New lawn + hosepipe ban = HELP!!

Hi All!

I joined just to ask the experts advice!

I am in the south east water region who are implementing a hosepipe ban starting tomorrow. Last week, after seeking their advice, I laid a new lawn as there was to be a 28 day concession for new lawns laid prior to the ban. They have now revoked that concession, leaving me with £1000 worth of lawn I cannot water adequately.

I have been watering it for 30-45 minutes with a rotary sprinkler per section (6 sections, some overlap) every night so far. The majority is currently quite a lush green, there are a couple of brown areas on some corners. Can anyone advise what I can do now to avoid loosing it? I have a water butt and was considering rerouting grey water from the bathroom, but even a full butt would only give 15min or so of watering time.

There is a concession for timed drip irrigation systems, however this would be considerable effort and upset to the lawn to install, and i'm not sure would provide enough water.

I am fuming at this u turn and imaging there are many others in the same situation, although google isn't turning up anything!

How can I now water the lawn sufficiently to finish its rooting, and realistically (I work til 6 so can spend all day with a watering can!)

Thanks in advance for any help.

 

Put a soaker hose on it. Mine worked until I put a fork through it. (I buried it before the lawn was 100%, the hose, not the fork)

 

Either get someone with a blue badge to water it for you or pay a contractor to water it for you. (no help I know).
The whole set up stinks, its full of exceptions and that is why it cannot be taken seriously.

 

The soaker hose appears similar in effect to drip irrigation, however to follow the rules you must use a pressure reducing adapter and timer. Do you think that is a possible set up? How far apart could I space the hose runs to achieve enough coverage - I am imagining a a brown and green striped lawn!

Unfortunately I don't know any blue badge holders!

My issue at the moment is not so much the ban but the misguidance which has caused me this situation and stress. £1000 is a lot of moneys worth of lawn to say goodbye to.

 

Actually I'm not sure a soaker hose laid over the lawn is any good unless removed and refitted each time else ill have a snake of brown!

 

How about sending the Water company a bill for £1000 for loss of lawn due to their change of policy - they could always provide an over-ride as a payoff!
Shy bairns get nowt!

 

In an ideal world... what other service do you receive that you would continue paying for if you were restricted or prevented from using said service?!

Anyway I don't want to vent my frustrations here! I'm thinking my best bet is grey water recycling into a butt and pump and a new sprinkler that covers the whole garden ensuring even coverage with what water there is. Then cross fingers and hope for the best.

I read that a hosepipe ban saves 5% of water, yet the average leak rate for the south east is 17%! and for thames water is 25%!

 

I imagine you could just lay leaky hose on the lawn, and fit Timer and Pressure reducing device. The hose will just snake about, so you can move it around (maybe left-to-right one time, and then front-to-back the next) so that it will provide a variable pattern.

I think the problem is that it is designed to "soak", causing penetration, so will water deeply immediately underneath the hose, whereas what you want is more shallow penetration but across the whole lawn, so that the turf's roots "knit" into the soil below. Maybe it would work with leaky hose, but not as well as sprinkler in this instance IMHO.

I would suggest you work on the assumption that you have 28 days for a new lawn and carry on. If your neighbours challenge you say that is what you found out when you enquired. If they tell you its changed thank them and stop. By the time the water board get around to warning people and moving towards enforcement you will have had your 28 days. If you've already mentioned how annoyed you are at the change of rules to your neighbours that would make it a bit more difficult!

Does Thames Water allow you to fill a water butt ("using a hose no longer than 2M")? If so fill it, and then get a water-butt pump and drive your sprinkler from that. Put your grey water into the water butt too, and perhaps buy one or two more water butts and join them - then if you get any rain you will be able to feel better about then using your stored water for a few watering sessions.

(If you want a cheap, large, water butt consider an "IBC" - look on eBay. Hideously ugly, but stores 1,000 Litres and costs about £45 each - assuming you can collect it, they are big so will cost a further £40 to have up-to 2 delivered)

You should not need to water it every day, particularly if the weather is not hot and sunny (this time of year the "stress" is modest, turf laid in Summer is a different story ...) but you might have to do some watering every day in order to move the sprinkler around so that every part gets waters twice a week (say) - there are only so many watering hours in a day!

If you don' t already have a water timer you might want to consider a water-volume instead of a timer. I think its more useful to irrigate using "N Gallons" of water, rather than running the irrigation for "N Hours". water-volume device no good if you want to have it come on, automatically, "every 3rd night" or somesuch, you'll have to dial the amount in each time you want to irrigate.

Water only in the evening / at night, then the water you use won't evaporate and will "do more good". If rain is forecast in, say, 2 days time water heavily and empty your butt(s), then the rain will fill them, and the rain will water the lawn , and you won't need to water it for another 4 days (say).

The 28 days thing is, I'm afraid, only the start. Newly laid turf is going to need some watering throughout its first season, so getting some water butts in is probably going to help throughout the season (and maybe you can use them in future seasons for either a lush lawn, or other parts of the garden).

What about a small claims court action against the water company? You can do that online without even leaving your seat, and not expensive. Probably not going to get you anything, but might be a start. Write to your MP too.

"the average leak rate for the south east is 17%! and for thames water is 25%!"

