Conservation 101: the Compete to Conserve Blog

photo credit: orangeacid

When we first moved into our flat in San Francisco, the backyard was so overgrown that we took bets on how many bodies were hidden in the brush. As the yard was slowly cleaned up—blackberry bushes and ivy vines cleared, along with the trees both predators had taken down—the skeleton of a once terraced landscape design started to appear. And that’s where the home improvement project paused.

Now a year and a half later, we are sizing up the options for creating our first “real” backyard. The yard needs to be usable and kid-friendly, but thinking realistically, it should also be pretty low-maintenance.

One obvious component will be grass—probably multiple sections of it. And with water scarcity still commanding the local headlines, one can’t help but consider the option of grass alternatives.

While the thought of Astroturfing our landscape is a bit horrifying, recent developments in synthetic grass tout more realistic products. Some even promise to look, feel and act just like natural grass—without the need for water, fertilizer, pesticides or mowing. 

Not only does artificial grass claim a lifespan of 10-25 years, and the ability to be recycled after use, it creates a flat, play-friendly surface and comes in various lengths and colors (to mimic popular types of natural grass.) Plus, it remains green in all climates. According to an article on Buzzle.com, synthetic turf is becoming popular among homeowners in Australia, where the dry climate makes natural grass difficult to maintain.

But the biggest draw is water conservation. A survey by the US Bureau of Reclamation and Irvine Ranch Water District found that a typical residence (with about 750 square feet of turf) could conserve approximately 22,000 gallons of water per year with the installation of synthetic turf. While installation cost is a factor, retailers say that synthetic grass pays for itself overtime due to minimal maintenance.

There is, however, some concern about lead or other particles that could be dangerous if inhaled, especially by animals or children. National Geographic’s Green Guide points out that synthetic turf is made of polyethylene/nylon or polypropylene ribbons layered with crumbs of shredded automobile tire rubber for cushioning, sometimes mixed with silica sand.

According to a report released in July by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, “newer fields had no lead or generally had the lowest lead levels.” They did find small amounts on some older field surfaces, but none of the “tested fields released amounts of lead that would be harmful to children.” Despite these findings, the CPSC recommends that children and adults wash their hands after playing on these surfaces, especially before eating, and asks that standards be developed precluding the use of lead in future products.

The Green Guide adds that advocacy group Environment & Human Health, Inc. has called for a moratorium on installing synthetic turf on fields or playgrounds until more studies are done. But many synthetic surfaces already exist in public parks, on playing fields and in schoolyards across the country. (Park officials in NY have even had to water overheated synthetic fields that reached temps as high as 160 degrees F—a bit of an undo to the water reduction selling point.)

Bacteria are also a concern. The Green Guide notes that “because synthetic turf is more likely to give players ‘turf burns’ than real grass, some experts are concerned that life-threatening bacterial infections…could spread more easily.” To offset this potential threat, some synthetic turfs require regular treatment with disinfectant.

I also read that some synthetic playing fields need to be “fluffed up” regularly, an added expense. But Heavenly Greens (makers of FieldTurf) recommends, “lightly raking or using a stiff push broom…to help the fibers stand-up and to reconstitute the infill.”

Overall, synthetic turf remains tempting. It’s hard to not consider green grass you barely have to maintain. But I’m not entirely sold on it being the best option for us.

Another potential contender could be sand-channel natural grass—or grass planted over sand. This has been used on playing fields to speed up irrigation and allow the field to be usable sooner after a storm. San Francisco does have a rainy season, but apparently this option doesn’t really conserve water in the end. The rapid irrigation results in the need to water more often—otherwise the “dry grass” look sets in.

All of this makes me wonder about “healthier” options for fertilizing a lawn. Because, let’s face it, after living in New York for six years, I’m kind of psyched at the chance to have a yard with live plants and grass—real grass. A swath of my own, so to speak. Sure it will take upkeep and require using some of our precious natural resources, but it also generates oxygen, sucks up carbon dioxide, stays cool on hot days, is less abrasive on bare knees than most synthetic turfs, and it smells good.

Perhaps there are more options. Or maybe you have suggestions. The jury is still deliberating, so feel free to send info my way. I’ll pass it on. 

Related Entries

1. Paint that Doesn’t Stink: An Intro to No- and Low-VOC Paints
2. Quick Fixes—Water Conservation
3. Dishwasher vs. Washing by Hand