Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br />, <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />1993 Data Report <br />LaSalle Water Conservation Grant <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />SUMMARY: <br />In our opinion the water conservation study indicated a considerable water <br />savings using Wildflowers over Bluegrass and even more savings using Fescue sod over <br />either Bluegrass or Wildflowers, <br /> <br />Using LaSalles' water rate schedule, the use of Fescue sod saved $38.42 each <br />watering season when compared to Bluegrass, and $34,00 when compared with the <br />Wildflowers, Both species look very nice. <br /> <br />The Wildflowers saved $11.62 when compared to the Bluegrass however, the <br />combined problems we experienced while trying to maintain them made the Wildflower <br />idea less attractive. <br /> <br />The far east portion of the park that existed prior to this study and is Kentucky <br />Bluegrasss required 4,040,600 gallons of water to maintain, If this had been a Fescue <br />sod we could possibly have saved 767,714 gallons of water over the past growing <br />season, which would have been a cost savings of $1,328,14, <br /> <br />The study areas we used to gather this data are approximately the same size as <br />the average outside yard area for an average middle class resident. Therefore, the <br />savings we obtained could relate directly to the average homeowner - a $38.42 per year <br />savings. Or this could be calculated at approximately a six cent (,06) savings per <br />square yard per season, <br /> <br />In conclusion, the Fescue sod was by far the best of the three (3) species, <br />