If you take our condominium’s only turf and divide by 26 units, each owner’s share is less than the size of a queen-sized mattress.
So, Governor Newsom, why is the California legislature going after my teeny tiny bit of lawn while leaving all single-family lawns alone?
AB-1572, which was passed by both houses of the legislature and is, as of this writing, awaiting your signature, prohibits the use of potable water “for the irrigation of nonfunctional turf located on commercial, industrial, and institutional properties, other than a cemetery, and on properties of homeowners’ associations, common interest developments, and community service organizations or similar entities, as specified.” (Emphasis mine.)
Back to our tiny patch of grass along the street. Technically it’s not even the condominium’s grass. It’s in the street right-of-way. Since the HOA waters it, arguably it’s being “managed by a homeowners’ association.” But grass in rights-of-way is also doomed under the new law.
Either way—condominium area or right of way—we will have to stop watering it.
Unless we argue that it’s “functional turf.” According to the legislation, functional turf means “a ground cover surface of turf located in a recreational use area or community space.” Community space is defined as an area designated “to accommodate human foot traffic for civic, ceremonial, or other community events or social gatherings.”
Dogs find it downright essential. Not sure that counts.
The thing that gets me, though, is that single-family homes are exempt. They can have acres of lawn and it’s totally fine, but my mattress-sized patch has to go brown.
Apartment buildings also can have turf, by the way. They were originally treated the same as condominiums, but the final version of the bill protected them. According to the LA Times, apartments were removed “after some city officials and managers of water agencies raised concerns about how they would enforce the restrictions, and about the costs for low-income communities.”
Condominiums and other HOAs—they are the only type of residences for whom turf is forbidden.
The California bill is patterned after Nevada legislation that similarly targets HOAs while exempting single family homes. Perhaps Nevada is going after gated communities with swaths of common area lawn. But that is very different from the tiny bits of turf that urban LA condominiums have.
Lacking the political clout of single-family homes, condominiums seem to be an easy target.
Lacking the political clout of single-family homes, condominiums seem to be an easy target.
California should be doing everything to encourage condominiums, not throw obstacles in their paths. Condominiums offer a more affordable option for home ownership—critical in California. They consume less land and they allow the kind of density that creates walkable neighborhoods and supports local business. Unit owners use less electricity—less of everything, really.
So here’s my better idea. Rather than doom our tiny strip of lawn, make all lawns—including single-family lawns—subject to a limitation on the percentage that can be turf. The rest has can be planted in drought-tolerant landscaping. Or fake grass, or rocks or permeable pavement.
I hope you can veto this legislation, Governor.
If not, the restrictions on condominiums and other HOAs don’t kick in until 2029. There’s time to rethink this.
Restricting irrigation of single-family lawns would be fair to everyone.
And it would save a lot more water than AB-1572.
Follow-up Note: Governor Newsom signed the bill into law on October 13, 2023. There is time between now and 2029 to rethink why it applies to condominiums but not single-family house.–DG
