Ringside: Save Our Lawns, Reform AB 1572

Californians are within months, if not weeks, of getting what could be the most thorough statewide drenching in decades, as a “super” El Nino grows in the Pacific. Expect hundreds (plural) of millions of acre feet of water to dump onto watersheds across the state this winter, as California experiences its fifth year in a row with above average rainfall.

There’s no water shortage in California. There never was. The solution to water scarcity is, and has always been, figuring out how to save enough water during wet winters to still easily supply all our needs during droughts. And even in drought years, around 100 million acre feet falls onto the state.

This is why, in a state where precipitation whipsaws between years with ridiculous over-abundance and years where there is barely enough, the worst possible strategy is to invest in lowering demand, instead of investing in increasing supply. But that’s exactly what California’s state legislature is doing.

The latest example of this arrives on January 1, when AB 1572 begins to take effect. Rolling out over three years, by 2029 it will be illegal to use potable water to irrigate “nonfunctional” grass on commercial, institutional, and industrial properties.

This is not an inexpensive investment in lowering demand. In a bid to “get ahead of the rules,” the City of Morgan Hill removed 4,400 square feet of grass and replaced it with native plants. The work cost $32,000, to landscape one-tenth of one acre.

This was an expensive investment, but one that is likely to be repeated in cash-strapped municipalities all over the state. In the state’s official “Water Supply Strategy” document released in 2022, the following cost estimate is made: “The State will partner with local agencies to convert 500 million square feet of ornamental turf by 2030, with corresponding investments in programs and policies that incentivize turf conversion. Removal of 500 million square feet of turf could generate 66,000 acre-feet of water savings each year at an estimated cost of $1 billion.”

Under what set of credible assumptions is this accurate? 500 million square feet is 11,478 acres, which means this document assumes 5.7 acre feet of annual irrigation per acre of lawn. That figure appears frequently in official anti-lawn literature, but it represents an extreme case and has no credibility. Modern desert-optimized hybrid grass can thrive on half as much water. There are also varieties of grass that can survive during droughts on as little as 7 inches of water per year, barely more than one-half an acre foot, then easily revive after the drought is over.

Moreover, even if you accept the 5.7 acre foot per year estimate for watering one acre of grass, you still have to take into account the water requirements of the native plants. Will they require no irrigation? And what will their maintenance requirements be compared to simply irrigating and mowing lawns?

Another casualty of eliminating “non-functional” turf is that it also helps sustain large trees. If the lawns die, trees will die, which is not only an aesthetic tragedy, but a costly cleanup. If these rules take full effect, thousands of beautiful groves of urban redwoods will die. Expect them to be replaced by “approved” varieties, such as the overplanted, boring, messy Chinese pistache, and the equally ubiquitous, droopy, and slow growing deodar cedar.

The economics of replacing lawn with landscaping are not favorable. Spending a billion dollars to convert 500 million square feet is $2 per square foot. Don’t believe it. The landscaping job in Morgan Hill cost $7 per square foot. Meanwhile, drought tolerant “TifTuf Bermuda” sells for $1.05 per square foot, and that’s not unusual. A commercial nursery in the expensive San Francisco Bay Area is selling grass at prices as low as $0.84 per square foot.

If property owners and property managers can keep their “non-functional” turf alive while using far less water, why doesn’t AB 1572 provide for that?

The sad truth is many commercial property owners, already beleaguered with regulations that have brought their operations to the brink of financial ruin, are going to comply with AB 1572 by just letting everything die. Others will install the cheapest fake grass they can find. And that will be a disaster.

There are few examples of a misanthropic mistake that should never have been invented, masquerading as a virtuous answer to the climate emergency, than artificial turf. A hairy green rug that sort of looks like grass, sold as a low maintenance, aesthetically superior alternative to grass.

Except that it isn’t. On hot days this “grass” can hit 150 degrees. It continuously sheds microplastics, and at the end of its short lifespan, it ends up in a landfill.

We need more natural lawn in California, not less. Lawn and trees are life. They cool our urban heat islands, which improves our quality of life and saves energy. They are low maintenance, and they can thrive without chemical fertilizers and herbicides. And they are beautiful. Expansive lawns; groves of redwoods. How transgressive, yet how lovely. Save them. The urban environment is by definition artificial. Fill it with life.

Structural excess in good times is life-saving resilience when times are not so good. We invest in scarcity at our peril..