California Considers Permanent Ban on Nonfunctional Turf to Combat Water Crisis
Amidst an ongoing water crisis, California is contemplating a permanent ban on nonfunctional turf in an effort to conserve water. The State Water Resources Control Board recently issued an emergency order, prohibiting the use of drinkable water to irrigate grass that serves no purpose other than aesthetics. While this regulation doesn’t affect residential lawns, commercial, industrial, and institutional sites with purely ornamental lawns would be subject to the ban.
The move to ban nonfunctional turf follows in the footsteps of Las Vegas, which implemented a similar ban in 2021. The ban in Nevada, the only one of its kind in the nation, requires the removal of nonfunctional turf. Californian lawmakers believe it’s time for their state to adopt the same measure. However, it’s essential to understand that this ban solely applies to grass that is not utilized or walked upon, excluding playing fields, parks, schools, and other recreational areas. Homeowners are also not mandated to remove their lawns, though local restrictions on sprinkler use may still apply.
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California estimates that approximately 23% of the 218,000 acres of turf in its service area is nonfunctional. This nonfunctional turf consumes a substantial amount of water, roughly totaling nearly 98 billion gallons per year. By imposing a permanent ban on nonfunctional turf, the state could conserve a significant amount of water, equivalent to fulfilling the annual needs of around 900,000 households.
Assemblymember Laura Friedman (D-Burbank) is sponsoring Assembly Bill 1572, alongside the Natural Resources Defense Council and Heal the Bay. This bill has garnered support from the Metropolitan Water District, as well as environmental groups. It aims to enforce a permanent ban on nonfunctional turf and promote the restoration of native California plants to enhance biodiversity and support endangered wildlife.
Limiting the use of water on nonfunctional turf is critical, especially as California, Nevada, and Arizona negotiate their shares of the Colorado River. These states must demonstrate responsible water management to ensure sustainable allocation. AB 1572 will be implemented progressively from 2026 onwards, allowing property owners and landscapers ample time for adjustment.
Critics argue that curbing urban water consumption alone will not solve the water supply problem. They emphasize that addressing wasteful agricultural practices, such as growing water-intensive crops like alfalfa in arid regions for export, is equally important. While this critique holds merit, restricting the use of nonfunctional turf in urban areas can lay the groundwork for tackling inefficient agricultural practices in the future. Transitioning away from lawns that offer no practical benefits and consume an excessive amount of water could contribute significantly to water conservation efforts.
Opponents of the ban often mention the cooling effect of irrigated lawns in urban environments, which combat the heat island effect. However, this can be achieved through the cultivation of vegetation that requires less water and doesn’t rely on continuous irrigation. Sprinkler-fed expansive lawns might evoke imagery of traditional English estates, but California’s arid climate necessitates more sustainable practices based on local environmental conditions and water availability.
California boasts one of the highest rates of species at risk of extinction in the United States. Restoring native ecosystems by replacing nonfunctional turf with native plants can provide refuge and support for endangered wildlife. This move aligns with efforts to combat biodiversity loss in the face of escalating aridity.
As California, Nevada, and Arizona vie for their shares of the Colorado River, every drop of water counts. Reducing water usage on nonfunctional turf is an essential step in securing the future water supply of these states. By progressively implementing the ban, California aims to encourage responsible water consumption without causing undue inconvenience to property owners.
While critics rightly argue that more substantial water savings can be achieved by addressing wasteful agricultural practices, eliminating nonfunctional turf should not be disregarded. It demonstrates the state’s commitment to intelligent water management and sets the stage for future discussions on agricultural water usage.
By reevaluating water consumption practices and embracing more sustainable alternatives, California can adapt to its increasingly arid climate without compromising its status as a paradise. The transition away from excessive nonfunctional turf can provide environmental and economic benefits, ultimately contributing to the long-term well-being of the state and its residents.
