Rain gauge at 2.5 inches from yesterday's storm.

That was a nice storm yesterday, the first good one since early October, if I’m not mistaken. I’ve been watering my winter crops with rainwater from that early storm, using about 200 gallons so far. It’s unusual to need to irrigate in the winter, but I’m glad I’ve got my rainwater collection system.

Yesterday’s storm (with a few drops from Thursday) totaled nearly 2.5 inches. That was enough to completely fill my rain barrels, giving me another 260 gallons of water for irrigation.

A side note about the rain gauge: I put this up a month ago, as part of dealing with leftovers from my parents’ home. This was a Christmas gift to my dad many years ago and I’m happy to provide it a new home. It took me a while to figure out where to put it, since I didn’t want it to be “influenced” by trees or buildings. The only good place I found is on my grape trellis I installed in 2010. Now, it’s very accessible and a welcome addition to my garden.

A friend came by a few weeks ago to see my setup and told me how he moves around his laundry grey water. He has a small pump, a Simer M40, that I liked because it has two hose bibs, making both input and output easy to use in the garden. I found one used on eBay and it arrived today. With warm weather the past week and wind on top of that, I needed to irrigate. Plus, we have a storm coming in next week and I want my catchment barrels to be empty and ready to collect more rainwater with the next storm.

So, I tested out the pump, both for irrigation and to empty out the barrels. The pump is small, so it doesn’t put out a lot of pressure. But, there is enough pressure to hook up my hose and water my plants. The real test came when I moved over two catchment barrels of water to garbage cans elsewhere in my yard. The pump was slow, taking 12 minutes to fill each garbage can and drain half of a catchment barrel. But, it worked and I was able to do other yard work while the transfer took place. I now have 130 gallons of water stored in garbage cans and will have capacity to collect another 260 gallons of water with the coming spring storms. I like this setup! I’m thinking I might even get another container, a 200 gallon surplus food container, to put under my front window, then I can store water to irrigate my front yard once or twice during the summer. The pump could be used to move rainwater from a collection site to that tank.

Earlier this year, the City of Oakland had a program promoting rainwater catchment, selling barrels at a discount. So, I purchased three of the 65 gallon models. (One of my Master Gardener friends bought a monster 200 gallon tank!) This week I’ve been setting them up and yesterday got most of it finished. Check the photo. On the right hand side, hiding behind the raspberry canes, I’ve connected a hose going directly from the drain off of the roof to the first rain barrel. The barrels are designed to chain together, so when the first barrel is full, it will automatically spill into the second barrel, and the second into the third. On the left side, I’ve got another hose hooked up, so additional water/spillover can be captured for storage in the garbage cans.

My lucky find came yesterday, as I was figuring out how to connect the barrel’s input hose to the roof drain. I visualized what I wanted, but didn’t know if there really was such a thing. I went to Home Depot, figuring they would be large enough to have a variety of things to look at and cobble together something if I needed to do that. But, first, I explained to one of the floor staff what I wanted. He took me straight to what I needed. Not only did it do what I needed, but it was the perfect size. It’s a reducer fo connecting drain pipes of different sizes beneath sinks. Sometimes you get lucky in life!

So, next year I should have over 300 gallons of rainwater for my garden, saving on city water. I won’t go into a long explanation of the advantages of water conservation, but not only does this save water, it saves energy. Water is heavy stuff and transporting it from the Sierra Nevada takes a lot of energy. So, this will be 300 gallons that the water district doesn’t need to ship to the Bay Area.

Me second approach was simply to use two buckets, one which nests neatly and strongly inside the other. These two, the white one illustrated in the pictures and the black one in my previous post, took me about an hour to make both. I like this approach because of the ready availability of surplus materials to make the SIPs and the ease of making them.

In any case, a friend and I built a couple planters each one day. As I readied to plant them I realized I wanted more, so I obtained more supplies and built two more. Then I decided to teach a class at the county fair as part of the Master Gardener booth, so I built a couple more.

The latest two I made from buckets. One I kept empty to use as a prop for the class, but I planted the other with a melon. I hope that the black buckets will keep the soil warmer and produce good melons. I don’t get enough heat where I am to grow good melons or okra or other crops that require lots of heat, but the woman who taught me how to make these paints hers black and claims she is able to grow many hot-season plants that normally don’t grow here. I hope so, as I’d like to try growing okra again and eventually try sweet potatoes.

