In 2003, Iowa resident Greg Johnson was putting together plans for a 2,000 square foot home. He wanted to go solar, and when he ran the numbers, it was dauntingly expensive. His solution: pare down the size. By the time he had finished, he had designed—and was happily living in—a 10x7 home.

In Sebastapol, California, Jay Shafer built himself a house that "wouldn't cost a lot of time and money and would reduce greenhouse gases." The result: a living area, bathroom, kitchenette and bedroom packed into a 100 square foot space.

In Olympia, Washington, hazardous waste inspector Dee Johnson sold her 1,500 foot bungalow and moved into an 84-square-foot home that she parked in a friend's back yard.

Welcome to the tiny home movement, as people around the country swap out a key aspect of the American dream—a big ol' cushy home—for the benefits that living really, really small can bring.

People go tiny to improve their quality of life and reduce their eco-footprint. Jay Shafer did it because "I don't like to vacuum or dust." It saves money, too. Greg Johnson spends about $70/year to heat his home. "People are getting smarter about how they spend their money," he says. "Maybe they decide it's better to invest in an education than to make the mortgage payments on a $400,000 home. Or take a vacation!"

Living tiny does have its limits. Big parties are out of the question, and you'll probably do better as a single person. These aren't necessarily bad things, though, as more than one married person will attest. There are also ways to compensate. Johnson, who lives in Iowa City, does his socializing at nearby public spaces—and with the money he saves, he can afford to do so.

There's a growing buzz about tiny homes. They've been covered by Time Magazine, National Public Radio and The New York Times, and only last week CNN dedicated a segment to Shafer and his tiny home-building company, Tumbleweed Homes. (And, yes, both meanings are correct: it's a tiny company building tiny homes.)

The tiny home concept isn't new. Thoreau lived in one—in fact, he wrote a book about it—and before him Thomas Jefferson built a tiny house that he occupied while building Monticello. There are also a great many tiny homes on the water: they're called boats.

Tiny homes borrow wholesale from their floating cousins. Greg Johnson heats his home with a boat heater, while in Jay Shafer's house, the shower is the bathroom (there are plastic shields for the sink and toilet), and storage is crammed into every square foot of available space.

Tiny homes mimic boats in another way, too: they're mobile. Shafer's Tumbleweed Homes come with wheels attached. If you get tired of living in Oregon, you can pack up your home—literally—and set up shop in Nevada tomorrow. In the FAQ section of Shafer's website, there's even a whimsical question: can someone steal my house? His answer: "Never say never. But the trailers do come with locks, so that someone can’t attach the hitch to their truck."

Shafer envisions a time not too far off when his buildings are prefabricated and sold at outlets around the country. It's a plausible scenario. If you can sell storage sheds this way, why not tiny homes?

Our challenged economy may help Shafer's dream come true. If there were ever a time to go tiny, that time would appear to be now, with real estate values in the tank and people struggling mightily to get by. The notion of actually being able to pay their bills appeals to lots of people, and if they can do their part for climate change too, so much the better. College students, intentional communities, retirees, and people on a budget are among the prospective purchasers. The market will never be, ahem, huge, but it's a niche with real potential.

Maybe Randy Newman will write a song about it: you don't have to be a short person to live in a tiny home.

Jeff Golden has a problem. He wants things to make sense.

 

In a world as confusing, complicated and troubling as ours can be, it’s a pretty irrational desire. The guy can’t help it, though, and because he’s a do-er as well as a dreamer, he has created a project that takes an innovative and sensible approach to helping things make sense. Called Common Fire, the project offers affordable green cooperative housing to sustainability activists, enabling them to save money, learn from each other, and tread lightly on the land.

 

The first Common Fire cooperative housing residence was completed in 2006. It’s designed for eleven residents and located on 36 rural acres in New York State’s Hudson Valley, about 100 miles north of New York City. The 3,600 square foot building has received platinum LEED® certification from the U.S. Green Building Council, and is the highest-scoring green building in the eastern U.S. (and the third-highest in the nation). “If we’re going to advocate for sustainability, we need to start with ourselves. By sharing space in a building that’s as eco-efficient as this one, it enables residents to walk their talk,” says Golden.

 

An extended emotional and intellectual journey brought Golden to this endeavor. “We need fundamental change,” he says, “and that won’t happen if people keep participating in——and thereby supporting——our current unsustainable structures and institutions. When social activists do this, it creates internal inconsistencies and it also makes us less effective because what the one hand does, the other hand takes away.”

 

How do social activists optimize their commitment? Golden has grappled with this issue for years and is especially clear on how you don’t do it. Call it Golden’s Rule: you don’t engage in behaviors that prop up our current unsustainable system. You step out of the loop as much as possible. You don’t collaborate.

 

Obviously, you can’t do this completely unless you want to live naked in a cave——and you can’t drive positive change when you’re disconnected from society. You’ve got to live in the world to do good in the world. Golden understands this, and so the creative challenge he’s been wrestling with has taken the following form: What system will enable sustainability activists to maximize the good they do while minimizing the negatives?

 

Common Fire is the practical answer that Golden and his wife Kavitha Rao have developed to these questions. Common Fire is a non-profit foundation with the mission of “build(ing) a diverse and powerful movement of people with a shared commitment to creating a more just and sustainable world, starting with themselves. We do this by bringing people together in spaces that inspire and nurture ways of being in the world that are holistically and deeply rooted in a culture and systems that are just and sustainable.”

 

Sharing expenses makes sense in other ways as well. Housing expenses at Common Fire average about $540 per month for a single room and $775 for a double, including access to common areas. Food is purchased in bulk, making for considerable additional savings. Because the building’s solar panels supply about 95% of the building’s electricity needs, utility costs are a fraction of the usual amount. All told, Common Fire residents save about 40% over what they’d have to pay if they were living on their own. One important benefit: more time to focus on their cause.

 

Residents also enjoy the benefits of living in a community of peers. This gives residents the opportunity to inspire and learn from each other——and sometimes to aggravate each other, too. Says Golden, “One of our main learnings has been around how to embrace diversity in a community of people who all believe in the need for positive change in the world. We’ve learned that while we all have the right to expect that others will take the time to learn about what our passions are, and vice-versa, we have to let go of the notion that we’ll all have the same priorities or expectations. For instance, I try to minimize how much electricity we use for lighting. Others limit their traveling far more than I do.  We talk about our choices, learn from each other and maybe we make some changes, but in the end we respect where we’re each at.”

 

Common Fire is thus a triple play of sorts: an eco-community, an economical community, and a learning community. It is also a model that can be replicated at different levels of scale. “We started small because we wanted to have something bite-sized to chew on,” Golden says. “For us, this is a living lab——a chance to build expertise.” He has received inquiries about developing similar cooperative housing projects from people in locations ranging from elsewhere in New York State to the West Coast. He is especially keen to develop an urban model and to have other co-ops “up and down the Hudson River. It would make a powerful statement and they could support each other,” he says.

 

Golden is happy to make his team’s expertise available to anyone who is seriously interested in pursuing the overarching model: it does not have to be a Common Fire project. Golden also believes the scale of these undertakings can be substantially larger than the 11-person launch project. “You want people to know each other, but otherwise I don’t think there’s a maximum size for an intentional community that’s committed to social activism,” he says.

