email facebook twitter reddit google+ pinterest instagram tumblr linkedin xing vk.com hackernews pocket Whatsapp print

NOTE:  This document was generated entirely using free software, particularly, GNU Texinfo.
       For more information, please visit:  https://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software.

“ Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. ”

“ Power remains strong when it remains in the dark; exposed to the sunlight it begins to evaporate. ”

“ Nothing appears more surprising to those, who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission, with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we enquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find, that, as Force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular. ”

“ I haven't lost faith, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. ”

We do not have water utility service at our residence in Central Texas, since we are extremely frugal in our consumption of fresh water, the vital "oil of the 21st century". The little fresh water that we harvest from the rain is not enough to sustain mowed "lawns", and even if we did harvest enough rain water, it would be extremely wasteful to use it as irrigation for maintaining mowed "lawns".

Most grasses - especially those grasses that homeowners’ associations (HOAs) require to be mowed - require large amounts of water (and fertilizer) to maintain its green color and survive (rather than die or go dormant) during summer droughts as a "lawn". This even applies to warm-season grasses like "Common Bermuda", which is what was initially installed on our lot. However, our HOA requires us to mow this grass to a height of less than 6 inches, despite the fact that this is only a small-to-medium height grass, growing to a maximum height of about 18-24 inches un-mowed.

We live in a suburb within the greater Austin area, and even the City of Austin - obviously a mainstream institution - has published a guide for sustainable landscapes:

https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Watershed/growgreen/plantguide.pdf

The guide states the following on Page 50:

In fact, the City of Austin provides rebates for people to get rid of their resource-intensive, high-maintenance turfgrass lawns and replace them with no-mow, drought-tolerant grasses and groundcovers.

For all of these reasons, rather than being forced to mow our lawn, we have tried to get our HOA to compromise, and allow us to cut individual plants that exceed 24 inches in height, to maintain an overall height of 24 inches. This entails cutting individual "weeds" and grass that exceed 24 inches on a weekly basis, which we are still opposed to, but we are willing to do as a compromise. However, the HOA and a small minority of our hostile neighbors will have none of it, and are taking us to court, despite the fact that we are maintaining our yard in a drought-resistant manner - something that is supposed to be protected by Texas Property Code, Sections Section 202.007, taking effect starting in 2013. In addition, Texas Property Code Section 202.010, which also took effect starting in 2013, protects the property owners’ right to harvest solar energy, and plants are the ultimate store of solar energy. According to environmental journalists/activists Michael Pollan and Wendell Berry, plants are the original "solar panels". So for many reasons, the HOAs rules, which were written back in 2006 and have not been modified since, are not in compliance with the recent (2013) additions to the Texas Property Code. In addition to requiring us to mutilate the grass and other native/wild plants on our yard, the HOA also wants us to butcher the bushes (see the photographs below), which have also been very strongly against for numerous reasons (see the approval document attached below).

So, we tried to compromise even further with the HOA, by replacing the medium-height "Common Bermuda" grass with a very low-growing "Cutlass Zoysia" grass, using the permacultural procedure of "sheet-mulching" (or "lasagna-gardening" or "no-dig-gardening") to implement the replacement (see the "Specification" document below for details). Other Central Texas families have applied the same procedure to their frontyard lawns:

NOTE:  We encourage readers to use free software such as VLC Media Player to view YouTube videos in the free WebM format.

URL

Title

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svjsddClRIg                          

Front yard makeover | Ryan & Havilah Gee |                          
Central Texas Gardener                                              

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIPzz49HgKM                          

NO DIG GARDEN PRT.#1( laying out)                                   

Since the extreme drought of 2011, there have been many Texas property owners that gave gotten rid of turf-grasses entirely, replacing them with groundcovers and other drought-tough (well-adapted and/or native/wild) plants:

URL

Title

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KICzLn2TYTY                          

Stylish No Lawn Drought Design - Pam Penick |                       
Central Texas Gardener                                              

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VRbaeNtxzg                          

No-Lawn Front Yard Pops with Color:  Velia Sanchez-Ruiz |           
Central Texas Gardener                                              

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ls_3OacF_EE                          

Front Yard Native Prairie | Kasie and Andrew Brazell |              
Central Texas Gardener                                              

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqT3Oi-MPMs                          

No-lawn garden design| Lana & Bob Beyer |                           
Central Texas Gardener                                              

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrvGLFl-Nzc                          

Made for the shade |                                                
Central Texas Gardener                                              

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT4C4RDYCEo                          

Shading plants |                                                    
Central Texas Gardener                                              

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_hbXkzeUVo                          

Rollingwood City Hall lawn to garden |                              
Central Texas Gardener                                              

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DezI8MFJzZo                          

Spare Water, Not Style | Linda and Carl Peterson |                  
Central Texas Gardener                                              

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un9HezmDVNc                          

Wildlife, Waterwise Garden on Many Levels |                         
Annie Gillespie and Rachael Beavers designers |                     
Central Texas Gardener                                              

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm83vbhAM-w                          

Plants That Light Up the Night | Amanda Moon |                      
Central Texas Gardener                                              

In fact, the list of local Central Texas homeowners installing xeriscapes and wildlife-friendly, no-mow gardens is huge:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzZq6PfhaX700IaEapdWk1nricQHp5FFY

There are even property owners that have taken out all of the turf-grass and dedicated their entire front-yard to grow vegetables, again in an urban/suburban, residential setting:

URL

Title

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_n9T5BO0tU                          

Allen Smith Tours Shawna Coronado's Front Yard Garden               

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI-8o8jdao0                          

Front Yard Food Forest: Ben McConnell & Steph Hengle |              
Central Texas Gardener                                              

http://www.growingagreenerworld.com/masters-of-the-edible-landscape/ 

Masters of the Edible Landscape                                     

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU2W0Atv9pE                          

Why Zoysia grass turned yellow | Daphne Richards |                  
Central Texas Gardener                                              

http://www.ecosenseforliving.com/info/episode7.html                  

Episode 7 - Take Back the Farm                                      

There are even farmers farming vegetables in typical small (less than half an acre in size) suburban residential subdivision lots just like ours, that used to have grass installed on it:

URL

Title

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evX9O-6LyFc                          

Ten Acre Organics Suburban Farm | Central Texas Gardener            

https://www.klru.org/ctg/2014/10/movers-shakers/                     

Movers & Shakers | Central Texas Gardener                           

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_IX9vVI1Tg                          

Urban Conversion: Backyard Farmer Teaser                            

So, how is it possible that we are being so viciously targetted by our HOA/neighbors for doing something that is much less in an area so close to these other homeowners? And we are not even asking to grow or farm vegetables in our front yard. We are merely wanting a drought-resistant, no-mow solution. Yet, our HOA and a few hostile neighbors are still refusing to compromise and are taking us to court over this issue. This is a particularly egregious and discriminatory attack against us because even our next door neighbors replaced their grass with another species of grass without even seeking approval from the HOA. The only differences between what they did and what we did were:

• they raked out their grass using a rake, which we were opposed to, since it is an invasive and wasteful procedure and we wanted to preserve the existing soil structure, soil habitat (for earthworms, grubs and other beneficial insects/microbes), and soil fertility which would be enhanced due to the decomposing grass. They then placed the purchased sod of the new grass over the cleared soil.
  
  
• the species of grass that they used as the replacement ("Saint Augustine") was even more water-hungry of a grass than the one they replaced ("Common Bermuda"). So, instead of choosing a species that was more drought-tolerant and/or less maintenance and/or less resource-intensive (in terms of water, herbicide, fertilizer, mowing, etc.), they chose a species that is less drought-tolerant, potentially more maintenance and more resource-intensive.

Furthermore, many neighbors are performing all types of unapproved changes to their yards without seeking HOA approval, and the HOA never bothers them about any of this these changes. The HOA is an extremely undemocratic, authoritarian, totalitarian, top-down, repressive and discriminatory institution, and it often takes only a small minority of hostile or narrow-minded neighbors to ruin a family that is trying to fight for what is right and just. And based on our conversations with the local county master gardeners, we apparently live in an unusually authoritarian, repressive and discriminatory HOA. In short, we should not have to suffer simply because we are living in an unusually authoritarian/discriminatory HOA with a few hostile neighbors around us. In more favorable circumstances - in essence, if these neighbors were not hostile towards us - we would be allowed to pursue our sustainable landscape without any problems, but such is not the case, unfortunately. In fact, we even received an extremely hostile anonymous mail in the mail, supposedly from one or a group of our neighbors, where they not only threaten to take us to court but that they will settle for nothing less than “taking [our] house away [from us]”.

HOAs are largely unregulated, allowing them to be extremely authoritarian, repressive and undemocratic, and leading to a huge public backlash in Texas and throughout the country. As a result of this lack of regulation, we cannot use the state’s Attorney General’s office to take any enforcement actions against these HOAs:

https://www.sos.state.tx.us/corp/hpoafaqs.shtml

Polling data of people living within HOAs shows that HOAs are extremely unpopular:

https://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2011/06/22/homeowners%e2%80%99-associations-becoming-unavoidable-and-quasi-governmental-n1202874

Although we mostly agree with the article above, we disagree with the use of the term "socialism". The author should have used the terms "authoritarianism", "totalitarianism" and "tyranny", especially because the HOA is a private-sector entity - not a public-sector entity - but also because it is entirely possible to have a fully democratic and fully libertarian form of "socialism" that is not authoritarian, totalitarian or tyrannical. Due to their authoritarian, repressive, undemocratic and tyrannical nature, several groups that have organized against HOAs jokingly refer to HOAs as "Hatred of America":

• https://hoareformcoalition.org/
• http://www.alternet.org/story/51001/the_property_cops%3A_homeowner_associations_ban_eco-friendly_practices
• http://gawker.com/5830257/the-horror-of-homeowners-associations
• http://www.movoto.com/blog/real-estate-and-more/top-10-list-of-worst-hoa-bylaws/
• http://www.texasgardener.com/pastissues/novdec11/HowHOAWasWon.html
• http://www.dryingforfreedom.com/
• https://smile.amazon.com/Privatopia-Homeowner-Associations-Residential-Government/dp/0300066384
• https://smile.amazon.com/Neighbors-Creepy-Against-Homeowners-Association/dp/0985697806

But even a representative from the Community Associations Institute (CAI) - a pro-HOA lobbying organization that pretty-much serves as public relations for the HOA industry - has informed us that our HOA is particularly discriminatory, authoritarian, repressive, totalitarian, tyrannical, hostile and undemocratic. They have advised us to employ an attorney to counter-sue our HOA for selective enforcement (discriminatory treatment), violating Texas Property Code, violating fair-housing laws, filing a frivolous lawsuit, harassment and defamation/slander. They are surprised that we are facing this type of extremely unfair treatment in an area so close to Austin, which is supposed to be a hotbed of diverse, progressive and environmental/naturalist values: https://www.growingagreenerworld.com/episode-811-compost-pedallers/. So, although HOAs, generally-speaking, have a horrible reputation, our HOA is perhaps the worst of the worst!

As many of the links posted in this document indicate, we know that we are not alone in this fight, and that there is a growing "no-mow" movement of people fighting for sustainable, zero-waste/no-mow or edible landscapes, wildlife habitats, and "shaggy" (un-mowed) prairie lawns/gardens, for example, quoting directly from "Natural Resources Defense Council" (NRDC) articles:

• https://www.nrdc.org/stories/more-sustainable-and-beautiful-alternatives-grass-lawn
• https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/sustainable-landscapes-20160506.pdf

Our current landscape is a combination of categories (1) and (2) listed above, while our previous landscape of unmowed "Common Bermuda" grass was purely of category (1). So, if we were really purist about it and totally unwilling to compromise any further on this issue, we would reject our HOA’s denial and take them to court over it, especially since we have already incurred considerable expense (money, time and labor) implementing it. We have already collectively spent over 600 hours of our own back-breaking labor and $8000 of our own money in implementing this new landscape. But we are willing to compromise even further than we already have and spend even more money, time and effort implementing category (3) listed above, which is what our latest approval document submission (see attached below) is all about.

Also, the concept of no-mow, ecological, environmentally-friendly, zero-waste landscapes is not a new concept that is found only in new/recent literature either. It has been documented in literature even as early as 1989 in New York Times articles:

• http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/28/magazine/why-mow-the-case-against-lawns.html?pagewanted=all
• http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/22op-classic.html?mcubz=2
• https://www.wildones.org/learn/weed-laws-and-native-landscaping/

and in the 1993 US Environmental Protection Agency’s "Greenacres" document which seems to be a copy of "The John Marshall Law Review, Volume 26, Summer 1993, Number 4":

• https://archive.epa.gov/greenacres/web/html/jmlr.html#Weed%20Laws%20as%20Irrational
• https://archive.epa.gov/greenacres/web/html/index-7.html

Quoting directly from this EPA "Greenacres" document:

This EPA "Greenacres" document explains that unmowed prairie gardens are not a "nuisance" as some governmental organizations might falsely claim, and that the typical negative misconceptions ("nuisance", "fire hazard", "mosquitoes", etc.) about unmowed prairie gardens are misinformed and not backed up by scientific evidence. Instead, the following academic articles argue that mowed lawns are the real public nuisance due to all of the environmental destruction, pollution and extreme waste involved, which should be common sense, but unfortunately is not:

• https://www.wildones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Schindler-Banning-Lawns-2014.pdf
• https://mainelaw.maine.edu/faculty/profile/schindler-sarah/
• https://www.wildones.org/learn/weed-laws-and-native-landscaping/

We have fully documented our procedure (with photographs) and submitted approval documentation of our procedure (see attached approval document below for more details) multiple times with multiple revisions to fully satisfy the HOA’s requirements, but they are still not willing to compromise even the slightest bit.

Description	Photograph
Here, we initially prepare our landscape using the ecological, permacultural technique of "sheet-muchling" (or "lasagna-gardening" or "no-dig-gardening") with cardboard mulch:
Here, we add 4 inches of soil for the new grass/groundcover to grow:
Here, is our landscape at the beginning of May 2017, after the new "no-mow" grass has been installed in most places but without any naturalization from competing vegetation. At this point in time, the HOA was threatening to obtain a court-ordered restraining order against us, unless we stopped all landscaping. So, we complied with their request to stop all landscaping work, until further approval:
And finally, here is our partially naturalized landscape at the end of August 2017, after drought-tolerant native/wild vegetation has naturalized most of the yard along with the low-growing "no-mow" grass:

Even as of right now, 4 months after we installed the "no-mow" grass throughout most of the landscape, and allowed the yard to partially naturalize over the triple-digit-heat, and intense, prolonged, summer drought, we are not allowed to perform any further landscaping work to complete our project (like removing the excess cardboard, sealing the edges around the outer frame, etc.), unless/until we get further notice from the HOA. Without providing any reasoning whatsoever, the HOA has recently denied our original approval document (which we submitted back in April 2017), and has not responded to our latest, revised approval document submission (which we submitted to them over 1 month ago), where we incorporate a medium-height, drought-tolerant groundcover that would uniformly cover over the entire landscape, giving the landscape a more uniform look (which we presume is what they would want). Also, the HOA took more than 90 days - 104 days, to be precise - to respond with a denial, and the governing documents state that if the HOA does not respond within 90 days, the application is automatically approved (by default). But even ignoring this fact, we are still willing to compromise even further with the HOA to find a mutually-agreeable solution, but from our perspective, that solution must be a "no-mow" landscape of drought-tolerant plants. We have even asked the HOA for mediation which would be much less expensive and much less wasteful of resources than a long court battle. But the HOA has not responded to us, indicating to us that they have rejected our offer for mediation, and are still adamant about taking us to court over this ridiculous issue, in order to obtain "damages" and get all of our landscaping reversed back to the original "Common Bermuda" grass with the regular, destructive and wasteful mowing with irrigation. And even before this issue has gone to court, we have already incurred $5300 of our own legal fees in addition to the $8000 in actual landscaping (and over 600 hours of our own back-breaking labor implementing that landscaping). We suspect, that should this issue go to court, this legal battle could easily cost us well over $100,000 - money that we simply cannot afford to spend - which is just an absurd waste of resources, for what should be a common-sense environmental issue.

So, please donate and help us fight our HOA in the court of law and in the court of public opinion. We will use these funds to:

• as defendants, defend ourselves in court from our HOA’s hostile attack.
  
  
• as plaintiffs, counter-sue the HOA for its non-compliance of Texas Property Code, and for its discriminatory treatment (in essence, selective enforcement and violation of fair housing laws) since many neighbors are violating all kinds of rules for a very long time. Not coincidentally, we are indigenous people of color following indigenous and environmentalist/naturalist values, while those that are attacking us including the HOA board members and our hostile neighbors are anything but. But more broadly, we are also considering a class-action suit against the HOA for violating the property rights of all property owners in this subdivision, as guaranteed by the Texas Property Code. This lawsuit is not only a fight for freedom, justice, democracy and property rights, but it also has the potential to set an important legal precedent for the benefit of all Texas property owners that live within a HOA.
  
