California lawmakers consider permanent ban on watering grass at businesses

California’s most-recent drought is over. Reservoirs are full. Ski season lasted until July.

But despite the wet winter, an effort is gaining momentum in the state capitol to add manicured green grass to the list of business trappings — like fax machines, pagers and typewriters — that have become obsolete in a changing world.

During California’s three-year drought, state water regulators banned watering “ornamental turf” at corporate, industrial or government properties with potable water as a way to preserve supplies. That emergency regulation is set to expire next June.

A new bill would make the ban permanent. Under the measure, AB 1572, it would be illegal for businesses like office parks, car dealerships, supermarkets, strip malls, or corporate campuses to water decorative grass with drinkable water — whether or not California is in a drought. Scofflaws would face fines of up to $500 a day.

The prohibition also would apply to factories, industrial sites and public use properties, like road medians, churches, schools and universities, statewide. The rules would not apply to lawns at residential homes, apartment buildings, cemeteries or any “functional turf” that has a recreational use, including sports fields, golf courses, playgrounds, pet exercise areas and picnic grounds.

The bill passed the state Assembly by a vote of 55-18 on May 31 and is now moving through the state Senate.

Supporters note that California has had three severe droughts since 2007, and as the climate continues to warm, they say it doesn’t make sense to use drinking water on decorative lawns — a landscape that people don’t eat or use.

“Droughts are not behind us,” said Assemblywoman Laura Friedman, D-Burbank, the author of the measure. “This bill is looking at some of the lowest-hanging fruit, grass that’s purely ornamental and uses a lot of drinking water. We should be more thrifty.”

The measure is supported by a long list of environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club California and Defenders of Wildlife. It gained political momentum recently after winning the endorsement of some of the state’s largest water agencies, including the influential Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District.

Critics, however, say new lawn limitations don’t reflect that California is a huge state, with different water sources and weather conditions from Eureka to Palm Springs.

“This was something that was meant for an emergency when we were in the midst of a drought,” said James Gallagher, the Republican Assembly leader who represents Yuba City. “That’s not always the case. To make it a permanent part of our law I don’t think is the right approach.”

Gallagher said California should leave most water decisions, particularly in nondrought years, up to local officials. He also said state leaders like Gov. Gavin Newsom have not done enough to build new reservoirs and increase water storage.

“Whether it comes to energy, water or other resources, their strategy is to keep us in permanent scarcity,” Gallagher said. “Maybe that’s because it gives them the ability to have control. But emergency powers should be used in limited circumstances when there is an emergency.”

This before-and-after composite image compares the drought water levels of Nicasio Reservoir in Marin County, California, top, on April 23, 2021, with a photo taken on January 12, 2023, at 100 percent capacity after a series of atmospheric river events drenched Northern California. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
This before-and-after composite image compares the drought water levels of Nicasio Reservoir in Marin County, California, top, on April 23, 2021, with a photo taken on January 12, 2023, at 100 percent capacity after a series of atmospheric river events drenched Northern California. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images) 

Several major business groups, including the California Chamber of Commerce, at first opposed the bill. But after Friedman made changes to remove apartment complexes, clarify which properties were exempt, and phase in rules, which would begin Jan. 1, 2027, they dropped their opposition.

“We have some members who are really squawking about it. There’s some concern. But we aren’t actively fighting the bill,” said Matthew Hargrove, president and CEO of the California Business Properties Association.

FOLLOW US ON GOOGLE NEWS

Read original article here

Denial of responsibility! Web Times is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – webtimes.uk. The content will be deleted within 24 hours.

Leave a Comment