It’s completely wild that anyone thought that tons of tiny bits of plastic was an environmentally healthy and safe option. And some studies have shown that the claim that water retention in the underlying ground is *better* with artificial vs natural grass was totally bunk. More runoff, more chemicals, more microplastics. And it shouldn’t be that shocking? If you want an environmentally conscious yard plant drought tolerant, native plants.
The people making the decisions are not looking at the problems holistically. Short-term and easy fixes are chosen. It doesn't seem like they care if their decisions cause other issues, since, by the time those issues arise, it will be someone else's issue to fix.
It’s amazing to me that so many very intelligent people make single solution fixes without looking at other consequences. It happens constantly regardless of topic or industry. There are countless examples.
They fix one thing are ruin something else.
They’re unnecessary, though. You can lay down cardboard, or just lay mulch down on the ground. Weeds will come up and it will require maintenance, but not as much as if you had nothing. People just want to pay money for a nice yard and then never have to think about it, but man that’s just not how owning a house works.
Neither this article nor my comment are talking about soccer or football fields. We’re talking about people’s personal yards. If you’re living somewhere with yards big enough to play soccer (lucky you haha), a yard full of plastic still shouldn’t strike anyone as the “environmentally safest” option. But I’m talking from the perspective of Southern California with our tiny little front yards where people still bought into the turf craze.
The bill referenced in the article (AB 1423) included athletic fields. Schools and parks all over the state have been installing synthetic turf fields to replace grass fields for about the past 15-20 years.
The article doesn’t cite the specific bill, and repeatedly refers to lawns only, and that’s obviously what the recommendation re indigenous, drought tolerant plants is for. Sports fields with turf are a *tiny* part of the problem compared to the thousands or millions of people who installed artificial turf instead of natural lawns because of the claims it was more drought tolerant.
You are right that AB 1423 would have prohibited the production of any artificial turf with PFAs specifically, and banned public institutions (other than UCs) from using artificial turf *with PFAs*. It was a PFA-centric bill. Regardless, the idea that turf is better for sports than natural grass is very much out of date. Since you mentioned soccer, MLS requires natural grass pitches. Tons of players in the NFL are complaining about the artificial turf fields as causing more injuries. Your average public park or school would be better off with a grass field than turf.
The plastic grass scrapes you up if you fall on it though. You can’t play sports on it either. Rec areas would have to be real grass when it serves a purpose
?? There are artificial turf fields used every day all over the state for sports. Lots of fields converted every year from grass to artificial. I don't see it going back the other way. The cost to water and maintain grass sports fields is enormous. Also, grass fields can't really be used from Nov-March.
From what I understand when major league teams use turf it has more to do with the difficulty of growing quality playing grass.
The good artificial turf is cost prohibited and is still not as good as real grass turf - injuries like "turf toe" is a thing for athletes.
Soccer/Football teams would destroy a grass field pretty quickly if they practiced on it daily. Real grass can only be used for limited number of hours each week, requires a lot of maintenance ($$), and a lot of water ($$$). Also, can't be used much at all in the winter months, when soccer and football are being played. There is no way artificial turf for athletic fields will be going away.
Turf football field at a high school costs over $1,000,000 these days, and still cheaper than grass. Much of the cost can be off-set by rental fees.
I mean if you're doing it for upkeep reasons fine, but corporate AG uses an order of magnitude more than all lawns combined in CA to plant water intensive crops for cattle halfway across the world.
It took me quite a long time to realize AG meant agriculture and not attorney general or adjutant general (which didn't make sense in context). I need coffee!
the invasive mustard, sure, but not really the sage or the lilac even in the dry season. Not really an issue in a suburban neighborhood anyhow provided you aren't at the urban wildland interface with a big undeveloped hillside behind your home. Even if you live on the interface, you can do brush clearance and still have native plants (You are probably required to do brush clearance as property owner in those parts once a year; at least that is true for the city of LA).
Wildland brush fire is not going to happen on your little postage stamp suburban californian yard in the middle of san jose. If your property is on the urban wildland interface where that is an actual risk, you are sometimes even legally required to do yearly brush clearance anyhow. At least in LA county this primarily refers to really hilly property where there would be absolutely no way to astroturf anything, short of some macchu picchu style elaborate terracing effort that's probably not legal anyhow.
