The idea that the whole park is a dank frost pocket into which plants which would thrive just about anywhere else in town are stuck and fail because the site is atypical is patently false. Much of the Seattle arboretum consists of two major sections, an upper area with deep, sandy soil and warm aspects (when native trees are cleared) and lower portion with poorer air and soil drainage. And with 200 acres involved, there is a variety of specific situations within this general pattern. At least a few quite astute plantspersons have been involved with building up the collections there in the past. The original taxonomic layout was abandoned in favor of placing particular plants where they would seem most likely to live a pretty long time ago. Being large and partly wooded (now) the site provides superior growing opportunities for plants liking woodland conditions that are rarely possible to duplicate elsewhere in town--at least on the same scale. The arboretum has the best large-growing, precocious blooming (flowering before the leaves) Asiatic magnolias for instance, even the English Botanical Garden in the mild Ballard neighborhood is mostly too small and exposed to grow and display these nearly as effectively (if they tried one up at the top, inside that amphitheature of trees that might work out).

Roy, I've read and reread your post and I am at a total loss to work out what you are telling me? When I said "Stopped caring", I was refering to getting up tight and militant about the issue. I've given what I hope is a logical and reasoned approach to sizing water tanks, with my justification. Practical experience suggests that the long term averages are too high for tank sizing at the moment, but I still hold that if each household installed the tank size I suggest then we wouldn't be in the pickle we are in. As a result I feel that if I have done that much, then I should not feel guilty using water the way I do. I do not believe that having each house fully self-sufficient for water is economical or desirable from an environmental perspective, as significant resources are used to make the tanks, to make the pipes and plumb everything in. There is always a diminising return on effort expended so you should think carefully about exactly what your goal is, and optimise for that. In my case I felt that we should be looking at the cost per L of water available each year. When I wrote that page it seemed reasonable to assume that there would be enough water in storage to tide over drought periods. Of course, as I was the only (near enough) person to think this way, our water supply has dwindled to the point where that assumption is no longer true. As a result, I am punished (reduce opportunity) for my efforts at water conservation; hence my disinterest in further efforts. Frank, regarding towns having higher rainfalls than the catchments; I think you are probably right. There is strong evidence that cities strongly affect local climate to the extent that standard weather models have to take them into account. If you can reasonably quickly fill that tank, and you have room, then go for it! Regarding PRV idea, it was suggested in ReNew a while back and had the blessing of at least one council in Brisbane, so there is precedent. I do collect all the water I can, despite living in a rental proprety.

Not a Tasmanian Waratah (Telopea truncata) which has red flowers in a round inflorescence 1.5 to 2.5" in diameter. I do agree that it was probably a Protea (Waratah) of some sort...turns out it is a White Waratah (Agastachys odorata). Here is a link that might be useful: White Waratah

Another thing about 'Inca Flame' is it starts blooming in April. So if you have both it and the presumed var. lanceolatum that dominates local plantings on the same site you get an extended season. Before we discussed it a friend thought a plant that looked to be 'Inca Flame' to me planted along the main drag through Vashon Island was a Telopea truncata because of the tendency for the flowers to be in spaced out tufts. Saturday I drove past this example after not having been on the island for a time and it had died half way back at some point, but was growing up again. I am not sure this damage was due to low temperatures as I don't know when that would have been. The one here has never died back, just had the leaves get singed maybe once or twice. Seeds of my plant proved to be more productive than var. lanceolatum in a nursery setting, with the seedlings coming up like cress. And with foliage true-to-type. Sat. I was shown a young fire-tree being grown on the former nursery site - which based on its foliage must have been from the seed of my 'Inca Flame' - that was producing leaves the size of something like Magnolia virginiana var. australis. The 2014 edition of The Hillier Manual of Trees & Shrubs (Royal Horticultural Society) calls them Lanceolatum Group and Longifolium Group. This implies that they are thought to be cultivated entities rather than consistent components of the wild populations (var. is a botanical term used for wild plants). When multiple different versions of what is otherwise the same cultivar are known to exist then the term Group is used to account for this. The Manual has this breakdown: E. coccineum: Leaves semi-evergreen, flowers profuse, brilliant orange-scarlet, rarely yellow Lanceolatum Group: Leaves less evergreen, linear-lanceolate, plant "perfectly hardy" 'Inca Flame': Flowers flame-red* 'Norquinco': Flower clusters touching, making entire branch scarlet Longifolium Group: Leaves longer, somewhat broader, usually evergreen *I've never noticed this difference, but perhaps the material that was dispersed here under the name was not clonal