Seriously, I know, I know. Some at the City of Richardson, Texas, will say you must water even xeriscaped medians. Not really (if you plant the right plants or trees at the best times). Just like you don't have to water native drought tolerant trees. The temperatures here rarely get below 32 F/ground and you plant in the Fall (during hurricane season basically which causes rains up here) to give the roots six or more months before the intense heat-drought (desert) conditions come with the Spring onward, which is what the heat island of a street median represents (is) for vegetation (a desert or desert like conditions for much of the year).
I have mature, beautiful trees (here and elsewhere) and have never watered them. I have never watered my xeriscape gardens, not once. It did rain right after I put them in, and that is what you want. If you feel you really need to water right after, you can of course, but you shouldn't have to do this past a very few times. If you do, then it's not the right setting to be planting whatever it is that's not going to live without all the water, attention and maintenance, which is what you want to avoid (you want low maintenance, low water need, with the good appearance and other beneficial aspects of trees and plants).
I trim and prune the trees and plants as needed in the Fall too, which is the best time (as opposed to Spring). All but the larger pieces compost.
My grandparents never watered their native trees and they are still living (the trees that is). (It had nothing to do with intentional xeriscaping. Mother Nature actually handled things from time to time without that much help back in ancient times).
You don't "mow between" a xeriscape. If done correctly in conjunction with the hardscape (the lighter the color of hardscape and any pavement, the better), and arranged well, it (median) doesn't need mowing, just infrequent grooming and even less frequent maintenance (usually tree or plant trimming or hardscape upkeep). Try an area and work on the solution that fits best and go from there.
If it can't live on its own, then it's the wrong vegetation for the situation (the location), including trying to put a giant water sucking tree on a concrete heat island. A large canopy shade tree does cool, but a tree with a big canopy uses more water during hot weather than one with a more naturally sparse, drought tolerant canopy (if that is what your conditions call for). You need to define your planting goals. It does not
have to be big thirsty trees inside (on) the median to be "green" (or for someone to claim he is "green") if that is not what will work for your exact environment and local city (government) pocketbook. I have both large canopy and small canopy arrangements, but they are not of course in a road median.
If a local government can't (or refuses to) consider xeriscaping techniques or ideas, then there are intermediate options (as opposed to what is being suggested by and agreed to with the Richardson City Council and the COR staff). We do not need to add on to what we are doing. We need to go in a more conservation minded, sustainable (affordable long term) direction. Drip irrigation, which doesn't sound scary, uses up to 90% less water and can be camouflaged but should not be used to support unsustainable long-term practices nevertheless (don't plant greens that shouldn't be put there). Do not mention that this is a xeriscape technique. But it seems most anything would be better than the way it is being done now and being proposed to just continue.
If someone wants to support a City's model of
continuing to spurt resources down the storm drain (which usually happens) by creating sprinkler-watered public space landscaping arrangements that
need perpetual great watering (which isn't as much a problem short term when a place isn't in drought mode, but is a bear when it is) and
that needs significant manicuring and maintenance then
turn around and push for (sell) the need for long-term ever increasing water rate increases and
the need to flood east Texas homesteads for another reservoir (pitting district against district) and
growing the parks budget (and
hiring firms staffed by illegal workers to mow and mow, around and through configurations of trees that aren't in xeriscaped settings),
growing the electric budget (regional water supply is electricity /pump intensive),
adding to the call for selling of a giant amount of state water bonds, then
I think that is not such a good way to manage our public resources and our money for the coming decades (until technology or conditions allows us to morally use or waste all the water, and electricity, we care to, which isn't where we are today).
Today leadership on this issue at the council level, the North Texas Water Board appointee level, and TX State Water Board appointee level and from the Governor and all the appointers down is lacking in my opinion. I have not been impressed by Richardson's last three politician water board appointees. At least the cronyism is so very well attended to at all levels.
Richardson's last three water board appointees, are founding or original members of the Richardson Coalition to return Gary Slagel to the mayorship.