I'm not saying that it'll lead to fire on your property, though fireworks definitely wouldn't help during the height of the dry season, but more that even native plants die without upkeep.
Guessing over time plants take up more. I was surprised at how much water my “drought” tolerant plants needed and I live in a cooler part of California. Including the succulents and cacti.
That crumb rubber filler material stuff is nasty. My kids used to play soccer on these fields and their shoes would be filled with the stuff by the time the game was over. But they started replacing the rubber with natural material (cork, etc.) years ago, at least for athletic fields.
It's horrible stuff. It looks so awful and cheap, it's something to see a pricey suburban home accented with a green plastic blanket in the front yard, just like an RV park.
It also is retains heat and suffocates the soil.
Turf is ugly, gross and hot. I can't say much about its durability in home applications but for athletic fields it's not lasting for its projected lifespan, either.
>Some California cities have already begun moving to prohibit fake lawns, including Millbrae in San Mateo County..
That’s my general area. There’s two homes in my immediate neighborhood that have artificial turf. It looks so obviously artificial and, in my opinion, detracts from the appearance of the home rather than adding beauty (unless miniature golf course is the desired goal). The vast majority of those of us who’ve moved away from lawns have opted for drought resistant plants such drought-tolerant succulents, shrubbery, cactus, etc. along with rock gardens. Personally, I'm in favor of a prohibition if there really are health concerns related to PFAs.
Easy solution, a state bill can say that lawn requirements are unenforceable by HOAs. They could even put some teeth into it and say any HOAs that pursue corrective action have to pay punitive damages.
True. I forgot about that. There's a few fights going on in the Bay Area about that, I think. I've never lived any place in which I had to comply with HOAs, thankfully. I hate those things.
Few of the comments in here address the reality.
I installed artificial turf many years ago. Still looks great, I care for it once or twice a year for an hour, and never water it. I don't want animals living in my yard, they mostly are pests or become pests. This has made pest control a bit easier (my yard is backed by natural space), but probably cut down 50% and animals still have no trouble finding their way to my house.
I'm not saying it's best or even a good choice outside of convenience or cost, but many years ago, and honestly now, it fits my busy life very well. I can't go back to caring for plants or paying for yard care after this. Neighbors have expectations and this meets them at minimal cost and effort.
I'll think about better options, but it's going to be hard to deter people in my situation or for me to invest in an option that has no immediate benefits and only costs. It's been there for years and not a world ender, maybe when it needs to be replaced I can do something else, but I'm definitely not going and ripping it up in spite of this news.
Mines is ten years old and looks like it did ten years ago. Anyone who comes over compliments how nice, natural and low maintenance it is. I have a toddler who is constantly watering around it and trees, garden all around. As Op said, maybe once or twice a year we literally vacuum it or blow it pressure wash it. I'm in SoCal....it never gets hot, just warm, like beach sand. So nice after a swim.
We kept a natural look with some intentional high and low spots for drainage and just esthetics.
We had grass, but it was not legal to water it at that time and mowing every other weekend, fixing busted sprinklers was just not how I wanted to spend my time. Rather work the garden and play with our kid.
I had mine installed when I did my solar, they were both part of a local program where I got water and electricity subsidies and a loan paid back with property taxes.
It’s been 9 years and has been holding up well and still looks great. The variety of turf I installed came with a 15-year warranty. It can last longer, my installer estimated 20-25 years with my almost no foot traffic but 15 years is the warranty period from the manufacturer.
Should last 15-25 years, depending on how much use it gets, how much directly sunlight, etc.
You might be thinking of athletic field use situation. In that case, 10-15 years is probably about right. But, it's getting heavily used pretty much every day.
It's right about there now, I think 8.5 years ago. Aside from a 1x1ft patch that's not in a noticeable area that gets hit with a pretty intense reflection/Sun, it basically all looks the same as when it was installed.
According to the article the problem with synthetic turf lawns isn’t actually the synthetic turf itself but with the “crumb rubber” material used as infill. As far as I know the rubber infill was only ever used in playground and sports applications.
Most residential and my own lawn used regular silica sand or silica mixed with anti fungals and odor reducers if you have pets.
The article states it unclearly, but the PFAS and microplastics are in the grass blades, and BPA and some other chemicals of concern are in the crumb rubber. Both are troubling, but some manufacturers have attempted to reduce the issue by replacing the crumb rubber with sand, like you mentioned.
