Ok, Kristi, I'll take your challenge, but only because I love you. Our water districts are now the model for what should have been done in Georgia years ago (and was done here years ago.) When Georgia faced a really catastrophic drought, their governor suggested everyone pray for rain (I'm not kidding) and sued Florida. And hundreds of businesses went out of business because they had to suddenly and drastically restrict water. They had to do that because they hadn't been managing their water at all and suddenly, they were facing a drinking water shortage, something we'll never face here, because we have water management. Water management isn't perfect, and is often really imperfect _ like when they give away water to the bottlers. But we also let farmers use whatever water they have on their properties. You have to decide what property rights you want to protect. If we could trust everyone to only water their lawns as much as their lawns actually needed, maybe we wouldn't need water management. But the sad truth is, most people will water every day, in the middle of the day, and then overfertlize, to compensate for all the nutrients they are washing into the street each day. And that wastes water and washes pollutants into our waterways. So restrictions protect us from the stupid people. Laws against drunk driving and planting Brazilian peppers do the same. And the sad-sack reality is, if we want the stupid people to get with the program, we, the so-called enlightened ones, have to accept some restrictions. I think we are headed to water management in the style of the midwest states, and we need to beware of that. They sell water rights there, fight extended lawsuits over who stole what water upriver, and generally build lots of acrimony. Instead, I hope we can learn to use our water better. And the learning curve is steep. South Florida residents use more water per capita than anyone else in the state _ west Broward is the worst waster statewide _ and that is largely because we irrigate our lawns too much and stupidly. I know you're not doing that, Kristi, but lots of people are. I walk the dogs, at 5 p.m., before it's even close to dark out, and we have to detour to avoid sprinklers watering sidewalks. Come on! Those homeowners shouldn't be watering sidewalks, and they shouldn't be watering at 5 p.m. when it doesn't get dark before 8. As for water savings, I'm proud of my brown crunchy yard. It's what it's supposed to be this time of year. I have rain barrels and we ration flushes, and the dirty dogs' water certainly goes on plants. But I'm sure I wash too much water down the drain. At least I'm not drawing extra to maintain a "green" lawn that is anything but truly green.

Our house is in the planning phases. I have my idea/inspiration binder and wish list, and have just started to interview architects. Are you building smaller to compensate? Yes, 2500 sq ft (max), which is small in my area for a nicer home. It is for me, DH and 3 active boys. Current house is a 3100 sq ft walk out ranch, but I'd say 90% of our time is spent on the main level which is maybe 1750 sq ft. So one could argue that we're not building smaller. This will be all on one level except for an "away" or reading loft above the main living area. Are you building with high-efficiency materials (ICFs? SIPs? Other super-insulation techniques)? Yes, depending on what can be delivered on our budget. Looking for the most bang for the buck. ICF or SIPs, geothermal heat/cool, passive solar features, concrete floors, highly insulated windows are all on our wish list. Also the ability to add features later like a wind turbine are important if they eventually would have a reasonable ROI. Want to reuse/repurpose and minimize construction waste whenever possible. Are you building closer to jobs than you otherwise might have, to reduce commuting distances? We are moving to 5 acres just outside of town. It reduces my husband's commute by 5 mins and adds 6 mins to mine. It would be a wash except it adds about 5 minutes to the time it takes to get to the grocery store and to any other in-town errands. I know one family living on five acres conspicuously contributing to suburban sprawl is not green. But there were houses already built (long ago) on either side of our parcel, and the land was not being farmed or anything before we bought it. It's been sitting there waiting for someone to build on it for years (previous owners held onto it but never built) -- so if we don't someone else will. How's that for rationalization! If you are doing any of the things I mentioned, or more / other (and please elaborate!), are you aware of so-called "Peak Oil"? Or are you doing it simply as a good investment (spend money now in the build, to reduce recurring costs)? Never heard of peak oil. We are doing this because it's the right thing to do, and certainly energy costs are not going down. Basically I don't feel a need to heat and cool space that is rarely used. We live a very informal life.

Happy new year! I would normally have replied much sooner, but everything has been so busy with Christmas, then new year and all the rest. Anyway, I have to agree that conservation is by far the best thing we can do right now, and I believe that it will allways be useful as almost all energy comes with a penalty. Both environmental and financial. I've been thinking about conservation quite a bit recently as I'm trying to get a rough idea how much it would cost to build an affordable house (you might have seen my posts about it?) and I want it to be economical to live in. This is partly an environmental concern, but also because it would be misguided to build an affordable house that isn't also affordable to live in. The majority of most anyone's wages go towards their house, so if I can build a house that uses minimal energy I can spend the money in other more enjoyable ways. I can also design it in such a way it comes in to the lowest possible tax category, but that's beyond the scope of this forum. One of the things that surprises me is when I say I want to build a low energy house that uses renewable energy, people tend to picture something very expensive and custom built. When I researched it I found that commonly they're high end houses built for wealthy customers who were willing to spend a lot of money to have luxury items, like solar PV panels and houses built half underground. I don't however see why houses that use very little energy have to be reserved for wealthy people building custom houses, after all one of the main attractions of a low energy house is the very small monthly bills. A low energy house design/concept that comes within (preferably below) average house prices is long overdue, and also has a massive market potential. Admittedly domestic energy use is a fraction of that used by industrial processes, and also accounts for a similarly small percentage of pollution, but I know nothing about industrial processes and (thankfully) don't pay the bills for them either. At least not directly. I do however know something about houses and how I believe they could work better. My main aim is to build it smaller, but use the space in such a way it's relatively spacious with plenty of storage. I also want to exchange traditional and generally energy wasting and expensive materials for newer materials that cost less. Insulation, and lots of it, is important. I also want high quality finishing materials, but avoiding ornate details and using a more minimalist style should keep the costs reasonable. The other main issue is using the most energy efficient appliances possible, and also installing some renewable stuff like solar hot water heating. At least in concept it seems to work, and hopefully one day I will be able to try it out.

Well, the price for the shell is great and they look durable. Aesthetically you could do better than they did in those promotional pictures. The built in garages were a poor choice, but the fourth house photo was quite nice really. It's all about presentation. My main two concerns are that it's not thermally insulated, which would prove extra expense and trouble to install, and also that while it builds a good priced shell much of the cost of a building is in the finishing. How favourably the final price and insulation levels will compare against SIPs, for example, is difficult to determine. The SIPs should go together easily as well, and both will require the same amount of plasterboard for finishing the inside. The SIPs however have excellent thermal properties that reduce the energy useage for the entire life time of the building, they also don't require insulation to be added and some come with built-in wiring conduits. Unfortunately SIPs will require more external finishing as you'll have to buy some kind of siding. I'll probably install plain T&G cedar as the price is good and it looks nice, but you can do anything you want really, including aluminium/steel if woodpecker damage is a concern. I admit I don't have any extensive research or figures, but I have a feeling the end price may not be much different between the two. SIPs may even prove cheaper in the long term through energy savings.