  
• raise awareness of this issue to the broader public, and hopefully get more of the public involved in this fight - even if not immediately/now, then eventually over time. Unfortunately, justice rarely happens without a long, strenuous and sometimes expensive fight, but this is what democracy looks like.

We need these funds as soon as possible - in essence, now - to fight for this cause as strongly as possible. As we have tried to document in this writing, we are extremely passionate about environmental justice, indigenous justice, social justice, economic justice, freedom and democracy. If, on the other hand, we do not get enough funding, we will not only be forced to give up this crucial fight for justice but we will also be forced to pay heavily (with our little savings) for questioning deeply-entrenched structures of tyrannical/totalitarian authority/hierarchy.

We currently have the local/state chapter of "Clean Water Action", a national non-profit environmental organization that was crucial in helping to pass the recent drought-resistant landscaping provisions to the Texas Property Code, offering to testify as an expert witness on our behalf. But we will need much more than that if we are to win this crucial fight for justice.

So, please donate, help us spread the word and join us in our fight for justice, freedom and democracy. We truly appreciate your support!

email facebook twitter reddit google+ pinterest instagram tumblr linkedin xing vk.com hackernews pocket Whatsapp print

In the interest of transparency and full disclosure, we have attached below, the document that we submitted to our HOA for approval, which they have denied. This document also explains some of the science and technical details behind drought-resistant landscaping, and provides the reasons for why we absolutely insist on a no-mow, zero-waste, ecological landscape composed of plants.

APPROVAL DOCUMENT

DROUGHT-RESISTANT, HEAT-RESISTANT, COLD-RESISTANT, ZERO-MAINTENANCE, ZERO-OPERATING-COST, ZERO-WASTE, ENVIRONMENTALLY-FRIENDLY GRASS/GROUND-COVER

Version 11.269

1 MOTIVATIONS

On my front-yard "lawn" landscape, I would like to cultivate a grass/groundcover (or some combination of them) that does not require any irrigation (aside from any initial, manual irrigation required to establish the plants), that is drought-resistant, that is heat-resistant, that is cold/frost-resistant, that is zero-maintenance, that has zero-operating-cost, that is not wasteful of any resources ("zero-waste"), and that is environmentally-friendly.

When no irrigation nor fertilizer nor herbicide/insecticide/pesticide is used, as is/has-been the case on my "lawn" landscape since November 2009, the existing "Common Bermuda" grass is neither drought-resistant nor heat-resistant to Central Texas summers when it is cut to under 6 inches in height (as the current, obsolete "Declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions" (DCCRs) call for), for at least 10 major reasons:

1. Firstly, when the plant is cut (at any time of the year), it is incapable of developing new/deeper roots, and instead, it sheds (decomposes) part of its roots in order to maintain equilibrium. This characteristic of plant is known as the "root-shoot ratio". In general, the roots of any plant can only grow when its stem/leaf matter grows.
   
   
2. Secondly, when the plant is cut, the majority of the moisture that it stores in its leaves/blades/stems (biomass) is no longer available to the plant, and even if the the clippings are left on the landscape, most of this moisture evaporates and is thus wasted. (In addition, much of the fertility/nutrition of those clippings is also wasted because they are blown away in the wind (or carried away in the rain), and any wildlife living in/amidst/around the grass is either instantly killed by any mower - whether manual or powered - or is fully deprived of its natural habitat.) And as such, the plant is even less likely to survive without any irrigation.
   
   
3. Thirdly, "Common Bermuda" that is cut under 6 inches in height exposes a greater proportion of the plant to the direct, intense heat of the sun, whereas the fully-grown (18-24+ inch) and densely-packed/lush Bermuda grass has a greater capacity to survive intense heat since the intense heat only concentrates at the top of the plant, while the lower dense parts of the plant remain relatively cool, due to shade and also due to greater biomass - it takes more solar energy to heat more mass than it does to heat lesser mass.
   
   
4. Fourthly, "Common Bermuda" that is cut under 6 inches in height exposes a greater proportion of underlying soil to the direct, intense heat of the sun making the soil lose its moisture much faster during the summer droughts. On the other hand, "Common Bermuda" grass that is allowed to grow to its full 18-24+ inch height insulates the soil to a much greater degree, allowing the soil to remain moist (See 075, 076). Note that this advantage is doubly-reinforced due to the fact that fully-grown "Common Bermuda" grass has deeper, more-expansive and healthier root systems that suck up and preserve moisture in the top layers of soil. This further allows the fully-grown "Common Bermuda" grass to stay cool and survive the intense heat and drought.
   
   
5. Fifthly, when grass/"weeds" are cut, you are removing fertility from the soil without adding anything back (again, since all of the clippings are just blown away in the wind, or carried away in the rain). When this destructive process is routinely performed over time, the fertility of the land is depleted resulting in unfavorable conditions for most plants including grass. I am also opposed to this depletion of fertility for many reasons but in particular because, in the future, we or future generations might need every square inch of this land dedicated to grow food.
   
   
6. Sixthly, when "weeds" that are cut or removed/eradicated, it prevents them from providing the beneficial service to the grass which is drawing up the more elusive moisture and nutrients from deeper within the soil (for the benefit of the grass), since many of these "weeds" have deep tap roots that allow them and the surrounding grass to survive and even thrive under extreme drought and heat (See 072, 073, 074). This is due to the fact that different plants have different root systems that occupy various regions of soil and at various depths. So, a diverse set of plants ensures that moisture is maintained at the various layers of soil without evaporating or sinking into the water table where it would be inaccessible to plants (See 036, 074, 077, 226, 246).
   
   
7. Seventhly, organic soil with natural, native (unmowed) prairie (grass+"weed") vegetation are deeper, healthier and store more water than soils with artificially maintained or mowed vegetation. Furthermore, soils that are chemically treated (for example with synthetic fertilizer, pesticide, etc.) store less water than soils that are left natural/organic since all of the species (plants, bacteria, fungi, earthworms/grubs, insects, etc.) hold the moisture close at the top layers of the soil (See 036, 074, 077, 226, 246).
   
   
8. Eighthly, following up on the fifth point, repeated depletion of fertility from the land would eventually result in the land becoming completely barren and sterile, especially in the absence of water. In other words, repeatedly mowing all the vegetation on land, is only marginally better than completely removing all of the vegetation from the land. The removal of native prairie grasses and "weeds" from huge tracts of land was a major factor contributing to the "Dust Bowl" of the 1930s, when the soil literally blew away in the wind, since there was nothing there to hold the soil in place. In areas that are prone to extreme drought such as Central Texas, the combined effect of man-made global heating results in desertification - in essence, more land being turned into actual deserts (See 143). As several United Nations studies have repeatedly warned for several decades now, man-made desertification is a huge problem that only worsens the problem of man-made global heating and makes less land available for growing any vegetation, let alone food (See 079, 080, 081). Since nothing is being done to combat this problem, Central Texas is a region of the world that actually is suffering from desertification (See 078). So, this man-made desertification is increasingly making more of Central Texas much less-hospitable for decent human survival.
   
   
9. Ninethly, our region within Central Texas gets only 29 inches of rain per year (See 088), which means that it is only fit for growing (not mowing) drought-tolerant plants (See 087). The problem of lack of rain is only compounded by the fact that we have very hot summers, with an average of 13 days with temperatures above 100 degrees Fahrenheit. By contrast, most of England, where the concept of mowed lawns for supposedly "aesthetic" reasons originated in the Middle Ages (by the British monarchy/aristocracy), gets more than 80 inches of rain per year and has a much cooler climate. So, even though mowing is a very destructive, wasteful and cruel act regardless of where it is done as described below, at least England gets enough rain and has a cool climate to sustain those mowed lawns (See 009).
   
   
10. Tenthly, following up on the sixth point, during times of prolonged drought and intense heat, native/wild plants ("weeds") are the only plants that will very-reliably grow (See 089). These "weeds" are fulfilling their role in nature, which is to occupy that niche environment, anchoring the soil to the ground, keeping moisture at the top layers of the soil, improving soil fertility/structure/depth, sequestering carbon (which combats man-made global heating), and providing food and habitat for wildlife (See 090). It should be obvious that removing native/wild plants ("weeds") to maintain a monoculture of grass is simply destructive, wasteful and unsustainable. Sustainable landscape practices promote working with nature, rather than working against it or destroying it.

For all of these mutually-reinforcing major reasons, when "Common Bermuda" grass is repeatedly cut to under 6 inches in height without any irrigation throughout the year and during the yearly summer droughts (with some years being more extreme than others), much of it dies or is seriously heat-stressed and goes dormant. This is not what "Common Bermuda" grass evolved to do, since the fully-grown (18-24+ inch tall) and densely-packed/lush "Common Bermuda" grass is capable of surviving Central Texas summers without any water, due to deeper/more-extensive roots, greater biomass for shade, cooling and internal water storage, greater insulation for the soil, etc. However, when much of the Bermuda grass dies or becomes dormant during the summer, many native/wild plants ("weeds"), whose seeds are already embedded in the landscape multiply and proliferate, and "Common Bermuda" grass has the most "weed" potential of all turf grasses due to low density (See 183). While I do not consider more native/wild plants ("weeds") in the landscape to be a bad thing (especially since they add to the bio-diversity, fertility, etc.), the "6-inch rule" of the (obsolete) DCCRs make it increasingly very labor intensive and impractical to maintain. From my own personal and frustrating experience, this pattern has repeated and compounded over many years, leading to a landscape that is almost exponentially harder to maintain to the existing (obsolete) DCCRs.

I have grown "Common Bermuda" grass to its full 18-24+ inch height and its full density/lushness in my backyard, and have noticed that only when it grows fully/densely like this, will it fully survive and even thrive under the summer heat, displaying a bright/dark green lively color, even during the worst Central Texas droughts, and this is completely consistent with all of the science summarized above. When "Common Bermuda" grass grows thickly/densely like this, it is much more effective in keeping native/wild plants ("weeds") in check. So, if one wants to cultivate a mono-culture (that is, with minimal native/wild plants ("weeds")) of "Common Bermuda" grass in a sustainable manner - that is, without irrigation, without fertilizer, without herbicide, etc. - the only way to do this is to allow it to grow to its maximum height and as densely as possible, which makes it somewhat effective at suppressing native/wild plants ("weeds").

When it is required to be cut, especially to a very low height such as 6 inches, as the current, obsolete DCCRs call for, "Common Bermuda" grass must be regularly irrigated during the summer (May through September) and fertilized (at least once every 2 years) in order to survive. In addition, if the landscape is to be kept free of native/wild plants ("weeds"), herbicide(s) also need to be applied although even this is an unsustainable solution, since those plants will eventually develop resistance to the herbicide(s). But far more importantly, all three of these practices are extremely environmentally destructive resulting in extreme waste of fresh water (the super-precious "oil of the 21st century"), and extreme pollution/toxification of the air, groundwater and soil/surrounding-landscape, due to the extreme toxicity and carcinogenicity of chemical/synthetic fertilizers and herbicides, to humans, plants and wildlife.

Furthermore, when powered lawn equipment is used to mow the lawn, non-renewable fossil-fuel energy is consumed and in the case of gas-powered equipment, a huge amount of greenhouse gas emissions is generated since lawn equipment, unlike automobiles, are largely unregulated. Since I am unwilling to use powered lawn-mowing equipment (neither electric nor gas-powered) for the reasons stated, it takes me a very long time to manually cut (by hand) individual "weeds"/grass to maintain the overall height of the lawn, as I have tried to do for many years now, especially since the "weeds" have spread throughout most of the landscape.

So, not only are the current DCCRs obsolete and non-compliant with the current (as of 2013) Texas Property Code (Sections 202.007, 202.010), but also the resulting cost of maintaining plants in a manner that is not drought-tolerant (and ultimately unsustainable) is very expensive in terms of water/fertilizer/herbicide consumption, very expensive in terms of human labor (increasingly more time and effort spent in the maintenance), very damaging to the health of all species that are in close contact - humans, plants and wildlife - very damaging to the environment, and very wasteful of resources.

To summarize:

• When "Common Bermuda" grass is force-cut to under 6 inches in height and receives no irrigation, then it is neither drought-tolerant nor heat-tolerant and either dies or goes dormant during very hot, dry summers.
  
  
• The enforcement of the "6-inch rule" also makes it very-high-maintenance grass since it requires frequent mowings in the spring, early summer and fall when rainfall, along with soil moisture retention, tends to be high. Mowing also wastes all the water and nutrition/fertility that is stored in the cut clippings, mowing destroys wildlife habitat, mowing consumes non-renewable fossil-fuel energy when powered equipment is used, mowing emits a lot of greenhouse gases when gas-powered equipment is used, and mowing is labor intensive.
  
  
• Since it is a relatively thin ground cover, in general, it tends to allow "weeds" to grow, and repeated droughts without irrigation allow these "weeds" to conquer much of the landscape. My landscape is a perfect example of this, and my detailed photographs document how much of the landscape has been literally taken over by the "weeds". Again, I personally do not mind the "weeds" and like more bio-diversity, but the current/obsolete DCCR rules makes a landscape full of such "weeds" just impractical and very labor-intensive to maintain.
  
  
• A sustained monoculture of low-cut "Common Bermuda" grass can only be obtained with routine irrigation, routine fertilization, routine herbicide application, and routine mowing. All of these aspects make a sustained monoculture of low-cut "Common Bermuda" grass very-high-maintenance, very-high-operating-cost, extremely environmentally destructive, and very-unhealthy to all life (including humans) that make close contact with these toxic chemicals.

In addition to reducing the hardiness of plants with respect to drought, heat and frost, mowing is also a destructive and wasteful act that:

1. when powered equipment is used, consumes and wastes large amounts of non-renewable energy, especially since environmental regulations are virtually non-existent for lawn-mowing equipment. Even if you have solar panels and/or wind turbines supplying electricity for electric mowing equipment, that electricity could have been put to actual productive use (or returned to the grid), as opposed to destructive use.
   
   
2. when gas-powered equipment or non-renewable electric equipment is used, emits vast amounts of greenhouse gases that are orders of magnitude more than gasoline-powered vehicles, again, since environmental regulations are virtually non-existent for lawn-mowing equipment (See 048). Using electric mowers/trimmers where the electricity was generated from coal-fired power plants or other non-renewable sources are not that much better.
   
   
3. when gas-powered equipment is used, not only leads to air pollution, but also exposes the operator and those nearby to "alarming amounts of cancer-causing chemicals" due to the toxic/carcinogenic exhaust fumes emitted from such equipment (See 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237). Even nearby neighbors who are unfortunate to be around these lawnmowers must suffer inhaling the highly toxic fumes, and due to the current lax laws on lawnmower emissions, neighbors cannot get the operators of that equipment to stop using that equipment.
   
   
4. kills wildlife (including soil organisms like insects, bacteria/fungi, earthworms, etc.) and obliterates habitat for wild species (grasshoppers, crickets, pill bugs, ants, lizards, chamaeleons, scorpions, caterpillars, earthworms, ladybugs, spiders, toads, frogs, snails, slugs, etc.) that live in the grass/soil.
   
   
5. due to the above, eliminates the food supply and habitat for several larger species such as birds, armadillos, skunks, etc.
   
   
6. due to the above, eliminates bio-diversity and instead encourages a monoculture of grass by suppressing native/wild plants ("weeds").
   
   
7. harmfully compacts and compresses the soil especially when powered equipment is used to the detriment of all species - plants (including grass), soil microbes, insects, etc. - and leads to an overall reduction of soil fertility (due to poor soil structure). Poor soil structure, in turn, leads to a lack of biodiversity, and as a result, poor soil fertility. Even walking on soil has this effect, which is why it is better to walk exclusively on paved surfaces or on well-defined footpaths that are designed/intended to be repeatedly walked over.
   
   
8. destroys soil fertility since almost all of the clipped vegetation are blown away in the wind (or carried away in the rain). Fully-grown grass along with native/wild plants ("weeds") (along with all the other species living in the vegetation/soil) are what keep the land fertile. Bagging attachments to mowers capture only a minute fraction of the total clippings, and even this minute fraction of clippings completely dries out due to evaporation, leading to complete loss in water. This is why (uncut) prairie landscapes (in particular, tall-grass prairies) generate the most fertile soil in the world - even more than forest/jungle landscapes (See 036).
   
   
9. contributes to pollution in landfills. Yard waste and food waste account for about 27% of all waste that ends up in landfills (See 158). This is very much a cultural sickness because most indigenous communities that have retained their traditional/indigenous lifestyles do not have any waste/garbage. In fact, in some indigenous languages, there is no word for "waste"/"garbage" and there is no word for "recycle", because nothing is wasted, and everything is either reused, recycled or composted in some manner.
   