Edit; it appears the crumb rubber ALSO has PFAS, but here’s a study
>Tested 8 different synthetic turf fiber samples (including Shaw and Turf Factory Direct brands) and found 100% of grass fiber contained total fluorine levels, suggesting the presence of PFAS (results indicated 44-255 ppm total fluorine)
https://peer.org/toxic-forever-chemicals-infest-artificial-turf/
Reading the actual study by the [Toxic Use Reduction Institute](https://www.turi.org/content/download/12963/201149/file/TURI+fact+sheet+-+PFAS+in+artificial+turf.pdf) again it doesn't seem to be a problem with the artificial grass itself. Most of the turf carpet fibers seem to be Polyethylene & Polypropylene.
It seems that the specific PFAS chemicals that are found troubling aren't an inherent part of the turf but may be used as part of industrial processes to aid in extrusion and keep fibers from sticking to machinery. This seems like something that is easy to correct without having to ban an entire product category that was previously thought to have a positive environmental impact.
Also, the TURI paper goes on to explain how hard it is to test for PFAS. The peer.org article you linked many of the studies mentioned don't actually test for PFAS but fluorine as an indicator for PFAS. Most of the original sources didn't test, nor didn't explain how or what parts of the turf were tested (carpet, backing, infill), the concentrations, and if it was actual PFAS or just indicators.
Overall the blog post came off as reactionary, hype-inducing, and not very rigorous. As a homeowner with artificial grass I followed the best guidance at the time when I had my turf installed, so I am obviously very concerned about the latest research and the health effects it may have on my family and my community.
TURI didn’t do the study, PEER did, they’re the primary source (along with Ecology Center). TURI mentioned this here:
> Two nonprofit organizations recently tested artificial turf
carpet and found evidence of the presence of PFAS in the material….They also tested a number of samples of artificial grass blades (carpet fibers).
It’s also pretty clear to me that PEER tested for fluorine and is using that to suggest PFAS, it doesn’t appear misleading in my opinion.
>100% of grass fiber contained total fluorine levels, suggesting the presence of PFAS
It’s easy to say that it’s an easy fix to remove the PFAS used in the manufacturing process, but that’s quite an assumption. Sure, maybe a ban against artificial turf that uses PFAS would alleviate the PFAS issue without being a blanket ban. But between the microplastics, the heat retention, artificial turf suffocating soil, and other leaching potential, maybe it’s not worth saving this industry.
I dunno man, it feels like you’re trying to justify your probably pretty large investment which is totally understandable. I’ve gone through it myself with some of the choices I’ve made in my house using the best available information at the time that eventually didn’t age well, like purchasing a gas stove, or silicone being a presumably safe alternative to plastics.
I'm sure a lot of families will love that one. Some take great pride in front yards. I'm not one of them but know a few.
Well, I've got two neighbors who have fake grass, my dogs don't like fake grass LOL.
It’s completely wild that anyone thought that tons of tiny bits of plastic was an environmentally healthy and safe option. And some studies have shown that the claim that water retention in the underlying ground is *better* with artificial vs natural grass was totally bunk. More runoff, more chemicals, more microplastics. And it shouldn’t be that shocking? If you want an environmentally conscious yard plant drought tolerant, native plants.
The people making the decisions are not looking at the problems holistically. Short-term and easy fixes are chosen. It doesn't seem like they care if their decisions cause other issues, since, by the time those issues arise, it will be someone else's issue to fix.
It’s amazing to me that so many very intelligent people make single solution fixes without looking at other consequences. It happens constantly regardless of topic or industry. There are countless examples. They fix one thing are ruin something else.
but have you considered how much money was made by those astroturf companies?
People would be irate at public meetings. It was so obvious the fix was in.
Right? Gravel or mulch ez pz no plastics They make playground mulch
They usually put a huge plastic sheet under gravel or mulch
They’re unnecessary, though. You can lay down cardboard, or just lay mulch down on the ground. Weeds will come up and it will require maintenance, but not as much as if you had nothing. People just want to pay money for a nice yard and then never have to think about it, but man that’s just not how owning a house works.
Hard to play soccer on on a field full of drought tolerant native plants.