 

Not everyone gets the Common Fire vision. Golden and Rao recently tried to establish a second cooperative housing residence in Kingston, a small Hudson Valley city, and were rebuffed by a combination of outdated zoning and resistance from a handful of prospective neighbors who saw the project through an antiquated lens as either a boarding house (read: bums) or a commune (drugs). There's an object lesson in this: visions that make perfect sense to some are invisible to others. Golden and Rao still hope to develop a project in Kingston, but there are no active plans underway at this time.

 

In the Dark Ages, monasteries sprung up around Europe as centers of knowledge. They were beacons of light during a time of darkness. Golden and Rao envision something broadly similar——cooperative residential communities throughout the U.S. and beyond where people driven by a common fire come together to do good work in the world.

 

In a time of vast confusion, it’s a vision that makes sense.

Imagine a 78-story skyscraper with each floor rotating independently so the building is constantly changing shape, morphing non-stop into an endless variety of forms. It’s not just an urban edifice, it’s a dynamic vertical sculpture——one tall enough to dominate a skyline.

Now imagine this unlikely structure as a net energy producer, delivering surplus power to the grid.

If this sounds like a sci-fi fantasy, think again. In fact, if you’re super-rich and have a hankering to live in Dubai, you could be enjoying the 360-degree view from your living room as early as 2010. You could also set up shop in Moscow, where another tower is in the offing, with New York City and other cities to follow.

The designer of these buildings is the Italian architect David Fisher. The concept, which he calls Dynamic Architecture, came to him when he noted the premium prices a Miami developer was charging for ocean-front views. “That’s when I said to myself, ‘Why not rotate the whole damn floor?’” he told the magazine Architech.

Calling Fisher’s approach “visionary” doesn’t really do it justice. Start with the fact that when you put an 80-story building in motion——and not just as a monolith, but in 79 constantly changing units of motion——it undercuts some of our most basic assumptions about buildings. For thousands of years, we’ve designed our buildings to be solid and stable. This has given them a fixed and static quality. In a sense they’ve stood outside of life, which is always changing. Fisher’s buildings challenge this age-old separation. Because his buildings, like organic matter, are always evolving, they have a lifelike quality about them.

Fisher’s approach to clean energy also breaks the mold. Horizontal wind turbines are squeezed into the two-foot gaps between the floors. The 80-story Dubai building will have up to 79 such turbines. It’s an approach that eliminates some of the environmental negatives associated with the typical wind farm. There is no need for power lines or service roads, nor is there any visual pollution.

Fisher also makes extensive use of photovoltaic cells——and there’s not just one roof, there are lots of roofs to house them on, with approximately 20% of each roof exposed to the sun.

With all this onboard clean energy, Fisher’s towers are projected to produce five times more energy than they consume, enabling them to sell energy back into the grid.

The skyscrapers will also be constructed in an innovative, eco-positive manner. The floors will revolve around a central core, which is the only part of the tower that will be constructed on site. The rest of the building will be entirely fabricated in factories and attached to the core. This approach enables buildings to be constructed much more quickly; it will take only seven days to add a floor. The result: reduced energy consumption and construction pollution.

For all their breakthrough green qualities, Fisher’s Dynamic Towers do have a sustainability downside. For one thing, skyscrapers require more material per square foot than lower buildings. There is also the matter of scalability. Fisher’s approach to clean tech will make virtually no dent in the climate-change crisis because it will be limited to a handful of pricey skyscrapers scattered around the globe.

Last but not least, there’s the matter of conspicuous consumption. Fisher’s buildings are built for the super-rich. The smallest apartments in the Dubai tower are priced at over $3 million. The top stories are reserved for villas, which take up the entire floor and are vastly more expensive. About 11,000 square feet in size, they will include luxuries like indoor swimming pools, bathrooms of Italian marble, and voice-activated commands for controlling the floor’s rotation. Villa owners will also be able to have their cars (presumably not Priuses) transported by conveyor belt and special elevator to their floor. For residents in a particular hurry, attached to the sixty-fourth floor there will be a retractable heliport.

Can a building be green when it’s built for the Lamborghini crowd? It’s a fair question. Sustainability has a social as well as a technical dimension; we can’t have an environmentally healthy planet without improving poor people’s quality of life. On this matter, Fisher’s buildings are conspicuously silent.

But who says you have to be perfectly green to get props for what you have achieved? And the fact is that Fisher’s Dynamic Architecture represents a significant step in the right direction. There’s no question that a highly evolved eco-sensibility is at work here. Horizontal wind turbines between the floors? Photovoltaics on every rotating roof? This isn’t just the stuff of genius; it’s the stuff of green genius.

And then there’s Dynamic Architecture’s potential for elaboration and adaptation. David Fisher has introduced a dramatically new way to think about buildings (the noun) and building (the verb). In the process, he’s tasked an entire generation of green designers with a challenge. Call it “trickle-down architecture”——how to scale up his wildly innovative (and very green) ideas by adapting them for the middle class and poor.

" />Dan Beard is the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) for the U.S. House of Representatives. For the past year and a half, he has been leading the "Green the Capitol" initiative that aims to reduce the House of Representatives' carbon footprint.

Matter Network's John Gartner spoke with Beard about what he has learned rolling out an organization-wide sustainability directive, including how to communicate with employees and suppliers.

 Listen to the interview here. 

Matter Network: What previous experiences in the private sector helped to prepare you for your work in greening the House of Representatives?

Dan Beard: None. The biggest challenges have been people problems and I don't think there's anything particular about the private sector that prepares you for that. Life experiences prepare you more than anything else. It is also managing people and changing the way they do business. There's an attitudinal problem that people don't like change. We are a fishbowl where there are two sides to every issue -- Republican and Democrat -- and I don't think greening is any different. We've gotten a lot of criticism, and the Republican leader has called for my removal, primarily because we've been leading this greening effort and he doesn't believe that it is a good thing.

MN: Have you learned anything constructive from this criticism about the greening initiative?

DB: Yes, I think one of the most important things is I've learned to speak about the entire exercise in a different way. I've always thought that this was the right thing to do, and I naively assumed that people would agree. Many people don't. So I've learned to speak about it for the positive, measurable impact it will have: Things like the amount of money and energy savings tend to get you further than if you just talk about it being the right thing to do.

MN: Going carbon neutral is an "in" thing these days with many organizations and it makes for a good PR story. What other benefits do you see for organizations that go carbon neutral?

DB: I take issue with people who view going carbon neutral as a PR exercise. Carbon is a measure of what you are doing to perform your daily job. That's the real value of using carbon as a measure. The tangible benefit is that you are saving money and saving energy. If you are working towards the goal of being carbon neutral, that's a real positive value to achieve. I think being carbon neutral has gotten a bad rap.

MN: What about companies that just buy carbon offsets and may not do anything different in terms of conserving energy or using renewable resources? Can they do more to improve the image of carbon neutrality?

DB: There are some people who are trying to game the system. Those of us who are trying to reduce the amount of carbon released into atmosphere shouldn't be viewed as [conducting] a PR stunt. As long as there is a voluntary system, this is the approach we're going to have to take. If I replace 30,000 light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs and I save the organization $120,000 a year, is that a stunt? It is irresponsible on my part not to do that ... not to use less energy.

MN: As part of the greening -the-capitol process, you've asked employees to partner with you. What are the best ways of  giving employees incentives to help to make an organization sustainable?

