
ANDERSON: On broken windows and brown lawns
One of the perks of being a city councillor is that I'm exposed to a flood of ideas from folks all across the political and philosophical spectrum. They come in the form of emails, texts, phone calls, and sometimes handwritten letters. Today I received an email from a citizen concerned about the "broken window syndrome" occurring in my city. It goes like this:
A city block can be maintained for years, fostering a sense of beauty and tranquility. You know the neighbourhoods I'm talking about, with beautifully landscaped front yards, lush bushes and manicured lawns, and often artfully placed rocks and logs, all contributing to a sort of Zen placidity. They aren't always rich neighbourhoods, and in fact some of the nicest and best-kept properties are in enclaves of elderly retirees, and sometimes lower middle class retirees at that. It's a sense of well-being that knows no class or income level or any of the isms through which we tend to view the world these days.
Then one day someone moves out and their house lies dormant for a period of time. The lawn grows into weeds. Some weeks later a window in the house is broken, a window that in normal times would be fixed but because no one is home stays broken. The neighbour next door calls the local bylaw department, and calls them again a month later, and again after that, but after a few failed attempts just gives up. Then either he or someone else down the block, after months of internalizing the wreck in progress, feels the pointlessness of maintaining his own yard, and lets it too go to seed. Or parks a car on it. Or does one of the many small acts that seemed so out of place in the neighbourhood a few months before but not quite so strange now. And so it begins, with what the email writer called a "cancer" spreading through the neighbourhood.
This is not a radical thesis. It's been borne out in countless studies on urban decay since the early 70s and over the past few years we've watched it spread across Chicago, Detroit, parts of Florida and Arizona, and elsewhere, as a result of zombie foreclosures.
And now we're watching the broken window phenomenon happen right here in the Okanagan. But it's not happening because of a foreclosure crisis. It's happening because of a largely fabricated water crisis.
On the subject of water, the email writer pointed out something we all understand very well… that green and well-watered landscapes cool properties, provide oxygen, filter pollution (and absorb CO2), and have intangible psychological benefits among others they convey a sense of pride of ownership and community.
I won't go into the specifics of the current panic over water in my city, but suffice it to say that we're being bombarded with messages to the effect that we are in a state of crisis, and we are not. We are being told that such seemingly mundane things as watering our lawns is somehow selfish and wasteful, and that not watering our lawns is an act of good, an act of preservation, a way to conserve and protect precious water.
This crisis mentality is exacerbated by ever-increasing water costs, as if the costs are rising because of scarcity when in fact the costs are rising because of a feedback loop engendered by the very same sense of crisis. How?
?Because there are fixed cost to water delivery — all the piping and pumping and maintenance that go into a municipal water system. Those costs don't change no matter how much water is used, because the pipes and the pumping stations and the maintenance have to exist regardless of how much water courses through them. But what does change is the amount of water we use. When we use less, the water utility doesn't receive enough in fees to pay the fixed costs, which means the rates have to rise accordingly. As a result, a sort of vicious circle ensues in which people use even less water, driving the cost per litre of delivered water yet higher in apparent infinitum.
The irony is that the broken window syndrome doesn't have to happen here. We are making a crisis where no crisis exists and, to paraphrase Tacitus, we are creating a desert and being told it is a virtue instead of a blight.
So while we pat ourselves on the back in sanctimonious self-congratulation for using less and less water, we are actively hurting our environment. And our pocketbooks. And our sense of community. And we are helping nothing at all.
— Scott Anderson is a Vernon City Councillor, freelance writer, commissioned officer in the Canadian Forces Reserves and a bunch of other stuff. His academic background is in International Relations, Strategic Studies, Philosophy, and poking progressives with rhetorical sticks until they explode.
Join the Conversation!
Want to share your thoughts, add context, or connect with others in your community? Create a free account to comment on stories, ask questions, and join meaningful discussions on our new site.
11 responses
-
You hit the nail right on the head please keep up the good work. If we are short of water,perhaps we should use treated effluent to water or lawns and in our toilets.
-
Jeff FisherMy suggestion was to focus on the large stable bodies of water as a source (they have been there for 10000 years), rather than the uncertainty of a dubious source like Duteau (subject to immediate drought from lack of snowpack or seasonal rainfall). In addition, the water in the lakes doesn’t need the expensive cleaning (including filtration) with residual chemicals for consumers to ingest (trihalomethanes and aluminum to name just a couple), whereas the lakes are recharged principally and naturallyfrom 100s of meters of glacial gravel. Cleaning and piping water from Duteau to Okanagan Landing is an illogical and expensive solution. You shouldn’t fear dewatering the lakes as much as you should fear the continued and immediate uncertainty of expensive Duteau as a potable source.
-
Not necessarily the case.If the water drained from those reservoirs is put to use for interior domestic purposes a good portion of it will find its way back through the sewer system to be used again.However, if that water is put to use for daytime irrigation of lawns and crops, a good portion of it will evaporate and be carried away to fall as rain elsewhere.The half million+ residents of the okanagan would be more than capable of dewatering our lakes if we didn’t work to conserve and recycle our water supply.
-
Well done Sir, will be sharing!
-
Rose, I agree that sometimes people water in the day when they should water in the evening, and do other things the wrong way because we don’t know any better.I probably do too…my father was a farmer but I sure ain’t.But all that is really secondary in my opinion.We have no water crisis, and we will never have one if we proceed responsibly with the master water plan.
-
Great article Scott.You make two great points. 1.Brown lawns, converted to rocks and cement, and where have all the flowers gone?It speaks volumes and one can see the deterioration that accompanies this trend.2. The water rates are the primary driver of rock and concrete yards. We bought into water meters with the understanding that we would conserve much needed water.The water shortage was the main driver.Well we now know that the although we need to respect our water supply for future generations, water depletion is over stated. However the fear mongering successfully reduced water utilization by 50% over the past 10 years. Our reward was not a pat on the back -but insteadwe face ridiculous bills that have increased by approximately the 400% in the same time frame. Talk about a disincentive to conserve water.Here is hoping that the Mayor and Council are able tolook favourably on addressing the issue.
-
We are situated near two very large natural reservoirs of water called Kalamalka and Okanagan Lakes. Any “drought” crisis we have is manufactured in the management of the system.
-
Well said… amen
-
My hope in posting this article is that people take a look at the implications of self-imposed hyper-conservation.Yes, I hope people do start watering their lawns again.It would be a good thing, not a bad thing.
-
The “Browning of the Oasis” just one of the unintended consequences of a Cost-Shift Cycle being experienced in the North Okanagan Region by the Utility and its water user base. Way to go Scott!Now if only your elected peers could share your perspective, we might break this cycle and achieve an affordable, safe, and secure water system for us now and as a legacy to our children and grandchildren.
-
This makes an excellent point, to a point :)Part of our water utility bill is a fixed infrastructure base fee (I pay $101.80 a quarter).This portion of the bill does not change regardless of how much water I use, and is supposed to be sufficient to cover the base infrastructure costs of delivering water to my home.The usage fee is meant to financially encourage water conservation, and that money is supposed to be set aside by the utility to save towards future expansions and upgrades as new users are added to the system.If the utility is relying on the usage fee to maintain its base expenses, then the utility is being mismanaged.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.