that support our suburban lifestyle. In today's eighth-acre subdivisions the "public" right-of-way are at least 20% of the land. They are expensive and will not be a useful investment in the future. I foresee, in the not too distant future, that energy production and recycling would be provided in local neighborhoods. Rural living would be in walking-riding-biking communities with a few short axle alternative vehicles on winding narrow lanes that lead to the nearest village. This would be a more pleasant and relaxed community, like old Hawaii. The suburbia of today would not work on this Rural Land. If you wanted to be where the action is (or don't want to tend the land), you can always move into town.
A Farm for the Future
By Chris Vernon on 20 February 2009 in The Oil Drum
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5120
Image above: Still from title sequence of film "A Farm For The Future" on Google. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4152340418943461860&ei=w_HNSYSoDZbcqAORtejyDg&q=%22BBC+Covers+Peak+Oil%3A+A+Farm+for+the+Future%22
Most would agree the subject of peak oil has not received the mainstream media coverage its importance warrants. On Friday the BBC will be broadcasting an excellent peak oil documentary; it focuses on farming. Presenter and co-producer Rebecca Hosking explores the importance of oil in farming and the potential impact of peak oil.
The film has a passionate narrative centred on Rebecca’s small family farm in South West England; can she make her farm fit for the future? The subject mater is top notch. Colin Campbell and Richard Heinberg contribute, permaculture, forest gardens, gardening vs farming, biofuels, biodiversity, industrial farming and no-till farming are all covered. It seems certain that present methods cannot go on feeding Britain as they are highly dependent on fossil-fuel. The film concentrates on the necessity to find a new way to feed the nation.
Above all, the presentation comes from the heart. It is sure to capture the imagination of many people who, not least due to the deepening recession, are primed for new ideas like never before. Perhaps the most impressive thing about this film is that it exists at all. Within the BBC, the Natural History Unit is one of the most conservative. The producers of 'A Farm for the Future' had a tremendous struggle getting this film made. BBC executives were not keen; the big global travellers even called the film "messed up propaganda".
However two years after I met with co-producer Tim Green at the inception of the film; it does now exist. The hope is that with the Natural History Unit producing a film with peak oil at its heart, the gates are now open to all the other departments such as News at Ten, Panorama, Horizon etc. to cover peak oil.
There is knowledge and understanding of peak oil within the BBC but also nervousness about reporting. Rebecca and Tim would like to thank the community here at The Oil Drum for providing much of the information needed to make this possible.
The "Shock Doctrine" here now!
I still recall the shock I felt at a meeting in Russia's dingy Ministry of Finance, where I finally realized how a handful of young oligarchs were bringing Russia's economy to ruin in the pursuit of their own selfish interests, despite the supposed brilliance of Anatoly Chubais, Russia's economic czar at the time.He then describes the numerous similarities between the U.S. today and those corrupt, collapsing nations he studied in the past:
The parallels between U.S. policymaking and what we see in emerging markets are clearest in how we've mishandled the banking crisis. We delude ourselves that our banks face liquidity problems, rather than deeper solvency problems, and we try to fix it all on the cheap just like any run-of-the-mill emerging market economy would try to do. And after years of lecturing Asian and Latin American leaders about the importance of consistency and transparency in sorting out financial crises, we fail on both counts: . . . . In visits to Asian capitals during the region's financial crisis in the late 1990s, I often heard Asian reformers such as Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew or Japan's Eisuke Sakakibara complain about how the incestuous relationship between governments and large Asian corporate conglomerates stymied real economic change. How fortunate, I thought then, that the United States was not similarly plagued by crony capitalism! However, watching Goldman Sachs's seeming lock on high-level U.S. Treasury jobs as well as the way that Republicans and Democrats alike tiptoed around reforming Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae -- among the largest campaign contributors to Congress -- made me wonder if the differences between the United States and the Asian economies were only a matter of degree. . . . In the twilight of my career, when I am hopefully wiser than before, I have come to regret how the IMF and the U.S. Treasury all too often lectured leaders in emerging markets on how to "get their house in order" -- without the slightest thought that the United States might fare no better when facing a major economic crisis. . . . If we insist on improvising and not facing our real problems, we might soon lose our status as a country to be emulated and join the ranks of those nations we have patronized for so long.Does anyone really doubt any more that the predominant characteristic of our political culture is "the incestuous relationship between governments and large [] corporate conglomerates"? Yet another former Goldman Sachs official and long-time derivatives advocate who played a major role in the repeal of key banking regulations, Gary Gesner, is now poised to become Obama's chief of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the body charged with regulating commodities