The photos of planted SIPs are from three dates: May 12, June 20 and July 2. As you can see, the plants are coming along nicely, in spite of the cool summer we have had so far. Now that our weather is starting to warm up, I expect spectacular growth.

So far, the main benefit I can see to the SIPs is that they allow people without dirt to grow food (or ornamentals) on a deck or balcony. I did plant a variety of foods in my planters, with the same or similar plants planted in my regular beds. Although the plants in the SIPS may be doing a little better, the difference isn’t significant. Nor to I see a significant difference in water usage. In fact, the SIPs may result in slightly more water usage. Within the set of planters, the second from left has one tomato and a zucchini. Together, and it’s mostly the zucchini I think, these two plants consume as much water as the other planters combined. So, the primary advantage seems to be that you can use them to grow on decks and balconies.

We can take a guess by looking first at existing non-urban industrial agriculture. It is characterized as:

1. Capital intensive, energy intensive, and highly automated (ie, not labor intensive). This is typically described as productive when measured on an output per unit of labor or an output per acre basis.
2. Based on reductionist sciences, not systems sciences. That is, it uses monocropping to produce a single output given a set of inputs and does not use integrated plant or plant/animal cropping systems (polycropping). It is not concerned about systemic level ecological or human relationships that are part of the food chain.
3. Uses industrially produced chemicals, such as fertilizers and pesticides.
4. Large scale (ie, not human know-your-local-farmer scale).
5. Subsidized by taxpayers via regulations that favor factory farms, cheap water from government projects or direct subsidies.
6. Marketed with hyperbole about how its alleged benefits will save the world from environmental catastrophe and/or future increases in population, while ignoring or downplaying its problems.

When we look at current proposals for urban agriculture, there is one set of proposals that fits the above characteristics. These proposals are focused around intensive production using hydroponics. Hydroponics has been around for quite a while, but large-scale proposals have been popping up in the past few years, more frequently as urban agriculture (and the trends towards local and sustainable agriculture) have accelerated.

First, some background. Hydroponics is a technology that grows plants in water-based nutrient solutions instead of soil. It is well-documented that hydroponics is a highly productive method of growing plants. For maximum production, hydroponic techniques require highly controlled growing conditions, controlling temperature, humidity and lighting. Because of this, hydroponics is almost always practiced indoors. These highly controlled conditions allow production to be done year-round. Hydroponic operations can recycle water, so they offer the benefit of efficient water usage. Hydroponics is by no means, however, ecological. As generally practiced, it requires industrial chemicals and large capital outlays for equipment to maintain necessary growing conditions. It does not integrate with local ecosystems, but excludes them to create its own closed system.

The first article I saw proposing large-scale urban hydroponics was a theoretical proposal in the Science section of the New York Times, in July 2008. The article presented the possibility of “vertical farms” powered by alternative energy (wind and solar). The article was short on economic and production details and heavy on “pie-in-the-sky” speculation. The estimates provided, however, are suggestive. Professor Dickson Despommier, of Columbia University, believed that a 30-story vertical farm capable of feeding 50,000 people would cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars to build. Despommier acknowledged that this idea needs more research

By August 2009, just 13 months later, the topic had moved to the Op-Ed pages of the Times. No longer being interviewed, the piece was written by Professor Despommier. He was forthright in disclosing that he has a financial stake in vertical farms, since he has started a company to build them. So, it isn’t surprising that the piece was typically Op-Ed, opening with the assertion that

If climate change and population growth progress at their current pace, in roughly 50 years farming as we know it will no longer exist. This means that the majority of people could soon be without enough food or water. But there is a solution that is surprisingly within reach: Move most farming into cities, and grow crops in tall, specially constructed buildings. It’s called vertical farming.

That’s certainly attention-getting. After a little finger-pointing at climate change, topsoil loss, voluminous water use and polluted runoff in traditional agriculture,  and expected population growth, he moves on to the hard sell. Sky-scraper agriculture will save us all, especially if we live where water is in short supply.

