State water officials are looking into potentially banning non-functional turf in some areas and developments, and there’s a bill that would do that in the state Legislature.
But the idea — and the way of making the change — is not universally accepted.
Joanna Allhands, digital opinions editor at the Arizona Republic, has written about this. She joined The Show along with Republic editorial page editor Elvia Díaz to talk more about the turf battle.
Full conversation
MARK BRODIE: Joanna, let's define our terms here. What exactly is non-functional turf?
JOANNA ALLHANDS: So non-functional turf is basically anything that you're not really using, and we've seen this all over Metro Phoenix. There is turf at subdivision entrances and entrances to businesses. No one ever walks on that, no one ever plays on it. It's really just primarily there for looks.
BRODIE: So we're not talking about what is in your yard or what is at the park or things like that?
ALLHANDS: Correct, or at a school or other places where people are going to gather and actually use that turf for some sort of recreation or cooling benefits, something like that.
BRODIE: And this has become kind of a topic of conversation in the water world, right? There are a number of valley cities, as you write, that are trying to incentivize people to remove this non-functional turf, because it requires water, of course. But what is happening on the state level?
ALLHANDS: Yeah, so there's a whole lot of talk, and what's interesting is a lot of this talk is being influenced by what's happening with our Colorado River supply and how we're entering into those negotiations with other states.
And so what we're doing at the state level, there's really this discussion now about how do we limit this sort of turf in new construction so that — we're not just trying to remove stuff because that's expensive, but really trying to get rid of it from the get-go and not have to worry about it from the beginning.
BRODIE: Elvia, from a political standpoint, we have seen water at the state legislature over the last few years be somewhat of a contentious issue. How does this fall at the Capitol? Does it seem as though there's support for this, or is it equally contentious as some other water related issues?
ELVIA DÍAZ: I would say it will be very contentious. One thing that I have been thinking about ever since we were working with Joanna's column is the discussion about the non-functional grass, which she gave a very good description here. But I have been wondering ever since what that kind of grass and greenery and trees and what have you does to our environment.
So, when she and others are talking about non-functional — parks and actually walking in there or playing — but what does the other greenery in front of the house that you never use do to the environment and to the cooling system?
And we live in Arizona. So, I had been thinking about that, that we haven't really discussed that. And also at the Legislature, she is correct that there is talk and there's a specific bill that one Republican is pushing for ... to prohibit cities from requiring buildings to install a minimum amount of nonfunctional turf — I believe that's how it was described.
What I don't like about that bill — or actually anything that comes from the Legislature — is the mandate to the cities. It's always trying to regulate and impose their will on cities. So why not work with the cities and let them decide? So again, I don't think a bill like this is going to go anywhere.
MARK BRODIE: Well, Joanna, as you write, the cities do have some requirements that home builders say sort of force them to put in nonfunctional turf. Does it seem as though there could be some kind of agreement struck that maybe wouldn't require legislation to do this? Or if you're going to prevent this turf from being put in the first place, is a law the way to make it happen?
ALLHANDS: I think it depends on the city. There's some cities that have already done this and have taken a proactive step to say, "You know what? We don't want this kind of stuff, so let's just ax it right away." There's others that have been a little bit more reluctant, because I think there's still the sense that turf provides something.
There is a benefit to turf, no question. I mean, it does provide a cooling benefit, unlike a lot of other things. And so, it is something good to have around, and there's been some reluctance — especially if you have a retention basin where the water kind of accumulates in the development, some cities want to put turf there. And so should there be turf there? That's kind of the big question that people are trying to work through right now.
BRODIE: I want to ask each of you about the idea of a mandate versus sort of incentivizing something to happen. And Joanna, it seems like this is kind of one of the issues that lawmakers and home builders and and sort of the state in general are grappling with, especially as it relates to water conservation, right? Like, do we encourage people to conserve water, or do we require them to conserve water?
ALLHANDS: And it's interesting to see how this debate has changed over the last really just couple of years. It's pretty fast, of how quickly things are changing. In the past, it was always, "We should always just make this something that is voluntary."
And, there's good reason for that. I mean, we've seen this in other states that have mandated some sorts of water conservation methods: that it works for a little while, or if it's something that they can do that really isn't much of a inconvenience for them.
But, if it's something that really you have to go out of your way for, and it feels like it's sort of a sacrifice, those are the things that you can't maintain long-term. So, when you really have to come in and say, "Here's a mandate. Here's a hard thing that we're going to do," that doesn't always work for the long term because people will just go, "OK, fine. Bring the water police on. Come and get me. Come at me, bro."
That's sort of how it works with mandates if they're in the long term and it's just something that is hard for people to do. So we don't want to go to mandates. But, there is this discussion in Arizona, increasingly that says, "You know, we're probably gonna have to do some things. And if you're not gonna come along with us, we may need to just kind of do that anyway, because we need to really show our partners in the Colorado River basin that we are using every drop to the best way possible."
BRODIE: Elvia, how do you see that in terms of this debate over requiring conservation versus incentivizing conservation, sort of the carrot and the stick approach?
DÍAZ: I think the incentivizing is for areas that has already been developed, as in in the area. And I don't think the public still understands that we are in a water situation here. I mean, when you turn on the faucet, the water is flowing, you can take an hour shower, and that's still OK.
So, I don't think they still get it. I don't think there's still a sense like, "Oh my goodness, we really have to conserve water." So until that happens and people understand that yes, this is real, the personal incentive is probably not going to work overall.
Again, mandates from the state Capitol don't work either, because they want to mandate everything, not just water. We just happen to talk about water, but it's always imposing their wills. So, is there a water problem? Yes. But again, we're talking about new developments, not existing ones.