DB: Make greening an integral part of your business at every level ... of what every employee does in [your] organization. I have 700 people in this organization. Rather than asking four people to be responsible for greening, I'm asking every employee. For example, for our procurement person -- we're going to have a greening requirement for those companies who provide products to us.

MN: So is their participation in the greening process now part of every employee's job performance evaluation?

DB: I have only gotten it down to the supervisory level as far as their evaluations, but we'll eventually get it down to every employee. The point is this isn't a 2 X 4 that we are clubbing people over the head with. We are trying to unlock imagination and creativity on the part of our employees. For example, the woman who runs our office supply store -- it was her idea to use 100 percent post consumer recycled paper. She found the companies and she evaluated them and then made the selection.

MN: Another trend in business is the creation of the role of chief sustainability officer. Do you think that distinct role is necessary, or can it be shared among the CTO, CIO, CEO and other executives?

DB: I really like the idea. We don't have one in my organization, and if we did, I guess it would be me. I think it is important, given the role of sustainability in the future of doing business, that you designate someone to have that responsibility. Then, you really have someone who comes to work in the morning, and it's the first thing they think about.

MN: The House, as part of the federal government, can have tremendous influence on suppliers in demanding sustainable products. Are there strategies that other organizations can adopt in negotiating with suppliers?

DB: I think what you're going to see is every business and organization, including federal, state and local governments, begin to make these kind of [sustainable product] requirements on their suppliers, and it will become an integral part of the way we do business. That's how you drive it through the economy.... It's going to create markets.

MN: What has been your biggest frustration so far in the process of greening the House?

DB: The biggest frustration has been the age-old problem that people don't like change. If I had a dollar for every time someone said, "Oh, we don't do it that way," I'd be a rich man.... It's dealing with human nature. Driving that change and dealing with the nature of human beings has been so frustrating because for me it is so obvious that we should be moving in that direction. The biggest lesson I've learned is that I tend to be impatient in making these changes. I have to learn to be more patient in working with people who don't feel as I do about adopting these (sustainable) changes quickly.

Related article: Corporate Sustainability Officers Identify Opportunity

Some say it takes a village to raise a child. We've learned by doing that it takes a surprising and diverse community to raise crops.

Today marks one year since we moved from San Francisco to a rural village in New Mexico. Time flies when you pack up your urban lifestyle in exchange for a rural one, only to find that you have so much to learn about living.

During a thoughtful stroll across our property, I reflected on how we couldn’t have made this transition alone. I also thought about how our definition of community has changed; what community meant to us in San Francisco compared with how we now understand it in a rural setting. We’ve discovered that community, particularly here in Bosque Farms, includes a full spectrum of life, with a surprising cast of characters.

From the praying mantis who keeps grasshoppers and aphids at bay to the spiders who keep other unwanted visitors out of our house, insects and reptiles are the most numerous denizens in our newfound community. In fact, they were among the first to greet us in our new home, some more beneficial and welcome than others: centipedes, crickets, lizards and a group of woodhouse toads who all bear the affectionate name Rufus (courtesy of another community member, our neighbor Gloria). 

Although many people may not characterize animals as being part of a community, they can be most instrumental. Soon after arriving at our new home, our neighbors, Richard and Loretta saved us $600 with their 15 Barbados Blackbelly sheep, after a landscaping service gave us the quote to clear the weeds from our back property. Not only did the sheep save us $600, but they fertilized our field, and their weed habit saves Richard and Loretta on hay and feed.

They also warn us of possible oncoming lightning strikes (my latest fear under New Mexico’s huge, tumultuous summer sky) by stampeding quickly into their corral.   

But it’s the people, of course, who have been a tremendous help in our transition from urban to rural living.

After our initial article in this series, friends and readers implored us to listen to the locals and accept as much help from our neighbors as possible. If we hadn't heeded the unsolicited and welcome advice of our seasoned neighbors, we could still be urbanites living uncomfortably in a strange land. Instead, we’re more like urbanites working toward our rural citizenship.

And in the true spirit of community, the exchanges are seldom one-way. Even greenhorn farmers like us can offer something back to experienced folk that have been living here for many years. It’s difficult for us to take without giving back — after all, building community is one reason we embarked on this adventure — so this barter system has been a pleasant surprise.

For example, Richard has helped us build temporary fences, broadcast clover seed on our back property, search for an inexpensive tractor and helped build our farm in many other ways. In exchange, we have helped move things around his property, fed his sheep and provided comic relief in our efforts around the property. Valerie even baked our gratitude into a homemade key lime pie.

Our neighbor Rowena was instrumental during our first irrigation experience, rescuing us with instructions on how to open our acequia floodgates and water the back field. Because we share a ditch with her, our part of the bargain is to flood her field when she can't do it herself — and to casting a vote for her children to win “best motorized vehicle” in this summer’s village parade.

Lee is our neighbor due south, and he was our hero when he plowed and tilled our back field with his top-of-the-line tractor. He has lived in the area more than 20 years, and has offered great advice on enriching our soil and growing tomatoes. He, too, received a key lime pie in gratitude.

Our community extends beyond our immediate vicinity. Friends Mark and Tara from Denver have visited us a few times and have helped us gather and burn weed stalks during the winter. They gave us their reliable 1988 Toyota pickup when they moved to Texas. We now share the truck with neighbors Jerry and Karen on an as-needed basis to haul farm and construction materials. We were big fans of car sharing in San Francisco and were ecstatic to find partners in a utility truck -- it beats doling out insurance payments on a truck we would rarely use.

Recently transplanted from their extensive travels in Asia, Jerry and Karen too are novice landowners but have joined our community by sharing what they’ve learned. We’ve reciprocated by making them dinner a few times, but they consistently outdo us with Asian-inspired meals that have knocked our socks off — both in flavor and on the Scoville scale.

We’ve also been fortunate to have family: Valerie’s father has shared cuttings from his prolific prickly pear cactus patch and advice on growing vegetables. We regularly share dinners with her family while swapping tales of gardening, farming and harvesting. Family, too, can be community whether they are 10 or 10,000 miles away.

We don’t proclaim that life in a rural community is better than city life. While stories abound about urban neighbors not reacting to nearby screams for help, silence in rural areas can be just as deadly. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s character Sherlock Holmes once quipped to his fictional crony, Watson, “It is my belief, Watson, founded upon my experience, that the lowest and vilest alleys in London do not present a more dreadful record of sin than does the smiling and beautiful countryside." In either case, the benefits of a tight-knit community could help prevent petty or unspeakable crimes, but that is a topic best left for discussion over a cup of coffee or a pint of beer with members of your own community in your own neighborhood.

Our experience in this rural setting has given us a sense of belonging to a larger world that includes not only humans, an entire ecosystem of members who help each other along. Reflecting on this new sense of community and on how far we’ve come because of them over the past year helps us face tomorrow with even more wisdom and courage. And tomorrow is when we ask Lee to reprise his role on the tractor and help us plow our back acre again.

Until next time, take the trouble to consider your neighbor — whether human or beast.  

Related articles:
Hipsters Turn to Harvesting
Flooding the Farm
Reining in the Rain
Free Water Doesn't Come Cheap

Jonathan and Valerie would like to receive reader comments and suggestions. Feel free to email them at greenhornfarmer@yahoo.com.