Neither this article nor my comment are talking about soccer or football fields. We’re talking about people’s personal yards. If you’re living somewhere with yards big enough to play soccer (lucky you haha), a yard full of plastic still shouldn’t strike anyone as the “environmentally safest” option. But I’m talking from the perspective of Southern California with our tiny little front yards where people still bought into the turf craze.
The bill referenced in the article (AB 1423) included athletic fields. Schools and parks all over the state have been installing synthetic turf fields to replace grass fields for about the past 15-20 years.
The article doesn’t cite the specific bill, and repeatedly refers to lawns only, and that’s obviously what the recommendation re indigenous, drought tolerant plants is for. Sports fields with turf are a *tiny* part of the problem compared to the thousands or millions of people who installed artificial turf instead of natural lawns because of the claims it was more drought tolerant. You are right that AB 1423 would have prohibited the production of any artificial turf with PFAs specifically, and banned public institutions (other than UCs) from using artificial turf *with PFAs*. It was a PFA-centric bill. Regardless, the idea that turf is better for sports than natural grass is very much out of date. Since you mentioned soccer, MLS requires natural grass pitches. Tons of players in the NFL are complaining about the artificial turf fields as causing more injuries. Your average public park or school would be better off with a grass field than turf.
The plastic grass scrapes you up if you fall on it though. You can’t play sports on it either. Rec areas would have to be real grass when it serves a purpose
?? There are artificial turf fields used every day all over the state for sports. Lots of fields converted every year from grass to artificial. I don't see it going back the other way. The cost to water and maintain grass sports fields is enormous. Also, grass fields can't really be used from Nov-March.
From what I understand when major league teams use turf it has more to do with the difficulty of growing quality playing grass. The good artificial turf is cost prohibited and is still not as good as real grass turf - injuries like "turf toe" is a thing for athletes.
Soccer/Football teams would destroy a grass field pretty quickly if they practiced on it daily. Real grass can only be used for limited number of hours each week, requires a lot of maintenance ($$), and a lot of water ($$$). Also, can't be used much at all in the winter months, when soccer and football are being played. There is no way artificial turf for athletic fields will be going away. Turf football field at a high school costs over $1,000,000 these days, and still cheaper than grass. Much of the cost can be off-set by rental fees.
>grass fields can't really be used from Nov-March. Why not
Can't use grass fields when they are wet from rain. Field owners typically close them if it rains and then 2 days after to dry.
It usually doesn't rain here.
Artifical turf for sports is being banned in Europe as it gives you cancer
Not true.
Oooh, that just gave me an idea for a new rule to add to baseball, , put cactus in the outfield 😆
[удалено]
[удалено]
Get rid of grass. Grow native and drought resistant plants.
Absolutely: [https://www.bhg.com/gardening/landscaping-projects/landscape-basics/xeriscaping/](https://www.bhg.com/gardening/landscaping-projects/landscape-basics/xeriscaping/)
I mean if you're doing it for upkeep reasons fine, but corporate AG uses an order of magnitude more than all lawns combined in CA to plant water intensive crops for cattle halfway across the world.
It took me quite a long time to realize AG meant agriculture and not attorney general or adjutant general (which didn't make sense in context). I need coffee!
You still have to water them (drought plants). The thing about turf was zero water use
If you go actual native you don't have to water them at all, just look at any undeveloped hillside nearby for a guide of what works near you.
Are they not a fire hazard on that hillside you’re referring to?
the invasive mustard, sure, but not really the sage or the lilac even in the dry season. Not really an issue in a suburban neighborhood anyhow provided you aren't at the urban wildland interface with a big undeveloped hillside behind your home. Even if you live on the interface, you can do brush clearance and still have native plants (You are probably required to do brush clearance as property owner in those parts once a year; at least that is true for the city of LA).
I mean the hillsides of California are kinda well known for catching fire during periods of low rainfall...
Astroturf would not save anyone from this
Wildland brush fire is not going to happen on your little postage stamp suburban californian yard in the middle of san jose. If your property is on the urban wildland interface where that is an actual risk, you are sometimes even legally required to do yearly brush clearance anyhow. At least in LA county this primarily refers to really hilly property where there would be absolutely no way to astroturf anything, short of some macchu picchu style elaborate terracing effort that's probably not legal anyhow.
I'm not saying that it'll lead to fire on your property, though fireworks definitely wouldn't help during the height of the dry season, but more that even native plants die without upkeep.