The Richardson Coaltion participate in smearing anyone who does not share that as the utmost top priority and to rid the political earth of anyone who should dare not agree to make him thus despite any concerns. Some seem to have forgotten all about silly little old water things (at least when it comes to helping the majority of residents). (And have they also forgotten about the double agent on their team waiting in the grass.) They deserve each other, but the taxpayers deserve better than the Richardson Coalition.
Under current philosophy and leadership, rates here will keep climbing at a faster rate than our average incomes. Reminds me of something else.
Water must indeed be the oil for a set of Texas tycoons of industry. Collin County Retired Judge Ron Harris was working for T. Boone Pickens for a while trying to convince our water district and Dallas' (and others) of the need to work with (buy from) T. Boone / Mesa water, a crafty plan to pipeline water from the Ogallala aquifer involving sweeping powers of eminent domain and ability to issue the new tiny but powerful Mesa employee stocked "water district's" bonds and also a plan to transmit wind produced electricity utilizing said water right of ways (Mesa Power comes in). A fantastical idea. The idea hasn't come to be for now.
Anyway, this was the time period after Ron had lost his seat to Keith Self. I remember three times ago when I had seen Judge Ron Harris. A very likable guy in passing. Gary Slagel was shopping him around up in the panhandle at HOA for votes, against the charter of the HOA. It was a blow to Gary and of course to Ron when Keith took up that seat. Judge Keith Self also complained about the subsequent powers of eminent domain that would be used by a new government (the tiny water district in deciding its water right-of-way path from West to East Texas).
There's quite a history and set of connections up there for Richardson slash Collin County slash water board players and big water users and tax payer money and appointees and relatives and contracts and former employees and with both failed and successful plans and arrangements and politicians and former politicians. Software, transportation, other contracts. The public usually doesn't know or at least can't fully track all of what goes on very well. Some overlaps and loopholes are down right disconcerting. When we learn of things we don't like, for example, hypothetically someone's son in law being awarded a no bid contract with no background of experience in such operation, the debate dies down and all gets back to "normal." Mostly. Only to be repeated in pattern again and possibly surfacing here and there, unless a substantial intervention occurs.
T. Boone Pickens / Mesa has been reported to be the largest private holder of water rights now.
I think we should invest. In infrastructure, that is. In resource management. In education. In appearances too. I'm not opposed to paying taxes that are going to be invested transparently, fairly and wisely for agreed upon common good. A lot of good is happening but more needs to happened that's good. (No, it's not that I want to pay taxes. It seems like some people just beg to pay taxes.) What I am opposed to is our governments doing the same wasteful (non investing, hard to sustain, rote) things over again, whether in awareness of it or not, AND not respecting tax payers and our resources that to this point are finite (except for ideas), AND then on top of that
intentionally doing tricky things, whether it be "strategy" (against it's own citizens, like witholding public information) or hand in the cookie jar type things, against us, we, taxpayers who provide the resources (foot the bill, the ever increasing bill).
I just see that type of non-leadership as illegitimate and the opposite of fiscally responsible and the opposite of letting us keep freedom over our hard earned resources (in some cases just handing it over to someone else for their profit and receiving very little). If someone, for instance, a homeowner, or business wants to do something like pour water out on the edge of the desert, then let them pay for it, up to a certain level of allowance (they can't run the well dry during a drought or flood my farmland for their own water reservoir use to be fair about it) but don't make the rest of us pay for it if that is not what we want to do.
I know that is not what I want to do or see happen. I have higher priorities than to fork over money to see someone spend it on arranging to pour water out on the median and then do it (and as it turns out in several cases letting it run onto and down the city street) in what appears to be for perpetuity (arrangement, institutionalized wasting) when it's not necessary.
It is just not necessary to do so in order to have an attractive environment.
This (and the outdated water district contract arrangement) is especially irksome at the very times citizens are under water use restrictions and under impendng water rate increases. This on the heels of other increases. In the middle of recession and high unemployment. Even in the absense of the last two, the trend is not good.
that essentially involved whether to require an apartment complex across from city hall to pour more concrete on the ground already planted with trees and shrubs (17 years after an agreement or obligation to do so back in the day) and help cause just a little more stormwater runoff in Rtown (like we need more of that).