(If you're just tuning in, this is part four in a continuing series on greening our farm in Bosque Farms New Mexico. Our water journey started with opening our irrigation valves to welcome the Rio Grande River into our back property. Then we examined the aquifer beneath our property for its offer of precious water. Next, we searched for solutions to make the most of our rain, resulting in installing a big water tank that holds the promise of sustainability.)

During our recent monsoon season we were able to harvest abundant rainwater from numerous storms on our property, but you wouldn't have guessed that if you talked to some of our neighbors. The USDA has just designated our tiny Valencia County (1,068 square miles), New Mexico as a drought disaster area.

While talking with a neighboring farmer, I mentioned our abundant July rains and waited for that “high five” celebratory acknowledgment. Instead, he retorted, “Yes, I saw the storms over your area. We only received about an inch and a quarter in July." “Your area” is, in fact, part of “his” area too; his farm is also in the Village of Bosque Farms, and is a mere 1.5 miles away. But this short distance is enough to make a 2-3 inch difference between the rain he received and our welcomed surplus of precipitation.

When it comes to doling out rainwater to her thirsty children, Mother Nature can be oddly selective.

Just the other day, our Village sat in the path of an enormous storm of fury (over 50 mph winds) and hailstones (up to a half-inch in diameter). Seeing the storm develop on the Internet prompted me to pitch our emergency garden tent—which Valerie affectionately dubs “the Bedouin tent” (stay tuned for more on the tent in a future article) —to protect our experimental vegetables. As we followed the attack of this torrential storm online, our reality was but a mere trickle outside our windows. Later that evening, we spoke with friends on the north end of the Village (just a half-mile away) who experienced sheets of rain and dramatically flooded streets. While most locals would brush off this experience with indifference, we were flabbergasted. We might as well have a flood on our front area and a drought on the back forty.

Paying the Piper

Now that we've detailed the capricious way that summer rains are doled out here in the Village, I’ll explain how we plan to bring water to our thirsty land, and how much it will cost.

We researched large rain catchment tanks for sale in our area and came up with the following totals (without tax):

Tank Size (Gallons)	Cost with Installation
20,000	$12,500-$14,500
10,000	$10,000-$11,500
5,000	$6,500-$7,000
1,650	$1,900-$2,000
300	$450

If you recall, our first water plan was to irrigate our property using Rio Grande river water and the established acequia system as the foundation of our watering resources. We scrapped that idea after careful consideration of a dwindling resource, fluctuating water quality, and lack of control over allocation (see Plan #1). Unfortunately, using this irrigation plan could also be catastrophic to our sustainability plan as the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District might shut down our water supply or regulate use at any time in response to our practice of water storage. We have yet to receive definitive word on whether we can store acequia water for more controlled use. When we ask the locals, most responses to our guarded inquiries are in the “ask for forgiveness” arena. The problem with asking for forgiveness in this situation, if found in violation of MRGCD rules (policy 1N is of particular concern and why the holding pond located between the two big tanks is added to the diagram), is how to explain the two massive 20,000 gallon tanks required for our agricultural storage. I don’t think we could pass them off as indoor swimming pools.

As you can see in the acequia based design, the storage tanks consist of two 20,000-gallon tanks adjacent to the irrigation canal, two 5,000-gallon tanks to hold rain water near the main house/guesthouse and a combination of rain and well water near the garage, two 1,650-gallon tanks to capture rain water from the future greenhouse and the southwest section of the main house roof, and four 300-gallon tanks to capture water from the 550sq. ft. and roughly 600-sq. ft. roof tops from our home’s east and west porch overhangs, respectively. The estimated price range for these tanks: $43,600-$49,800. Gulp.

Our updated water plan (see Plan #2) has us very excited about the potential of a sustainable farm due to its flexibility. I must confess that we almost dropped the use of irrigation water altogether in a knee-jerk decision grounded in inexperience. Thanks to the wisdom of the “your area" farmer Jesse Daves of Amyo Farms, we reincorporated the irrigation water into our plan. The well/rain water tank design is basically the same as the acequia irrigation plan, but replaces the 20,000-gallon tanks with two 1,650-gallon tank storage capacities in the center north and south sides of the back field. The remaining differences between the designs are the irrigation focus of water supply to the various trees (fruit, nut, and shade trees that will also provide windbreak) and, of course, the cost. The estimated price range for Plan #2 tanks: $22,400-$24,800. This is half the cost of the more rigid irrigation-based system and fits our limited budget more comfortably. We have neither intention nor the funds to implement the plan all at once. We will take a phased approach over the next several months (or even years) to implement our systems. These numbers are goal-setting tools to help us reach our targets most affordably.

As part of the flexibility with Plan #2, we feel confident using the well and rain water as an emergency or permanent supply for the trees if there is a reduction in irrigation water volume or frequency. Based on a general calculation of 20 gallons of water per day for mature trees and 8.5 gallons of water per plant per week (1.5” of water per week) for vegetables, we should be able to supply the entire back field by using the 1,650-gallon tanks as rotational entry and transfer points for the water.

The big problem with this system of smaller tanks is the labor involved in transferring water throughout the property. In our quest for sustainability, we will have to create systems to automate our processes or develop good relationships with neighbors, family, fellow farmers, farming interns, and others who are willing to help. And in this sacrifice for sustainability, we'll have to spend more time.

Pump Out the Volume

At this point we have only provided the chassis of our water system—we have yet to cover the working parts of this system. First and foremost, we need pumps to move the water from tank to tank and into the fields. We are considering a variety of energy sources for the pumps: traditional electricity from the grid, solar (we enjoy an average of 300 sunny days per year) and wind (the spring winds in the area have sufficient potential to light up Manhattan).

To get a better understanding of the different sources available to us, I visited Chris Karsa at Direct Power and Water Corporation to discuss our plans and get an estimate on solar pumps. For our pumping needs, a Grundfos submersible pump (SQF-2) powered by two 80-watt solar panels along with necessary parts became our baseline system. Chris quoted approximately $3,000 (depending stationary or moveable capabilities) for a hybrid system.

Our thought is to mobilize the pump and panels on some type of cart system in order to use one pump for all water transfer and application needs. If it isn’t possible to use one pump (which will average between 2,500-3,500 gallons of moved water per day depending on the model and weather) to fulfill our farm needs, then we will add a standing solar system for specific use on our well water source. With a static system, we would add a solar tracking device like a Wattsun Tracker to maximize the power output from the sun. All of this wishful thinking makes the cost estimate about as stable as nitroglycerin.

To narrow our supply side plan, we add five 100’ - 150’ sections of industrial hose to move water from the various water tanks as storage to feed the flora. My most surprising revelation while researching costs came after reviewing industrial hoses online. I have come to two conclusions about such hoses: 1) there are way too many of them, and 2) hose manufacturers/distributors guard their prices tighter than biotechnology companies guard their research. I think I was supposed to submit blood in order to get a quote, and have yet to receive a price on the industrial hoses.

The last part of the supply plan is to install 400 feet of rain catchment gutters with flexible spouts to fill the tanks. At roughly $3 - $5 per foot, these gutters add another $1,200 - $2,000 to our plan if we install them ourselves. We could inquire with companies like ABC Seamless in Albuquerque for professional installation, but would always look to save the money and gain experience. We believe we can complete this task, with any luck avoiding a Tower of Pisa schedule and outcome.