and financial futures. The sleazy, central role Goldman Sachs has played in the events of the last six months -- from their current CEO's still-unexplained presence with Paulson (its former Chairman) and Geithner (protegé of its other former Chairman, Robert Rubin) as the AIG bailout was designed to the massive government windfalls that firm has received (including from that very AIG bailout) -- is merely illustrative of how our Government has long functioned and continues to. Yves Smith last night noted the rather extraordinary (though unsurprising) development that the very institutions that played such a critical role in the crisis -- Citibank and Bank of America -- are now using TARP funds they received not to extend more loans (the ostensible purpose of the bailout), but rather, to buy up more and more of the very distressed assets that Geithner insists they need to be relieved of, because they now know that, under Geithner's plan, they will be able to sell them at a substantial profit courtesy of public funds (i.e, the Government will buy those crippled assets at well above their current market price). As Smith puts it: "So not only are they seeking to extract far more than was intended even with the already generous subsidies embodied in this program, but this activity is also speculating with taxpayer money. . . .Welcome to yet more looting." Despite the limitless gorging on public funds by the very oligarchs (government owners) who caused the financial crisis in the first place, the predominant sentiment from our establishment media now is that Obama needs to force ordinary Americans to "sacrifice more." Back in 2006, Jonathan Schwarz wrote this very prescient post predicting that the U.S. would soon adopt the type of so-called "structural adjustments" which, through the IMF, we repeatedly forced upon other heavily indebted, defaulting nations: whereby we would demand that they pursue solutions that further enriched their economic elites while massively cutting the social spending that provided the barest of safety nets to their ordinary citizens. As Schwarz put it yesterday in citing highly revealing comments by Tim Geithner at a CFR conference this week:
There's been a common phenomenon in the third world over the past three decades or so. A country's financial sector, in collaboration with the larger financial world, would create some type of gigantic economic fuck up. The IMF would then (in collaboration with the local financial elites) step in and provide loans in return for what was called "structural adjustment." Structural adjustment involved getting rid of any kind of social spending that made life bearable for everyone else. In other words, the country's financial elites would use the catastrophes they'd created themselves in order to do what they'd always wanted to but couldn't get away with in normal times. They took the profit, and then imposed all the costs on everyone else.Isn't that exactly what is now happening here? When I first heard Chuck Todd questioning Obama at Tuesday's Press Conference about why Obama wasn't demanding "sacrifice" from ordinary Americans -- as though the massive loss of jobs, homes, retirement security and financial opportunities isn't sufficient "sacrifice" -- I mistakenly attributed Todd's question to the standard vapid ignorance and insularity of our media stars. I assumed that Todd was just mimicking a question he heard about 9/11 and decided to repeat it seven years later without realizing what a complete nonsequitur it is when applied to the financial crisis. But there was actually a more pernicious aspect to his question. He was basically demanding of Obama: shouldn't you be telling those dirty masses that they can't have health care and education improvements and that they're also going to have to give up their Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits (while Citibank and BoA use taxpayer money to buy up distressed assets that they will then sell at a huge profit, also to the taxpayer under the Geithner plan)? Among our coddled elites, anger at the oligarchs who pillaged and who continue to pillage is misplaced, irresponsible and dangerous populist rage that must be stigmatized and suppressed. Instead, what is needed -- as Digby and DougJ noted weeks ago would be the prevailing message from our media class -- is a further reduction in the standard of living for average Americans in the name of "fiscal responsibility" to ensure that the subsidies to our oligarchical class -- the ones who enriched themselves for the last decade (and who own our media outlets) -- can continue (and that is, more or less, what Lachman advocates today as the necessary solution). The key dynamic underlying all of this -- the linchpin that allows it all to happen and, historically, the primary hallmark of a deeply broken nation -- is the total elimination of the rule of law for the ruling class, with a simultaneous intensification of the law as a weapon against the citizenry. Does anyone expect there to be any widespread prosecutions for those most responsible for the looting, systematic fraud and grand-scale theft of the last decade? Identically, as more and more evidence emerges of the vast war crimes of the prior administration, the failure to enforce the law and our legal obligations against our nation's most powerful becomes even more transparent. As law professor Jonathan Turley put it on Rachel Maddow's show Monday night:
The president refuses to allow the investigation of war crimes. And we just found out the international Red Cross, also the definitive body on torture, found that this was a real torture program. And yet, the president is having a debate with the guy [Cheney] over whether it was good policy. . . . It is just as bad to prevent the investigation and prosecution of a war crime as its commission because you become part of it. There‘s no question about a war crime here. . . . You know, some people say, what do you need, a film? We actually had films of us torturing people. So this would be the shortest investigation in history. You have Bush officials who have said that we tortured people. We have interrogators who have said we tortured people. The Red Cross has said it. A host of international organizations have said it. . . . He should be appointing a special prosecutor. There is no question about that. This is the most well-defined and publicly known crime I have seen in my lifetime. There is no debate about it. There is no ambiguity. It is well known.Contrast these desperate efforts to avoid any criminal accountability at all for the country's most powerful lawbreakers with the merciless application of criminal law to ordinary Americans. As Brown University Glenn Loury recently wrote:
Simply put, we have become a nation of jailers and, arguably, racist jailers at that. The past four decades have witnessed a truly historic expansion, and transformation, of penal institutions in the United States — at every level of government, and in all regions of the country. We have, by any measure, become a vastly more punitive society. Measured in constant dollars and taking account of all levels of government, spending on corrections and law enforcement in the United States has more than quadrupled over the last quarter century. As a result, the American prison system has grown into a leviathan unmatched in human history. Here, as in other areas of social policy, the United States is a stark international outlier, sitting at the most rightward end of the political spectrum: We imprison at a far higher rate than the other industrial democracies — higher, indeed, than either Russia or China, and vastly higher than any of the countries of Western Europe. . . . With approximately one twentieth of the world’s population, America had nearly one fourth of the world’s inmates.The treatment in our justice system of ordinary citizens ("a nation of jailers") and our elites (immunity from lawbreaking) could not be more disparate. We have (and are continuing to solidify) exactly the state of affairs that political science literature and the American government itself have long self-righteously warned other countries is the prime enabler for tyrannical rot: a two-tiered system of justice which exempts the country's elites from accountability. I've previously cited this 1998 essay in Foreign Affairs entitled "The Rule of Law Revival," by Thomas Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, because it so perfectly expresses long-standing Western lectures to the "developing world" about the need for a robust rule of law for a nation's ruling elite class: LEGAL BEDROCK THE RULE of law can be defined as a system in which the laws are public knowledge, are clear in meaning, and apply equally to everyone. They enshrine and uphold the political and civil liberties that have gained status as universal human rights over the last half-century. . . . Perhaps most important, the government is embedded in a comprehensive legal framework, its officials accept that the law will be applied to their own conduct, and the government seeks to be law-abiding. . . . The primary obstacles to such reform are not technical or financial, but political and human. Rule-of-law reform will succeed only if it gets at the fundamental problem of leaders who refuse to be ruled by the law. Respect for the law will not easily take root in systems rife with corruption and cynicism, since entrenched elites cede their traditional impunity and vested interests only under great pressure. It should be fairly significant when someone like Lachman -- who spent his career at Salomon and the IMF -- warns that the U.S. has now adopted the worst and most decadent attributes that drove and defined the era of collapse in Russia, Argentina and similar places. As he says, this is true not only "in what led us to the crisis" but also "in how we're trying to fix it." There is fundamental corruption in our political system that has led to all of this, and that corruption, in so many ways, is now being exacerbated and fortified rather than uprooted. UPDATE: Salon's Andrew Leonard has a very good analysis of the significance (or lack thereof) of Geithner's call for new regulatory oversight over the financial industry. UPDATE II: In a superb article just published in The Atlantic, former IMF Chief Economist and current MIT Professor Simon Johnson makes a very similar argument, using his IMF experience with failing economies to document numerous similarities between the U.S. and other collapsing nations. He notes specifically "that the finance industry has effectively captured our government—a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises." The article should be read in full, but a couple of excepts are here:
Typically, these countries are in a desperate economic situation for one simple reason—the powerful elites within them overreached in good times and took too many risks. Emerging-market governments and their private-sector allies commonly form a tight-knit—and, most of the time, genteel—oligarchy, running the country rather like a profit-seeking company in which they are the controlling shareholders. When a country like Indonesia or South Korea or Russia grows, so do the ambitions of its captains of industry. As masters of their mini-universe, these people make some investments that clearly benefit the broader economy, but they also start making bigger and riskier bets. They reckon—correctly, in most cases—that their political connections will allow them to push onto the government any substantial problems that arise. . . . The downward spiral that follows is remarkably steep. Enormous companies teeter on the