He claims that “Vertical farms are now feasible, in large part because of a robust global greenhouse initiative that has enjoyed considerable commercial success over the last 10 years.” It’s unclear what this means or what it has to do with vertical farms. He also claims that vertical farms would “revolutionize and improve urban life,” but doesn’t explain how. In a flash of Arcadian vision, he claims that vertical farms would also “revitalize land that was damaged by traditional farming.” Farms would be abandoned as every indoor farming acre replaced 10-20 acres of existing farmland, which would revert to a natural ecological state.  Vertical farms would act as ecosystems by recycling waste and water.

The availability of fresh food would improve diets and reduce Type II diabetes and obesity. Reduced transportation costs would reduce fossil fuel use. Crops damaged by weather would be a thing of the past. Pollution from agricultural runoff would end. Jobs would be created. Buildings would be “things of beauty and grace.” There would be less carbon dioxide and more oxygen in the air. Gawd, what’s not to like? (I did warn you of the marketing hyperbole in these proposals!)

Finally, he gets to the main point. In order to prove that this concept works, he needs money. In particular, he needs a massive handout from the City of New York to build a prototype. Once the prototype (subsidized by taxpayers, of course) demonstrates the economic viability of high-rise agriculture, venture capitalists will rush into the market. Apparently, however, the benefits aren’t so obvious that private investors are willing to risk their capital on the prototype. Venture capitalists will take risks, but they’re not stupid.

Looking at this proposal, we see that it meets all the above criteria for industrialized agriculture. A more critical look would raise some key questions that might explain the dearth of private capital. The proposed  systems are heavily energy-dependent, so I’ll focus on energy, although other issues could be raised. Protecting crops from the weather in high-rise buildings and producing food year-round would require massive investments of energy to construct the buildings and the internal production systems. Operationally, temperatures would have to be maintained at crop-determined levels, ie, heating in the winter and cooling in the summer. We already know that commercial buildings are massive users of energy, so maintaining the proposed vertical farms would have similar energy requirements. (What would happen, incidentally, to the crops–not to mention the people dependent upon them–when a major power outage occured? The requisite backup systems to prevent total crop loss would likely be prohibitively expensive.) Finally, energy costs associated with the production and transport of industrial chemicals used in hydroponic operations need to be considered.

I am, to say the least, skeptical. Most of the proposals I’ve seen so far appear to be sky-scraping pies in the sky. That’s not to say that large-scale hydrop0nic operations won’t find a place. But, that place is likely to be a small, niche market, where such projects have particular benefits dovetailing with local factors. In particular, in locations where temperatures are moderate year-round and water is in short supply, the energy requirements for structures would be low and savings in water would be valuable.

I do believe we need more experimentation with these systems. Although they are definitely industrial and not ecological, the lines between the two systems can and will be blurred, with some features of sustainable systems moderating the negative features of hydroponic systems. Basically, we’re in the process of reinventing urban agriculture and we need to experiment wildly to find ways of producing food in cities in ways that are sustainable. It’s possible that hybrid systems will be developed for economic and/or ecological reasons, depending on local circumstances.

For example, aquaponics is similar to hydroponics, but instead of industrial chemicals, it uses waste from fish to grow food, providing both plant and animal products. (Of course, where does the fish food come from?) See this discussion of a possible commercial aquaponics operation. A recent New York Times blog post discussed a variety of urban agriculture developments taking place, including a hydroponics production test facility on the Hudson River that uses alternative energy sources. A fellow blogger recently sent me a link to an article about an aspiring entrepreneur in the hydroponics field. You know the topic has hit the collective consciousness when bloggers begin to promote the approach. The important point here is that people are exploring possible ways of producing food in urban settings. While I believe the best ways of doing this will be ecologically sound, we won’t know what those ways are without experimenting. In the end, I believe that agroecological systems will be more viable, as they integrate with local social and natural systems using time-tested production methods.

