L.A. lawns waste water, but artificial turf is even worse

A worker using a construction vehicle to remove artificial turf from a stadium field.

By Charles Miller

Aug. 5, 2024 3 AM PT

Let’s start with some common sense: Covering the Earth with plastic carpet is a terrible idea. And yet we continue to cover an ever-growing swath of our public and private open spaces with artificial turf in a way that will surely leave future generations scratching their heads in confusion.

It’s time to embrace healthier, cheaper and more environmentally responsible alternatives, and Los Angeles can help lead the way.

The artificial turf industry has had a great deal of success convincing millions of people that its short-lived, nonrecyclable, fossil-fuel-derived product is somehow good for the environment. Were there a greenwashing hall of fame, this would be in it.

In fact, it’s clear that artificial turf is bad for our ecosystems as well as our health.

Artificial turf exacerbates the effects of climate change. On a 90-degree Los Angeles day, the temperature of artificial turf can reach 150 degrees or higher — hot enough to burn skin. And artificial turf is disproportionately installed to replace private lawns and public landscaping in economically disadvantaged communities that already face the greatest consequences of the urban heat-island effect, in which hard surfaces raise local temperatures.

Artificial turf consists of single-use plastics made from crude oil or methane. The extraction, refining and processing of these petrochemicals, along with the transporting and eventual removal of artificial turf, come with a significant carbon footprint.

Artificial turf is full of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, known as “forever chemicals” because they accumulate in the environment and living tissue. The Synthetic Turf Council has noted manufacturers’ efforts to ensure that their products “contain no intentionally-added PFAS constituents.” So what? Tobacco companies don’t intentionally add carcinogens to cigarettes; they’re built into the product. PFAS have been linked to serious health effects, and while artificial turf is by no means the only source of them, it is one we can avoid.

Because artificial turf is a complex product made of multiple types of plastic, it will never be recycled. After its relatively short lifespan of about eight to 15 years, artificial turf ends up in indefinite storage, landfills and incinerators, creating a whole host of additional pollution problems.

Industry reps have seduced school boards and municipalities with promises that artificial turf fields can be used 24/7 and become a source of income as third parties line up to rent them. In reality, well-maintained, natural grass fields are more than sufficient for the limited number of hours in a day when people are available to participate in sports.

Studies show the maintenance costs of artificial turf often exceed those of natural grass. Naturally occurring organisms in soil break down much of what ends up on a grass field, including all kinds of human and animal bodily fluids. When the field is a plastic carpet, those systems can’t work, necessitating regular cleaning with a cleansing agent and a substantial amount of water. The infill component that cushions the turf must be combed, cleaned and replaced regularly as well. As the field ages, this work only increases.

The turf industry counters that grass fields result in the use of costly fertilizers and pesticides, which also become runoff pollution. That is a reasonable concern, but it can be addressed with environmentally responsible pest management and soil amendments. The continuing implementation of statewide food and green waste collection requirements will produce much more compost to cost-effectively maintain natural playing surfaces.

Remarkably, artificial turf doesn’t even save water compared with grass. Industry marketing materials claim that an artificial field can save millions of gallons of water a year and that homeowners who use the product to replace a conventional lawn can reduce their water use by more than half. But artificial turf must be regularly cleaned with water, and in warm climates such as Los Angeles’, artificial fields get so hot that schools must water them down before children play on them.

Industry water reduction promises generally compare artificial turf with the thirstiest sod grasses. But far more drought-tolerant varieties of natural turf grass are available. Residential lawns are indeed a tremendously wasteful use of water, but native plants are a far better solution than artificial turf — and you get butterflies as a bonus.

Even if artificial turf is never watered for cleaning or cooling, it contributes to losses of fresh water that natural surfaces would capture. Los Angeles in particular needs plants and natural surfaces that absorb as much of our precious rain as possible to recharge our groundwater and mitigate flooding. Impervious sheets of plastic cannot provide this service.

The Los Angeles City Council is considering requiring municipal departments to report on the consequences of artificial turf use, which is a good first step. From 2015 until last year, California law considered artificial turf a form of drought-tolerant landscaping that cities and counties could not prohibit. Thanks to a change in the law that excluded artificial turf from that category, Los Angeles has an opportunity to set a precedent by banning new installations of this destructive material.

Any truthful assessment of the financial, environmental and health consequences of artificial turf should lead governments to phase it out. We need to get over the antiquated notion that we can manufacture a better version of nature.

Charles Miller is the chair of the Los Angeles chapter of the Climate Reality Project and its Biodiversity Committee.