A new California law will ban watering decorative grass, even in non-drought years, starting Jan. 1

It’s been more than three years since California was in a drought. Reservoirs are above average levels. A strong El Niño is brewing in the Pacific that could bring soaking storms this winter.

But there’s a new endangered species across the state: grass. A broad new water conservation law will begin to take effect in four months that bans watering “ornamental turf” at corporate, industrial, government and homeowners association properties with drinking water across California as a way to preserve supplies.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the new state law in 2023 as California was emerging from a harsh three-year drought. Under it, starting on Jan. 1 it will be illegal for local and regional government agencies across the state, including schools, cities, counties, court houses, fire stations and libraries, to irrigate decorative grass with potable water whether or not California is in a drought.

Enforcement is expected to be light at first. But scofflaws eventually could face fines of up to $1,000 a day. A year later on Jan. 1, 2028, the ban will expand to commercial businesses like office parks, car dealerships, supermarkets, strip malls and corporate campuses, along with colleges and universities. And on Jan. 1, 2029, it will apply to homeowners associations.

The rules do 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, along with areas regularly used for community gatherings.

Supporters say the law, AB 1572, will save millions of gallons of water that are wasted every year by watering grass on road medians, the edges of parking lots and between buildings — a landscape that people don’t use or eat.

“Despite a few wet winters and the anticipation of another, water is a precious resource for Californians,” said Victoria Rome, state government affairs director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group in San Francisco that co-sponsored the law. “Local cities, towns and school districts should be evaluating their water usage now to ensure that every drop of potable water is used only on the most necessary of landscapes, like parks and ball fields.”

California has suffered through three severe droughts since 2007. As the climate continues to warm, more are inevitable, backers of the law say. Sources like the Colorado River and Sierra snowpack are becoming more precarious, so locking in savings of drinking water now preserves more for dry years ahead, they add.

“These are long-term investments to ensure we have sustainable supplies,” said Tracy Quinn, CEO of Heal the Bay, an environmental group based in Santa Monica that co-sponsored the bill. “This is not taking turf out of play yards or baseball fields. It’s where the grass is purely ornamental. It’s low-hanging fruit.”

Opponents call it overkill.

They argue that most local governments aren’t ready for the new rules, and haven’t budgeted money to replace grass with water-efficient landscaping.

“This was enacted three years ago under different circumstances than we have now,” said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, a taxpayer rights group in Sacramento.

“It’s an example of knee-jerk legislation, an immediate reaction to a problem. Legislation passed under those circumstances is not often well-thought through. I would hope that if this proves to be unworkable they can go back and tweak it or repeal part of it.”

Coupal said the state would do better to build more reservoirs and provide voluntary incentives to encourage water conservation, like more rebates for property owners who choose to replace grass with low-water landscaping.

“The law is an example of legislating scarcity when there are ways you can legislate abundance and meet the needs people have,” he said.

It’s unclear how widely aware local government leaders are of the law.

A survey of landscape and property companies at the Central Coast Water Summit, in June at the Cocoanut Grove in Santa Cruz, found that 80% said their clients “are still waiting for direction or avoiding the subject.”

When asked what message moves a property owner to replace their landscaping, half named lowering water bills. Almost none named environmental sustainability.

In recent months, more homeowners associations and commercial property owners have begun to learn about the law and ask about it, said Daniel Nemire, a manager for K&D Landscaping in Watsonville, which hosted the event.

“Our message is you don’t want to be stuck,” Nemire said. “If they do start enforcing and you have thousands of feet of turf, it’s a big thing for your budget. You want to spread it out. Do yourself a favor and break it up. There are dozens of plant types you can use. It doesn’t look like the desert. It can look really beautiful.”

Landscape and irrigation equipment upgrades can cut water use by up to half, he said.

Some cities have tried to get ahead of the rules.

Last year Morgan Hill held a public contest to design new landscaping around its city hall to save water. Crews removed grass over 4,400 square feet of area, put down mulch and park benches, and planted 173 species of native plants, such as deer grass, ceanothus, sticky monkey flower, red buckwheat and manzanita. They planted three new trees and moved five others from a parking lot where they had installed solar panels. Total cost was about $32,000. With an $8,000 rebate from the Santa Clara Valley Water District, it fell to $24,000.

“We’re trying to be proactive. We want to lead by example,” said Shannon Rossow, an environmental programs coordinator with the Morgan Hill Environmental Services Division. “Then other property owners can see it’s possible.”

The law may run into controversy. It was modeled on a law that the Nevada state legislature passed in 2021, outlawing the use of Colorado River water on ornamental grass and commercial, government and homeowners association properties in places like Las Vegas.

This year, homeowners associations representing more than 10,000 property owners filed a class action lawsuit against the Southern Nevada Water Authority in an attempt to block it. They argue it will kill trees, cause an unfair burden on property owners, and increase the urban “heat island” effect.

In California, the law will be enforced by retail water providers, including government water districts, private water companies and city water departments, according to the State Water Resources Control Board, which also has enforcement authority.

“Slowly the news is getting spread among property owners about this,” said James Nachbaur, director of research, planning, and performance at the state water board. “Generally our approach is trying to get people into compliance with education as opposed to jumping immediately to enforcement.”

Local water agencies agreed.

The East Bay Municipal Utility District in Oakland is reminding large property owners that it offers rebates for landscape work, including providing landscape architects for free consultation. It likely will not fine violators unless the state enters a drought again, said Geneva Gondak, a water conservation supervisor for the district.

“We don’t want to see all of these green areas turn into dead patches, and we don’t want the trees to die,” she said. “We are helping people convert these landscapes to more sustainable areas.”

In San Jose, one homeowners association is trying to get ahead of the law. The Villas of Almaden is spending $100,000 to replace turf around 180 homes with water-efficient landscaping, and upgrading its irrigation system, which dates back to the 1980s, with a high-tech system with weather sensors. After a rebate from the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the project will cost $80,000, said Fadi Cotran, president of the homeowners association board, and should cut water use by about 35%, paying for itself in 5 to 10 years.

“We have huge water bills. We are trying to find ways to conserve,” he said, adding that the board is trying to be proactive by also replacing aging roofs and improving fire protection. “And we wanted to get the rebates before the money runs out. The early bird gets the worm.”