   
10. contributes to methane emissions and thus, man-made global heating. All decomposing matter releases methane gas - a greenhouse gas that is much more powerful than carbon dioxide - into the atmosphere. Whether property owners collect (some percentage of) their yard waste and use the waste disposal service to deposit them into landfills, or whether they compost this yard waste, or for all of the yard waste that gets blown away in the wind (or carried away in the rain) and thus goes uncollected - in all cases - methane is still being released into the atmosphere (See 159, 160). There is a very simple solution to eliminate this problem, namely: stop mowing. When you do not mow, carbon is actually being sequestered (read below) - so, it actually has a net-positive impact as opposed to a large net-negative impact.
    
    
11. all of the water that is stored in the clippings is lost due to evaporation (and since the vast majority of clippings are blown away in the wind or carried away in the rain), and so, water is being removed from the system without anything being added back. Keep in mind that fresh water, at least as it is currently being consumed, is not a renewable resource - to the contrary, it is a very limited non-renewable resource (read below). Desalination of ocean water to create artificially-filtered fresh water is prohibitively expensive, foolishly impractical and a huge waste of resources - aside from the additional energy that is required for the desalination process itself, just think about the huge amount of infrastructure that would be necessary to pipe large quantities of desalinated water from the coastal regions to inner parts of the country (See 009). So, once all of the groundwater, aquifers, glacial water, rivers/streams and dam-stored water is exhausted, we will have nowhere to turn (except to limited rainwater) for fresh water even for essential needs - and as more land is turning into desert due to man-made desertification, we will have increasingly less access to rainwater. This is yet another reason why mowing is not a sustainable solution, and it obviously destroys the hardiness of plants, especially with regards to drought, heat and frost.
    
    
12. wastes all of the human labor, time and money/resources involved in mowing - in a very destructive, unjust and monotonous/mind-numbing act - when that human labor, time and money/resources could have been used in a productive manner, such as enlightenment or fighting for social/economic/environmental justice (See 015, 016).
    
    
13. minimizes the beneficial service of water filtration that uncut plants perform that protect the surrounding environment/ecosystems (See 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 262). All plants hold on to some percentage of water from the rain (or from irrigation). Mowed plants store much less water than unmowed plants, for very obvious reasons - both above ground level (in leaf/stem tissue) and below the ground in/around the root mass, due to the root-shoot ratio). When plants store more water, any pollutants from the rainwater or irrigation water tend to be absorbed by the plants and/or stay in the soil in a diluted/distributed manner as opposed to flowing into (and thereby concentrating in) nearby streams/rivers/lakes/ponds/seas/oceans/etc. When toxic chemicals concentrate in streams/rivers/lakes/ponds/seas/oceans/etc., it not only leads to pollution of the fresh water or groundwater supply for humans, but also kills or sickens wildlife that lives in that water or drinks that water. This runoff - which includes agricultural chemicals, lawn chemicals, industrial chemicals (for example, from factories), etc. - is the leading cause of water pollution and results in "dead zones" (like the huge one in the Gulf of Mexico) in which massive quantities of aquatic life die (See 165).
    
    
14. minimizes the beneficial service of improving air quality (by reducing air pollution) that uncut plants perform on the surrounding environment. It is well established that growing plants indoors improves indoor air quality. The same is true outdoors, but far more plants and plant growth (biomass) is required to achieve the same effect. Enough plants and plant growth (biomass) are also required to maintain sufficient oxygen levels in the atmosphere for the benefit of all other heterotrophs (See 163, 166, 167, 168, 169, 262).
    
    
15. minimizes the beneficial service of providing flood control that uncut plants perform in environments inhabited by humans and other terrestrial species. Plants absorb water and uncut plants absorb much more water than cut plants, for very obvious reasons. But more importantly, uncut plants also have deeper roots that create more pores in the soil for water to penetrate, meaning that the soil can hold much more water - this is especially true for prairie vegetation that have very deep roots and contain a diverse set of grasses and other native/wild plants ("weeds") (See 249, 250, 251, 252, 226, 253). Man-made global heating is already routinely causing catastrophic, apocalyptic flooding from massive hurricanes, tropical storms, monsoons and tsunamis (from the break-up/collapse of ice sheets). By continuing, and in fact, increasing our fossil fuel consumption and our industrial (factory-farmed) meat consumption, and by cutting down vegetation, we humans are exponentially worsening the problem of man-made global heating, and in the process, we are also removing the safeguards that would normally be able to protect us from the catastrophic consequences of that man-made global heating. As MIT Professor Noam Chomsky comments, it is quite remarkable to observe how we humans have used our exceptional intelligence to create a "perfect storm" of catastrophic destruction (See 254):

    “ So, to go back to the pincers movement, what's happened is we've created two huge threats to survival. We have systematically - not you and me, but the leadership has systematically created socioeconomic policies, which have as a consequence, almost immediate consequence, the undermining of functioning democracy - the one thing that might deal with the disasters. Like I said, it's a kind of perfect storm. Real credit to the human species to have contrived something like this. ”

    
    
16. obliterates or eliminates the carbon-sequestration ability of the cut vegetation. In general, the more the green matter (biomass) in the plants, the more that these plants are performing photosynthesis, thus converting Carbon-Dioxide into Oxygen, making the planet cooler, for the benefit of all life on earth. A significant fraction of scientists have been claiming that we are already past the point of no return, in terms of the trend of ever-increasing - actually sky-rocketing - greenhouse gas emissions and the resulting catastrophic effects on all life on earth. Species extinction in the current "Anthropocene" is comparable to what it was during the extinction event that eliminated the dinosaurs. In other words, we humans as a species, are as horrible as the massive asteroid and/or massive volcanism that destroyed about 75% of all species on earth, and the global man-made climate change occurring over the last 250 years of ever-increasing, destructive form of industrialization is the only contributing factor, with those of us in the richer, developed countries overwhelmingly responsible for this catastrophic climate change, primarily due to our extreme over-consumption and very destructive/unsustainable practices. As MIT Professor Noam Chomsky points out, it is ironically those of us in the richer, developed countries that are racing all life on earth off the cliff (due to our extremely destructive/wasteful way of life), while the so-called "primitive" indigenous peoples are the ones that are courageously fighting (very powerful forces and against all odds) to save all life on earth from this huge environmental catastrophe (See 069, 133).
    
    
17. totally wastes a vital store of solar energy. Photosynthetic plants are autotrophs that harvest energy from the sun and store it in their biomass. This is why heterotrophs (that cannot produce their own food) such as many insects and animals consume autotrophs (or other heterotrophs) in order to survive. So, while it is wrong to cut plants purely for supposedly (baseless) "aesthetic" or "safety" reasons (read below), if the plants absolutely had to be cut for a legitimate reason (and "aesthetics"/"safety" are certainly not legitimate reasons), then it is much more ethical to allow grazing/browsing livestock like sheep/goat/cows/geese/rabbits/etc. to do it, because that would be generating meat, eggs and milk for us to consume, allowing us to eliminate consumption of factory-farmed/grain-fed animals which is a huge cause of man-made climate change due to extremely large amounts of greenhouse gas (methane) emissions. Grazing is certainly not as damaging to the plants as mowing if it is carefully managed during the summer months (when there is much less rainfall), and if the animals are rotated from one pasture to the next, allowing the grass/prairie vegetation to grow back to its full height. Unlike mowing, grazing does not deplete the soil of fertility or much of the moisture since both are returned to the land when the animals urinate/defecate. Also, herbivores do not graze all of the vegetation evenly, allowing the less damaged or untouched vegetation to spread and recover over the rest of the landscape. And most of the biggest herbivores such as the American bison or the African wildebeest do not repeatedly graze over the same land, and instead travel through hundreds of miles of prairies/savannas allowing the grazed vegetation more than enough time to recover. Many grasses and other prairie/savanna vegetation evolved over millions of years to withstand grazing from herbivores, but they do not have any evolutionary/genetic resistance to repeated mowing which is a completely destructive process that damages them and deprives them of water, fertility and the full time they need to recover (in essence, by allowing them to grow back to their full height). If there are too many herbivores grazing over a limited area of pastures, the pastures will not recover at the rate necessary to feed the herbivores leading to a reduction or stabilization in the population of herbivores. Also, in most ecosystems, there are usually enough omnivores and carnivores preying on herbivores to keep the population of herbivores in check. So, by design, nature always reaches equilibrium in a manner that is totally sustainable.
    
    
18. totally wastes a useful material resource. There are many productive uses of harvested grass - it can be used as a fiber for making several products, or used in the construction of houses, or dried and used as hay for winter forage - but all of these uses require grasses to grow to their full height as they do in prairies or farms. Also, another potential use for the solar energy harvested and stored in plants is actual fuel. Even though it is not a good environmental practice due to the resulting greenhouse gas emissions, plants or the dung from plant-eating livestock can be burned as fuel for generating electricity or for cooking or for heating rooms during winter, etc. Even that is a more productive use of the solar energy harvested by plants than mowing which is a total waste of that solar energy. To be sure, the most productive and ecological use of grass and prairie vegetation is to leave them untouched, thereby conserving wildlife/water/soil-fertility/etc. and letting them sequester carbon for combating man-made climate change.
    
    
19. brutally prevents the cut vegetation from growing to their full potential and thus thriving. Plants are defenseless and cannot speak for themselves - so, it is our responsibility as humans to do what is right and just. Plants have just as much of a right to survive and thrive as we do, and we should not cruelly suppress their ability to do so. I very much share Johnny "Appleseed" Chapman’s view that it is "wicked" to cut plants, and share his love of the wild (See 070). Put another way: What right do we have as humans to cut plants for something that is not necessary for our survival? The answer is: none. It can be earily argued that we humans have the right to cut the parts of the plants that we eat for food, or to construct shelter in a sustainable manner, or to sustainably harvest parts of plants used as a raw material for producing other products that are essential to our survival. But other than these legitimate limited uses, we simply do not have any moral authority to cut plants for any other reason. Just because some nation-state or governmental authority does not make it illegal for you to cut plants does not mean that you have the moral authority to do so.
    
    
20. might even be illegal in countries with sizable indigenous populations such as Bolivia, Ecuador and Costa Rica. As MIT Professor Noam Chomsky says, while those of us in the rich, developed countries are racing most life on earth off the cliff (due to our extremely destructive and wasteful lifestyles and extreme consumption), the so-called "primitive" indigenous peoples, living in poorer countries, and even those confined into small, oppressive places within the rich countries that they once fully and exclusively populated, are the ones courageously fighting to save life on earth from the impending environmental catastrophe. In Bolivia, for example, where the indigenous population is actually the majority, the people have passed laws protecting the rights of mother earth (See 071). Certain countries like Bolivia, Ecuador, Costa Rica and Brazil have passed laws that require at least a certain percentage of land to be left as native/wild vegetation (See 102). Contrast this with most states in this country where there are no such laws, and as a result, only less than 1% of the native prairies that once populated a huge fraction of the North America (including Central Texas) still exists (See 075, 101, 246).
    
    
21. deprives property owners of their right not to mow, which used to be their right (and still is their right throughout most of rural America) until very recently (See 264). Although, I prefer to use the more powerful argument (stated above) that humans should not have the right to arbitrarily cut plants for unjustifiable reasons because that is immoral, given the reality that I live in a society that is very destructive towards the environment, I could also use the less powerful argument that property owners should have the right not to mow vegetation for unjustifiable reasons.
    
    
22. originated in Medieval Europe (first England, then spread throughout the rest of Europe) where super-wealthy aristocratic elites and the monarchy had mowed "lawns" as a status symbol to show off their wealth (See 219). The aristocrats and monarchs used to make their poor serfs or servants cut the grass using scythes. And in their defense, at least those areas of Europe are actually cool enough and actually get enough rainfall to sustain such continued regrowth of grass (although mowing is still a very wasteful practice regardless of climate). The same cannot be said about many extreme-drought-prone, hot regions throughout the United States including Central Texas where we live (See 009). So, why did this severely-outdated "lawn" aesthetic that was from such an unjust period of history and that was used by the super-opulent and super-oppressive kings and aristocratic elite, get adopted by working-class and middle-class Americans and Europeans? The answer is partly multi-faceted indoctrination:
    
    
    • the indoctrination that I, the uninformed gullible consumer, absolutely must have that thin and uniform layer of living green matter covering the soil - the marketing of lawns by the lawn-service industry originated from the initial days of color-television, and the artificially-created yearning for the landscapes of baseball/golf fields - as usual, when big business and their advertising industry successfully manages to indoctrinate the mass population, it is incredibly hard for people to break through that deep indoctrination since the advertising industry is usually successful in creating uninformed/gullible consumers that make irrational choices; (See 035, 139, 181, 029, 030)
      
      
    • the indoctrination of the "New Spirt of the Age": that I must care only about myself and the (supposed) look/prestige/wealth of my property and ignore all "externalities" (including the health of the environment and, in the case of man-made climate change, the fate of most large species on earth and the fate of my children and grandchildren) - this notion of extreme selfishness, extreme greed and extreme short-term-thinking that is relentlessly drilled into peoples’ heads by the mainstream media (which is the system of state/corporate propaganda) and most politicians is often associated with "capitalism", but classical economists like Adam Smith would shun this sociopathic behavior; (See 092, 093, 094, 095, 096, 097, 098, 099, 100)
      
      
    • the indoctrination that man has to have complete control over nature, which is just yet another example of societal/cultural/institutional destructive control-freakism.
      
      
    • the indoctrination that one has to be a passive, obedient, docile and atomized member of an authoritarian, top-down, hierarchical society where orders are sent from the top-down, and the ordinary people at the bottom are to simply follow orders rather than questioning the validity of the orders.

    In all of these cases, the indoctrination is very deep and so, there has to be a significant movement of un-indoctrinated, well-informed people that are willing to fight this deep-rooted societal/cultural/institutional sickness. Also, in addition to the multi-faceted indoctrination explained above, in our modern, neo-feudal, highly-regressive and highly-undemocratic societies (especially since the "neoliberal" period originating in the 1970s), many working-class and middle-class people feel powerless/helpless/hopeless about most political issues and would rather blindly follow orders and submit to authoritarian rule rather than question the status quo for the sake of real democracy, freedom and justice.

23. as hinted above, is very much a tool for social control and thought control. The enforcement of mowed lawns is one of many ways in which the ruling elite and the managerial classes would obviously much rather have ordinary people pre-occupied with mundane, monotonous and mind-numbing activities (like hamsters spinning in their wheels), rather than giving people more free time that they could use for enlightenment or to fight for social/economic/environmental justice. From the perspective of the ruling elite, if you keep ordinary people atomized, distracted, pre-occupied and fighting amongst each other over insignificant, meaningless, superficial things like "fashionable consumption" (which includes the mowing of lawns), then they will remain atomized and not have enough capacity or time to collectively battle the real social/economic/environmental injustices that they are already deeply entrenched in - again, a valuable tool for social control and thought control (See 136, 137, 138, 140, 156, 157).
    
    
24. is a typical example of "Monoculture of the Mind". Indian scientist Vandana Shiva’s book "Monoculture of the Mind" - written more than 2 decades ago but more relevant today than ever - describes the problem of monoculture as it is used in agriculture (and incidentally, even mowed lawns), as very much a problem of the mind - in essence, extreme narrow-mindedness, extreme ignorance, one-track thinking and short-term thinking, or the complete lack of independent/critical thinking and understanding (See 135). The same can be said about the mind that thinks that it is absolutely necessary to have a carefully-manicured monoculture of mutilated grass (that is artificially kept alive by wasting huge amounts of non-renewable water and fertilizer) as a frontyard. Again, ignoring the environmental destruction and all of the waste involved, the relentless drive towards absolute conformity, and the resulting lack of independence, diversity and individuality, is typical of most totalitarian societies. George Orwell wrote "Animal Farm", mainly as a critique of the totalitarian nature of Soviet society, but most people do not know that he wrote an Introduction to "Animal Farm" (which remained unpublished during his lifetime), in which he argued that the British society of his time was not that much better, and if Orwell were alive today to witness modern-day American society, he would be fully convinced that fully totalitarian societies can be easily achieved by nation-states that do not have to resort to force/violence - in other words, fully totalitarian societies can easily be achieved by relying solely on mass indoctrination or the "manufacturing"/"engineering" of consent via state/corporate propaganda (See 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157).
    
