With 20% of energy use in California going to water transport and securing water resources while farm water acquisition and energy subsidies for the same are taken from the collective fund, your lawn becomes my problem. Otherwise, it would be none of my business.

If people are against city controls on water resource use, they should also be against farm subsidies, against energy subsidies, and for an even more consumption based fee structure for use of water and energy resources. Profligacy on the public dime seems to be bringing this state and this country down.

I would like to correct the impression that our city staff has "backed off" the turf limit; in fact, calculating a water budget has always been an option the turf limit.

While well intentioned, this new regulation was unnecessary. As pointed out, residential water usage is dwarfed by agricultural usage.

The more serious problem now is paying for staff time. It must be limited at every opportunity. Enforcing a mostly symbolic ordinance like lawn area restrictions could get expensive.

The new recommendations are a reasonable compromise that will remind us not to waste water.

[I'm taking the immigration comments offline, so posters can get back to the topic of what Menlo Park should do with regard to landscape regulations to conserve water. > Editor]

A water budget makes more sense. The city is required to pass something or have the state rules prevail.

[I'm taking the immigration comments offline, so posters can get back to the topic of what Menlo Park should do with regard to landscape regulations to conserve water. > Editor]

[I'm taking the immigration comments offline, so posters can get back to the topic of what Menlo Park should do with regard to landscape regulations to conserve water. > Editor]