A reader this morning emailed us this photo of the sprinklers at McCrae House, as she put it, "shooting lovely water full bore!"
I went over and had a look and indeed the grass at Col. John's birthplace is some of the greenest I've seen in weeks.
I spoke to a city worker there, who suggested they are allowed to use the sprinklers between 7 and 9 a.m. to water the flower gardens. But when I showed him this photo -- which clearly shows sprinklers aimed away from the flowers -- he said to call his supervisor.
We'll have more in the paper tomorrow.
Same thing this morning with the soccer fields at Wellington and Edinburgh.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 24, 2012 at 01:34 PM
Sports fields have the same restrictions as gardens, i.e. they can generally be watered between 7-9 a.m. and 7-9 p.m. on alternate days depending what side of the street they are on.
There are no restrictions in place for seeded or treated fields, similarly to the watering allowed for new or treated lawns.
Posted by: Scott Tracey | July 24, 2012 at 02:05 PM
Scott, I have to give the supervisor a pass on this one, as someone who doesn't water much.
If it was a case of the memorial garden (and by that I mean both flower beds and lawn) being watered after we shut off all water use by the City, no longer permitting any non-essential use of water, then of course it would be hard to defend it -- I think this simply stands as a good example of the exception proving the rule, even though it seems it may not have been as intentional as that.
The bottom line is yes, we're under tighter restrictions now but let's apply some balance to this, until we can't use water at all.
We are generally very mindful as a community when it comes to how we use water, so something like this actually speaks to that insofar as it would stand out as an exception. I would say the exception is merited given it is a memorial garden of local as well as national/ international significance deserving to be maintained to a higher standard -- and from what I can see in the picture, it looks great.
Posted by: Craig Chamberlain | July 24, 2012 at 10:44 PM
Craig,
I just think it's hypocritical of the city to tell people they can't water their lawns and then water this one. I understand that it's a memorial, but if the city wants people to take the restrictions seriously it can't openly flout them.
As I understand it, city officials recognized they should not have been watering the grass, but all the sprinklers are connected so to get water on the flower beds they have to have the grass ones on as well.
That said, I still think it's ridiculous that people are allowed to wash their cars during Level 2.
Posted by: Scott Tracey | July 25, 2012 at 10:03 AM
and fill their pools
... yeah, yeah, yeah, I know ... cooling off in a swimming pool is a god-given right. And how dare the city limit that right, especially if it charges more via property taxes for that pool ... unlike charging more for my large (brown) lawn ... no, wait, it does.
Personally, I dont water my lawn and dont care when it browns. I try to conserve whenever I can and I have a rain barrel system I use for veggies and some plants. But I agree Scott, the whole thing is full of holes.
Posted by: D C | July 25, 2012 at 11:23 AM
@DC, if the city told people that they couldn't fill their pools, I suspect that said people would raise absolute hell and probably disregard the bylaw in that regard. The point is people have paid thousands for a pool and water is essential for it's use - so the city has to give some leeway here. It's not like water is in such short supply that pools can't be filled. I do however take exception to "recreational sprinklers" though. All I have to do to water my front lawn is put my swim trunks on and sit on my front lawn with a beer. That's too big a loop hole I say.
Posted by: The K-Man Morant | July 25, 2012 at 12:57 PM
Out of curiosity, does anyone know how much water Sleeman's uses?
Posted by: Fred | July 25, 2012 at 02:00 PM
Thanks K-Man. Yes, I also think people in the royal city would raise royal hell if pool water was restricted ... but if it's not like water is in such short supply that pools can't be filled, then surely water is also not in such short supply that lawns cannot be watered.
I mean, it's not like ten lawns cannot be watered for the entire summer for each filled pool. A pool uses MUCH MORE water than a sprinkler. Tit for tat and all that.
I have no issue with pools, I'm just pointing out large inconsistencies in the policy that seemingly undermine the objective.
As for Sleeman, I dont know ... but I suspect it is a lot less than Nestle, and last time I checked, you cannot get beer from the kitchen tap. ;)
Posted by: D C | July 25, 2012 at 02:57 PM
Fred/D C
The question from Fred and comment from
D C.
Well how about the water Linamar uses,
face it there is got to be a balance but it
seems every time this time of year comes up
Nestle gets thrown out there.As if they are
the only company in Guelph that uses water.