Some observations about my experiment:

1. My biggest water savings came in two ways: a few large savings and many small savings. My largest source (44%) was from daily collection of about 1 gallon of shower water while the water warmed up. My second largest source (33%) was from laundry rinse water, collected five gallons at a time with a bucket in my laundry tub. So, it’s important to note that small savings do add up, and that it doesn’t require large “chunks” of water to save.
2. None of this required sophisticated equipment. It simply required paying attention to my water waste and capturing some of it.
3. I could have saved much more water if I had used special equipment, specifically a greywater capture system or a rainwater catchment system. As noted in an earlier post, California has now made this possible to do legally and simply. I’m considering putting in a simple greywater system to capture my laundry waste water. This would supply much of my irrigation needs. If I needed additional water, a more sophisticated system would capture my shower water runoff and far surpass my needs. I’m also considering putting in a rainwater catchment system, to capture fresh water runoff. Because I don’t have a lawn, any one of these approaches would provide me with a substantial part of my irrigation water needs. In fact, capturing my shower grey water would provide all my irrigation water needs. However, the simpler way to meet my irrigation needs would be a combined laundry greywater and rainwater catchment system.
4. Based on my last six bi-monthly water bills, my saved water was about 2% of my total water usage for the year. This isn’t huge, but would have been a much higher percentage if I had increased saved water (the numerator)and reduced total usage (the denominator)by any of the above methods. Two percent also isn’t bad given that my water usage is already low. At an average of 55 gallons per day, I’m already below the 100 gallon per day usage level that triggers volume-sensitive rates. This is easy for me, since my household only has 1.5 people (a former roommate does his laundry here) and many families have 3 or more people.

The main point here is that saving water is not difficult. In the future, as water becomes more scarce due to global warming, increased population and, in the worst case, infrastructure collapse, we will all need to know how to use–and perhaps obtain–water more efficiently.

For more information on the legislation in California, visit this site. There are very helpful descriptions of what is allowed under the law and what is not. This is important, because there are a few safety precautions to take when designing and using greywater systems. For an introduction on greywater,  go to the Wikipedia article. An excellent resource for greywater is the Greywater Guerillas. Their website has loads of information and photographs on greywater systems and also includes information on other cutting edge water conservation technologies such as rainwater catchment and composting toilets. For more information on greywater systems, go here. (You’ll notice this last site is in Australia. As is often the case, other countries, particularly Australia and many Europeans countries, are far ahead  of the United States on environmental issues.)

In the U.S., Art Ludwig is the Godfather of Greywater and author of The New Create an Oasis with Greywater and Builder’s Greywater Guide. Art’s environmental design company, Oasis Design, includes plans for a Laundry to Landscape greywater system. For a laundry detergent developed by Art to be suitable for greywater use in irrigation, go to Bio Pac. If you’re in the East Bay of the San Francisco Bay Area, the Ecology Center in Berkeley sells it by the gallon.

Liked your gray water post!  We’ve switched entirely to biodegradable soaps for dishes, laundry and bodies, so we dump dish water and everything on the garden.  Just this week we decided to shower with a tall trash can to catch as much extra splash water as we can – including the soapy stuff.  We used laundry water at our house in SF, but have had trouble with this house’s pipes in the garage.  After two small floods, a plumber put an airtight seal around the hose that runs water out of the washing machine, but I’m thinking of changing the angle of the hose (to prevent water from running backwards, which is what was happening; the plumber had some sensible explanation about the size of the drain pipes and gravity and air pressure and such, but I’ve forgotten the details) and running it outside to see if we can get away with it.

Found this link, which seems to have some good info:
http://www.umassgreeninfo.org/fact_sheets/plant_culture/gray_water_for_gardens.html

It’s important to note that using grey water for irrigation is not new. Government agencies have been using it for years to water landscaping, especially along highways, and golf courses have also been using it for some time. This latter may not be the highest and best use of grey water, but it’s better than using clean water.

It’s also important to note that this practice may need to become a way of life. One of the global warming predictions a few years back for northern California was that we would have wetter but warmer winters. The upshot of this is that less snowpack is expected. Because we have learned to use snowpack as a reservoir, this will pose problems because less water will be stored and available later in the season. Last week I heard someone comment on this year’s snowpack, saying that while the snowpack was low, precipitation was actually up for the year. This provides some evidence that those predictions of a few years ago may be correct. The end result is that we probably will have to use our water resources more efficiently, including grey water, in coming years.