Our site is approximately 20% turf and shrubs. It was constructed in 1990 and has a permanent irrigation system in place, but the valve to the entire system has been shut off for years. There is no plan to use irrigation on the site in the future, but ripping out the existing system would be a waste of money and time. Would explaining the situation and certifying that the system is in a perpetual state of disuse satisfy the zero-irrigation compliance path?
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Dan Ackerstein
PrincipalAckerstein Sustainability, LLC
LEEDuser Expert
819 thumbs up
August 4, 2010 - 11:29 am
I'd suggest a middle ground of sorts. By carefully explaining that the system has been shut down (completely I assume) for X years and that shutdown was a strategic decision rather than simple convenience due to abundant rainfall, I think you're halfway there. But to really convince the reviewer that you are committed to zero irrigation water use going forward, you might consider some physical interruption to the system that would render its use more difficult than opening a valve. Perhaps there is a main line that could be cut or removed while the remainder of the system stays in place? That would ensure that there was no reactivation of the system by a new facility manager or landscape contractor without some kind of formal approval, and mitigate costs by leaving 99% of the system undisturbed.