Posted by: Jerry | July 25, 2012 at 04:40 PM
I read Rob O’Flanagan's article last weekend about Sleemans and tried to find out about their water usage. I assume they use Guelph's municipal water and not their own well. I bet their usage is huge...perhaps more than Nestle.
Anybody know?
Posted by: Pat | July 25, 2012 at 04:55 PM
Water Water. I never remember the city of Guelph having problems with water 25 years ago. Could it be because of all the new subdivisions that have sprung up around Guelph? Everybody used to water their lawns back then. Another thing - why do the golf courses look so green - look at the water they must use.
Posted by: Gord | July 25, 2012 at 06:25 PM
U of G useage and what rates do they pay,eh?
Posted by: David Birtwistle | July 25, 2012 at 07:39 PM
When it comes to swimming pools, you can't just not fill them for a few weeks or your pump will burn out. You can't turn off the pump or your water goes green and starts to breed mosquitoes. It's either open or it's closed. I had one and learned the hard way that even one inch below the water line can cause big trouble.
Posted by: Joanne Shuttleworth | July 25, 2012 at 07:59 PM
Hey if you pay your rates, who cares what you do with it? ( now if the rates go up during a dry spell....)
Posted by: the viggen | July 25, 2012 at 10:54 PM
Wow, that was quite the storm early this morning.
Scott, I understand your point. Water conservation is a good. Maintaining a memorial park of unique significance as we have with the one at the McCrae House is also a good. Which one is a higher good is of course subjective, especially when there are all sorts of water use in the community that by comparison makes the water use for that garden insignificant.
Which is really where I'm coming from.
But if the two goods are subjectively deserving to trump the other, there was a difference in the spirit behind the actions -- the call to you and the perhaps a ... willful looking the otherway... by the supervisor.
Loopholes and inconsistencies in policy are another issue. I'm comparing the spirit of both people in this and the resident's reaction to the watering was in my opinion insincere, over the top. The garden isn't "essentially a park" and the lawn is more than "grass". It's a horticultural feature as well. I don't think the position was helped by that kind of hyperbole.
The motivation behind the watering, even if it wasn't entirely intentional was with a good heart and as I said I have to give the supervisor a pass on this one.
Posted by: Craig Chamberlain | July 26, 2012 at 07:56 AM
re Sleeman's water taking - ask the city if the Admiral Well is being pumped. - this is the city owned owned well located on the Sleeman Property. It should have a water taking certificate of approval from the MOE.
Posted by: Laura | July 26, 2012 at 12:45 PM
Notwithstanding the very expensive print ads, radio spots and mobiles signs around town, the city has seen fit to spend even more money on the threatening letters sent out to each household as a friendly reminder to do as you are told or else we will fine you until your eyes bleed.
And by the way the water police have increased thier patrols in your area.
Nice touch city hall.
Have a nice day!
Posted by: Doug | July 26, 2012 at 03:37 PM
I don't water my lawn because I can't afford it. This isn't about conservation, this is about disposable income.
Posted by: geo | July 26, 2012 at 04:33 PM
Thanks Laura. I did check the MOE site where they show who in Guelph has applied for permits to take water. Sleeman does not show up. My guess is that they use close to 1 Billion litres per year - and because they don't have a permit, they must be taking this from our municipal system. Just guessing again but I would bet this must be the equivalent of 20% of the current residential usage.
I would appreciate our City staff who read this site to correct me where appropriate.
Posted by: Pat | July 26, 2012 at 04:53 PM
I checked the 2011 Water reports from the City of Guelph and it appears that the Admiral Well is not on line as it reports 0 pumping volumes for that well. So ? Sleeman must be using our municipal water supply.
Other industrial users in the city do have their own wells separate from the city water supply wells. There are also thousands of litres of groundwater being being pumped and dumped because of contamination.
Posted by: Laura | July 27, 2012 at 12:59 PM
Funny side line here....
Was out biking yesterday and came across a
city employee cutting grass in a city park.
Do not know what he was cutting considering
everything is brown and dormant.
(wish i had my camera)
Talk about wasting tax payers money.
(Not bashing employee he was just following
orders).Wish managers from the parks dept would
get their heads out of their ____.
Posted by: jerry | July 31, 2012 at 09:43 AM