    
25. enforces and imposes the cultural "lawn" aesthetic (and all of the environmental destruction and waste that goes along with it) of one culture on other cultures that have both historically and contemporarily not adopted that aesthetic. The idea of a mowed "lawn" is virtually non-existent in traditional Asian, Middle-eastern, African, South American cultures and in indigenous North/Central American and Australian cultures. Having been born in India and having lived there for a large part of my life, I know that most Indians would be morally opposed to the idea of mowed lawns, especially because the British aristocracy once colonized India and forced their Indian servants to maintain mowed lawns on their wealthy estates. Most Indian property owners have gardens with miscellaneous plants which includes the unrestrained growth of wild/native plants, and in many areas, there are cows, buffaloes and other livestock that freely roam and graze on vegetation. And throughout the rest of the world, there has been strong resistance by local communities of color to prevent and undo what they consider to be the "Americanizing" of their natural landscapes. For example, Japanese natural landscape restoration activist Toshihiko Kobayashi explains his community’s efforts (See 247):

    	“ We regained a traditional landscape by getting rid of all the things that did not exist hundreds of years ago... ”
    	“ If we continued to Americanize our towns, Japan would lose its original landscape completely. That's why we wanted to apply brakes on the trend. We wanted to create a model here - my kind of utopia. I think many places in Japan will follow our example. ”

    But even setting aside these cultural differences, it is wrong - in my opinion, morally obscene - to impose one person’s or one group’s subjective aesthetic values on others that do not share those aesthetic values - this is a horrible form of paternalism and authoritarianism/totalitarianism that completely violates the "golden rule".

26. is inherently in conflict with the "off-the-grid"/homesteading lifestyle. Ignoring the environmental destruction and extreme waste involved in mowing and everything that goes along with mowing, it goes without saying that if a property owner is dependent upon the external world for large amounts of water for the irrigation of mowed lawns, or for fertilizer/compost used to periodically/occasionally re-fertilize mowed lawns, or for herbicides to maintain a monoculture of "weed"-free grass, or for lawn-mowing equipment that has to be repaired/replaced after a certain amount of years, or for electricity/gasoline used to power lawn-mowing equipment, or even for the labor/time/money involved in lawn-mowing, etc., then that property owner is truly not self-sufficient and cannot adopt the "off-the-grid" lifestyle (See 009). No governmental entity or private-sector entity can force a person to be dependent upon the external world for anything - it is the right of every person to be completely self-sufficient and live completely "off-the-grid" if he/she chooses to do so.
    
    
27. totally violates a person’s right to adopt a "zero-waste" lifestyle. As mentioned above, some indigenous languages do not even have a word for "waste"/"garbage", but even many non-indigenous people throughout this country and around the world have adopted a "zero-waste" lifestyle for reasons of environmentalism and conservation (See 248). As explained above, whether using powered equipment (with bagging attachments) or a push mower or a scythe to mow vegetation, the vast majority of those clippings either remain uncollected, get blown away in the wind, or get carried away by the rain. Forcing people, including myself, who are completely opposed to the idea of any waste, to mow is psychologically damaging to those people, because we view any wasteful act as an immoral and sinful act.
    
    
28. has managed to persist to today, primarily because a large fraction of property owners are unaware of the extreme environmental costs of mowing and maintaining mowed lawns (See 220). As explained above, the idea of mowed lawns originated during earlier times when environmentalism, naturalism and conservation did not have a strong following or scientific backing. If people were made aware of the facts and and the dire future consequences of their day-to-day wasteful/destructive actions as documented in this application, they might very well deeply question their previously held views about mowed lawns.
    
    
29. as explained above, is a societal/cultural/institutional sickness that is also an unhealthy and senseless obsession (See 218, 219, 227, 229). Several Property Owners Associations also feed into this unhealthy and senseless obsession by awarding the "Yard of the Month" trophy to the property owners who are the most obsessed with their (environmentally-destructive and wasteful) mowed lawns.
    
    
30. contributes to noise pollution when powered equipment is used (See 229). Not only is using powered lawn equipment damaging to the ears/hearing of the operator, but it also leads to disturbance in work (and thus, a drop in productivity) from those around the lawn-mowing. Since different people have different sleep schedules, people sleeping around the lawn-mowing are routinely woken up by the lawn-mowers, and thus suffer from poor quality and quantity of sleep, which is hazardous in many ways. It is interesting to see to see how a single destructive and wasteful act, is both destructive and wasteful in more ways than one, and also becomes a societal health hazard.
    
    
31. cannot be justified by the traditional "aesthetics" argument (See 104). There is absolutely nothing wrong in having an unmowed "prairie"/"meadow" garden as a frontyard (See 016, 017, 018, 019, 020, 182). I, and billions of people like me all over the world, see nothing but beauty and fertility in the unrestrained growth of vegetation, especially when that vegetation is native and/or wild, and when it adds to the biodiversity of the landscape (both in terms of plant species and non-plant species). Furthermore, from an "aesthetics" perspective, I would much rather have a bright-green/dark-green landscape composed of thriving native/wild vegetation with miscellaneous flowers that grows to their full, unrestrained height/width/depth, than a yellow/brown aritifical monoculture landscape of dead/dormant grass that only obtains that color because it has been mowed and does not receive any irrigation during the hot summer droughts.
    
    
32. cannot be justified by the traditional "safety" arguments. The "safety" arguments for maintaining mowed "lawns", such as - eliminating the fire hazard, eliminating vermin, eliminating mosquitoes, eliminating pollen, etc. - are simply not backed up by scientific evidence: See 103. In the case of the "fire hazard", to the contrary, it is actually dead/dormant vegetation such as dried-out or dormant (yellow/brown) mowed grass/"weeds" that is at highest risk for catching fire, not live/active unmowed vegetation that is green in color, since the much higher moisture content of live green unmowed vegetation suppresses fire to a certain extent. Furthermore, we should learn to live with wildlife rather trying to sterilize the space around us. After all, we, humans, did unjustly steal this land from the wild, we did exterminate or evict the wildlife that used to live here, and in the case of the North & South America and Australia, we did exterminate the indigenous human population that used to live here (which was obviously a collective act of genocide). Finally, several academic publications have argued that mowed lawns are the real public nuisance due to all of the environmental destruction, pollution and extreme waste involved, which should be common sense, but unfortunately is not (See 263, 067).

For all of the numerous reasons stated above, sustainable and just landscaping practices call for leaving grasses/vegetation unmowed - See 001, 006, 011, 012, 013, 014, 015, 016, 017, 018, 019, 020, 021, 030, 056, 057, 058, 059, 060, 061, 062, 063, 064, 066, 067, 068, 103, 104, 105, 106, 182, 184, 216, 217, 226, 227, 228, 229, 232, 234. For a more comprehensive list of why it is wrong to mow, please See 105, 106. The following miscellaneous facts concerning drought and man-made climate change convey the seriousness of our current situation (and the impending environmental catastrophe) and provide further justification as to why I absolutely insist upon a "no-mow" landscape composed of plants:

1. Fresh water is considered the "oil of the 21st century." It is an extremely limited resource accounting for only 1% of total water on the planet. 99% of water on the planet is sea water which is too salty and thus too toxic for plants (and most animals). Even though fresh water accounts for only 1% of all water, a huge fraction of this fresh water is stored or locked-up in areas that we do not have access to, such as glaciers and icebergs (See 082, 083, 084).
   
   
2. Only 0.1% of all water in the planet is considered to be "clean" fresh water - water that is fit for human consumption, and that percentage is projected to drop as water pollution continues to increase (caused partly by synthetic fertilizers, herbicides/pesticides/insecticides and other agro-chemicals/lawn-chemicals that run-off or sink into our stores of fresh water). As of June 2017, 663 million people have no access to clean fresh water, and that number is projected to rise sharply, due to man-made climate change (which causes severe droughts) and also pollution. By 2025, 1.8 billion people could be affected by drastic water shortages. Around the world, 60 children die as a result of diarrhea-related-illnesses every hour, due to lack of access to clean fresh water (See 085, 086). It is thus a criminal waste of a very precious and vital resource to use it to irrigate mowed "lawns", especially when you consider the fact that the same vegetation would survive in a sustainable manner without any irrigation if only it were not mowed.
   
   
3. The process of purifying/filtering/treating water and then transporting that utility water for residential (domestic) use accounts for up to 20% of all energy (electricity or other) consumption, and more than half of residential (domestic) water use is being wasted for irrigation of mowed "lawns". So, the criminal waste of fresh water also requires a huge waste of energy resources, which is also extremely unsustainable since almost all of that energy is non-renewable (fossil-fuel) energy (See 084), and the consumption of these fossil fuels is a major contributor to man-made global heating.
   
   
4. The Asian Development Bank (ADB), a very mainstream/establishment institution, is strongly urging member countries to implement the commitments laid out in the Paris Climate Agreement, because if the countries do not do that, Asian economies will face disastrous consequences. For example on 2017-07-14, they released a report titled "A Region At Risk: The Human Dimensions of Climate Change in Asia and the Pacific" about the impact of man-made global heating. They state that without strenuous efforts to combat man-made climate change, average temperature in Asia is projected to increase more than 6 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by the end of this century. Keeping in mind that rice is the staple crop in much of Asia, this would mean that rice yields would reduce by 50% by 2100 relative to 1990 levels. Thus, man-made climate change will pose a serious threat to food security (in essence, huge food shortages) and economic security in much of Asia. Recently, extreme drought has caused massive food shortages in North Korea (which is highly unusual for a coastal country), where production of staple crops has dropped by up to 30% compared to 2001 levels, when North Korea received food assistance from the United Nations. Not only would there be huge food shortages, but the annual economic losses from flooding, drought and other man-made disasters from 2005 to 2050 will increase to about 52 billion dollars world wide. The ADB says that man-made global climate change is the most significant challenge that civilization faces in this century (See 107, 108). (To be clear, I do not approve of rice farming nor do I consume rice, because rice is a very high-resource crop that requires a huge amount of water to grow and contributes to man-made global heating due to methane emissions caused by plant matter that dies/decays when the rice fields are flooded (See 091), but the points mentioned in the ADB report are still valid. Also, the farming of rice is certainly not as bad as industrial meat production - in essence, the factory farming of animals in "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations" or CAFOs - which is still the leading cause of man-made methane emissions).
   
   
5. Severe drought routinely and increasingly causes famine (starvation) in many of the poorest places around the world such as the north-eastern African countries of Yemen, South Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan and Somaliland. Those African countries are suffering the worst-yet humanitarian crisis - there has been a huge drop in crop yields and there has been mass deaths of grazing livestock (goats, sheep, cows, etc.) which could not survive due to the extreme lack of water leading to very limited growth of vegetation in recent years. And so, for example, half of Yemen’s 27.5 million people are now facing chronic food insecurity, which is also worsened by the fact that it has been suffering repeated and vicious attacks from US-backed Saudi Arabia (See 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148). According to United Nations reports, currently about half a million people a year die due to drought-related food shortages, and that number is only projected to increase as man-made global heating further intensifies drought and desertification from one year to the next (See 230).
   
   
6. Most of Central Texas, specifically the Austin area, normally gets about 13 days with temperatures above 100 degrees Fahrenheit (which is bad enough). We are not even finished with this year’s (2017) summer, and we have already encountered a total of 42 days with temperatures above 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Central Texas had 22 days, 90 days, 35 days, 42 days, 21 days, 24 days and 24 days of triple-digit-heat in the 7 years 2010-2016 respectively. Meteorologists are predicting that we will surpass the 2013 total of 42 days by the end of this year (2017). In 2011, most of Texas suffered the worst drought in many decades with Central Texas setting a record of 90 days above 100 degrees Fahrenheit - more than six times the average (See 221). In the summer of 2011, the Texas drought was almost as bad as that of the Dust Bowl, and the Texas Department of Agriculture designated all 254 counties in the state "natural disaster areas" (See 027). In July 2011, Texas "marked the hottest month ever, while Oklahoma had the highest average temperature during the month at 89.1 degrees. The heat has resulted in the worst drought in Texas since the 1950s and the single driest year since 1895. The conditions have caused an estimated $5.2 billion in crop losses... The dry weather has also helped to fuel the wildfires in Texas that... destroyed hundreds of homes southeast of Austin" (See 028). These are just some of many examples of climate records being shattered with each passing year, since no significant steps are being taken by humans (particularly in the rich countries) to solve the problem of man-made global heating.
   
   
7. For all of these reasons, several cities and municipalities throughout the country, but especially in California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida and Texas (including Austin), are offering huge rebates or effectively paying their residents to get rid of their water-hungry turfgrass lawns with environmentally-friendly and ecological solutions including groundcovers, native vegetation landscaping and other landscaping that does not require any irrigation or mowing (See 001, 009). For exmaple, the City of Austin’s Native and Adapted Landscape Plants (GrowGreen) Guide specifically states the following on Page 50:

   “ Sustainable landscape practices promote reducing turfgrass use because of its potential high water use and higher maintenance from mowing and nutritional needs. If you decide to use turf then choose it wisely and keep the area small. If you decide not to use turf consider using one of the groundcovers listed in this guide as a lawn alternative. ”

   
   
8. As mentioned above, severe drought and heat waves, which are caused by man-made global heating, result in wildfires that destroy huge areas of pristine forest (and thus worsens the problem of man-made global heating due to the huge decrease in carbon sequestration) and also countless properties. Most Property Owners Associations falsely claim that they are enforcing mowed lawns as a matter of protecting "property values", which as explained above, has no basis. But even if that was true, which it is not, then how much value do properties have if they are burned to the ground due to man-made global heating or if they are destroyed by hurricanes/tornadoes/floods caused by man-made climate change?
   
   
9. Also, in general, the more highly developed an area, the hotter it is (although, to be clear, there are a large number of variables that affect climate). So, for example, temperatures in highly-populated Austin are noticeably higher than nearby Bastrop (See 180). The reason should be obvious to anyone that has even the most limited understanding of science: vegetation is what keeps the planet cool, and when you cut down vegetation and add more buildings, vehicles, factory-farmed animals, unnatural landscapes and people, you are turning a net-positive impact into a large net-negative impact (See 265). And to be clear, human population increase would not be as horrible as it is if everyone stopped cutting down vegetation, exclusively consumed 100% renewable, clean energy (or reduced their consumption by at least hundredfold) and reduced their consumption of meat (and other animal products) by at least tenfold.
   
   
10. Plants become dormant and photosynthesis stops (or sharply reduces) when the temperature gets too high (See 266, 267, 268, 269). As explained above, it is photosynthesis that cools the planet down, and when man-made global heating heats up the planet too much (as has increasingly been the case over the last 250 years of destructive, unsustainable industrialization), the beneficial effects of photosynthesis are sharply reduced, resulting in a feedback loop (or "vicious cycle") of ever-increasing temperatures over the long-term, which obviously has disastrous consequences - the melting/breaking-up of ice sheets leading to huge rises in sea levels, the desertification, the severe reduction in crop yields which leads to famine, the lack of access to clean fresh water, the increase in injuries/death due to heat stroke, the extinction of many species, etc. Furthermore, when humans cut vegetation, this artificially forces many plants including grass/"weeds" to become dormant (if not die), which is one of the many reasons why it is simply unconscionable for many of us who have even the most basic understanding of biology and climate science. Again, it is quite remarkable to observe how we humans have used our exceptional intelligence to create a "perfect storm" of (both short-term and long-term) catastrophic destruction (See 069, 132, 254).
    
    
11. According to the latest climate report released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2016 was a record-breaking year for all the wrong reasons. It was the hottest year on record for the third consecutive year, and the worst for Carbon Dioxide (CO₂), methane and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere. The 2016 average CO₂ concentration was 402.9 parts per million (ppm), up 3.5 ppm since 2015 - the largest annual increase observed in the 58-year record. Ice core records dating back as far as 800,000 years show that CO₂ levels had never surpassed 400 ppm until 2016. To put this in perspective, CO₂ levels were at about 340 ppm in 1980, and scientists have been stating (for many decades now) that most life (especially large species) cannot be sustained on earth unless CO₂ levels are maintained under 350 ppm (See 222). Global surface temperature was the highest on record for the third consecutive year, which marks 3 consecutive years of record-breaking. The global average temperature for 2016 rose about 0.1 degrees Celsius over 2015, which was 1.1 degrees Celcius over pre-industrial levels (See 270). The report says that melting Arctic and Antarctic sea ice pushed the global average sea-levels to the highest level ever recorded - the NOAA says that oceans have risen by 8 centimeters since tracking began 24 years ago. A record-breaking 12% of all the world’s land experienced drought conditions last year, which should alarm everyone, given that food production yields drop significantly even with the slightest drought.
    
    
12. As horrible as the facts stated in the report above might seem, all of what has already happened due to man-made global heating will be completely insignificant compared to what will eventually happen if we humans continue on our self-destructive path without serious changes to our lifestyles. According to former NASA climate scientist and current Columbia University professor James Hansen, if we do not dramatically change course to sustainable solutions as soon as possible (in essence, immediately), we will experience the break-up (not only the melt-down) of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, each of which represent 25 feet of sea-level rise, as early as 50 years from now. The most alarming aspect is that this is not a slow gradual melt, but a precipitous break-up where the broken parts plunge into the ocean and we get instantaneous huge tsunamis that instantly raise global sea-levels by 5 feet in a day, and 10 feet in 2 days (See 230). When you consider the fact that about 40% of the world’s population live in coastal regions, this is a catastrophic event that is literally exponentially worse than anything humans have ever experienced. There really will be no prior warning to such an event that will cause all of the coastal regions around the world to be submerged underwater. And keep in mind that parts of the ice sheets have already been breaking off (See 223, 224, 231).
    
