From the outbox of Meyer’s inbox:

Wasn’t quite sure whether to file this under the “Brown Before Green” section or “Economy.” Realizing how silly it is, naturally it belongs in politics. Seems like a young couple with a kid was trying to do their bit for conserving water and it landed them in hot water. (See what I did there with the “water?”). Imagine working hard for your dream home and then being told what you should put in your front lawn. Of course this begs the question what do you have in your front yard and would you get sued for it? Can’t wait to hear the answers and see the pictures!

ORANGE OFFICIALS SUE COUPLE WHO REMOVED THEIR LAWN by Amina Kahn writing for the Los Angeles Times

City codes require that live landscaping cover 40% of the yard. Quan and Angelina Ha say their water use has dropped 80% since they replaced the grass with wood chips and drought-tolerant plants.

Some Southern California cities fine residents for watering their lawns too much during droughts. But in Orange, officials are locked in a legal battle with a couple accused of violating city ordinances for removing their lawn in an attempt to save water.

The dispute began two years ago, when Quan and Angelina Ha tore out the grass in their frontyard. In drought-plagued Southern California, the couple said, the lush grass had been soaking up tens of thousands of gallons of water — and hundreds of dollars — each year.

They said they were trying to do something good for the environment. “We’ve got a newborn, so we want to start worrying about her future,” said Quan Ha, an information technology manager for Kelley Blue Book.

But city officials told the Has they were violating several city laws that require residents to cover significant portions of their frontyards with live ground cover. On Tuesday, the couple is scheduled to appear in Orange County Superior Court to challenge the city’s lawsuit against them. Read More...

From the outbox of Meyer’s inbox:

One rallying cry that voters often get behind is to “change the way politics are done.” That’s sort of like shoveling out your snow covered driveway with spoon. Baby steps. Over in Hawaii, they been cutting government waste by eliminating the flurry of paper generated by lawmakers and lobbyists. This has resulted in over a million bucks to that went right back into the state’s budget gaps. Imagine if Washington can get in on this “change.”

HAWAII SENTATE SAYS CUTTING BACK ON PAPER HAS SAVED type="promotepost" postid="14824".2 MILLION

HONOLULU (AP) — Looking to cut government waste, the Hawaii Senate decided two years ago to take aim at a target that was all over the Capitol: paper.

The Senate’s 25 members wanted to slash what they said was pointless paperwork by eliminating the use of millions of sheets of paper that usually ended up crowding lawmakers’ desks or being thrown into waste baskets.

They also sought to reduce the use of the heavy-duty copy machines that kept the briefcases of legislative aides, as well as lobbyists, stuffed at taxpayer expense. The Senate recently reported a two-year savings of more than type="promotepost" postid="14824".2 million — nearly eight million pages, or the equivalent of over 800 trees.

“Doing it this way was so different and daunting at first,” said the Senate clerk, Carol Taniguchi. “Now it really seems to be a way of life.”

Before the project, paper was king at the Capitol, as it is in many legislatures nationwide. Each piece of written testimony from the public was copied countless times and distributed to legislators, who often took a quick look at the documents before tossing them into the recycling bin. Tall stacks of multicolored bills dwarfed lawmakers trying to cast votes in the waning hours of each year’s session.

Senate staff members spent hours collating documents by hand and sorting them into folders. “It was brutal. Sometimes it was hot and you’d be sweating,” said Kamakana Kaimuloa, a clerk for the Senate Committee on Higher Education. “It wasn’t fun.”

That was all put to an end when Senate leadership issued an order: no more paper unless absolutely necessary. The public would be given documents on CDs instead of on paper. Bills, testimony and committee reports were put online. The Senate bought laptops, document-reading software licenses and wireless Internet, at a cost of 0,000. Employees told legislators and the public alike that they would have to use their own printers if they wanted paper copies.

You can read the rest of the New York Times article here.