Colorado lawmakers are once again pursuing a new law that would save water by limiting the installation of nonnative ornamental turf as drought and climate change sap water supplies.
But some critics question whether the state is taking on turf too aggressively.
House Bill 1113 would ban the use of artificial grass and nonnative turf — like Kentucky bluegrass — for decorative purposes in new apartment and condo complexes after Jan. 1. It would also require local governments to set new rules by 2028 that could limit the use of turf for all residential properties.
The bill passed Thursday out of the House Agriculture, Water and Natural Resources Committee on a 9-3 vote, despite pushback from local governments and even some water conservation advocates.
Turf that is not designed or hybridized to thrive in arid conditions like Colorado’s mountains and high plains can need twice as much water in the summer as nature here naturally provides, said bill sponsor Rep. Karen McCormick, a Boulder Democrat. Though municipal water use makes up only 7% of Colorado’s annual average use, nearly half of water used in cities and towns goes to watering lawns — most of which are planted with nonnative turf, experts have said.
“High-water use turf grass like Kentucky bluegrass belongs in Kentucky,” McCormick said.
The ban on nonnative turf and artificial grass would not apply to the lawns of single-family homes or spaces where it serves a purpose, like a park or a sports field.
HB-1113 builds on two laws enacted over the last three years that also restricted the use of the thirsty grasses — prompting some to ask if the state is creating too many rules too quickly.
Lawmakers last year banned the installation of nonfunctional turf, invasive plants and artificial turf on most commercial, industrial and state government property. In 2022, lawmakers passed a “cash for grass” bill that gave money to local governments and nonprofits to pay people to voluntarily replace nonnative turf with water-efficient landscaping.
“I can see your end goals, but why are we doing this so fast before the systems can catch up to what we’re doing as a state?” said Rep. Dusty Johnson, a Republican representing the Eastern Plains, during Thursday’s committee hearing.
Moving quickly is important, bill sponsors said, because the issue of water scarcity is urgent, especially as the state’s population grows.
“We have to be smarter about how we develop going forward,” McCormick said. “The pressures on our water here in Colorado are tremendous, and it’s not getting better. The urgency is really there.”
County leaders from across the state represented by Colorado Counties Inc. are concerned about the bill. Local governments may not have the capacity to create, police and enforce landscaping bans as required by the bill, said Reagan Shane, the legislative and policy advocate for the association.
The leader of the state’s top water conservation body also wants more time for local governments to implement the rules from previous legislation before adding new ones. Colorado Water Conservation Board director Lauren Ris said her agency agrees with the intent of the bill, but it needs more clarity and a longer timeframe for implementation.
Companies selling artificial and nonnative turf opposed the bill at its hearing.
“We’ve lost a lot of sleep as an artificial turf community because we see our services as a way to water conservation,” said Nick Perea, owner of the artificial grass company SYNLawn Colorado.
Supporters who testified Thursday said the bill is a necessary step to use less water as climate change and ongoing drought sap the state’s supplies.
“Limiting high-water-use nonfunctional turf in new residential development is a logical next step forward to improve our state’s drought resilience,” said Chelsea Benjamin, water supply policy advisor at Western Resource Advocates.
Putting limits on the installation of new nonnative ornamental turf also makes sense because the state is paying others to replace that turf elsewhere, said Tony Massaro of Business for Water Stewardship.
“We believe it is fiscally prudent to reduce the installation of turf that we are paying to replace,” he said. “We must use water for the highest and best use. In Colorado, some of those highest and best uses are agriculture, accommodation for growth and the need to still have water in rivers to support the life that we all value.”
The bill is well-intentioned but pits a number of larger statewide and political issues against each other, said Rep. Ty Winter, a Republican representing southeastern Colorado.
A bill that would reduce urban water use is generally beneficial to the rural agricultural communities he represents, but this measure also could threaten some agricultural businesses that grow turf, Winter said. It also would give control of future landscaping regulations to local government — which Winter supports — but those rules would impede people’s personal property rights, an element he opposes.
“For me, this is a huge quandary running around in a circle,” said Winter, who voted against the bill.
Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.