We like to comparison shop, and we like to understand whether we are truly saving if we choose one product or another. Many times the options are not clear-cut and straightforward, especially when we are talking about water, landscapes, and dollars. But today I want to present a very clear case of saving dollars, water, and the environment.
In 2003 the City of Santa Monica installed two gardens in adjacent residential yards. Both gardens were 1900 square feet. Both sites had compacted soil that was low in organic matter, alkaline, and had high levels of heavy metal. One garden was installed using sustainable practices, and the other was installed using traditional practices. We will call them sustainable and traditional gardens, respectively, just so we can differentiate between them. The gardens were monitored from 2004 until 2008 for water use, green waste, and maintenance costs. The traditional garden cost $12,400 to install, and the sustainable garden was $16,700 to install. The additional costs for the sustainable garden were for the installation of permeable pavers and tying all of the rain gutters into an underground infiltration pit to recharge the aquifer.
The traditional garden was installed using a standard user-controlled irrigation system, plants from northern Europe and the eastern United States, and no system for capturing water runoff.
The sustainable garden was installed with climate-appropriate California natives, low-volume drip irrigation with a weather-sensitive controller, and a system for capturing storm water runoff to recharge the ground water.
So far it has cost me $4,000 more for a sustainable garden. Where are my savings? Let’s look at the numbers over a 4-year period.
| Traditional Garden | Sustainable Garden | Difference | |
| Installation Costs | $12, 400 | $16,700 | $4300 |
| Water Use | 283,981 gallons | 64,396 gallons | 219,585 |
| Green Waste | 647.5 pounds | 219.0 pounds | 428.5 |
| Maintenance | $223.22/month | $70.44/month | $152.78 |
| Four-Year Savings | $18,312.69 |
Four-Year Savings $18,312.69
Over a 4-year period you would have saved $7,333.44 in just maintenance costs. And how much could you have saved in water? Water costs about a nickel a gallon. Multiply a nickel by 219,585 gallons and another $10,979.25 could have saved. Total up the maintenance costs and the water costs that you could have saved and we have $18,312.69. So sometimes, it is not just all about saving the environment it’s about saving a buck. I work too hard to lose $18k because of some wrong choices. We’ll talk about saving the environment another time.