    
13. Governments use military aggression and wars are often fought over access to resources, particularly water and fertile land, and this problem is projected to get much worse over time (See 109, 010, 011, 012, 013, 014, 015, 016). If that was not bad enough, in many regions of the world, particularly in the poorest areas, water is being privatized (instead of access to water being a fundamental human right) by the local/regional oligarchy, so that the ultra-powerful large/multi-national corporations and their puppet governments ultimately determine who will have access to water, and at what price (See 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127). So, in short, all of the costs of our extreme over-consumption of resources and unsustainable practices, particularly by those of us in the richer Western countries, are passed on to the poorest people of the world, who pay for it by suffering famine (starvation), homelessness (due to lack of business and the crippling of local farm economies), and injury/sickness/death from malnutrition and/or water-borne diseases and/or wars/aggression.
    
    
14. We cannot have our actions in the rich, fully-developed countries in the West and Global North adversely affect poor people in poor, developing and third-world countries in the Global South. Perhaps the most cruel aspect about man-made climate change is that it is both extreme climate injustice and extreme economic injustice: The rich, privileged people living in the rich Western countries are overwhelmingly responsible for causing the problem (despite having all the finances and resources to fix the problem) and are living in areas that would be least affected (at least in the near future), while the the poorest people living around the world who are the least responsible for causing the problem are the ones suffering most from it and would continue to suffer miserably, in fact, increasingly so, merely due to the unfortunate dynamics of global climate/geography and how human actions are impacting it. For examples, the cities and population centers most adversely affected by man-made climate change are in Asia and Africa (See 107, 108, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148). And in India, which is where I am originally from and which contains the poorest people in the world, (but also the rest of South Asia), more than a billion people - up to ⅕th of the world’s population - would be almost completely deprived of access to fresh water, and a large fraction of these people would suffer from famine, if the Himalayan glaciers were to melt significantly (See 069, 134, 142).
    
    
15. In various parts of the world, particularly in desert areas and in areas close to deserts, people live on the bare minimum of fresh water, not only because there is very little of it available, but also because they do not consume more than they absolutely need. So, for example, in Rajasthan, India, water is consumed at a rate of about 4 liters per person per day, and the women in those communities spend up to 8 hours per day simply collecting water from a very remotely-located tap (See 128, 129, 130). Traditional/indigenous societies have always gone to great lengths to conserve natural resources including water (See 245). A large fraction of people in Australia have taken the "off-the-grid" approach to water consumption: they only consume the water that they harvest in huge rainwater tanks. There are people like these all over the world following Mahatma Gandhi’s principle:

    “ The Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need but not for every man's greed. ”

    
    
16. To illustrate the huge disparity in consumption amongst the global human population, if everybody in the world consumed as much resources as Americans do, then we would need the resources of 5 Earths. If everybody in the world consumed as much resources as Europeans do, then we would need to resources of 3 Earths (See 049, 050). These statistics should make all of us in the rich countries feel thoroughly ashamed of ourselves.
    
    
17. Both military aggression/occupation/conflict/wars and extreme drought/heat causes the supply of fresh water to be rationed by local governments (See 131). Recently, water is being strictly rationed in Rome, Italy due to the extreme drought, heat waves and wildfires. Rome received only ¼th of the rainfall that it usually does in the first 7 months of 2017.
    
    
18. To quote Indian author Arundhati Roy, who provides sarcastic commentary about the impending environmental catastrophe (fueled by climate injustice partially described above) that will hit most of South Asia (See 134):

    “ The glacial melt will cause severe floods on the subcontinent, and eventually severe drought that will affect the lives of millions of people. That will give us even more reasons to fight. We'll need more weapons. Who knows? That sort of consumer confidence may be just what the world needs to get over the current recession. Then everyone in the thriving democracies will have an even better life -- and the glaciers will melt even faster. ... ”

    
    
19. In his book "Half-Earth", well-known Harvard University biologist E.O. Wilson says that we should leave - at the very least - half of the oceans, half of the land untouched for the rest of life on earth. He says that in the "anthropocene", the whole surface of the world has been changed by humans and overwhelmingly in a negative/destructive manner - this involves the destruction of the natural flora and fauna, and perhaps most importantly, the huge reduction in biodiversity due to species extinction. He specifically states that we should conserve plant species that are normally considered "weeds" not only because they increase the overall bio-diversity of the planet, but also because they serve several beneficial functions, some of which are described above. He explains that humans are destroying the planet due to 5 major reasons, summarized with the acronym HIPPO:
    
    
    • H: Habitat destruction, which is the leading cause of species extinction, is precisely what is happening with the mowing of "lawns".
      
      
    • I: The impact of invasive species: Ironically, "Common Bermuda" grass - the default grass that has been installed in this subdivision - is widely considered a highly invasive species (See 001, 177, 178, 179), but in all fairness, I do not have as much of a problem with "Common Bermuda" grass as I do with humans, because we humans, are several orders of magnitude beyond what is considered "invasive", quite literally causing the mass extinction of about 70% of all species on earth, also known as the Sixth Extinction Event originating in the Anthropocene (See 275).
      
      
    • P: Pollution: Humans cause air, water and land pollution and not surprisingly, as explained above, the mowing of lawns and all of the actions/consequences that goes along with that mowing results in all three of those types of pollution.
      
      
    • P: Over-Population of humans is leading to the displacement and eradication of wildlife in a huge number of ways, only some of which are described in this document.
      
      
    • O: Over-harvesting: Land that is being over-used for (commercial/residential/industrial) development, farming and resource-extraction is only being over-used to satisfy our extremely high consumption - cutting down on our gorging of resources and huge material consumption by at least hundredfold will help to alleviate this problem, and mowing is the perfect example of a type of destructive and wasteful consumption that can be completely eliminated.

    Various technocrats (which includes most of our politicians) and industry-funded (industry-corrupted) scientists have proposed so-called "solutions" to the problems described above that includes "de-extinction", which Professor Wilson says is simply absurd. The idea that we can somehow bring species out of extinction via reverse-engineering is laughable at best. The idea of "Climate engineering" or "geoengineering" is equally as absurd - the idea that we can control the amount of solar radiation that reaches the earth in order to curb man-made global heating would be laughable if only it were not so frightening. These are all examples of how relatively wealthy/affluent and privileged human beings are creating a colossal problem due to their extremely profligate/opulent/wasteful/destructive lifestyles, but instead of fixing the root cause of this problem which means switching to a moral and sustainable lifestyle, they are proposing so-called "solutions" that are perhaps worse than the problem itself, and all because they are unwilling to let go of their extreme selfishness, greed, shortsightedness and sociopathic behavior. Professor Wilson says that we are destroying the rest of the planet in such a self-destructive manner, that, as partially described in this document, we humans ourselves will not be able to adapt to it (See 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244). So, following Professor Wilson’s principle on my own property, since there is about 2800 square feet of space on my property that is occupied by the house building, driveway and other unnatural surfaces, I need to allocate at least 2800 square feet of space completely natural for wildlife - which means that I would need to leave my entire frontyard untouched, in essence, unmowed. Actually, since the vast majority of other property owners have not dedicated such "pristine"/"untouched" spaces on their property, we would all collectively have to dedicate a lot more "pristine"/"untouched" spaces to honor Professor Wilson’s principle.

20. In his book "The Great Derangement: Climate Change and the Unthinkable", Indian writer Amitav Ghosh argues that future generations will think that we are absolutely deranged for our remarkable actions in the face of the impending climate catastrophe (See 270, 271, 272, 273, 274). He argues, quite rightly, that we have had a solid understanding (fully backed up with scientific evidence) of man-made global heating for at least 30 years now, and with this knowledge, we - especially, those of us in the privileged/rich countries - seem to be doing everything in our power to make the problem almost exponentially worse, digging a deeper and deeper hole for us to have to eventually dig ourselves out of. Of course, there will be a point in time - and a significant fraction of scientists are arguing that we may have even passed that point on many irreversible crises - when we have dug a hole that is too deep for us to dig ourselves out of. To point out just 3 of many examples of the "hole-too-deep":
    
    
    • the melt-down and/or break-up of the polar ice sheets will obviously lead to an irreversible rise in sea-levels.
      
      
    • species that have been driven to extinction cannot be brought back out of extinction.
      
      
    • land that has been turned barren into desert due to man-made climate change and environmental destruction, practically speaking, cannot be remade into land that will once-again sustainably bear vegetation.
    
    
21. Climate scientists have been warning us about the serious threat of man-made global heating for at least 3 decades now. To quote MIT Professor Noam Chomsky (from an interview given back in 2013-05), who follows these issues closely (See 069):

    “ ... 400 parts per million CO2. We have reached what has been regarded as a threshold from which there may be no return. It is a very serious finding. It's been coming. There has been plenty of evidence for it. If you follow these things closely, every issue of a science magazine has some new serious warning. A couple of weeks ago there was a report in Science, the main science weekly in the United States, that there had been the first studies of 500 years of analysis of permafrost, of Siberian permafrost. And you can detect how climatic warming affected the melting of the permafrost. And according to the conclusions of this article, which are pretty dire, even the anticipated level of warming, not the projected ones, the conservative anticipated level, even that would be sufficient to melt the permafrost which means allowing the escape of enormous masses of methane which is even more destructive than carbon dioxide, and that sets off an escalating process that could just take off. ... ” “ ... It will mean that the conditions for what we regard as minimally decent existence may sharply deteriorate. So, for example, all of Boston could be under water. Of course, for poor countries such as Bangladesh it is an utter catastrophe for hundreds of millions of people. In South Asia the glaciers are melting in the Himalayas. If that melting reaches a certain point, South Asia, with hundreds of millions of people, could become unlivable. These are really serious consequences. Humans will survive but in a very different world. So what can we do about it? We can do what the so called "primitive" people are doing, arrest it. You don't have to lift every drop of hydro-carbons out of the earth. It could stay in the earth where it ought to be. And, we could devote our energies not to wasting as much fossil fuel as we can but to developing alternatives which will allow a survivable society. It is technically feasible, it is a matter of choices, and we have the choices. And young people, the questioner is exactly right, this generation may already begin to see it in a serious way ... their children even more so. ... ” “ ... And it is pretty striking to notice what is happening right now, before our eyes. There is no serious doubt that there is a very serious environmental crisis coming. You can debate details but the general picture is clear. There are people who deny it of course, but nevertheless it is extremely hard to deny if you are at all serious. And there are people reacting in different ways. There are some who are reacting by trying to do something about it and arrest the disaster or maybe save the prospects for a decent survival. And there are others who are trying to race forward towards disaster. It is quite interesting to see who they are. The ones who are trying to save the species from disaster are the ones we call "primitive," "tribal peoples," "aboriginal," first nations people in Canada, Adivasi tribal peoples in India, they are trying to save the planet, and in fact in places where they have a degree of power they are actually doing something about it. Bolivia happens to be in the lead in trying to do something. There the indigenous population is actually a majority, and by now there are even Constitutional provisions for what they call "rights of nature;" nature has rights we have to preserve which is an aspect of traditional societies that shows up in one way or another. Ecuador, which has a large indigenous population, and an influential one, Ecuador is an oil producer, and right now they are trying to get assistance to keep the oil in the ground where it ought to be. They are trying to get assistance from the richer countries to enable them to do that which they probably won't get. Well, that is happening all over the world, opposition to mining, to resource destruction, to fossil fuel use, everywhere. Go to the other extreme, the richest and most powerful countries in the world, like the United States and Canada, particularly. We are leading the race to disaster. When the president and the political opposition are euphoric about what they call a hundred years of energy independence they are talking about a hundred years of race toward destroying the environment, because that is what it means. Of roughly a hundred relevant countries, the United States and Canada are probably the only ones who have no national programs for limiting fossil fuel use, no national conditions on renewable energy. We can't say others are doing magnificently, but at least they are doing something. We're not. So, you have on the one hand a race to disaster, kind of like the proverbial lemmings going off the cliff, led by the richest, most powerful, most advanced, most educated, and supposedly enlightened sectors of the world, and on the other hand you have an effort to prevent the disaster, to mitigate it, to deal with it, coming from those we call primitive and uneducated. If there is ever a future historian they are going to look back at this period with amazement. ... ”

    
    
22. And regarding the destructive capacity of humans (specifically as it is used to destroy the environment) from a historical perspective, Professor Chomsky states (See 069):

    “ ... Probably for that reason [[that we are sentient creatures]]. The fact is, we are a very unusual species. There is nothing like it ever through all of evolutionary history and in the world today. Animals, and plants of course, generally, typically live in the world that is presented to them. They are presented with a world that is fixed. They have internal ways of reacting to it, and that is pretty much it. To some minor extent they modify the world, but not much, and not voluntarily. We are different. We live in a world that we mentally construct. So, yes, we react to the world but we also create mental images and thoughts and plans and intentions which allow us to deal with the world in a totally different fashion. Language is in fact a crucial factor. That is why paleoanthropologists, people who study human origins, typically think of language as the defining feature that separated humans from the rest of the organic world and sent them off in a very different direction. Now, if we look at our history (and by "our history" I mean way back before there were humans), modern humans, before homo-sapiens, going back to our origins it is a very predatory and destructive species. So, back as far as we can trace it, where pre-humans, or proto-humans, where they spread, large animals disappeared, mega-fauna, big animals, because they were killed. A couple of hundred thousand years ago there were many different hominids, creatures like our ancestors, our ancestors were one of many groups ... we are the only ones that survived. The only one, and the reason for that may be, nobody really knows, is we just killed the rest of them off. Geologists break up the geological past into eras. So, there was the Pleistocene era from 2 ½ million years ago up to about ten thousand years ago. Then there is the Holocene which is ten thousand years ago up until now, except now they are introducing a new one called the Anthropocene which is on humans, the human era, which is from maybe 1750 until today, and that is the period when we began radically modifying the environment, so much that it is a new geological era, and we're destroying it in fact. But just take a look at these eras, and I could have gone farther back. As you go through the eras each one gets shorter. And the Holocene is very short, and the Anthropocene is like an instant of geological time and it may not last long because we may end it pretty soon. So, why are we doing it? That is the way we are using our intelligence, just as proto-human intelligence was used to kill big mammals. It is not a pretty picture. And we can control it of course, because we do have this capacity to kind of create the world in which we function, but it has to be understood and used. ... ”

    
    
23. And finally, regarding human intelligence being used for destruction (in general, but also specifically of the environment), in a speech he gave back in 2010-09, Professor Chomsky refers to a debate between 2 prominent scientists (See 132):

    “ ... I'LL BEGIN with an interesting debate that took place some years ago between Carl Sagan, the well-known astrophysicist, and Ernst Mayr, the grand old man of American biology. They were debating the possibility of finding intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. And Sagan, speaking from the point of view of an astrophysicist, pointed out that there are innumerable planets just like ours. There is no reason they shouldn't have developed intelligent life. Mayr, from the point of view of a biologist, argued that it's very unlikely that we'll find any. And his reason was, he said, we have exactly one example: Earth. So let's take a look at Earth. And what he basically argued is that intelligence is a kind of lethal mutation. And he had a good argument. He pointed out that if you take a look at biological success, which is essentially measured by how many of us are there, the organisms that do quite well are those that mutate very quickly, like bacteria, or those that are stuck in a fixed ecological niche, like beetles. They do fine. And they may survive the environmental crisis. But as you go up the scale of what we call intelligence, they are less and less successful. By the time you get to mammals, there are very few of them as compared with, say, insects. By the time you get to humans, the origin of humans may be 100,000 years ago, there is a very small group. We are kind of misled now because there are a lot of humans around, but that's a matter of a few thousand years, which is meaningless from an evolutionary point of view. His argument was, you're just not going to find intelligent life elsewhere, and you probably won't find it here for very long either because it's just a lethal mutation. He also added, a little bit ominously, that the average life span of a species, of the billions that have existed, is about 100,000 years, which is roughly the length of time that modern humans have existed. With the environmental crisis, we're now in a situation where we can decide whether Mayr was right or not. If nothing significant is done about it, and pretty quickly, then he will have been correct: human intelligence is indeed a lethal mutation. Maybe some humans will survive, but it will be scattered and nothing like a decent existence, and we'll take a lot of the rest of the living world along with us. ... ”

Given the facts above - and those are just a very small sample of all of the facts - I cannot, in good conscience, perform any actions that contribute to the problem of man-made environmental destruction (man-made climate change, man-made desertification, pollution, etc.), in this case, by having an environmentally-destructive landscape that is also an extreme (in my opinion, criminal) waste of resources, and which also sets a bad example for the rest of the neighborhood. I cannot, in good conscience, take part in what I consider to be the senseless destruction of nature, especially since it is ultimately self-destructive and diminishes the future prospects for decent human survival. To the contrary, I would like to do everything in my power to combat the problem in the hopes that others can follow the same example, and this application is very much a part of that endeavor. Furthermore, looking into the future - 10, 20, 30, 40 years from now - I would like to tell myself that I did as much as I could within my power to live as morally, ethically and responsibly as possible. In other words, in the future, I would like to look back at my life and not be ashamed of myself for what I did or did not do.

