In a recent proposal that has gained preliminary support, the state would prohibit new installations of nonfunctional turf, artificial turf, and invasive plant species on commercial, institutional, and industrial properties starting in 2025.

According to Sen. Dylan Roberts, the bill's prime sponsor, this move is necessary to conserve water in the face of prolonged drought and concerns over future water supply insecurity. He argues that Colorado needs to look at all possible ways to save water, and nonfunctional turf is an easy target that can make a significant impact.

While some might argue that this is just another example of government overreach into private property ownership, Roberts assures that the bill is not meant to force landowners to remove already existing turf. However, state and local governments, as well as homeowners’ associations, would be prohibited from installing new nonfunctional turf after the designated date.

But why target turf specifically?

Roberts points to a recent study that estimates the Colorado River Basin has lost 10 trillion gallons of water over the past two decades due to rising temperatures and a changing climate. The state announced a plan to cut down on turf grass by 30% in urban areas, to mitigate the impact of climate change on water supply.

Of course, this proposal has sparked outrage among some Coloradans, who argue that this is yet another example of government intrusion into their personal lives. However, experts argue that the benefits of this bill are numerous. Not only will it help conserve water, a precious resource in a state facing increased water scarcity, but it will also promote the use of native grasses and shrubs that require less water.

But the cost of replanting and replacing nonfunctional turf can be a concern for many, with estimates ranging from $16,000 to $60,000 per acre.

This is something that the city of Aurora, which stopped installing nonfunctional turf in 2022, knows all too well. They have seen a 50% increase in participants in their Grass Replacement Incentive Program and have already worked on 750,000 square feet of landscapes. However, as Tim York, water conservation manager for Aurora Water, explains, replacing turf with water-efficient shrubs or native grasses can save up to 1.5 acre-feet of water per acre.

Despite concerns and opposition, the bill has received preliminary support from the Water Resources and Agriculture Review Committee, a bipartisan vote which Roberts sees as a promising sign. Moreover, many communities across the state have already taken steps to cut back on nonfunctional turf, and this bill serves as a push for others to follow suit.

READ MORE:

• BIDEN SETTLES WITH COLORADO'S UTE TRIBES FOR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS

• COLORADO LEGISLATORS MAY HAVE HAD ‘ANTI-RELIGIOUS MOTIVATIONS’

• CAPITOL DEMOCRATS ATTEMPT TO REVERSE PROPERTY TAX RELIEF IN DOUGLAS COUNTY

• GUN RIGHTS ADVOCATES HAVE LOST COLORADO’S ELECTIONS — BUT THEY MAY WIN THE LEGAL WAR

It remains to be seen how much water can be conserved by prohibiting new installations and replacing existing nonfunctional turf.

And while many view it as government overreach, Sen. Roberts see it differently, "...nonfunctional turf is one of those low-hanging fruits that seems like the very obvious next step in where we need to go in conserving water.”

The new Colorado legislative session begins in January.