On the delivery side, we would like nothing better than to stop spending money and just turn the hoses on the field. But then, why would we go through all this trouble to strive for sustainability and then waste water to evaporation?

Enter drip irrigation. Luckily, farmer Jesse and an online tutorial have helped educate us enough to form a plan. We calculated a need for more than 4,000 feet of T-Tape water supply (our hard water will necessitate repurchasing T-Tape after a few seasons, depending on the water source and dilution), approximately 600 feet of main line, and the added pieces such as grip sleeve ends, Tap Loc barbs, and constant pressure regulators—oh, my! Estimated cost of this equipment: $500 - $1,000.

In total, the preliminary cost of our sustainable water system:

Item	Total Cost
5,000-gallon tank (x2)	$14,000
1,650-gallon tank (x4)	$8,000
300-gallon tank (x4)	$1,800
solar pump	$3,000
gutters (self-installed)	$2,000
drip emitters and parts	$1,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED UP-FRONT COSTS:	$29,800

There are a few important "wants" that I would like to add to the list: an on-site weather station for site specific accuracy with weather tracking a recording, a lightning strike alert or new Nokia telephone (both a detector and an attractant?) gadgets to protect us while we work in the field during the summer storms, and some soil moisture sensors and a hand-held device for instant read-outs and data storage to make sure we are diligent in our water use.

How do we feel after sorting through the various aspects of irrigation, the most critical component of building a sustainable farm? Overwhelmed is an understatement. Are we still excited and ready to get started? No doubt. The power of focus should never be underestimated, and we now have a detailed irrigation plan. While it may take some time, we will be thrilled to introduce our 1,650 gallon tank to its new relatives over time.

A new development since we researched and mapped out our plans above: we just experienced a tornado warning from a violent storm cell just five miles from our property. The storm tore through two cities just the south of us, but thankfully no one was hurt.

Until next time, keep your eye on the sky!

Related articles:
Hipsters Turn to Harvesting
Flooding the Farm
Reining in the Rain

Jonathan and Valerie would like to receive reader comments and suggestions. Feel free to email them to greenhornfarmer@yahoo.com.

I just finished chopping nine-foot weeds on our back acre. (In case you're just tuning in, this is chapter three in our continuing adventure in creating a sustainable farm in Bosque Farms, New Mexico). What was supposed to be an aesthetic combination of yellow sweet clover and grass mix to feed and cover our soil in preparation for planting next year turned out to be a weed party hosted by the Amaranth family. In my continued farm ad-libbing, I now tell the neighbors that our soil replenishment strategy is a designed “controlled chaos” to maximize nutrients and aerate the soil. Before they can sift through that pile of words, I change the subject to the weather.

When we lived in San Francisco, the topic of weather was primarily used to fill gaps in conversation. We would discuss the weather in preparing for a commute, or in choosing an outfit to match the umbrella, or we would humor visitors by citing Mark Twain’s famous quip, "the coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco." Here in New Mexico, if you bring up the weather as a subject you better be prepared to talk about the weather.

In our area of New Mexico, we experience all four clearly defined seasons. During the summer months, the main subject is rain. How much will we get this month? Does that approaching thunderhead have potential? How does it only rain on my neighbor’s property and not mine? It’s possible to have full conversations about every conceivable weather website and how to systematically choose features from each site to form an accurate assessment of weather conditions. One website offers the best storm tracking capabilities. Another site provides the most detailed data during and after a weather event. Yet another site provides historical data beyond the current month. A friend of ours in Santa Fe even built his home around an antique weather station, demonstrating that the best data often comes from your own backyard. 

I spend more time now than ever on the weather web sites, obsessively hitting the refresh button, and validating weather patterns through the window. Why, you might ask?

To be prepared to catch the rain.

In the previous article, I mentioned that we have three agricultural water sources on our property: irrigation from the Rio Grande, an underground well sourced by an aquifer, and rain. (The Village of Bosque Farms provides water and sewer for our home use.) I also shared the emotional practice of flooding our back field from an irrigation ditch, and we continue to provide drinks for the weed party with this practice. But there are many issues involved in using the irrigation system as a foundation to a sustainable farm. Some farmers doubt the quality of the water despite reports showing that the water meets EPA standards. But we also wonder if irrigating from Rio Grande River water is a clean and acceptable practice for growing organic products in the future.

Climate change predictions for our regional weather patterns also show a threat to the irrigation process. We may be on a path to earlier and lower snow melt run-off that would limit the amount of water for agricultural use and drastically reduce supply during the critical irrigation demands of late summer. To us, being sustainable is having the resources to make our own decisions and to allow us to adapt to prevailing forces—all while maintaining homeostasis on our land. Solely relying on the irrigation system to build our farm does not seem like a course to sustainability.

The well water is yet another tricky situation when it comes to sustainable supply. Currently in our area, the majority of property owners have unlimited, unmonitored use of well water. The “beg for forgiveness” strategy for well water use works best, since asking for permission beforehand comes with monitoring. For example, one local farmer is required to provide usage reports to Bosque Farms water management because he asked permission to establish a well. Another town resident runs sprinklers from his existing well with reckless abandon for hours on a half-acre of lawn grass in the middle of a hot summer day. The current mismanagement of the aquifer could bring about monitored well water use in the future and further limit agricultural use in the midst of continued development.

While we were naïve about many aspects of our move from urban to rural living, we did anticipate the challenge of figuring out the appropriate and intelligent use of our precious water resources. (Score one for the hipsters!) In this anticipation, we knew that our third water source—rain—was going to play the biggest part in developing our farm. Unlike some areas of the U.S., New Mexico currently has no restrictions on capturing rainwater. In fact, Albuquerque encourages rainwater harvesting through education and an equipment rebate program.

Now all we need is for Mother Nature to cooperate.

A funny thing happened in May as Albuquerque hosted the ICLEI Local Action Summit , supporting local governments for sustainability: it rained. In the middle of a very dry spring, it rained hard enough to accrue our average May rainfall in just two days. It’s ironic that a conference covering the maintenance of our unpredictable supply of natural resources under the pressure of increasing populations was treated to an unusual deluge in a semi-arid area such as Albuquerque. While attending the conference, I had to point out this irony to a speaker from the Albuquerque water authority.

At least Mother Nature and I had a good laugh at the paradox.

And She continues to laugh through the end of July as our current precipitation total is sitting approximately two inches above the monthly average (3.39 in. vs. 1.27 in.). This total is a conservative number compared to what we have measured on our property. Relying on weather accuracy in New Mexico from a data station that sits 15 miles away from our farm is akin to flying to London on a trip to Paris. There is a gap.

Those 3.39 inches of rain can actually translate into 11,000 gallons of captured water. No, we are not magicians, rather the lucky inheritors of approximately 5260 square feet of roof surface on our home and out buildings. This is why we are so excited about using rainwater as our foundation for a sustainable farm.

There are several formulas to calculate rainwater catchment potential from roof surface area. The Texas Manual of Rainwater Harvesting formula asserts that you can capture 0.62 gallons per square foot surface per inch of rain (square feet x inches of rain x 0.62). Another formula shows that you can capture 600 gallons of water per inch of rain per 1000 square feet of catchment formula (square feet x inches of rain x 600 / 1000). My favorite calculation comes from Brad Lancaster in his book Rainwater Harvesting for Drylands and Beyond, where you multiply your roof surface area (square feet) by the rainfall (measured in feet by dividing your inches of rain by 12) and 7.48 (representing gallons per cubic foot). I think his formula (square feet x feet of rain x 7.48) is my favorite because it yields the highest total of captured water. I'm an optimist.

