Our Encounter With Bad Weed Laws
Table of Contents
Introduction
We replaced our water-guzzling, environmentally unfriendly exotic lawn
(just outside of Austin in Williamson County) with a native plant garden. We bought
plants, rescued plants from construction sites, grew plants from seed
and planted them, planted seed directly, and planted plants given to
us by friends.
Several years afterward we received a notice from the Springwoods
Municipal Utility District (the same local entity advocating water
conservation) which enforces restrictive covenants for the Hunter's
Chase Property Owners' Association, via the MUD's contractor ECO Resources Inc., claiming
we were violating a restrictive covenant of the property regarding
maintenance ("mowing needed"). We had worried that something
similar would eventually happen, so we were already partially prepared
with information and books. Without hesitation, we decided to
fight the notice and keep our garden.
After many phone calls, letters, inspections, and a unpleasant board
meeting, we were finally found not in violation of the restrictive
covenants.
The following information contains copies or summaries of most actions
and communications related to the exchange. We hope this
information will help others dealing with similar situations in the
future.
The Violation Notice
We received a letter on 2002-8-7 from Springwoods Municipal Utility
District claiming we are in violation of the restrictive covenants upon
our property.
Actions and
Request for Advice and Help
Since we suspect some confusion occurred, we added several features to
the property to make it more obviously a garden. We added two
paths of limestone stepping stones surrounded by decomposed granite
sand. We added a copper birdbath and additional hardscape in
the form of limestone rocks. We added two trellises for vines
and an arbor for the honeysuckle. We added a Mexican pot with
dried Twist-leaf Yucca stalks to the porch. We moved our Texas
Parks and Wildlife Wildscape sign and National Wildlife Federation
Backyard Wildlife Habitat sign forward to make them more visible.
We also added identification labels to individual plants near
the sidewalk.
Pictures of the garden before and after these additions can be viewed
on our Garden page.
We also requested
advice and help on the Native Plant
Society of Texas (NPSOT)/Native Prairie Association of Texas (NPAT)
mailing list. The message can also be viewed here.
Advice From Others
We received many responses and lots of advice from our request for
help to the NPSOT-NPAT mailing list. The most common themes of
the
advice were to communicate with the officials via phone and letter and
explain the garden, prepare plant lists to show no noxious weeds exist,
made sure the garden meets all applicable rules and laws, and to ask
for help from local organizations and groups interested in the matter.
A summary of the advice can be found here.
Early Communication with the MUD
We called ECO Resources Inc., the company that administers Springwoods
MUD, as soon as we received the violation notice. We explained
our
property was a garden (rather than a lawn), and that there were no
weeds
and nothing to mow in the garden. Robin Sussman of ECO Resources
Inc., the Restrictive Covenants Assistant, said she had inspected the
neighborhood and thought the garden looked "too tall". She said
she would reinspect the property in the near future and contact us.
In the middle of August we sent a packet of information via certified
mail to the MUD and ECO Resources Inc. The package included a
letter explaining our garden and why we were not in violation of the
covenant, recent additions we made to the garden, and what we would
like
to see done (receive a letter saying we are not in violation).
The
package also included copies of letters of support from organizations
and individuals concerning this matter, a list of benefits of our
garden, a list of references cited and used when creating the garden,
copies of Wildlife Habitat letters and certificates, and an extensive
plant list (organized by family, genus, and species).
Over the next few weeks several professionals (involved in landscaping,
native plants, and wildlife) and a NPSOT official wrote letters of
support to the MUD and ECO Resources Inc.
The complete contents of the package can be found here.
Update 2002/9/29
On 2002/9/29 we posted an update
of the situation on the Native Plant
Society of Texas (NPSOT)/Native Prairie Association of Texas (NPAT)
mailing list. The message can also be viewed here.
Summary: After we made many phone calls that resulted in no answers,
Robin Sussman of ECO Resources Inc. told us that our property passed
the second inspection but the situation was now a "larger issue" due to
the letters of support for our garden the MUD had received. She
put us in touch with the MUD's attorney, Greg Krumme, who told us the
MUD board would take the issue up at the next board meeting. Greg
also said the board asked their landscape consultant, Richard Fadal of
Texascapes, to visit our property and give his opinion to the board.
