A lawn with artificial turf (Photo – ColoradoBlvd.net)
Artificial turf, also known as synthetic grass, has become quite popular among homes, businesses, and city parks as a means to reduce water consumption.
By Cheryl Auger
While initially it seems like a great way to save water, this solution is actually mired in unintended consequences including:
- destroying microorganisms, wildlife habitats and biodiversity
- emitting toxic leachate and microplastics in runoff to nearby fields and storm drains
- creating heat islands reaching up to 200 degrees on a 98-degree day
- contributing to warming temperatures
- exposing children to toxic substances and health hazards associated with petrochemicals
- increasing the cost of maintenance
- eliminating natural means by which rainfall can be captured and stored
Synthetic grass emits methane and ethylene which contribute to global warming and contain PFAS which has known public health risks. Artificial turf also contains known carcinogens & neurotoxins: lead, mercury, cadmium, PAHs, VOCs, SVOC, phthalates, benzene, toluene, and carbon nanotubes. A study published by the National Library of Medicine identified 306 chemicals in turf infill and found that 197 of these chemicals met the scientific organization’s carcinogenicity criteria. Of these, 52 chemicals were also classified as known, presumed or suspected carcinogens by the US EPA.
And while cities and agencies prefer artificial turf for its low maintenance, in reality, the cost to implement and maintain these fields is almost equivalent to installing and maintaining natural turf fields. And, with lower snowpacks forecasted, capturing groundwater will be imperative for future water supplies.
Artificial turf interferes with groundwater capture. Also, the impacts of heavy rains and winds are more disastrous for artificial turf fields, and unquestionably, our futures are filled with atmospheric rain and wind storms.
Cities of Los Angeles and Pasadena
Last week, LA City’s Energy and Environment Committee passed a motion to ban future artificial turf installations and to find funds to replace existing installations. This will move to LA’s City Council for a full vote.
Meanwhile, environmental advocates have been attending Pasadena’s Municipal Services Committee and Pasadena Advisory Commission meetings to discuss an artificial turf ban during public comment, but the Municipal Services Committee has not put the topic on the agenda so it can be discussed, voted on, and sent to the City Council for a decision.
All water, except that which was left on the moon is recycled. So,the idea conserving water with the use of artificial turf in lieu of a natural grass lawn is a misnomer, and a mistake as listed by other responders
It is just a matter of who pays for the water when used.
Conserving our natural rainfall when it is more than we can use each year, should be the focus, and not let the majority run off into the ocean.
So many misconceptions about what “native plantings” actually means . It’s not gonna work people
Water is the most naturally recycled thing on the planet…. If you hose off your driveway, and it eventually dries, where do you think it goes…
If it seeps into the ground, where do you think it goes..
The article seems to present only two options: real or fake grass. This might be true for certain specific situations, like a playing field. However, for most applications, the use of native water-sparing landscape options are very acceptible to most people, and use very little water, once established.
When they banned watering your yard more than once a week – those with yards could either cheat on the water or get fake grass. Another case of the Government causing more problems than they solve.
Or not have any lawn at all, which is actually how it should be.
Just another failed liberal idea
Craig Ervin, oh honey…fake grass manufactured by a chemical corporation is anything but a liberal concept. We’d be planting native grasses, sweet pea.
But your ok wasting water?
The actual simple solution would be native plantings
It doesn’t take genius to see these consequences. Unfortunately government and activists tend to be lacking in common sense.
Susan Buchanan, activists probably prefer native plantings – the article doesn’t actually address that so I’m wondering if you heard something else?