communication homework choice grid?

Question

Approach 1

Approach 2

Approach 3

Reading Site(s) for this approach

What is the problem behind the problem?

What should be done? The broad

remedy

What specific policy actions should be taken?

What are the

supporting comments

and key facts?

What underlying values motivate this approach?

What are the potential consequences of this approach?

What are the key arguments against this approach?

Question

Approach 1:

We should take out all non-native plants and replace them with native plants

Approach 2:

We should raise water rates for people who are using non-efficient water conservation methods such as having lawns or non-native plants

Approach 3:

We should have everyone install conservative watering systems

Reading Site(s) for this approach

http://saveourwater.com/using-california-native-plants/ (1 page)

http://cal-ipc.org/ip/definitions/impact.php (1 page)

http://cal-ipc.org/ip/definitions/index.php (1 page)

http://www.environmentalscience.org/invasive-species (1 page)

https://ww2.kqed.org/science/2015/06/10/converting-your-lawn-to-native-plants-can-save-money-and-benefit-wildlife/ (1 page)

http://www.cnps.org/cnps/grownative/why_native.php (1 page, from Why Garden with Native Plants to Support Local Ecology + Watering section)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0418/p13s01-sten.html (1 ½ pages, the first 10 paragraphs)

http://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/1Column.aspx?id=712 (1 page)

http://pacinst.org/publication/water-rates-series/

(1 page)

http://waterinthewest.stanford.edu/news-events/news-press-releases/pricing-water-conservation-using-tiered-water-rates-structures-qa (1 ½ pages)

http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/5009.html

(2 ½ pages)

http://wateruseitwisely.com/100-ways-to-conserve/landscape-care/principles-of-xeriscape-design/efficient-irrigation/ (from Efficient Irrigation to the end of Hand Watering,

1 page)

http://www.cbbwater.com/blog_detail.html?item_id=36

(2 ¾ pages)

http://www.triplepundit.com/2016/08/why-california-must-continue-to-conserve-water/

(1 ¼ pages)

http://www.nrgmanagement.ca/water-savings-systems

(1 ¼ pages)

http://www.gardeningsolutions.ifas.ufl.edu/water/articles/systems/save_water. shtml

(¼ page, read the 3rd section - “What are the benefits…”)

What is the problem behind the problem?

Non-native plants are able to survive in California’s climate, however, non-native plants require more water and maintenance than native plants.

So the overall issue, is that people love having non-native plants for their beauty and what-have-you, but essentially all of the non-native plants consume so much water that isn’t really there to be spared and this is why over-watering and water wasting have become such an issue in drought areas where people aren’t exactly aware of their misdoings.

Non-native plants are a threat to wildlife by destroying habitats, having less nutrition or deadly to animals that eat them. As well as fueling more catastrophic wildfires, and wasting more water, according to Cal-IPC.com Invasive plants along the Colorado River cost Southern California 68 billion gallons of water annually.

Despite the critical stage of drought, the state of California was in, people and businesses in California continued to upkeep their lawns and non-native plants that required a non-efficient amount of water in order to keep it growing. This creates an excess of water use that can either be used for more legitimate uses such as water consumption in cities and communities or agriculture.

California’s drought issue and water rates have caused water managers to come up with higher water pricings that can help recover the cost of providing the water to the community and communicate with customers, while educating them on water conservation methods. Yet it is difficult to match the cost of providing water with the price of using water, so there is always a gap in between.

People, in a general sense, are ignorant about their water usage. Especially when it comes to the upkeep of their lawns and gardens. Installing these water conservative irrigation systems would allow people to save water in a very simple way.

Many people are seemingly unwilling to make the change and/or become more conscientious about their water usage and means of watering. In a sum, the main issue seems to be that people need to realize the good that water conservative systems can have on environments that are prone to drought and that there have been many successful instances in which this can be proven.

What should be done? The broad remedy

Non-native plants need to be replaced by native plants in order to save water.

Stop the planting of these non-native plants along with other steps to prevent them which are listed in the websites above.

Rates for the non-efficient/misuse of water should be increased for individuals and businesses in order to raise awareness and put in place effective water conservation with due consequences for those who do not follow.

Firstly, people need to educate themselves on the topic of water conservation. Once that step is taken people can truly begin to make changes in their own homes and gardens.

There are unique solutions and remedies that can be made for each individual situation.

What specific policy actions should be taken?

Non-native plants should be replaced by native plants.

