What
are the pros and cons of turf replacement programs? It’s an important question. After all, a majority of water use (and
a good portion of water waste) happens outside. As a result, modifying traditional
landscaping to reduce demand has become a major conservation tactic for
communities throughout the country.
As
a discussed in a previous blog, Las Vegas has a very successful turf replacement
program that has spawned imitations in other water-starved portions of the
US. Under the program, SNWA
pays property owners $1.50 per square foot for grass removed and replaced with a
water-efficient landscape, including artificial turf. According to its Web
site, SNWA estimates that by replacing thirsty lawns with “water-smart”
alternatives, the average property owner can save thousands of gallons per
year.
I
recently came face to face with a commercial landscape setting that utilized
artificial turf. I’d been on the
road for about a week, spending
five consecutive days inside planes and cars, in hotel rooms and conference
halls. Desperate for sunlight and
fresh air, I eventually braved the heat and wind of Las Vegas to spend some
downtime at the hotel pool. From the inside it beckoned, a glittering
oasis of cool blue water and bright green grass, grass so green in fact, that it
fairly glistened in the afternoon sun.
That
should have been my first tip off…. when does grass ever sparkle? One
sorely disappointed bare foot later, I had my answer:
Astroturf.
I
can’t blame the hotel for using fake grass to spruce up its pool area, but it
made me wonder about other
alternatives to artificial turf: including xeriscaping and specially designed,
drought-resistant grass. The latter in particular is a good fit for those
of us who loath to give up on that patch of green. Many people feel
strongly about their lawns, and, while I wholeheartedly agree that grass is
lovely, at some point it’s worth asking whether by letting this affection run
wild, we’ve wandered over into the realm of the ridiculous. On the other
hand, I must admit that at the moment I am one of those artificial turf users
- I’ve got about 20 square feet
laid out on a rooftop patio at home -
and it’s a nice alternative to the tar and gravel surface it sits upon.
one of the most attractive features
of artificial turf is that it stays green year-round with no irrigation
needed.
So
what is the solution? On the one hand, there is no denying that replacing
real grass with artificial turf can save thousand of gallons of water … but at
what price? What about the carbon-footprint implications involved in
exchanging a natural, sustainable living surface for an artificial,
petroleum based product. What about
Astroturf's effect on stormwater runoff?
And, as one of our readers recently asked, “What's wrong with accepting
the landscape and appreciating it for what it is, whether that is dry or
lush?”