2 SOLUTIONS

2.1 FOR BOARD MEMBERS

Modify the obsolete DCCRs to allow the existing "Common Bermuda" grass to grow uncut to the full 18-24+ inches, so that they can be drought-resistant, heat-resistant, survive fully without any irrigation/fertilization/herbicide-application/etc., and thereby making the DCCRs comply with Texas Property Code (Sections 202.007, 202.010). This will also reduce occurrence of native/wild plants ("weeds"), since the grass will be able to more effectively suppress them.

2.2 FOR PROPERTY OWNERS

Replace the medium-height ["Common Bermuda" grass and "weeds"] with a drought-resistant, heat-resistant, cold-resistant, zero-maintenance, zero-operating-cost, zero-waste and environmentally-friendly, low-height grass that does not grow over 6 inches in height, and/or a uniformly-growing groundcover that comprehensively covers the entire landscape, and thus does not have to be cut at all, even by the current DCCRs that are obsolete and non-compliant with Texas Property Code (Sections 202.007, 202.010).

The "no-mow" approach to landscaping is not something that I concocted, and I obviously cannot take credit for originating it, although I consider it to be pretty much common-sense environmentalism and naturalism. There is a growing movement of people all around this country adopting the "no-mow" approach, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a very prominent, mainstream non-profit organization dedicated to fighting for environmental justice (See 064). Quoting directly from this NRDC article:

Also, the concept of no-mow, ecological, environmentally-friendly, zero-waste landscapes is not a new concept only found in new/recent literature either. It has been documented in literature even as early as 1989 in New York Times articles (See 015, 016), and in the 1993 US Environmental Protection Agency’s "Greenacres" document which seems to be a copy of "The John Marshall Law Review, Volume 26, Summer 1993, Number 4" (See 103, 104). Quoting directly from this "Greenacres" document:

There are only a few species of low-growing grasses and/or groundcovers that are drought-tolerant and even fewer that can tolerate the intense and prolonged triple-digit heat that characterizes much of the summer in Central Texas. They include (ordered from most heat/drought tolerant to least tolerant):

Rank

Species

Maximum Height

1

Heartleaf Iceplant (Aptenia cordifolia)

6-inches

2

Silver Ponyfoot (Dichondra argentia)

4-inches

3

Sedums (Stonecrops)

6-inches

4

Woolly Stemodia

6-inches

5

"Stampede" Buffalograss

4-inches

6

Earthkind roses

6-inches

7

Dwarf Jasmine

6-inches

8

Sweet Potato vine

12-inches

9

Origanum vulgare sub-species hirtum

24-inches

10

Origanum x majoricum

24-inches

11

"Cutlass Zoysia" Grass

2-inches

12

Mentha x piperita

20-inches

13

Mentha spicata

24-inches

14

Mentha suaveolens

24-inches

15

Woolly Thyme

4-inches

16

Elfin Thyme

4-inches

2.2.1 DROUGHT-TOLERANT, HEAT-RESISTANT GROUNDCOVERS

The City of Austin’s Native and Adapted Landscape Plants (GrowGreen) Guide specifically states the following on Page 50 (See 001):

While some groundcovers are both drought-tolerant and heat-resistant to Central Texas summers, very few of these are also cold-hardy to withstand temperatures under 32 degrees Fahrenheit. Thus, most of these groundcovers are effectively annual plants that grow in the warm seasons, but completely die out in the winters (even though they are perennial plants in tropical climates). There are even fewer of these hardy groundcovers that spread rapidly enough (horizontally) and to a sufficient height to suppress growth of secondary (wild/native) plants whose seeds get embedded into the landscape by the wind/birds/rain (or already existed in a dormant state for many years in the original soil). Some of these effective, perennial, zero-operating-cost, zero-maintenance (no-mow) groundcovers are listed as follows:

2.2.1.1 MEDIUM-HEIGHT GROUNDCOVERS

Some cultivars of the genus Origanum serve as effective perennial groundcovers in Central Texas. Origanum vulgare sub-species hirtum, also known as Origanum heracleoticum (or Origanum heracioticum), is a quickly-spreading groundcover that grows uniformly to a maximum height of 24 inches, and as such, has a great potential for suppressing the growth of any secondary (wild/native) plants. Once fully established, not only does it withstand triple-digit-heat without supplemental irrigation but also, it is also cold-hardy to -20 degrees Fahrenheit. Origanum x majoricum is a groundcover that grows both vertically and horizontally to a maximum height of 24 inches, and as such, has a good potential for suppressing the growth of any secondary plants (wild/native plants). Once fully established, not only does it withstand triple-digit-heat without supplemental irrigation but also, it is also cold-hardy to -10 degrees Fahrenheit (See 001, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194).

Some cultivars of the genus Mentha are also effective perennial groundcovers in Central Texas. In general, once they are fully established, they do well in both shade and full sun but, just like warm season grasses, when in full sun, they do go dormant during the summer droughts in Central Texas, awakening in early fall when temperatures become milder and rainwater becomes more available. Mentha x piperita vulgaris is a groundcover that grows to a maximum height of 20 inches with a horizontal spread of about 3 feet, and it is very cold-hardy to -40 degrees Fahrenheit. Mentha spicata, also known as Mentha viridis, is a groundcover that grows to a maximum height of 24 inches with a horizontal spread of 3 feet, and it is very cold-hardy to -30 degrees Fahrenheit. Mentha suaveolens, sometimes classified as Mentha x villosa alopecuroides, is a groundcover that grows to a maximum height of 24 inches with a horizontal spread of 3 feet, and it is cold-hardy to -20 degrees Fahrenheit (See 185, 186, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201).

Ipomoea batatas is a perennial groundcover that is deciduous, meaning that it sheds its leaves in the winter, and grows back its foliage in the spring. Several different cultivars are available with varying leaf colors, shapes and textures. Most of the popular cultivars grow to a maximum height of 10-12 inches. So even though it is cold-hardy to about 15 degrees Fahrenheit, for both of the reasons listed above, it is not as effective in suppressing the growth of any secondary plants (wild/native plants) especially during the winter and spring (See 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214).

2.2.1.2 LOW-HEIGHT GROUNDCOVERS

Iceplant is the common name for 3 generas of semi-evergreen, succulent plants. It is a fast-growing, groundcover for hot, dry sites. It is a good pollinator plant that attracts bees and butterflies due to its purple/yellow/red flower. However, it is not native to Texas. No pruning or mowing is necessary for this species. Heartleaf Iceplant (Aptenia cordifolia) is a particular variety of Iceplant that has small red flowers and requires the least water of all the groundcovers. However, it will die if exposed to prolonged deep frosts with sustained temperatures below 20 degrees Fahrenheit.

Silver Ponysfoot is an attractive semi-evergreen desert species of groundcover native to West Texas, New Mexico and Arizona that is well adapted to survive high summer temperatures and prolonged/extreme droughts. This plant has small flowers that will bloom during spring/summer. No pruning or mowing is necessary for this species. However, it will die if exposed to prolonged deep frosts with sustained temperatures below 20 degrees Fahrenheit.

Sedum (Stonecrop) is a class of evergreen succulent plants with many species, leaf types, and flower colors. It is capable of surviving in shallow poor-quality soil (which we have in "this locality"). No pruning or mowing is necessary for this species. Several Mexican Sedums (Sedum mexicanum, Sedum stahlii, Sedum clavatum, Sedum adolphii, Sedum confusum, Sedum nussbaumerianum, Sedum burrito) and miscellaneous Sedums (Sedum cauticola, Sedum acre, Sedum makinoi ’Ogon’, Sedum spurium ’John Creech’) are both heat/drought-tolerant and frost tolerant to Central Texas. Most have flowers that protrude above the leaves - so the leaves typically grow to 2-3 inches in height while the flowers might grow over the leaves to about 4-5 inches in height.

Woolly Stemodia is a species of groundcover, native to coastal regions of Texas, that grows to about 6 inches in height. However, while it will survive the droughts, it does not tolerate temperature extremes as well as the other grasses/groundcovers including extreme heat of summer and extreme cold in the winter, showing signs of stress and turning a different color during those extremes. Also, it is deciduous, and not evergreen.

Once established, Woolly Thyme is drought-tolerant, and heat tolerant to a certain degree. It grows to a maximum 4 inches in height, and the leaves have a woolly texture. It is grown as an ornamental plant for its attractive foliage and pink flowers. It can take a long time to establish and/or spread and is not as aggressive as Silver Ponysfoot nor Buffallograss. This plant creeps about 8 inches laterally. Woolly Thyme is not a Texas native, but it grows well in marginal/poor-quality soils and is a decent pollinator plant for many species of wildlife. Woolly Thyme is not widely available, and usually sold only as potted plants for transplanting cuttings.

Once established, Elfin Thyme is dwarf variety of creeping Thyme that is drought-tolerant, but not guaranteed to be heat tolerant to withstand Central Texas summers. It grows to a maximum of 3-4 inches, and is also an ornamental plant with attractive foliage and pink flowers. Like Woolly Thyme, it can take a long time to establish and/or spread. This plant creeps about 4-8 inches laterally, and as such, do not need much maintenance if they are planted more than 8 inches from the edge. Elfin Thyme is not a Texas native, but it grows well in marginal/poor-quality soils and is a good pollinator plant that attracts many species of wildlife. Elfin Thyme is widely available by seed, but is notoriously difficult to germinate from seed.

All of the groundcovers listed in this section grow to a very low height (less than 6 inches) and are thus not tall enough to completely suppress the growth of secondary (wild/native) plants. So, they are not as effective in creating a zero-operating-cost, zero-maintenance (no-mow) landscape, and due to their substantially lower biomass, they also do not sequester as much carbon as the taller species listed in the previous section. Also, since these shorter species grow lower to the ground and have much less biomass than the taller groundcovers listed in the previous section, they do not perform as effectively in insulating the soil and themselves from the extreme heat and lack of water during summer droughts.

2.2.2 LOW-GROWING, DROUGHT-TOLERANT GRASSES

Low-growing drought-tolerant grasses, although requiring more water than the drought-tolerant groundcovers, have the advantages of tolerating foot traffic and tolerating extreme/prolonged frost. Additionally, if there is any prior ACC approval required for those particular groundcovers (even though the DCCRs allow the property owner to cultivate a groundcover implying that there is no approval necessary), then those groundcovers may require that extra approval process that grass does not.

Buffallograss is a North Texas native semi-evergreen grass that has the least water requirement of all the turf grasses. Many varieties exist and most of them grow to about 8-12 inches. However, "Stampede" is a unique low-grow variety of Buffallograss that grows no more than 4 inches in height. While this sounds appealing, "Stampede" and other varieties of Buffalograss tend to be a relatively thin grass that will allow many "weeds" to take hold, especially in the summer heat/drought, without any irrigation, when it goes dormant, or when there is a flooding type rain, when "weeds" do grow quickly. Also, most varieties of Buffalograss will not be available until the end of February (due to a statewide shortage), and "Stampede" is a variety that is very hard to obtain due to scarcity and general lack of availability. However, any turfgrass has relatively high maintenance cost (for example, cutting "weeds"), high operating cost (for example, fertilizing), and thus potentially not environmentally friendly (Please read the "City of Austin’s Native and Adapted Landscape Plants" guide; See 001, Page 50). So, its performance in meeting the intended criteria will degrade very easily based on amount of water (whether too much water or too little water), based upon the ability of "weeds" to invade the landscape, and based on the the amount of nutrition in the soil. Our Central Texas climate is now notorious for extremes when it comes to rainfall - when it rains, it rains nonstop for several days and even floods, but when it doesn’t rain during the summer droughts, there can be up to 2 months between one rain and the next. Because of this, "weeds" will easily invade a landscape of buffalograss after heavy rainfall, or during a drought, and so, Buffalograss might still need mowing at a high height setting, 2-4 times per year. It is therefore undesirable. Most importantly, "Stampede" buffalo grass is not available on the market and seems to have fallen out of demand since the original breeder/farmer no longer carries it.

"Cutlass" is a very low-growing variety of Zoysia grass that grows aggressively horizontally and extensively through its rhizome root system within the soil, but does not grow vertically (See 065). As such, it is marketed as a drought-resistant, "no-mow" grass. "Cutlass" requires even less water that the drought-resistant "Common Zoysia" (Zoysia japonica) grass that grows to a maximum of 8-10 inches in height, and since it is not mowed, it has more capacity to store water within its plant tissue (biomass), and it also has more capacity to insulate itself and its soil from extreme heat (and cold). Due to the fact that it is a relatively dense mat-forming plant, healthy Zoysia grass has a better capacity to suppress "weeds" than most other grasses. But please note that during times of drought and during winter, "Cutlass Zoysia" grass will go dormant, turning yellow/brown in color just like most other warm-season grasses (including the pre-existing "Common Bermuda" grass) - this is entirely normal and it is an adaptation grass evolved to survive under harsh circumstances.

2.2.3 FINAL SELECTIONS

For all of these reasons, I have selected "Cutlass Zoysia" grass as my final choice for the drought-resistant, deep-frost-resistant, no-mow (zero-waste), partially "weed"-suppressing landscaping that accepts full foot-traffic. And since this grass only partially but does not fully suppress secondary (wild/native) plants, I have selected the medium-height groundcover of "Origanum vulgare hirtum" to plant over this grass to completely cover the grass, so that there will be no other secondary plants visible. In this manner, the "Cutlass Zoysia" grass will serve as an understory plant to the groundcover that grows to a maximum height of 24 inches above it. The combination of this grass and this groundcover will ensure that every square inch of soil is fully covered, meaning that:

1. all of the soil continues to build and maintain fertility over time, which is also partly due to the use of 2 primary plant species as opposed to just 1, which results in a greater biodiversity of beneficial soil microbes, insects and small animals (lizards, toads, birds, etc.).
   
   
2. the groundcover will have roots deeper than the grass, much like trees in a forest have root systems much deeper than the relatively shallow roots of the understory plants - this results in more of the soil mass being utilized by plants, which is good for the long term soil fertility, soil structure and soil depth (See 215).
   
   
3. carbon sequestration is maximized since this will maximize the production of photosynthetic biomass that the land is capable of producing.
   
   
4. drought tolerance is maximized since the taller/denser groundcover serves as a good insulator for the soil underneath, and the extensive rhizome root system of both plants (with the help of beneficial soil microbes) suck up and hold moisture in the topmost layers of the soil.

3 IMPLEMENTATION

To make my front-yard vegetation more resilient, more self-sufficient, more drought-tolerant, more heat-tolerant, frost-tolerant, zero maintenance, zero operating-cost, zero waste, more bio-diverse, more wildlife-friendly, more pollinator-friendly, and in general, a lot more environmentally-friendly, I will cultivate "Cutlass Zoysia" grass and then "Origanum vulgare hirtum" groundcover on all of the former ["Common Bermuda" grass + "weeds"] patches, thereby replacing the vegetation of ["Common Bermuda" grass + "weeds"] with a combination of ["Cutlass Zoysia" grass + "Origanum vulgare hirtum" groundcover].

In order to implement the replacement of the pre-existing grass/groundcover of ["Common Bermuda" grass + "weeds"] with ["Cutlass Zoysia" grass + "Origanum vulgare hirtum" groundcover], I am applying a procedure known as "sheet-mulching" or "lasagna-gardening" or "no-dig-gardening". For the full details on this procedure, please read the "Lawn Gone: Low-Maintenance Sustainable Alternatives for your Yard" book; See 018, Chapter 8. This is a permacultural, water-conserving (and thus drought-resistant), fertility-conserving, dry-gardening and no-dig-gardening technique that seeks to preserve all of the existing fertility and moisture from the pre-existing vegetation and soil, along with all of the other absolutely essential species including beneficial microbes (bacteria/fungi), insects, earthworms, etc. It involves smothering all of the existing "Common Bermuda" grass with 3 thick layers of cardboard sheets that act as the mulch layers. On top of these 3 thick cardboard mulch layers, I am installing about 3-4 inches of soil. It is in this top layer of soil, that I will plant the ["Cutlass Zoysia" grass] sod and then once the grass has had time to establish itself, "Origanum vulgare hirtum" groundcover on top of that new grass. This procedure will smother and decompose the pre-existing ["Common Bermuda" grass + "weeds"] under the thick layers of cardboard mulch, while allowing the new "Cutlass Zoysia" grass to grow and establish its root systems in the relatively rainy late-spring month of May [2017-05], before the drought and intense heat of the coming summer months: [June - September] [2017-06 through 2017-09]. Once the grass has established itself, the "Origanum vulgare hirtum" groundcover plugs can then be planted in regular intervals over the new grass spaced approximately 1.5 feet apart (depending upon the growth of the plugs). Please note that this groundcover will take approximately 6 warm months - so, for example, 2017-09, 2017-10, 2018-03, 2018-04, 2018-05, 2018-06 - with decent rainfall to fully grow and cover the landscape in a uniform and comprehensive manner.

