Turf Removal Rebates Costly Way To Save Water

Press Release, Sep 18, 2015 : As rumors of water rate increases circulate, Jurgen Gramckow, a Southern California sod grower asks, “Is it time to pay the piper for the $340 million symbolically spent on lawn removal? At $4,000 per acre-foot, turf removal is more expensive than any other water source, including seawater desalination, which costs about $2,500 per acre-foot.”

Gramckow cites a statement by Jeffery Kightlinger, General Manager of Metropolitan Water District (MDW) as evidence of symbolism over substance: “We were willing to throw a bunch of money, even if it’s not maybe the most cost-effective tool.” MWD admits its turf removal program was intended to change the public’s mindset regarding their lawns and that other conservation devices offer more bang for the buck.

The Southland Sod owner says that lawns have been unfairly scapegoated and targeted for removal mainly because they are high visibility water users. He uses facts from the Department of Water Resources to put things in perspective. Of all the water that is accounted for in the state, 48 percent goes to environmental river flows and wetlands, 42 percent goes to agriculture, and only 10 percent goes urban (home landscapes only account for 5 percent of this). Often the statistics are presented saying 80 percent goes agriculture and 20 percent goes urban, completely ignoring environmental flows as if they do not exist. While misleading, this has become the common expression of water use proportions.

“If we never watered another home or public landscape, park, sports field, or golf course in California, the state would save 9 percent of its average water consumption,” explains Dennis R. Pittenger, University of California Area Environmental Horticulturist. “This does not seem like much when one considers the essential functions and innumerable benefits that landscape plants provide to enhance the environment and quality of our lives, while making urban areas livable.”

Aside from ornamental value, turf provides a functional recreational landscape surface for people and pets. The Lawn Institute lists a number of benefits of turf for the environment and the consequences when removed in mass portions from a landscape. First, turf removal causes increased heat and pollution. Landscaping of artificial turf or gravel with succulents will create heat islands, which in turn will increase air conditioning energy costs. The cooling properties of turf are so effective that temperatures over turfed surfaces on a sunny day will be 10 - 14 degrees cooler than over soil, 30 degrees cooler than asphalt, and 45 degrees cooler than artificial turf.

Removing grass will also reduce sequestering of carbon and contribute to greenhouse gases. Less turf will also contribute to the production of more dust and particle pollution. Grasses in the United States trap an estimated 12 million tons of dust and dirt released annually into the atmosphere. Lawns also produce oxygen; 2,500 square-feet of turf supplies enough oxygen for a family of four. Finally, artificial turf is made from petroleum-based plastics which are not biodegradable eventually ending up in a landfill.

“In addition to the amenities and benefits we would lose by letting landscapes go dry, many hidden costs are associated with this strategy, and little, if anything, is ever said about them,” adds Pittenger. “Letting landscapes go dry will lead to damage and even death of plants. For trees, such damage could mean dropping branches and even tree failures, leading to significant property damage and human injury or even death; lawsuits would certainly follow. As landscapes go dry, the risk of fires would increase. In changing over landscapes to low-water using plants or to non-planted, non-irrigated areas, labor and material costs for plants, installing or retrofitting irrigation systems, and other materials could be significant. Converting lawns to artificial turf is also expensive.”

So what’s the answer?

Gramckow suggests that California reform it’s arcane laws and allow water be transferred freely among users. This would eliminate urban restrictions and allow farmers who use 80 percent of the water, to sell it for a better return than many crops provide. This was done successfully in Australia where they recently had a fifteen-year dry period so severe it was termed the Millennium Drought.