A victory for turfgrass EPA to remove 40% rule

Discussion in 'Irrigation' started by FIMCO-MEISTER, Nov 3, 2011.

  1. txgrassguy

    txgrassguy LawnSite Gold Member
    Posts: 3,084

    Makes sense since most of the ordinances where I operate require more than 40% turfgrass coverage on the site.
     
  2. Kiril

    Kiril LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 18,298

    You gotta love special interests. :rolleyes:
     
  3. Yeah the special interest group that forced this special interest group to fight back really sucks.
     
  4. Kiril

    Kiril LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 18,298

    Yup .... those "special interest" groups who want to preserve our potable water resources for the benefit of all ..... rather than preserving industry/corporate interests. :clapping: You know ... the earth would come to a grinding halt if there weren't turf on it.

    Guess we all now know where we can file those posts on water conservation you make.

    [​IMG]
     
  5. Water conservation is about using water wisely not ruining human habitat with concrete to avoid turf. Turf provides way more benefits that make it worth wise water management.
     
  6. Kiril

    Kiril LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 18,298

    ROFL .... dude thanks for the laugh .... because everyone knows the only alternative to turf is concrete and wise water use includes irrigating unnecessary turf. :laugh: Who needs water to drink, cook and bath in when you have a bitchin lawn. :dizzy:
     
  7. Kiril

    Kiril LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 18,298

    Yes .... it is not logical to conserve potable water resources. Gotcha. :rolleyes:

    One also might say it is not logical to plant turf in areas that require irrigation to keep it alive for the majority of the growing season. Hmmmmmmmm ....
     
  8. If it keeps dust under control and adds cooling it may well be worth it. like I said. Use the water budget tool and make it work.
     

Share This Page