We said we would attend the board meeting and present our case,
and that we would like to be present for Richard's visit to answer any
questions.
Update 2002/10/10 and Resolution
On 2002/10/10 we posted another
update of the situation and the resolution on the Native Plant
Society of Texas (NPSOT)/Native Prairie Association of Texas (NPAT)
mailing list. The message can also be viewed here.
Summary: The board's landscape consultant, Richard Fadal of Texascapes,
visited our property, complimented us on the garden, and at the MUD
board meeting told the directors our landscape was a valid Xeriscape
and
native plant garden. At the MUD board meeting, we presented the
garden information and pictures to the directors. They complained
about and criticized our garden for a while, and we reminded them
repeatedly that the restrictive covenants only require that vegetation
on the property be cultivated, pruned, and free of trash and unsightly
material and that our property met those requirements. At the end
the board ruled that the property was not in violation of the
restrictive covenants.
The Article: "Defending Your Landscape
Against Bad Weed Laws"
The Native Plant Society of Texas
asked Lisa and I to write an article for the statewide newsletter
"NPSOT
News" summarizing the situation and the advice given to us on the NPSOT-NPAT mailing
list. An HTML copy of the article can be found here.
Update 2002/11/3: Story Request for a
Sociology Paper
Susan Burke, a socialologist and visiting professor at Texas Woman's University, emailed us
and asked permission to use our story to write a paper about our
situation. She plans to present her paper, tentatively titled
"Unspoken Elements In Lawn Laws: Social Control Of Conformance In
Neighborhoods", at the
Southwestern Social Science Association's annual meeting during
April 2003 in San Antonio.
Update 2003/1/10: Some Closure
On 2003/1/10 (five months after this whole situation began) we finally
received a copy of the Springwoods MUD Board October meeting minutes.
The meeting minutes are the only written confirmation we received
that our landspace was found not in violation of the restrictive
covenants. The relevant excerpts from the meeting agenda and
minutes follow:
[Comments: We received only one violation letter. It also looks
like the secretary thinks the ruling only applies to the front yard and
not the whole landscape.]
"6. Receive a report from the District's attorney and discuss and
consider taking necessary action related thereto, including (i)
violation at 8521 Foxhound Trail and (ii) approving legal action
regarding restrictive covenant enforcement;"
"Jason Spangler, a resident of the District addressed the Board
regarding the yard maintenance violation letters he had received for
his
home on Foxhound Trail. Mr. Spangler noted that he had letters
that had been submitted to the district from various officials at,
among
other things, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the Lady Bird
Johnson Wildflower Center noting that his entire front yard was
appropriately landscaped with xeriscaping methods. The board
discussed the landscaping with Mr. Spangler and expressed concern that
it lacked any turf areas and did not seem to fit in the general scheme
of the neighborhood. Mr. Fadal stated that he had reviewed the
landscaping and noted that it illustrated typical xeriscaping methods.
Director Weems noted that that was probably true but suggested
that they are more appropriate for backyard landscaping. After
discussion, the Board made the determination that Mr. Spangler's
xeriscaped landscaping in the front yard of the home is not a violation
of the restrictive covenants."
Update 2003/4/1: "In Defence of
Native Plant Gardens"
Irene Fedun of the North American Native Plant Society adapted our
"Defending Your Landscape Against Bad Weed Laws" article for the Sping
2003 issue of the Blazing Star, the newsletter of the North American Native Plant
Society.
Update 2003/4/4: Backyard Wildlife
Habitat web site reprint
Lori Liddick of the National Wildlife
Federation reprinted our "Defending Your Landscape Against Bad Weed
Laws" article on the NWF Backyard
Wildlife Habitat web site.
Update 2004: Christian Science Monitor,
Austin-American Statesman, Yard of the Month
The following occurred in 2004:
- The Christian Science Monitor
newspaper included our garden and story in an article about native
plants, environmentalism, and natural landscaping.
- The Williamson County edition of the Austin-American Statesman
included our garden and story in an article about native plants,
environmentalism, and natural landscaping.
- The Hunter's Chase Homeowners Association awarded our garden with
Yard of The Month. (Very ironic!) An article Lisa wrote
about landscaping with native plants was published in the association's
newsletter.
Jason M. Spangler,
jasons@wumple.com