brink of default, and the local banks that have lent to them collapse. Yesterday’s “public-private partnerships” are relabeled “crony capitalism.” . . . The government, in its race to stop the bleeding, will typically need to wipe out some of the national champions—now hemorrhaging cash—and usually restructure a banking system that’s gone badly out of balance. It will, in other words, need to squeeze at least some of its oligarchs. Squeezing the oligarchs, though, is seldom the strategy of choice among emerging-market governments. Quite the contrary: at the outset of the crisis, the oligarchs are usually among the first to get extra help from the government, such as preferential access to foreign currency, or maybe a nice tax break, or—here’s a classic Kremlin bailout technique—the assumption of private debt obligations by the government. Under duress, generosity toward old friends takes many innovative forms. Meanwhile, needing to squeeze someone, most emerging-market governments look first to ordinary working folk—at least until the riots grow too large. . . . In its depth and suddenness, the U.S. economic and financial crisis is shockingly reminiscent of moments we have recently seen in emerging markets (and only in emerging markets): South Korea (1997), Malaysia (1998), Russia and Argentina (time and again). . . .But there’s a deeper and more disturbing similarity: elite business interests—financiers, in the case of the U.S.—played a central role in creating the crisis, making ever-larger gambles, with the implicit backing of the government, until the inevitable collapse. More alarming, they are now using their influence to prevent precisely the sorts of reforms that are needed, and fast, to pull the economy out of its nosedive. The government seems helpless, or unwilling, to act against them.It's rather difficult to dismiss as fringe hysteria the observations of those most familiar with what took place in other financial crises around the world. Related to Johnson's observation that "needing to squeeze someone, most emerging-market governments look first to ordinary working folk," here is The Washington Post's Paul Kane today explaining what the U.S. must do to solve its deficit and debt problems: Even if you were to curb a bunch of Obama's most ambitious programs, you're still looking at trillions and trillions of dollars in debt. The real fiscal answer is entitlement reform -- that's code word, everyone, for slashing Medicare benefits and raising the retirement age/payout time for Social Security recipients. So our political class cheers on treasury-draining wars, allows financial elites to rob and pillage, witnesses huge transfers of wealth to the richest, and then when the whole thing explodes, the "real fiscal answer" is for ordinary Americans to have their Medicare benefits "slashed" and Social Security benefits reduced.
Video: When Giants Fall
Oil shock from credit crunch
Galloping with blinders on
Collecting your rainwater
His irrigation setup is among 18 rooftop "stormwater harvesting systems" established with the help of a $60,000 Marin Community Foundation grant to a San Geronimo group that is demonstrating ways to conserve water, help fish and recharge groundwater.
image above: Raintainer, a 200 gallon rain catchment barrel that can be used to store rainwater for garden irrigation.
"It's been working great," said Lerch, who has collected 3,300 gallons of water to feed his artichokes, tomatoes and other plants. "All three tanks are full. I'll use the water through a garden hose I can attach, and gravity makes the water flow."
The systems are simple. Rainwater falls on a standard roof, where it is funneled into a downspout. But instead of spilling onto the ground or ending up in a stormwater pipe, water is diverted and stored in a cistern and then can then be used to water gardens.
"It's a very simple system," said Paola Bouley, conservation program director at the Salmon Protection and Watershed Network, which is heading the project. "People are hungry for this."
By storing rainwater for irrigation, water from county reservoirs is saved. In Marin, 33 percent of water demand during the summer is used for landscaping. The county also has a water deficit, which means a dry year would require rationing.
The cistern systems also keep water from rushing off hard services and into creeks. That type of runoff carries sediment that can harm local fish populations, including endangered coho salmon. Marin's coho population is at a 15-year low this year.
image above: Roof water collection technique feeds into rain barrel.
It does not take long for cisterns to fill. A typical home collects 600 gallons of water from a 1,000-square-foot roof after an inch of rain has fallen. The cisterns are equipped with a valve that releases water as it becomes full.
SPAWN encourages users to create a swail that forms a "rain garden." As water collects, the water drains through the soil into the natural aquifer, recharging creeks.
A 200-gallon resin cistern costs about $220; a 300-gallon model costs about $300, and Bouley said a simple 1,500-gallon system can be installed for less than $1,000. SPAWN officials say they hope to get another grant to set up more systems.
"We have two very large cisterns and a smaller one that collects 2,300 gallons of water," said Julie Vogt, San Geronimo Valley resident. "It's all rainwater that helps to grow plants. It works very well."
The water goes to native plants on Vogt's property - the plants that are being grown by SPAWN, which paid for the cisterns.
Vogt also created a rainwater garden that resembles a creek system, complete with fake salmon. It is fed by water that comes off the roof.
"We used to have a green lawn here. Now it holds water that seeps back into the earth naturally," she said. "It feels like you are doing the right thing.