Dear colleagues, maybe my question will be stupid, but I hadn't found a strict answer, so I'm a little bit confused.

We have a project that has no permanent irrigation system, only a has a hose bib from gray water tank for watering in case of drought. So I thought, that after providing sufficient proofs (information about plants water needs, landscape designer explanation/owner's commitment, so on) we'll earn 4 points. Since if no water for permanent irrigation is used we obvious achieving 100 % reduction of total water use, and no potable water use. And obvious there is no need in calculations.

I've heard an opinion, that in such case (without providing a calculations) project will achieve only 2 credits, because I also need to demonstrate that project's landscape can survive without permanent irrigation and that it will use 50% less total water than a typical landscape for the given region. So I need prove both that no permanent irrigation would be required and that our overall water savings would be > 50%. I think it doesn't make sense.

So my questions:
1. If project is pursuing option 2, path 2, is there need in calculations? (I think - no).
2. If project is compliant with option 2, path 2 it will achieve 4 points, and there is no need to calculate that overall water savings would be > 50%? (I think - 4 points and no need of calculations).