Colorado Senate Passes Bill Limiting Nonfunctional Turf Planting: A Democrat Overreach on Local Control
In a move that encroaches on the ability of citizens to self-govern their communities, the Colorado Senate has passed Senate Bill 24-005, a bill aimed at limiting the planting of nonfunctional turf in certain areas.
This bill follows the allocation of $2 million in 2022 to remove turf in urban areas classified as nonfunctional, such as Kentucky bluegrass and other thirsty-grass species that serve no practical purpose.
Under this bill, thirsty turf species will be prohibited from being planted in locations that rarely see foot traffic, such as alongside roads and streets or in medians. Additionally, commercial areas surrounding offices, government buildings, and common areas managed by homeowners associations will also be affected.
The bill also prohibits the use of plastic turf as a substitute for organic vegetation in landscaping.
State Senator Dylan Roberts, a Democrat from Frisco and a co-sponsor of the bill, argues that by avoiding the need to water nonfunctional turf in the first place, future replacements can be prevented. This prohibition only applies to new development or redevelopment and does not affect established turf or residential homes.
PRIME SPONSORS
While Kentucky bluegrass and other species imported from wetter climates consume more water, the bill does allow for the use of hybrid species that require less water, as well as indigenous grass species that are better suited to Colorado's arid climate.
The bill has been modified to provide clarity on what constitutes “functional” versus “nonfunctional” turf, giving towns, cities, and counties some flexibility to determine this within their jurisdictions.
If the bill becomes law, local jurisdictions will have until January 1, 2026, to incorporate the new statewide standard into their landscaping code and development review processes.
Advocates argue that limiting nonfunctional turf expansion is just one tool among many to address Colorado's water challenges.
Municipalities only account for 7% of the state's water usage, with outdoor use making up a significant portion of that. State Senator Cleave Simpson, a Republican from Alamosa, acknowledges the bill's minimal impact but believes it contributes to small incremental changes rather than sweeping reforms.
Critics of the bill, including the Colorado Municipal League, argue that cutting water used for landscaping should be a local concern and that the bill represents state overreach. They suggest allocating more funds to turf removal programs that have proven successful at the municipal level, tailored to specific local needs.
The Associated Landscape Contractors of Colorado, representing 400 landscape and supplier companies, supports the bill but raises concerns about the phrasing of nonfunctional versus functional turf. They prefer the terms recreational and utility to better reflect the purposes of different turf areas.
READ MORE:
PROHIBITION ON THIRSTY, DECORATIVE GRASSES IN COLORADO GAINS EARLY SUPPORT AMONG LEGISLATORS
COLORADO CITIES ACCELERATE TURF WARS WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION BANS, PUBLIC MEDIAN RIP-OUTS
While some indigenous grasses, like buffalo grass, may conserve water, they may be less appealing to home gardeners due to their delayed greening and earlier browning compared to other turf options.
As this bill moves to the House for further consideration, it is essential to question the extent of government intervention in local affairs.
Striking a balance between conservation efforts and individual freedom should be at the forefront of the discussion. Coloradans must remain vigilant in protecting their ability to self-govern and preserve the unique character of their communities.
Are you enjoying THE LOBBY? Our stories are only possible because of generous contributions from our readers. Please consider chipping in today. Thank you!