The top 3-4 inches of soil must be held in place so that rainwater and wind do not erode it away, before the new plants established roots holding this soil in place. So, I will surround this 3 inches of soil with a wooden frame that is composed of 4-inch by 4-inch ("4by4") untreated wood - untreated because I do not want any toxic chemicals leaching anywhere onto our property. This thin border of 4by4s will be also be surrounded by an outer frame of 2-inch by 8-inch ("2by8") untreated wood, again, so that there is no possibility of soil spilling out of the intended area even when there is a flooding type of rain. The inner border of 4by4 untreated wood will be attached to the outer border of 2by8 untreated wood using standard exterior #10 3.5-inch wood/deck screws. Please see the attached ["Layout + Drawing of Proposed Plan"] and ["Modified Survey"] diagrams for the illustration.

Please note that this technique of "sheet-mulching" improves drought-resistance and soil fertility for the following major reasons:

1. It adds an additional layer of soil - in this case, 3-4 inches - where more moisture is stored, thus providing the plant with more access to water than it would have had if this technique had not been used.
   
   
2. Cardboard, like all other mulches, preserves moisture in the soil - in the layers of soil both above it and below it - over the long term, and thus providing the plant with more long-term access to water.
   
   
3. The slowly decomposing ["Common Bermuda" grass + "weeds"] adds a good amount of nutrition and moisture back into the soil, so that it can eventually be used by the new ["Cutlass Zoysia" grass + "Origanum vulgare hirtum"].

I use the technique of "sheet-mulching" described above because I do not know of any other ecological, water-conserving and fertility-promoting, method of replacing the existing vegetation (in this case ["Common Bermuda" grass + "weeds"]) with the new vegetation - ["Cutlass Zoysia" grass + "Origanum vulgare hirtum"]. Ripping out the existing soil and installing new soil in its place is simply out of the question for numerous reasons:

1. This highly invasive procedure would remove all the beneficial microbes (bacteria/fungi), beneficial insects (crickets, grasshoppers, scorpions, earthworms/grubs, etc.) and all the other beneficial wildlife that may be living in the soil (toads/frogs, slugs/snails, etc.).
   
   
2. This soil life has helped to create the soil fertility over the at least the last 8 years that I have lived here (but also took potentially thousands of years to develop). So, this highly invasive procedure would remove (and possibly waste) this beneficial soil fertility.
   
   
3. This highly invasive procedure would also be damaging to the foundation of the house that constantly relies on the existing soil tightly packed around it.
   
   
4. This highly invasive procedure would also be damaging to the wires/pipes and other infrastructure buried underground.
   
   
5. This highly invasive procedure would not likely be effective anyways since although most ["Common Bermuda" grass] roots are concentrated in the first 4 inches of soil, a small percentage is deep-rooted up to 8 inches deep.
   
   
6. This highly invasive procedure would destroy the beneficial soil structure that has taken almost a decade to establish itself. Beneficial soil structure takes a long time to establish, and it is good soil structure that promotes moisture conservation (and thus drought-resistance), the accelerated proliferation of beneficial soil life (microbes, earthworms, grubs, insects, etc.) and thus, the accelerated generation of soil fertility.

So, the only chance of suppressing ["Common Bermuda" grass], for a period of time until the new grass/groundcover(s) can establish itself, is by suppressing/smothering it under the thick layers of cardboard mulch. Another option would have been to use a thick layer of black plastic. However, black plastic is not bio-degradable, and since plastic is a product or bi-product of petroleum, it is not necessarily environmentally-friendly. Furthermore, the use of black plastic essentially "cooks" the soil in the summer heat, a process known as "solarization", that is only useful if one wants to sterilize soil, but it is very harmful if one wants to do the opposite - in essence, preserve and indeed enhance all of the beneficial soil life - soil microbes (bacteria/fungi), insects (earthworms, ladybugs, pill-bugs, grasshoppers, crickets, etc.) Finally, since it is not bio-degradable, the black plastic mulch would have to be removed which is not only labor intensive, but it also prevents me from immediately planting the grass/groundcover(s) in the top layers of soil.

Again, to be clear, I obviously cannot claim credit for the technique of "sheet-mulching" using cardboard mulch, as it has already been fully documented in the sustainable landscape Literature. For example, in her book, "Lawn Gone!", author Pam Penick fully explains the technique (See 018, Chapter 8):

Notice that while Pam recommends using up to 8 inches of soil/mulch and 1 inch layer of cardboard, I only chose to go with 3-4 inches over a 1 inch layer of cardboard, because that is a less prominent than the full 8 inches. And the use of a wooden frame to hold in the new soil was also recommended to me by Travis County Master Gardeners, who recommended using either inexpensive "Landscape Timbers", or regular (sustainable) "Framing Timber", and I chose the more-expensive, sustainable "Framing Timber" since that has a neater, well-formed and straight-edge appearance (See 002, 003, 017, 018).

Furthermore, the benefits of the cardboard-sheet-mulching solution are, not only that it is ecological (preserving moisture/fertility, preserving earthworms/beneficial-soil-insects/soil-microbes, adding fertility due to the decomposition of the old vegetation back into the soil, etc.), and not only that it prevents damage to the foundation of the house (which would have been incurred if the original landscape had been removed), and not only that it adds more soil to store water and nutrients for the plants to use (especially during times of drought), but also that it is a "modular" or "user-replaceable" landscape. By that, I mean that current or future owners can replace the vegetation and landscape at any time without having to worry about cutting into buried infrastructure such as electric connections, plumbing, cable/internet wiring, pipes, etc. With the old landscape, one had to worry about all of those problems and make a phone call to "811" (the "call-before-you-dig" phone number), and still have to work around the problem of that buried infrastructure. This is particularly true since the old "Common Bermuda" grass is an extremely notorious invasive plant that will start growing again even if the owner removed 6 inches of soil along with it (See 001, 177, 178, 179). So, the only way to completely replace the original "Common Bermuda" grass was to use this sheet-mulching solution by covering it with several layers of cardboard mulch and new soil. Again, to be clear, this solution has been fully-documented in the sustainable/ecological/naturalist landscape literature (See 017, 018).

4 DISCLAIMER

While this procedure of "sheet-mulching" using cardboard mulch will make it possible for planting new grass(es)/groundcover(s) in the new top layer of soil, there is no guarantee that the previous Bermuda grass underneath the cardboard mulch will die out and decompose completely, since Bermuda grass is notorious for being very tenacious and aggressive even under the most prolonged, oppressive circumstances. My hope is that the new grass(es)/groundcover(s) will establish themselves fast enough to prevent the previous Bermuda grass from re-establishing itself by breaking through the cardboard mulch. So, in the worst case scenario, at least some of the Bermuda grass will continue to grow beyond the cardboard mulch and top layer of soil, and then extend/invade into the new grass(es)/groundcover(s).

5 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

As explained above, the existing bushes situated in front of the front columns of the house, of species "Eleagnus pungens" and "Red-tip Photinia", are drought-resistant, heat-resistant and cold-resistant only when they are allowed to grow fully, without being cut. In the intense summer droughts of 2010 and 2011, these bushes which were then younger and smaller showed significant signs of heat stress with all of the leaves on many of the branches withering away, since the root systems of these bushes were not stretching as deeply and as extensively into the soil, as they are today. Towards the end of the summer of 2011 (2011-08, 2011-09), I had to manually water these bushes with a watering can using rainwater that I had harvested earlier in the season. Additionally, when these bushes were smaller and younger, they had to be covered during the frosts to prevent them from dying due to the cold. Again, the greater biomass and density of these plants insulate it from the cold, deep frosts as well as the heat and droughts.

Furthermore, due to its present full size, the bushes are able to store much more water in its tissue, and as explained above, the greater the biomass of a plant, the more water it is able to store. Finally, due to their greater biomass and branch/leaf density, these full-sized bushes remain well-insulated from the intense heat of the summer with the inner parts of the bushes remaining relatively cool and the greater mass allowing for the bushes to remain relatively cool (as explained above).

Finally, since the bushes do sequester large amounts of carbon (via photosynthesis) and are a major storage of solar energy, they are also protected by Section 202.010 of the Texas Property Code.

And in addition to being protected by Sections 202.007, 202.010, the bushes serve numerous other purposes for me, all of which would be compromised if not for its size, shape and appearance:

1. These bushes provide me invaluable privacy for our front porch, and more importantly, for the front room, where I have the windows open most of the day during the warmer months and the blinds always remain open throughout the year. Having the windows open during the warmer months allows me to get fresh air into the house, and also allows me to cool the house down during the hottest months of the year. I also leave the blinds open to have a clear view of the outside of the house. So, I obviously would not like it if people could easily see into our house, and I want some privacy even for the front porch area, and so for both these reasons, I like the bushes as tall and as wide as possible.
   
   
2. These bushes provide several structures on our property protection from the strong winds that routinely occur during the cooler months, and which can reach up to 60 miles per hour here in Central Texas. During the strong wind storms at the end of February 2013 and hurricane winds at the end of August 2017, fences on most properties and front columns on a few properties were either severely damaged/downed or at least partially compromised. Again, the concept of a "wind break" or a "wind buffer" means using large, deep-rooted plants (such as bushes/trees) around man-made constructions to provide these constructions full protection from the winds. Studies have shown that these "wind breaks" prevent or greatly lessen the damages that occur even in insurmountable disasters like tornadoes/hurricanes. The reasons are plain and obvious - the strong thick trunks/stems of these plants which are tightly anchored into the ground with strong wide/deep roots absorb most of the huge pressures from the wind. Any massive objects like these bushes will significantly lessen the overall intensity of the extreme winds, and our front columns and our fence, both of which are very vulnerable to extreme winds, are well protected by our big bushes. The winds also inflict "wear-and-tear" damage on structures over the long term, causing them to slowly break and/or deteriorate. This long-term "wear-and-tear" damage is greatly reduced and/or delayed by "wind breaks" like these bushes (See 261). So, this is yet another instance where the vegetation on a landscape can be used to protect property values, both in the short-term and long-term.
   
   
3. These bushes provide more shade for our front porch and the front room. In our case, this means that temperatures in the front porch area, the front room, and thus the whole house, especially during mid-summer, are much lower than what they would be if the bushes were cut shorter and allowed direct sunlight into these areas. By leaving the windows open during the summer, I allow the cool air to circulate into the house, as opposed to the hot air super-heated by direct sunlight. Having these big bushes also means, that any potted plants that I have around the front porch area will survive the extreme heat of the summer while requiring less watering since evaporation is decreased (in addition to the temperatures being lower). Finally, the shade also provides me protection from the ultraviolet rays of the sun, which would otherwise put me at increased risk for skin cancer and other potential complications.
   
   
4. I have noticed that these bushes provide the space for many dozens of birds to nest, socialize/mate and hunt for food such as insects/lizards/toads. These birds are particularly attracted to our bushes since these bushes provide them real protection from the domestic cats which some people in this neighborhood are violating the DCCRs by releasing into the open without a leash. Cats are very skilled in catching and killing birds close to the ground. While cats are known to jump more than 6 feet, they simply would not be able to do that in order to catch the birds since the bushes are about 9 feet from the ground level. They cannot jump from behind the higher concrete front porch area either since they would hit the ceiling rather than land on top of the bushes. But most importantly, there is nothing on the bushes that they can grab onto, once they jump onto them, and so, they refrain from doing it. This is in sharp contrast to 5-6 years ago, when the cats did regularly attempt to stalk and catch the birds, since the bushes were much smaller at that point in time, and I would have to chase each cat away whenever I spotted it. The bushes are also home to grasshoppers, crickets, lizards, toads/frogs, wasps, caterpillars and other insects. Some species of wasps lay their eggs in the soil underneath the bushes and bees regularly visit the flowers on the bushes, which eventually turn to fruit. The fruit (and insects) attract other wildlife such as the skunk, armadillo, etc. Again, this is a perfect example why many homeowners have certified their landscapes as Certified Wildlife Habitats, and the bushes (in addition to the grass, native-plants, wild-plants, tree, etc.) are a major component of my Certified Wildlife Habitat (See 054, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260).
   
   
5. These bushes serve as a natural fence or wall, separating or partitioning two separate areas. In our case, I regularly (several times per week) notice homeowners’ dogs and cats left loose without a leash entering into our yard, and the length/width of the bushes at least deters them these unleashed animals from entering into the front porch area. Although, even these bushes unfortunately do not prevent this from happening, since both dogs and cats (sometimes multiple large dogs) have run right to the front door of our house (and I even have video evidence of this), which I have pointed out to you in the past emails is not only a serious violation of the rules, but also a threat to our safety.
   
   
6. These bushes provide extensive and attractive natural greenery and aesthetic diversity to complement the various structures of our house. As stated above, the greenery of these bushes attractively complement the white columns and red brick of the house. And if every house in the subdivision had bushes and landscapes that looked the same way, the entire subdivision would be very dull/monotonous and utterly lacking in both aesthetic diversity and bio-diversity.
   
   
7. During this summer and upcoming summers, these bushes will provide much-needed shade to the newly establishing plants described in this document, and is thus an even more crucial component of our drought-resistant, heat-resistant landscape.
   
   
8. I have developed a deep sentimental attachment to these bushes, and it would hurt me immensely and psychologically to butcher them or to make them less hardy.

So, cutting these bushes in any way would result not only in severely diminished drought tolerance, diminished heat tolerance, diminished cold/frost tolerance, but also prevents me from enjoying the significant benefits listed above. In short, the Texas property owner is now (as of 2013) protected from growing these bushes fully under Sections 202.007, 202.010 of the Texas Property Code.

In addition to the new protections afforded to property owners by the Texas Property Code, even the current, obsolete DCCRs do not restrict the size (neither the height, the width, nor the depth) of bushes, trees and any other vegetation that is not grass/"weeds". So, for the same reason that the trees are not required to be cut in any way, the bushes are not required to be cut either, especially since they add plenty of neat and attractive natural greenery to the landscape.