Using these formulas, we have calculated that we can passively capture between 519,000-539,000 gallons on our entire two-acre property with an average annual precipitation of 9.93 inches. If we took advantage of the total 5260 square feet of roof surface around our property, we could potentially store and use between 28,000-32,000 gallons of water, given  9.93 inches of annual rainfall (minus first flush waste if we discard the first 10-20 gallons of each rain event). The volume of free water we could harvest from rain storms is almost unimaginable. So we did what any doubtful, yet hopeful, couple would do in the face of such confusing numbers: We just started to catch rain.

At the beginning of our rainy season in late June, we organized a makeshift water catchment system consisting of several five- to 15-gallon buckets placed in downspout areas around the house. During any given rain storm, we collected about 60 to 75 gallons of water. In less than a week, all buckets were full with no additional storage capacity. Every drop of rain beyond our capacity was a painful reminder that we needed to upgrade our system.

Enter a company called Soilutions and their water catchment expert, William “Bard” Edrington. Bard marveled at our water catchment possibilities once he visited our property. After sharing our situation, our trial-by-error approach to building the farm (a.k.a. blind experimentation), and listening to Bard detail our options, we settled on a 1,650-gallon above-ground tank. In one of those “your lifestyle really has changed” moments, we sold stock in a promising pharmaceutical company in order to purchase the tank. Any regret that we have in selling that stock is replaced by pure joy when we pour five-gallon buckets of fresh rain water into that beauty of a tank. If we are to fulfill the potential of our rain catchment opportunity, I have a feeling what little remains of our old company stock will give way to tanks.

Capturing rainwater in New Mexico is similar to constipation: it’s a waiting game, but you had better be prepared when it surges. We had one of those episodes not long after we installed the tank, where we were more than an inch of rain poured down on us in a little less than an hour. In total, we captured nearly 300 gallons of water in that one hour, a fraction of the 1,500 gallons we could have harvested with a gutter system in place to route the water to the tank.

It has been three weeks since the tank arrived. We are only capturing water from the roof of our house (the same makeshift placement of buckets in downspout areas), yet we have stored and used more than 800 gallons of water in those three weeks. The next step in our water catchment plan (stay tuned for our next episode, “How the heck are we going to pay for all of this?”) is to install gutters around the roof to catch the water more efficiently.

The rain water we’ve captured has nourished eight tomato plants, six sweet pepper plants, eight rows of various vegetables, two large planters of flowers and herbs, a mix of seven or eight ornamental, culinary, and fragrant plants, and four newly planted New Mexico redwood trees (or taxodium mucronatum neomexicanca for the arborists out there).

Our sustainability dream is to nourish the farm on rainwater alone. The reality though, in a place that experiences occasional drought, is to use two or all three sources of water to feed our plants. This trifecta of water sources should be adequate to build our foundation of sustainability. So, how are we going to build a working, sustainable water supply system for our property? Until we reach that epiphany, we have a rudimentary idea and will share details and costs of the plan with you next time. For now, we have a weed party to attend. Take care, and be mindful of the rain.

Jonathan and Valerie would like to receive reader comments and suggestions.  Feel free to email them at greenhornfarmer@yahoo.com.

Related articles:

Flooding the Farm
Hipsters Turn to Harvesting

Photos by Valerie Ashe

One of the reasons for booking a hotel room is to live like you can't at home. You don't worry about tossing dirty towels on the floor, eating in bed, or taking longer showers. Even conscientious folks like to indulge by running the AC with the windows open if possible.

This carefree mindset poses a problem for hoteliers who are trying to make their facilities more green. The New York Times asks, will Americans care to compromise their luxury at all when on holiday?

Around the globe hotels with "master switches" that turn off the air conditioning and all electricity when vacationers exit a room are becoming popular. American hotels have been reticent to embrace the idea for fear that consumers won't tolerate entering a dark or hot room. It is understandable that asking people to think about sustainable behaviors when they are attempting to escape the daily grind makes some hotel managers nervous.

Automating the process such as through a master switch simplifies things because it is passive on the part of guests. But perhaps a compromise model is needed for now. Why not have a higher threshold for the AC so that it will kick back on to make sure the room never exceeds a temperature of say, 80 to 85 degrees, and allow one small safety light near the door (preferably powered by a compact fluorescent light) to remain on? Another option would be to install a timer that approximates when the consumer will be returning, so the AC starts to cool the room in advance, a feature that is already available on some cars.

Shutting off the TV and excess lights when the room is vacated is a no-brainer, and hotels have a strong financial reason to save energy.

More eco-friendly hotels are on the way. Marriott is greening its hotel conference rooms here, while friend to the animals Pamela Anderson is participating in building a green hotel in Abu-Dhabi.

While we may not have reached the tipping point in thinking green while we are traveling yet, we are getting close. Hotels that lead on this issue may lose a few customers today, but by standing out they will probably gain loyalty in the long run while saving considerably on their power and water bills.

In the previous installment of our tale of fleeing the city for the farm, we ended at the beginning, musing about our journey into the language—and lifestyle—of farming and determining how and where to get started. It’s now monsoon season here in New Mexico, which makes it an appropriate time to delve deeper into understanding our water issues —where we get it, how we get it, and what’s required to ensure that it is available to grow a sustainable farm in a semi-arid area.

Nearly every day my wife Valerie and I find ourselves looking to the gathering storm clouds over the Manzano Mountains to the east of our property in Bosque Farms. We are eager for rains to supplement our other water sources and quench the thirsty land. A brochure by the New Mexico Acequia Association declares El Agua es la Vida: Water is life, especially on a farm.

We have three water sources on our property: irrigation from the Rio Grande River via a traditional Spanish acequia system; an underground well sourced by an aquifer; and finally, rain. Each source could fill volumes with its complexity, but irrigation and rainwater are by far the most involved. For this chapter in our adventure, irrigation will guide the story.

(See the gallery of the irrigation process here).

Our irrigation water travels 260 miles south from the origin of the Rio Grande at the base of Canby Mountain in the San Juan Mountain Range in Colorado. Bosque Farms is part of an irrigation network of ditches (called arroyos) governed by The Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (MRGCD). Our 2-acre property (1 ¼ irrigable) is part of 70,000 acres for which the MRGCD transports diverted Rio Grande water to nourish agriculture and livestock, as well as keep the local Ditch Witch employed. The Ditch Witch is an effigy based on the tragic legend of a ghost who mourns the children she drowned before killing herself, known in New Mexico as La Llorena, or the crying woman. Her campaign: “Ditches are deadly.” Don’t play around near the arroyos, kids.

The MRGCD has been around for over 75 years building and maintaining the irrigation system, but this is infancy compared to its founding concept, the Spanish acequia system that has been integral to New Mexico agriculture for more than 400 years. Acequias are basically community-operated, engineered canals that carry snow runoff and river water to agricultural areas downstream. They can foster community through tradition and communication, but because they serve properties upstream and downstream, acequias can also trigger resentment and arguments over entitlement issues.