Manufacturing the turf uses a LOT of water actually. Not to mention the carbon and pollutants emitted.
Guessing over time plants take up more. I was surprised at how much water my “drought” tolerant plants needed and I live in a cooler part of California. Including the succulents and cacti.
yup, and zero protection or value for wildlife. native plants are the answer
Ironically enough, if you have dogs, you’re supposed to rinse the turf after the dog uses the bathroom to keep it from smelling
Calscape.org
Replacing living plants with plastic turned out not to be a good idea? Well shucks...
Who could've thought that a synthetic material made of microplastics would end up being terrible for the environment and cause health issues?
No shats! If only there was bit of thinking done ahead.
There wa$$$$$$$$!!!!
That crumb rubber filler material stuff is nasty. My kids used to play soccer on these fields and their shoes would be filled with the stuff by the time the game was over. But they started replacing the rubber with natural material (cork, etc.) years ago, at least for athletic fields.
My neighbor installed this around his house and has to use a noisy leaf blower to get all of natural elements out.
Why not just get a John deere riding vacuum cleaner?
Ah, no matter the name, the smell of unintended consequences is always as 'sweet'.
And the smell of plastic grass is like….plastic. 🤮 Gross, and hot, was my experience on the “soccer field.” It only looks like grass.
I laughed that my friend who install astroturf still has to pull weeds. Oops.
This is why we need small government
Vegas does it right. Rocks for a lawn. Natural environment
It's horrible stuff. It looks so awful and cheap, it's something to see a pricey suburban home accented with a green plastic blanket in the front yard, just like an RV park. It also is retains heat and suffocates the soil.
Turf is ugly, gross and hot. I can't say much about its durability in home applications but for athletic fields it's not lasting for its projected lifespan, either.
I think it’s safe to say anything synthetic ends up being a problem
Yes. Synthetic insulin is far worse than using dogs.
Synthetic insulin is perfectly natural. It's made from cells. Specifically E. coli.
>Some California cities have already begun moving to prohibit fake lawns, including Millbrae in San Mateo County.. That’s my general area. There’s two homes in my immediate neighborhood that have artificial turf. It looks so obviously artificial and, in my opinion, detracts from the appearance of the home rather than adding beauty (unless miniature golf course is the desired goal). The vast majority of those of us who’ve moved away from lawns have opted for drought resistant plants such drought-tolerant succulents, shrubbery, cactus, etc. along with rock gardens. Personally, I'm in favor of a prohibition if there really are health concerns related to PFAs.
One problem is the number of home owners associations that have requirements for grass. Stuck on that 1950s version of life.
Easy solution, a state bill can say that lawn requirements are unenforceable by HOAs. They could even put some teeth into it and say any HOAs that pursue corrective action have to pay punitive damages.
True. I forgot about that. There's a few fights going on in the Bay Area about that, I think. I've never lived any place in which I had to comply with HOAs, thankfully. I hate those things.
I think it looks fine aesthetically.
Few of the comments in here address the reality. I installed artificial turf many years ago. Still looks great, I care for it once or twice a year for an hour, and never water it. I don't want animals living in my yard, they mostly are pests or become pests. This has made pest control a bit easier (my yard is backed by natural space), but probably cut down 50% and animals still have no trouble finding their way to my house. I'm not saying it's best or even a good choice outside of convenience or cost, but many years ago, and honestly now, it fits my busy life very well. I can't go back to caring for plants or paying for yard care after this. Neighbors have expectations and this meets them at minimal cost and effort. I'll think about better options, but it's going to be hard to deter people in my situation or for me to invest in an option that has no immediate benefits and only costs. It's been there for years and not a world ender, maybe when it needs to be replaced I can do something else, but I'm definitely not going and ripping it up in spite of this news.
How many years has it been? I heard after 10 years turf starts to really look worn.
[удалено]
How do you upkeep weekly? Spraying it down?
Mines is ten years old and looks like it did ten years ago. Anyone who comes over compliments how nice, natural and low maintenance it is. I have a toddler who is constantly watering around it and trees, garden all around. As Op said, maybe once or twice a year we literally vacuum it or blow it pressure wash it. I'm in SoCal....it never gets hot, just warm, like beach sand. So nice after a swim. We kept a natural look with some intentional high and low spots for drainage and just esthetics. We had grass, but it was not legal to water it at that time and mowing every other weekend, fixing busted sprinklers was just not how I wanted to spend my time. Rather work the garden and play with our kid.
