Turf wars: States, cities grow skeptical of artificial grass

When spring fever strikes, it is best treated with a common remedy: spending time outside where the sun shines and the grass grows. But in some communities, the grass doesn’t grow at all. A closer look at some lush, green lawns could reveal that the blades of grass are actually plastic fibers sitting atop a bed of recycled rubber. 

Synthetic grass grew in popularity in the latter half of the 20th century as a substitute surface for sports fields and lawns because it was seemingly resilient to different weather conditions and even, in some cases, nonflammable. It also reduced water usage and maintenance costs. 

It works for New Port Richey, Florida, for example. Rather than continuing to resod the surface of a popular field at a local park, the city is replacing the grass with artificial turf. The new field will cost an initial $231,708, but Public Works Director Robert Rivera said it will result in long-term savings in upkeep expenses. 

But some state and local governments are finding that the grass isn’t always greener on the synthetic side. In Sharon, Massachusetts, local officials implemented a three-year moratorium in 2020 on the installation of artificial turf in response to community pushback regarding the environmental and health risks of manufactured grass. Residents expressed concerns over pollution to the ground and water from turf contaminants such as microplastics and forever chemicals. 

The New England town isn’t alone. A growing number of U.S. states and municipalities in recent years have introduced legislation to address the potentially toxic nature of artificial grass, which can contain materials like PFAS, said Dylan McDowell, executive director of the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators. 

California, for instance, once embraced fake lawns as a possible solution to the worsening drought the state was facing. In 2015, then-Gov. Jerry Brown passed a bill that prohibited cities and counties from banning the installation of drought-resistant landscaping or synthetic turf on residential properties. Less than 10 years later, the state has qualified that decision. In October 2023, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that still prohibits cities and counties from banning drought-tolerant lawns consisting of living plants, but does allow them to ban synthetic grass.  

Officials are recognizing that landscapes made with synthetic or even nonnative plants could cause more harm than good, as governments start to prioritize sustainable land development, said Sarah Schindler, director of the University of Denver’s Environmental and Natural Resources Law Program. Biodiverse landscapes containing native plants and vegetation, for instance, can help communities strengthen local ecosystems and build climate resilience. 

Last month, Colorado passed a law to prohibit the installation of nonfunctional turf, including artificial grass, on most state government, commercial and industrial properties. While turf fields can provide value to communities for recreational purposes in parks, sports fields and playgrounds, according to the bill, most of them serve little ecological purpose. They  exacerbate heat island effects and contaminate the environment. Plus, they can increase the risk of flooding or obstructed waterways because stormwater has a harder time seeping into the ground through artificial turf.

California and Colorado typically lead in environmental policies, Schindler said, so it is likely that more states and municipalities will soon follow suit. 

Maryland lawmakers in February, for instance, introduced legislation that would prohibit the installation of “playground surfacing materials” with certain levels of lead and PFAS. NCEL’s McDowell said that could include artificial grass, but he added that states must consider how they define artificial turf to guide policies. 

But for some communities, the worst part about the synthetic grass is its look. Officials at the beachfront town of Cape May, New Jersey, for instance, are considering an ordinance to restrict the installation of fake turf on both private and public properties—with exceptions for commercial uses where artificial turf is part of a facility’s operations like at mini golf courses, City Manager Paul Dietrich told Route Fifty. 

Cape May, known for its quaint collection of brightly-colored Victorian homes, is a designated national landmark, Deitrich said, so the city strives to maintain the historic feel of the 1800s and early 1900s, “and obviously, artificial turf wasn’t part of that fabric.”  

The ordinance is likely to be approved in late May and go into effect in June, he said. A task force comprising members from the city’s environmental commission and planning and zoning board is responsible for further evaluating the issue to inform the policy. 

While the use of synthetic grass has not been widespread in the community, Cape May officials want to be “on the frontside of this curve,” rather than having to pass retroactive restrictions. 

More policymakers should consider proactive policies that limit fake grass’ use for future land development projects, Schindler said. Retroactive limitations could open them up to legal challenges from disgruntled property owners and could even sway voters from elected officials who proposed such policies. 

Programs that incentivize the removal of artificial or ornamental lawns, however, could see more success, she said. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power’s Turf Replacement Program, for example, offers residential and commercial property owners rebates for replacing their nonnative lawns with sustainable landscapes. Officials say lawn replacements will help recharge the local groundwater supply, reduce urban water runoff and enhance wildlife habitats. 

“People are seeing climate change in their communities in ways that they didn’t 10 years ago, and I think that’s also inspiring people to demand more of their [governments] to address the issue,” Schindler said. “Starting with landscaping, I think, is a fairly easy way to get at that.”