When we arrived, the irrigation canal in our back property was like a mysterious jungle. We arrived in late summer, when foliage -- a euphemism for monstrous eye-high weeds -- is abundant. (If I had known about the Ditch Witch when we first arrived, I may never have set foot near the canal.) How does a state with so little water grow such enormous weeds?! Adding to the mystery of the irrigation canal, none of our immediate neighbors used the irrigation system for their properties. We learned that our property hadn’t been irrigated for at least 12 years, maybe longer.

The first step toward irrigation was to clear our canal turnout of weeds and debris. Lacking a suit of armor, I used a hatchet, hoe, and hellfire to start cleaning the approximately 155 feet of canal we call our own. I took out the weeds, averted giant flying bugs, and dug out at least a couple cases of broken beer bottles. This was also my first “snakes gone wild” encounter: while clearing the turnout, I unintentionally disturbed a four-foot long hibernating bull snake.

After clearing the weeds, the next step was to figure out how to use the acequia to flood our field. We supposedly had water rights with our property, although we never fully understood what that meant. What did we need to do to exercise these rights? The common response from locals: “You need to ask the agency for the proper paperwork and change the ownership."

“What agency?” we would ask.

“The water agency,” was the usual response, followed by an impatient, confused stare.

We soon discovered that in New Mexico you need to phrase your question with the actual answer to get a useful reply. It’s much like asking for directions in rural Ireland. The common response is to “take a left at the pub,” only to find out, after hours of driving in circles and waving several times at the man who originally gave the directions, that he was referring to the only pub he frequents among the twenty pubs around town.

We ended up making progress on our water rights serendipitously while attending an organic farming conference in Albuquerque. We met a fellow Bosque Farms farmer and asked him about water rights and flooding.  While he had never pursued his water rights, he was able to tell us that they are collective for the Village of Bosque Farms and regulated by MRGCD. What still remains a mystery is that some folks in our town, including some of our neighbors, have sold their water rights. But how is it possible to sell community water rights (where is that pub)? Apparently, you can file for individual water rights within the community system. At the time of this writing, we still aren’t certain this is true or how to do it, but like many aspects of establishing our farm, learning these things is part of the journey.

We finally chased down the appropriate contact at MRGCD and sent in the paperwork for the change of ownership. In following up, the agent at the MRGCD told us, “We received the information and changed the property into your name, so you’re all set!” But to do what, we asked. “To contact the ditch rider for the watering schedule.” Ditch rider? Any relation to the Ditch Witch?

Days later, while pretending to know what I was doing in the canal area, our luck continued as one of our neighbors, Rowena, pulled up next to me and talked me off the plank. She explained how to open the gate on the canal, build the water pressure so it would overflow into our turnout, and even gave me the name and number of our ditch rider—the MRGCD authority who opens the main canal gate upstream—to get the watering schedule. Her unsolicited guidance was an expression of the tradition and community that defines the acequia system. Rowena and her husband, who is currently serving military duty in the Middle East, are technically our irrigation partners: we share a turnout that spans 3-4 properties, and our section happens to be the opening to the main ditch.

I called the ditch rider and arranged a quick meeting. He gave me a brief overview of the flooding system and advised me on how to build up water pressure. For this system, farmers either have a metal guillotine-like gate with a wheel that pulls the gate up or down to control the flow of water, or they drop in homemade wood planks to do the same. Since we had no metal gate, I decided to use three 2”x12” planks, but the ditch rider talked me into using about seven 2”x”4” boards to withstand the tremendous pressure the water imparts on the wood.

Then he told me the irrigation schedule and drove away. It was Wednesday and we were scheduled to have water for the weekend. With a clean turnout and nothing else, I needed to prepare wood planks, learn about water flow, and complete one other minor task—digging a trench around our 1 ¼ acres of irrigable land so I wouldn’t flood our home or our neighbors’ properties.

I didn’t have a tractor, so I set out with a shovel, pickaxe, and stubborn determination. I spent much of the next few days digging into hard-pan clay and dirt. When completed, I dragged myself to the telephone and called Rowena to notify her that we were going to start flooding.

I have to say that watching the diverted Rio Grande water trickle onto our field and begin flooding was a powerful emotional experience. This water provides the ability to grow life, yet equally has the power to destroy it, as in the story of La Llorena or any number of the floods that devastated  the land in years past. The power of water inspires awe, whether from its capacity to take life, or to bestow it.

The excitement and fear anticipating this experience was akin to our original experience of moving to Bosque Farms from San Francisco. We gathered at the flood gate in the back and readied for the ceremony. Only, we were not alone. Several other neighbors spied my frantic activity in preparing the property for flooding and joined in our excitement. We were overwhelmed with the culture and tradition of the acequia—here we were, starting a new, or rather reviving an old, tradition in our own backyard.

With the excitement and emotion came practical issues too: how long should we let the water flow? Would the water reach the entire property? More still, would the hand-dug moat hold!?! Then, like 499 toilets simultaneously flushing in a 500-unit apartment building, the water level fell dramatically and we learned that while the MRGCD has a schedule for releasing the water, our neighborhood has no schedule for when individual properties dam up the water for their own turnouts. So, if people upstream decide to flood their 10-acre property, water levels downstream are too low to flood for hours.

At this time, a curmudgeonly neighbor barreled up on his four-wheeler, complaining about the paltry water levels at his property about ¼ mile downstream. He boasted imaginary water rights over all of us standing there because he was growing “product”—livestock and alfalfa—while we were merely watering our “weedpatches.” Yet another undertow in the battle over water is a fight over what’s more important: lawns, farms, or livestock. As the curmudgeon puttered away, our neighbors quickly filled us in that he is the former village fire chief, and owns 23 acres around town. This somewhat explained his sense of entitlement, but still, he is downstream….

Approximately six hours later we began to flood again (unfortunately, Curmudgeon had to wait yet another few hours for us to finish flooding). Our neighborly crowd had gone home for the evening, but again we were awash in excitement. An hour later with both our field and Rowena’s field covered in replenishing water, Valerie and I celebrated with a well-deserved beer at the Chama River Brewing Company in Albuquerque. Beer never tasted so good as when it came after such a meaningful accomplishment.

We’ve flooded our back field now every other week for 2-3 months. The routine has taken hold although the experience remains emotional. What was once a singular feeling of awe is now often accompanied by sulking and anger. The sulking starts when I open the gates and nary but a trickle flows into the canal. The anger takes over when I see the same trickle five hours later. I have tried flooding at night and in the early hours and still have the water flow problem—there always seems to be someone flooding upstream. But the water remains a gift, one that may not keep giving should the MRGCD restrict irrigation, a very real possibility with many water districts around the country and the world facing imminent water shortages.

After a few irrigation floods, new weeds replaced bare dirt on our property, providing much-needed nutrients to our cover crop and aerating the hard clay soil with their roots. But that is a story for another article. Dirt remains a question, while water is the answer for now and the future of our sustainability. Stay tuned to learn how we plan to use the sparse rainfall of our alpine desert area to supplement our irrigation system.

