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).
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11478 thumbs up
November 30, 2015 - 12:23 pm
Andrey, if you are serious about no irrigation you should do Path 2 and not provide the hose bib and water.If you plan for the hose bib to be there, just go with Path 1.The documentation burden is to really show that you have designed a landscape that doesn't need water. If you provide a hose bib and a thirsty landscape, your irrigation scheme could be very inefficient, despite good intentions.
Andrey Kuznetsov
ESG consultant, LEED AP BD+CSelf Employed
33 thumbs up
May 22, 2016 - 12:31 pm
I thought that according to p. 183 of RefGuide "hose bibs are not considered permanent irrigation and can be used for temporary irrigation during periods of drought". Considering a hose bibs as binding to follow path 1 is regular practice of reviewers?