09-01-09, “CITY ENGAGES IN HYPOCRISY ON WATER CONSERVATION ISSUE”, by Carole Weling

After receiving several telephone calls and emails on the failure by the City of Glendale to comply with its own water conservation ordinances, I took a look at the offending area, Honolulu in Montrose.  Yes, indeed there were the sprinklers on every morning at 7:00 AM watering the newly planted vegetation.  And what vegetation.  Was it the drought tolerant plants recommended by the city to conserve water?  Certainly not, the rules and recommendations set out for the residences by the City seem to be ignored by the City.  The City should be leading by example.  Unfortunately, they are doing the opposite of what they have instructed the residents to do.  It is the usual --- Do as I say, not as I do.

The new plants on Honolulu are water consuming and a very poor selection for the north side of the street as the plants are beginning to die.  I think that there is too much sun for the plants selected.  The south side appears to be doing well, where there is more shade. Of course, they are also getting their daily dose of water to help them along.

Why does the City of Glendale think that they are above the Ordinances set out for compliance by EVERYONE?  Where are the “water police” on this infraction?  Gone missing, or giving a wink of the eye.  I complained after I was cited for watering my flower pots and the response from the Director of Water and Power was that the water ordinance that I had violated has been in effect --- are you ready for this one ---- since 1991.  Silly me, for not knowing how the city really operates.

Why does the word, hypocrisy, keep coming to mind when evaluating the city’s application of its water conservation ordinances?  The city is offering “classes” on how to conserve water; it has sent out flyers on how to conserve and plant water tolerant vegetation; and the city has taken full advantage of the Glendale News Press to communicate to the public on the issue.  How or why has it happened that the city administration thinks that it is immune from the required water conservation ordinance affecting all others?   

Carole Weling