Related articles:
Hipsters Turn to Harvesting
Curbing Consumerism for Sustainability's Sake
Cameras Bring Grassroots Sustainability to India

Photo by Valerie Ashe

 

 

 

Green architecture has been a part of the Austin cityscape for many years, from cubist-style condos on the east side to LEED-certified municipal buildings downtown. But now the green scene is reaching out to the suburbs, where a new Austin-based company called Green Builders is putting its (recycled) stake in the ground. The company is building green homes on a large scale, and giving home buyers an opportunity to cut their energy usage dramatically while enjoying the health benefits of environmentally-sensitive construction.

The cost of all this green opulence? About the same as you'd pay for a run-of-the-mill new house. In the past, one of the main drawbacks of green construction has been the added costs of specialized materials and building techniques, but Green Builders set out to build environmentally-sophisticated homes at an affordable price.

"People may or may not buy into the green movement, but they sure like the energy savings," said Clark Wilson, the founder and CEO of Green Builders.

With 2,000 lots over 500 acres, the company's new development in Georgetown Village, just north of Austin, is poised to become one of the biggest green home communities in the U.S. Green Builders also has two smaller developments south of Austin, and Wilson said he knows of no other green home builders operating on the same scale as his company. The Georgetown development is located in a somewhat conservative area, where one might expect home buyers to be skeptical of newfangled green home designs.

The houses have a classic Texas Craft style, range from 1,500-4,000 square feet, and  come with all the modern conveniences one would expect, but with energy costs up to 50 percent lower than in a similar new home. Some of the homes available in Georgetown Village include a 2,000 sq. ft, 4 bed, 2 bath house with a 2-car garage for $238,000, and a two-story 2,800 sq. ft home with a studio above the garage for $316,000. Since the homes are competitively priced for the area, Wilson says business has been steady even in a down market.

"The biggest challenge is surviving the market downturn, but we're taking way more than our share," says Wilson. "We outsold the competition ten to one last month in Georgetown Village, so we're in good shape in getting our share of the now smaller market."
 
Outside Looking In

Green Builders' homes are built from the ground up, and while they all use similar plans for the insulation, plumbing, heating/cooling, and other parts of the infrastructure, home buyers can customize many other parts of the interior and exterior – bamboo floors, recycled carpets, and other products made from sustainable materials. Also on display at the model houses are tables, chairs and other green-living accessories from local suppliers. Soy foam couch, anyone?

Green Builders had the house plans drawn up by several green architect gurus in the Austin area, and after touring a few of the houses you can appreciate how much thought and detail has gone into the construction and design. While many of the green features are in plain sight, some of the most significant parts are behind the scenes.

Looking at the front of the house, the deep (2-foot) overhangs keep the sun from beating on the walls and windows around the house to reduce heat inside. The windows are double-paned, and stretch up on the wall higher than normal to take advantage of the shade provided by the roof overhangs. The sides of the houses are covered with limestone that is mined from local quarries, and Wilson says that all the materials are supplied by local distributors -- yet another way the company is able to keep its costs, and carbon footprint, down.

Sitting right off the front porch is a rain-collection system with a nice aesthetic touch: recycled wine barrels capture rain from the gutters, which can be used to water plants in the yard. Of course, the plants don't require much water, because they are all native to Central Texas, and primarily drought-tolerant varieties.

Below the surface of the plant soil is a combination of granite, loam and mulch to help retain moisture, and below the lawn is a 4-inch chocolate loam topsoil that acts like a sponge. Rain sensors and programmable irrigation controls make the whole watering system extremely efficient, and Wilson estimates that only one-inch of water per week is necessary to keep the lawn happy.

But where are the solar panels? Well, there are none. Since the return on investment for solar panels is still about 5-10 years, Wilson said they aren't included, but the houses are designed with conduits so they can be added in the future.

Air-Tight and Green All Over

One of the first things I noticed inside the model house had nothing at all to do with energy efficiency, but it showed the aesthetic possibilities of using sustainable materials. On the side of the entryway, the wall was covered with big chunks of bark from a Birch tree – functional wall art. Very cool.

Walking around the house, you see splashes of green almost everywhere: walls and cabinets are painted with low-VOC paint and varnishes, and Energy Star appliances, programmable thermostats, and low-flow showerheads and toilets conserve water and electricity. The biggest energy savings comes from the Icynene foam insulation that's sprayed into walls, floors and ceilings to create an air-tight environment. This allows for smaller and more efficient heating and cooling equipment, and since the foam doesn't sag or turn to dust, it's R-value (insulation properties) remains constant over time. A bonus is the foam's sound-proofing qualities, so you can just barely hear the AC running, or cars passing by on the street.

One concern with the Icynene is that it's a petroleum-based foam, and may not seem as green as other insulation products, including foams that use soy or castor oil as a base. However, all insulation types have trade-offs, and Wilson said he made his choice based on the performance, consistency and strength of Icynene. He's also somewhat skeptical of the claims made by bio-insulation products.

"The agricultural products cost more energy to produce, so when you think the food chain through, you haven’t really done anything other than add a marketing schtick by putting a cup of castor oil in your foam," Wilson says. He also noted that off-gassing of the Icynene only happens for a split second after it's applied, so there's no harmful health consequences associated with seepage.

When houses are designed and built from the ground up, builders can locate the heating, cooling, and plumbing equipment for maximum efficiency. Here, the ducts and plumbing lines primarily run up the center of the house, into a control-room closet and foam-insulated attic. The closet has a tankless, on-demand hot water heater, situated near the bathrooms and kitchen to keep plumbing lines as short as possible. And with the foam insulation, the attic was remarkably cool -- only about 10-degrees hotter than the rest of the house – and completely free of dust. Outside, the electric heat pump and AC use Puron, a refrigerant that doesn't damage the ozone.

A Healthier Environment

One part of the Green Builders' equation that's hard to quantify is the health benefits inherent in its home designs. The Icynene foam insulation all but eliminates the dust, allergens and pollutants that seep through traditional insulation such as fiberglass, so the air quality is significantly better than in most homes. Humidity can also be controlled more easily, which eliminates mold and mildew concerns. Termites, ants, and cockroaches are regular house visitors in Central Texas, but the dense foam prevents them from traveling through walls, and virtually none of the materials used in the construction of the house provide attractive food. 

Most of the Green Builders homes have garages built onto the house, but since the walls are sealed with foam, chemicals and other toxins in the air won't seep or "off-gas" into the living quarters. Vents on the side of the garage are used to let fumes escape, and introduce fresh air.

Looking ahead, some of the technologies that Wilson might include in the homes are solar and geothermal products, on a large scale. Wilson says that if he's able to put a community on a shared electrical grid, with solar or geothermal energy providing the juice, the savings could be dramatic. In this scenario, the solar technology might be embedded in shingles and walls and then electricity could be shared throughout the community, and possibly sold back to a utility company.

"You'd be off the grid, de-centralized, generating energy via the technologies out there in a concentrated way, instead of one-off systems," says Wilson.

With all the advantages that green homes offer, all at a reasonable price, one can only wonder why more home builders aren't jumping on the green bandwagon. Wilson, who spent several decades in traditional home construction, offers one explanation.

"It's hard to turn the ship around when you're in a canal, and most of these guys just aren't paying attention to the green movement," he explains. "Some even scoff at it as a trend."

Related articles:
An Insider's Secrets To Building Green
Green Building Codes Hitting Major Cities in '08
Financing Options Remove Green Building Hurdles
Harlem Builds Green Housing on a Budget
How Green Is Your City?

All photos by Christopher Jones