6 REFERENCES

Number

URL

001

https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Watershed/growgreen/plantguide.pdf

002

http://www.tcmastergardeners.org/

003

http://txmg.org/williamson/

004

http://travis-tx.tamu.edu/

005

http://williamson.agrilife.org/

006

http://www.wildflower.org/plants/result.php?id_plant=BODA2

007

https://www.klru.org/ctg/

008

http://www.cleanwater.org/features/your-xeriscape-headquarters

009

http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/tv/ask-toh/video/0%2C%2C20864897%2C00.html

010

https://wayback.archive.org/web/20150905140818/http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/tv/ask-toh/products-and-services/season/0%2C%2C20857424_20866208%2C00.html

011

http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/lawn-garden/how-to/a15996/how-and-why-you-should-tear-up-your-beautiful-lawn/

012

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/08/03/my-town-calls-my-lawn-a-nuisance-but-i-still-refuse-to-mow-it/?hpid=z4

013

http://www.newser.com/story/210795/i-wont-mow-my-nuisance-lawn.html

014

http://www.npr.org/2015/08/05/429774004/mowing-the-law-giving-you-hard-time-let-it-grow

015

http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/why-mow-the-case-against-lawns/
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/28/magazine/why-mow-the-case-against-lawns.html?pagewanted=all

016

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/22op-classic.html?mcubz=2

017

https://smile.amazon.com/Beautiful-No-Mow-Yards-Amazing-Alternatives/dp/1604692383

018

https://smile.amazon.com/Lawn-Gone-Low-Maintenance-Sustainable-Alternatives/dp/1607743140

019

http://www.timberpress.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Spread-051.jpg

020

http://www.timberpress.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Spread-061.jpg

021

http://nativeplantwildlifegarden.com/is-lawn-a-carbon-sink/

022

https://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/12/flow_for_love_of_waternew_film

023

http://www.latimes.com/world/global-development/la-fg-global-water-oped-story.html

024

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/water-wars-the-next-great-driver-global-conflict-13842

025

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_conflict

026

https://www.democracynow.org/2011/9/8/texas_faces_massive_wildfires_record_drought

027

https://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/12/headlines

028

https://www.democracynow.org/2011/9/9/headlines

029

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/05/golf-pools-water-drought-california

030

https://www.vice.com/read/save-water-ban-golf-815

031

https://www.democracynow.org/2015/8/21/global_warming_worsens_california_drought_as

032

https://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/21/silencing_the_scientist_tyrone_hayes_on

033

https://www.democracynow.org/2004/7/8/grassroots_san_antonio_community_protects_water

034

https://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/27/maude_barlow_on_the_global_movement

035

http://www.ecosenseforliving.com/info/episode7.html

036

http://www.symphonyofthesoil.com/

037

https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_pollan_gives_a_plant_s_eye_view/transcript?language=en

038

https://archive.org/stream/Michael_Pollan-The_Omnivores_Dilemma/Michael_Pollan-The_Omnivores_Dilemma_djvu.txt

039

http://michaelpollan.com/reviews/were-living-on-corn/

040

http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/voting-with-your-fork/

041

http://modernfarmer.com/2016/03/michael-pollan-interview/

042

http://www.nourishlife.org/2011/04/video-michael-pollan-from-the-soil/

043

https://iowaenvironmentalfocus.org/tag/soil/

044

https://thirtythreadbaremercies.com/2012/10/30/the-mad-farmer-lives-a-night-with-wendell-berry/

045

http://www.pbs.org/program/humanity-from-space/

046

http://www.ted.com/talks/juan_enriquez_we_can_reprogram_life_how_to_do_it_wisely/transcript?language=en

047

http://www.growingagreenerworld.com/bringing-nature-home/

048

http://www.cleanairyardcare.ca/sustainability/environmental-facts/

049

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErGKr9YleLo

050

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZAuiu_KjBU

051

http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/why-bother/

052

http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/how-to-feed-the-world/

053

http://michaelpollanfan.blogspot.com/2015/04/sweetness-plant-apple.html

054

http://www.growingagreenerworld.com/creating-certified-wildlife-habitats/

055

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycorrhiza

056

http://www.gardensmart.tv/pages.php?page=episodes&subpage=2016_show37

057

http://www.growingagreenerworld.com/masters-of-the-edible-landscape/

058

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/a-sportsmans-life/an-unmowed-lawn-leads-to-social-chaos

059

http://www.dispatch.com/article/20150720/NEWS/307209723

060

http://www.mnn.com/your-home/organic-farming-gardening/blogs/why-ill-never-have-lawn-again

061

http://grist.org/living/couple-turns-lawn-into-ecosystem-officials-threaten-to-mow-it-down/

062

http://www.ecowatch.com/lawns-environment-sustainable-landscaping-2052211381.html

063

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/mow-or-not-mow

064

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/more-sustainable-and-beautiful-alternatives-grass-lawn

065

http://www.bladerunnerfarms.com/bladerunner-farms-grass-varieties/cutlass-lowrider-2-zoysia/

066

http://www.latimes.com/home/la-hm-drought-grass-html-20150723-htmlstory.html

067

https://www.wildones.org/learn/weed-laws-and-native-landscaping/

068

http://www.mcall.com/features/all-hg-g-lawns-070706-story.html

069

https://chomsky.info/20130524/

070

https://smile.amazon.com/Botany-Desire-Plants-Eye-View-World/dp/0375760393

071

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_Rights_of_Mother_Earth

072

http://austinnativelandscaping.com/austin-and-central-texas-drought-resistant-and-tolerant-xeriscape-landscaping-resources/xeriscape-book-reviews-drought-resistant-tolerant/

073

http://www.pbs.org/video/2365987233/

074

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia's_Garden:_A_Guide_to_Home-Scale_Permaculture

075

http://www.pbs.org/video/texas-parks-and-wildlife-pocket-prairies-catching-carp-conservation-consultant/
http://www.pbs.org/video/2365911205/

076

http://www.pbs.org/video/texas-parks-and-wildlife-pronghorn-puzzle-changing-habitats-blanco-cleanup/
http://www.pbs.org/video/2365911231/

077

http://www.pfaf.org/user/cmspage.aspx?pageid=75

078

https://thinkprogress.org/population-flight-from-growing-desert-of-central-texas-d2c53f38b582

079

https://www.un.org/en/events/desertificationday/desertification.shtml

080

https://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/atmospheric/us-desert-50-years1.htm

081

http://managingwholes.com/desertification.htm

082

http://www.pbs.org/program/humanity-from-space/

083

http://www.smarttravels.tv/AdventuresWithPurpose/site/shows_geneva-matterhorn.html

084

http://www.growingagreenerworld.com/722-the-waterwise-landscape-and-garden/

085

http://www.dw.com/en/global-3000-the-globalization-program/av-39278511
http://www.dw.com/en/clean-water-for-argentinas-children/av-39278514

086

https://www.onedrop.org/

087

http://www.growingagreenerworld.com/725-growing-farmers-fight-global-hunger/

088

https://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weatherall.php3?s=202514

089

http://www.klru.org/overheard/episode/katharine-hayhoe/

090

https://vimeo.com/119278736

091

https://www.cuny.tv/show/asianamericanlife/PR2004964
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MLEwL-0Vhw

092

https://chomsky.info/warfare02/

093

https://chomsky.info/199303__/

094

https://chomsky.info/20100528/

095

https://chomsky.info/20110407-2/

096

https://chomsky.info/20110313/

097

https://chomsky.info/20161213-2/

098

https://chomsky.info/20131001/

099

https://chomsky.info/199805__/

100

https://chomsky.info/20140215_2/

101

https://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/News-and-Views/Archives/2000/Little-Habitat-on-the-Prairie.aspx

102

http://intheamericas.org/works/302-bahian-reconcavo-of-brazil-quilombos-candomble-and-the-mata-atlantica/

103

https://archive.epa.gov/greenacres/web/html/index-7.html

104

https://archive.epa.gov/greenacres/web/html/jmlr.html#Aesthetics

105

https://dontmow.blogspot.com

106

https://nature.gardenweb.com/discussions/2242295/stopmowingcom

107

https://www.adb.org/publications/region-at-risk-climate-change

108

http://reliefweb.int/report/world/region-risk-human-dimensions-climate-change-asia-and-pacific

109

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_conflict

110

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/07/world-aquifers-water-wars/

111

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/water-wars-the-next-great-driver-global-conflict-13842

112

https://www.revealnews.org/episodes/water-wars/

113

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Water_Wars

114

http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/09/18/water-wars/

115

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/water-wars-are-brewing/

116

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/03/water-wars-imminent-central-asia-160321064118684.html

117

https://smile.amazon.com/Water-Wars-Privatization-Pollution-Profit/dp/1623170729

118

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_privatization_in_Bolivia

119

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics-water-bolivia/

120

https://www.citizen.org/documents/bolivia_(pdf).pdf

121

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/04/08/leasing-the-rain

122

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bolivia/timeline.html

123

https://www.culturalsurvival.org/news/bolivian-protesters-end-water-privatization-la-paz-el-alto

124

http://economicsofwater.weebly.com/case-study-bolivia.html

125

http://www.coha.org/on-water-scarcity-and-the-right-to-life-bolivia/

126

http://natoassociation.ca/uncovering-the-bolivian-water-war-15-years-later/

127

http://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/bolivians-end-foreign-owned-water-privatization-cochabamba-water-war-2000

128

http://www.waterpressures.org/

129

http://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2013/03/28/new-film-tells-story-indias-water-crisis

130

http://internsindia.web.unc.edu/jodhpur-thar-desert/

131

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/05/201352111015642145.html

132

https://chomsky.info/20100930/

133

https://chomsky.info/20140904/

134

http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175125/tomgram%3A_arundhati_roy%2C_is_democracy_melting

135

https://smile.amazon.com/Monocultures-Mind-Perspectives-Biodiversity-Biotechnology/dp/1856492184

136

https://chomsky.info/20101101/

137

https://chomsky.info/20120619/

138

https://chomsky.info/the-common-good/

139

https://chomsky.info/20130617/

140

https://chomsky.info/199107__/

141

https://chomsky.info/199107__/

142

http://www.pbs.org/video/india-natures-wonderland-episode-1/
http://www.pbs.org/program/india-natures-wonderland/

143

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/6/1/advocates_trump_pulling_out_of_paris

144

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/4/19/headlines/un_25_000_sickened_with_cholera_in_somalia_amid_severe_drought

145

https://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/13/famine_in_somalia_horn_of_africa

146

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/4/28/350orgs_bill_mckibben_on_peoples_climate

147

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/4/17/peace_activist_kathy_kelly_yemenis_are

148

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/drought-famine-threaten-life-nomadic-somali-herders/

149

https://chomsky.info/20140428/

150

https://chomsky.info/201401__02/

151

https://chomsky.info/20101010_2/

152

https://chomsky.info/01072017/

153

https://chomsky.info/200405__/

154

https://chomsky.info/09242014/

155

https://chomsky.info/20101010/

156

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
https://archive.org/details/dom-25409-manufacturingconsentnoamchomsk

157

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_Illusions
https://archive.org/stream/NoamChomskyNecessaryIllusions/Noam%20Chomsky/Noam%20Chomsky%20-%20Necessary%20Illusions_djvu.txt

158

https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/web/html/

159

https://recyclenation.com/2015/04/how-to-recycle-lawn-clippings/

160

https://thegreenenergyblog.com/uncategorized/preventing-methane-gas-composting

161

https://www.epa.gov/safewater/kids/pdfs/activity_grades_4-8_plantsinwaterfiltration.pdf

162

http://www.blue-thumb.org/why/

163

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/jan/11/plants-combat-pollution-phytorestore-dupont

164

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisms_involved_in_water_purification

165

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_%28ecology%29

166

https://greatist.com/connect/houseplants-that-clean-air

167

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Clean_Air_Study

168

http://www.healthline.com/health/air-purifying-plants

169

http://www.gardinergreenribbon.com/clean-air-plants/

177

http://www.texasinvasives.org/plant_database/detail.php?symbol=CYDA

178

http://www.tsusinvasives.org/home/database/cynodon-dactylon

179

http://www.sunset.com/garden/earth-friendly/how-to-remove-bermuda-grass

180

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastrop%2C_Texas#Climate

181

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skfQlb67tEs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU_H5-KGr7A

182

http://home.howstuffworks.com/10-green-lawns-without-a-blade-of-grass.htm/printable

183

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaAhqaey5wo

184

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/07/21/turf-war-elizabeth-kolbert

185

https://agrilifeextension.tamu.edu/browse/featured-solutions/gardening-landscaping/herbs-texas-landscapes/

186

https://www.klru.org/ctg/resource/backyard-plants/

187

https://www.austintexas.gov/department/grow-green/plant-guide/oregano

188

https://www.mountainvalleygrowers.com/orivulgarehirtum.htm?&&&&

189

http://www.missouribotanicalgarden.org/PlantFinder/PlantFinderDetails.aspx?kempercode=q980

190

http://www.missouribotanicalgarden.org/PlantFinder/PlantFinderDetails.aspx?taxonid=281411&isprofile=0&

191

http://pfaf.org/User/Plant.aspx?LatinName=Origanum%20vulgare%20hirtum

192

http://pfaf.org/User/Plant.aspx?LatinName=Origanum%20vulgare

193

http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/go/307/

194

http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/go/53646/

195

http://www.missouribotanicalgarden.org/PlantFinder/PlantFinderDetails.aspx?taxonid=257307&isprofile=1&

196

http://www.missouribotanicalgarden.org/PlantFinder/PlantFinderDetails.aspx?kempercode=a246

197

http://www.pfaf.org/User/Plant.aspx?LatinName=Mentha%20spicata

198

http://pfaf.org/user/Plant.aspx?LatinName=Mentha%20x%20piperita%20vulgaris

199

http://www.pfaf.org/USER/Plant.aspx?LatinName=Mentha%20x%20villosa%20alopecuroides

200

http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/go/295/

201

http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/go/299/

202

http://ekps.tamu.edu/details?id=179&region=zone_b

203

http://www.missouribotanicalgarden.org/PlantFinder/PlantFinderDetails.aspx?kempercode=a587

204

http://www.pfaf.org/user/Plant.aspx?LatinName=Ipomoea+batatas

205

http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/go/53067/

206

http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/go/53068/

207

http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/go/53070/

208

http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/go/54407/

209

http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/go/53066/

210

http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/go/186346/

211

http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/go/54018/

212

http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/go/53069/

213

http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/go/162130/

214

http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/go/190927/

215

http://www.pfaf.org/user/cmspage.aspx?pageid=75

216

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/08/the-american-lawn-a-eulogy/402745/

217

http://www.ourcityforest.org/blog/2015/11/18/how-the-lawn-grew-across-america-and-why-that-needs-to-change

218

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/anthropology-in-practice/the-american-obsession-with-lawns/

219

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawn#History

220

https://apps.carleton.edu/curricular/ents/assets/BrennerMcFaddenWirshing.pdf

221

http://www.texasvox.org/will-austin-tx-break-a-record-for-100-degree-days/

222

https://350.org/

223

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html

224

https://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/31/headlines/dramatic_sea_level_rise_could_flood_coastal_cities_by_2100

225

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/18/climate/antarctica-ice-melt-climate-change.html

226

https://healthylandethic.com/2013/11/17/why-prairies-matter-and-lawns-dont/

227

http://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-stupid-obsession-lawns/

228

https://yeahstub.com/lawns-are-unnatural-and-unhealthy/

229

https://www.salon.com/2017/02/26/lawn-and-disorder-americas-obsession-with-the-perfect-home-lawn-is-terrible-for-the-environment/

230

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MMahrBteE8

231

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/16/509565462/an-ice-shelf-is-cracking-in-antarctica-but-not-for-the-reason-you-think

232

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-51841/Why-mowing-lawn-bad-you.html

233

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/co/

234

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1375130.stm

235

http://blog.syracuse.com/opinion/2009/04/reducing_cancer_risk_cutting_e.html

236

https://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/text_version/chemicals.php?id=15

237

https://www.allinahealth.org/mdex/nd1412g.htm

238

https://eowilsonfoundation.org/half-earth-our-planet-s-fight-for-life/

239

https://smile.amazon.com/Half-Earth-Our-Planets-Fight-Life/dp/1631492527

240

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/160327-wilson-half-planet-conservation-climate-change-extinction-ngbooktalk/

241

https://eowilsonfoundation.org/the-diversity-of-life/

242

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering

243

https://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/8/a_debate_on_geoengineering_vandana_shiva

244

https://eowilsonfoundation.org/e-o-wilson-on-half-earth-donald-trump-and-hope/

245

http://www.dw.com/en/water-management-from-the-inca-period/av-18971026

246

http://www.pbs.org/program/great-plains/

247

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/tv/journeys/journey_20170613.html

248

https://www.pbshawaii.org/ecosense-for-living-ocean-health-tales-of-recovery/
https://www.ket.org/episode/ECOF%20%20000201/

249

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/343na1_en.pdf

250

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_control

251

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/25/new-grass-prevent-flooding-deeper-roots

252

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep01683

253

https://healthylandethic.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/prairierootsystems.jpg

254

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/5/29/noam_chomsky_in_conversation_with_amy

255

https://www.growingagreenerworld.com/native-and-invasive-plants-certified-wildlife-habitats/

256

http://www.growingagreenerworld.com/033-ggw-national-wildlife-federations-naturalist-david-mizejewski-2/

257

http://www.growingagreenerworld.com/034-ggw-nwfs-naturalist-david-mizejewski-part-2-of-2/

258

https://www.growingagreenerworld.com/episode309/

259

https://www.growingagreenerworld.com/bird-watching/

260

http://www.growingagreenerworld.com/backyard-bees/

261

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windbreak

262

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffer_strip

263

https://www.wildones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Schindler-Banning-Lawns-2014.pdf

264

https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/sustainable-landscapes-20160506.pdf

265

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_island_effect

266

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/intermediate2/biology/living_cells/photosynthesis/revision/print/

267

http://sciencing.com/effect-temperature-rate-photosynthesis-19595.html

268

https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/wiley/when-it-is-too-hot-for-photosynthesis-heat-induced-instability-of-AnFtxNtyK0

269

http://ejdio.weebly.com/photosynthesis.html

270

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5A8BVrjRfU

271

https://www.amitavghosh.com/index.html

272

https://thewire.in/50791/why-we-do-not-hear-the-waters-amitav-ghoshs-great-derangement/

273

https://smile.amazon.com/Great-Derangement-Climate-Unthinkable-Lectures/dp/022632303X

274

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo22265507.html

275

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sixth_Extinction:_An_Unnatural_History

email facebook twitter reddit google+ pinterest instagram tumblr linkedin xing vk.com hackernews pocket Whatsapp print

NOTE:  This document was generated entirely using free software, particularly, GNU Texinfo.
       For more information, please visit:  https://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software.