Get informed and educated by the dangers of these non-native plants along with not contributing to the spread of these plants.

Communities and cities need to put Conservation Oriented Rate Structures into the policy agenda of the Department of Public Utilities of each city. Cities should put into effect the use of tiered water rates structures. This type of policy creates a tier of water rates in terms of the importance of the use of water. For example, water used for bathing and drinking has the lowest rates since they are a necessity. Lawns and swimming pools have higher/highest rates because they are not essential. Other tiered water rates structures are possible and able to personalize to communities and cities.

Everyone in official classified drought areas should be required to change over to more efficient and conservative watering systems.

This would mean that there would probably be a campaign or petition and that if recognized by state laws, there would be state funding that would provide these systems for the residents residing within the drought affected areas.

What are the supporting comments and key facts?

A study done by the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shows that California native plants can reduce the average homeowner’s water consumption by 60%. 75% of endangered species are on private land so by planting more native plants we can improve wildlife habitat

According to the California invasive plant council, non-native plants cause $33 billion in value loss on lands.

Having conservation rate structures/raised rates for inefficient water use is an effective method to implement water conservation.

Raising water rates for inefficient water use is the best and fastest method that encourages water conservation.

Communities and cities that implement water conservation rates are better at communicating the general need of water in their community, rewards efficient water users, and penalizes non-efficient water users.

A 2013 study of residential water budgets in Southern California that used conservation rate structures saw a 18% decrease of water consumption over 3 years.

Water is a finite source in our ecosystem and needs to be conserved, only 2% of the Earth’s water is readily usable without filtering and only about 0.3% is available surface water, such as that in lakes, rivers, swamps, etc.

What underlying values motivate this approach?

Because the world’s population is growing we must discover ways to conserve water, one way is getting rid of non-native plants. There are other benefits, for instance, reduced use of pesticides for native plants since they already have their own defenses against pests. Less water and maintenance is required for non-native plants.

Non-native plants are harmful, destructive, expensive, and a waste of resources when native plants are all the contrary.

Using this approach is similar to using scare tactics. It places individuals and businesses in positions where they have to abide by the law or be rightfully fined. It creates a greater conscience of water conservation by impacting the pockets of the people. This approach encourages a more hand on and effective way to put water conservation at the top of people’s minds.

This will end up causing people to become more cautious on how they use their water since they’ll receive a consequence every time they break the rule.

Water is literally one of the key sources of life and as our populations grow and resources become scarcer it becomes viable that we do all that we can to conserve what we haven’t used yet. In this instance, water is a resource that seems to be diminishing in areas where droughts continue reside.

With water conservation irrigation systems water will be used efficiently. Meaning the resource will be more stockpiled than wasted due to focus on the plant or crop. So when the need for water arises, preparations have been set.

What are the potential

consequences of this approach?

Potentially ruin habitats or food for animals that might have adapted to the non-native plants, and potentially ruin soil that has adapted to the plants as well.

Potential consequences of this approach includes increasing the state’s income by the rates that are placed on individuals and businesses. It can decrease the amount of water used for non-essential tasks or objects such as watering lawns or non-native plants or swimming. however, it can place many households on a financial crisis if the rate structures are not implemented in a fair and balanced manner.

While trying to persuade people into buying more native plants some might disagree with our ideas since they don't know much about water conservation and just care about the appearance of the plants.

Potential consequences could be that watering systems can always have hiccups and times when they don’t work properly, leading them to need maintenance and ultimately creating the possibility of having water wasted. So say if an underground pipe where to burst or anything like that.

Also, another possible consequence could be getting through to people who are ignorant or uneducated about water conservation, thus more unlikely to accommodate themselves to the new systems, or try to go out of their way to learn about the drought and the issues with water conservation.

What are the key

arguments against this approach?

People would definitely be upset about having their “pretty” plants taken out and there would be quite the uproar.

Some other arguments could be that it would cost money, time, effort, and ultimately inconvenience many people within the affected areas.

Non-native plants are ultimately safer, less expensive and less resourceful

One key argument that can be made against this approach is that many communities and cities already have effective approaches in order to deal with inefficient water users such as fines and tickets for improper use of water.

Another argument that can be made is that if we raise the water rates for non-efficient water conservation that would affect the trees in our surroundings causing them to eventually die which will affect our air quality.

One key argument against this approach is that getting a new watering system would be too costly and not worth the effort. Installing a new system would take a lot of time and effort from an individual that they may not be willing to take.