Tabloid propaganda IMO. Tabloids only publish the facts that sell papers of course. The water companies have spent billions since privatisation on the run down infrastructure that the government had run into the ground when it was a nationalised industry. They've reduced the leaks by 1/3rd since privatisation (dunno about your area specifically, that's in general), which is a decent achievement. Do I think they could have done more? Yes, however, there is a tradeoff as to how much you & I are prepared to pay to have it fixed faster. Do I think the fatcat culture stinks? yes. Huge profits stink too? Maybe. They have "borrowed" the money to fund the capital expenditure from shareholders (pension funds and the like) and thus have to generate profits to pay dividends large enough to "repay" the borrowing, AND large enough to continue to attract pension fund investment - i.e. to stop the pension funds putting their money elsewhere. Do I think that's a daft way to borrow money? Definitely, although I don't know the details, maybe its "cheap money", but I think its more likely that the government dreamt up that form of funding in order to privatise the water companies without a) lending them money (public outcry!) and b) sadling them with bank debt which might be seen as a cop-out.

I am more than happy to be corrected on any of that, I got the jist of it from the OffWat website - I think it was under the FAQ (well, not the Fat Cat bit!)

Good luck

 

Missed that bit - you on water rates? If so you are probably prohibited from using a hose at all?

If you are on a meter then they are only charging you for what you use, so "their loss if you use less" is how I suppose they will tout it.

My gripe is that installing a water tank for rainwater harvesting is a lousy investment, so there is zero incentive. Good luck if you can find a way to get a 10-year payback, I reckon its nearer 20 years - "lousy".

Someone I was chatting to suggested the water board should "rent" consumers rainwater harvesting facilities. I think that would be a cracking idea. I could pay X for mains water, or something-like-X for the equivalent water volume to lease/rent a rainwater harvesting installation. I would use far more water on my garden, and have more enjoyment, if I was using rainwater harvesting.

 

Wow thanks for the verbose replies and support.

I might have put myself in a situation already as, before all this, I had contacted them using their online form. They have replied to that directly to say there is now not a concession so it is difficult to plead ignorance. Doesnt change the fact they originally said it was OK. The immediate neighbours are quite supportive, but beyond that you just don't know who can see from their window or hear from the street.

I'm just going to do they grey water set up. I imagine a couple days worth of bath and showers and sink usage would fill a large but and give a good half hour soak, and top up any browning with a bucket. You are probably right, and I could water it as much as needed over the coming weeks, and nothing will come of it (like you say, warnings first). But knowing my luck I'll be thrown straight in jail, and the wife isnt one for testing our luck.

I find it ridiculous they are banning the use of a transportation device rather than the volume of water. If I had the time and wanted to throw buckets of water over it I would use so much more. Surely the old shower vs bath argument applies here? They are relying on peoples laziness, in hope its too much effort to use a watering can. Like you say, implementing clever strategies like renting grey water recycling equipment would be fantastic.

 

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to imply that fact was wrong, just my distaste for the Tabloids cherry-picking of the facts.

I have no idea whether 25% is good bad or indifferent, but assuming that as the figure, and also assuming that they HAVE reduced the leaks by 1/3rd (i.e. it was 40%, now its 25%) then I think that the two figures need to be considered together, not just the more emotive "Thames Water is losing a quarter of its water in leaks". One thing that bothers me: presumable they did the "easy 1/3rd" first, so the 2/3rd that remains to be fixed will take long and cost more :(

I have no idea whether what they have invested, and what improvements they have made, is good, bad, or indifferent, but I do think they have spent a lot of money and done a lot of work, and what they "inherited" was in a shocking state. Sadly an extra £10 Million, here or there, is a relative drop-in-the-ocean compared to the billions they have spent, so even denying the Fat Cats their bonuses wouldn't' fix many more leaks - sadly :( The eye watering profits is a different order of magnitude but, assuming my facts are right, if that is the payback-interest on the loans they it is what it is (and not what the tabloids say it is!) - but I am not convinced its the best way to borrow money, although if the net effect is that most of the Water Companies' profits are going into our pension funds maybe that's not too terrible

I also don't know what leakage rate would be acceptable. It might be that the whole thing is designed to leak 25% (sounds terrible to me, but I'm not an engineer!) but there must be a law of diminishing-returns trying to get to 100%, and new leaks will be reported every day I suppose. Leaks under buildings within London must be a nightmare (both time and cost) to fix.

I hate the tabloids cherry picking of facts in order to sell papers, mainly because of the effect that the French (God bless them!) have a nice expression for: "If you listen to a bell you only hear one sound"

 

My view of myself too

Well ... I think they are saying "Sprinkler is wasteful, and people often forget to turn it off, so you can now only use drip irrigation [undeniably an order of magnitude more efficient], timer and pressure reducer" which in turn implies "We have a problem, we want everyone to help" (on TV this morning they were also saying "Show shorter, don't run the tap whilst brushing your teeth" etc. and that they wanted people to save 20L a day compared to normal behaviour).

Timer prevents watering devices being left on by accident / forgetfulness. Can't argue with that.

Pressure reducer puts less strain on their supply system (presumably). I intend to only put my shiny new Drip Irrigation system on at night in the hope that I am further helping them by not drawing water when other people also want it (so that their ground water pumps, no having to sucker harder to draw from a greater depth, can spread the load over a longer period).

They could have, initially, said "Odd numbered houses irrigation on Mon, Wed, Fri and Even Numbered on Tue ...", and only between THESE HOURS, which is commonplace in the States I think (prevents lots of people using irrigation simultaneously, so better water pressure all round, and more "smoothed out" supply. Would have been better for PR too ...

 

Good point, I suppose I assume others will be as consious as me. Trying to do my very best not to kill this lawn, I have been setting an alarm to make sure I move / turn off the sprinkler at set intervals!