[ad_1]
Late at night, as twilight descends upon the streets of Ann Arbor and students shuffle wearily home from long study sessions, the soft trickle of water on concrete can be heard across campus — it’s the University of Michigan’s sprinklers hard at work. Hundreds of them operate under the cover of darkness to unobtrusively sustain the University’s vast expanses of bright-green grass and manicured flower beds, and also thoroughly water the sidewalks.
For the past year, as I make my way back to my room after a long day, I have watched streams of clean, fresh water flow down streets all over campus directly into storm drains and curbs. In a caption on one of my Snapchat memories from Sept. 21, 2023, placed over a photo of the sidewalk in front of East Quad, I deemed the puddles on the sidewalk the result of an “excessive amount of sprinklerage.” In the same caption, I also asked this:
“How have they not done anything about it, and why does no one talk about it?”
The University has certainly made its position on water conservation extremely clear — water-saving toilet handles, low-flow restroom fixtures, water bottle filling stations and a new water-saving irrigation system are just some of the conservation measures that have been utilized on campus for more than a decade. Last school year, the School of Information launched their first theme year, which focused on water conservation and accessibility. The University consistently and clearly vocalizes the importance of saving fresh water.
Water conservation has become an increasingly important issue — even in Michigan, a state surrounded by fresh water in a technologically advanced country. A few Michigan areas that have struggled with their water supply are Benton Harbor, Ottawa County and Flint. In a lecture last September that was part of the Information School’s water conservation theme year, Lieutenant Gov. Garlin Gilchrist II spoke on communities that have faced problems in regards to clean water access.
Water that is used in excess, including water that’s sent down the pavement from sprinkler overspray, is removed from the portion of the global water supply that is readily available for human consumption and use. The water isn’t permanently wasted or ruined, but it does become contaminated, and treating that water for use again and again just for it to be immediately sent back to an unusable state is a massive waste of energy and resources. Irrigation, as the second largest source of water consumption in the United States, is a huge contributor to the problem.
The University’s new irrigation system, which was updated in 2011, cut back irrigation water on campus by 68%. It utilizes a computerized system that uses rainfall data and soil saturation to sense when the sprinklers should be activated. But a reduction in waste does not mean that the system isn’t still wasteful.
Water should not be flowing down the sidewalks and curbs every time the sprinklers are run. In an email to the Michigan Daily, Rob Doletzky, the landscape and grounds manager for the U-M Grounds Services, explained that crews examine irrigation systems and make adjustments to avoid misdirected water on a monthly basis. Yet, I’ve watched this problem persist for the past year.
If there was a true commitment to reducing water usage as much as possible, we would have more landscaped spaces that don’t require sprinklers at all. I know lower-maintenance, more-native, higher-interest green spaces are what I would like to see when walking from class to class; but, does the University feel the same way? The brief and vague U-M Facilities and Operations design guidelines don’t provide many answers, specifically in the irrigation section.
The irrigation section claims that “careful consideration should be given to the selection of plant materials that require less water to sustain their life” and “when irrigation is warranted, the U-M is committed to installing water efficient irrigation systems.”
From the landscape guidelines, “The university is committed to using native or near native plantings whenever possible … to reduce the amount of water used for irrigation, maintenance requirements and chemical treatments. Consider rainwater gardens or similar.”
What does the University deem “careful consideration” and “whenever possible?” Where are the hard boundaries? Why have rigid standards not been set to prioritize the climate and overall sustainability of our campus? I am not denying that many areas of campus contain native plants, such as the landscaping around the Chemistry Building, or, unsurprisingly, in front of the School of Environment and Sustainability Building. In fact, Doletzky wrote that 76% of campus green space consists of naturalized areas like meadows and woodlots. At the same time, much of campus falls victim to the American curse of manicured grass expanses.
I can understand the need for green areas that can be walked on and used, such as around the Diag and next to the Cube, but there are countless areas on campus that would benefit from a lower-maintenance ground cover than grass that is native and capable of living off of rain water alone, such as creeping phlox or wild strawberry. Even in the case of plants hearty enough to take foot traffic, there are alternatives like clover that take less watering and less energy to maintain, as well as contribute to saving pollinators. Doletzky wrote that Grounds Services searches for opportunities to convert turf. So why haven’t these areas been adjusted?
Americans are so attached to undiversified lawns, which suck down billions of gallons of freshwater every day. In contrast, lawns and green spaces filled with native plants take much less water to maintain because they are suited to the local environment and can thrive off of rainfall alone, eliminating the need for sprinklers altogether.
Even the University recognizes this problematic affinity for traditional lawns. Although the sustainable land management goals from the Office of Campus Sustainability are focused on chemical reduction over water conservation, they still acknowledge this idea.
“In most cases, land management chemicals are used for aesthetic purposes: they can produce the uniform green lawns many people like. Reducing chemical use requires a shift in the expectations of the campus community,” the Office of Campus Sustainability wrote in their land-management-goals statement.
Looking out over the expanse of grass that sits between the lanes of Bonisteel Boulevard where it meets Murfin Avenue on North Campus, I can’t help but think how much prettier it would be if it were a meadow of rainwater-sustained native wildflowers instead of a uniform spread of patchy grass. These spaces all over campus, such as the ones tucked next to the Neuroscience Institute and the outer boundaries of the Law Quadrangle, are rarely used for events or even picnicking. They’re only ever looked at — maintained as a shiny face to impress onlookers rather than utilized as spaces to help our desperate climate. Personally, I don’t want to see more grass; I want to see the results of the University acting on its claims of sustainable values.
It is surprisingly difficult to find information online about the University’s sustainability practices surrounding water. Apart from a few articles covering the new irrigation system in 2011, there really isn’t much. There has been nothing remarkable enough to be reported on by a publication that isn’t funded by the University for the past 13 years, and every seemingly relevant U-M website yielded little on the subject of saving water. The only recent improvements I could identify were that, according to Doletzky, the University has shut down eight irrigation systems in the past four years. Doletzky also noted that the system of water refill stations continues to be developed and 30 acres of traditional lawn has been converted to naturalized spaces. But my concern remains with the high-traffic campus areas that the University continues to be stubborn about changing.
It also worries me that every single article I found highlighting the new irrigation system also emphasized the amount of money saved by the University. Additionally, the landscaping guidelines establish that the highest priority landscaping areas receiving the most maintenance and aesthetic care in their design should be characterized by high visibility and heavy foot traffic. In that case, why is the president’s entire backyard zoned as part of priority one? There are certainly plenty of people who genuinely care for and want to improve the environmental impact of our campus. The continued wastefulness of the sprinkler system isn’t just a problem that persists because no one recognizes it — it’s a product of the University’s priorities.
As I walk past the LSA Building late at night, with blasting sprinklers, water rushing towards storm drains and freshly cut, uniform grass surrounding me on all sides, I’ll continue to question what the University really stands for.
Statement Columnist Audrey Hollenbaugh can be reached at aehollen@umich.edu.
Related articles
[ad_2]
Source link