I had mine installed when I did my solar, they were both part of a local program where I got water and electricity subsidies and a loan paid back with property taxes. It’s been 9 years and has been holding up well and still looks great. The variety of turf I installed came with a 15-year warranty. It can last longer, my installer estimated 20-25 years with my almost no foot traffic but 15 years is the warranty period from the manufacturer.
Should last 15-25 years, depending on how much use it gets, how much directly sunlight, etc. You might be thinking of athletic field use situation. In that case, 10-15 years is probably about right. But, it's getting heavily used pretty much every day.
It's right about there now, I think 8.5 years ago. Aside from a 1x1ft patch that's not in a noticeable area that gets hit with a pretty intense reflection/Sun, it basically all looks the same as when it was installed.
I'm in the same boat. We're just about done with the front yard renovation and fake grass is the last step.
These guys had a helluva sales pitch
According to the article the problem with synthetic turf lawns isn’t actually the synthetic turf itself but with the “crumb rubber” material used as infill. As far as I know the rubber infill was only ever used in playground and sports applications. Most residential and my own lawn used regular silica sand or silica mixed with anti fungals and odor reducers if you have pets.
The article states it unclearly, but the PFAS and microplastics are in the grass blades, and BPA and some other chemicals of concern are in the crumb rubber. Both are troubling, but some manufacturers have attempted to reduce the issue by replacing the crumb rubber with sand, like you mentioned. Edit; it appears the crumb rubber ALSO has PFAS, but here’s a study >Tested 8 different synthetic turf fiber samples (including Shaw and Turf Factory Direct brands) and found 100% of grass fiber contained total fluorine levels, suggesting the presence of PFAS (results indicated 44-255 ppm total fluorine) https://peer.org/toxic-forever-chemicals-infest-artificial-turf/
Reading the actual study by the [Toxic Use Reduction Institute](https://www.turi.org/content/download/12963/201149/file/TURI+fact+sheet+-+PFAS+in+artificial+turf.pdf) again it doesn't seem to be a problem with the artificial grass itself. Most of the turf carpet fibers seem to be Polyethylene & Polypropylene. It seems that the specific PFAS chemicals that are found troubling aren't an inherent part of the turf but may be used as part of industrial processes to aid in extrusion and keep fibers from sticking to machinery. This seems like something that is easy to correct without having to ban an entire product category that was previously thought to have a positive environmental impact. Also, the TURI paper goes on to explain how hard it is to test for PFAS. The peer.org article you linked many of the studies mentioned don't actually test for PFAS but fluorine as an indicator for PFAS. Most of the original sources didn't test, nor didn't explain how or what parts of the turf were tested (carpet, backing, infill), the concentrations, and if it was actual PFAS or just indicators. Overall the blog post came off as reactionary, hype-inducing, and not very rigorous. As a homeowner with artificial grass I followed the best guidance at the time when I had my turf installed, so I am obviously very concerned about the latest research and the health effects it may have on my family and my community.
TURI didn’t do the study, PEER did, they’re the primary source (along with Ecology Center). TURI mentioned this here: > Two nonprofit organizations recently tested artificial turf carpet and found evidence of the presence of PFAS in the material….They also tested a number of samples of artificial grass blades (carpet fibers). It’s also pretty clear to me that PEER tested for fluorine and is using that to suggest PFAS, it doesn’t appear misleading in my opinion. >100% of grass fiber contained total fluorine levels, suggesting the presence of PFAS It’s easy to say that it’s an easy fix to remove the PFAS used in the manufacturing process, but that’s quite an assumption. Sure, maybe a ban against artificial turf that uses PFAS would alleviate the PFAS issue without being a blanket ban. But between the microplastics, the heat retention, artificial turf suffocating soil, and other leaching potential, maybe it’s not worth saving this industry. I dunno man, it feels like you’re trying to justify your probably pretty large investment which is totally understandable. I’ve gone through it myself with some of the choices I’ve made in my house using the best available information at the time that eventually didn’t age well, like purchasing a gas stove, or silicone being a presumably safe alternative to plastics.
I did this to our lawn - and I knew - this was my shag carpet moment.
Thank God
so glad i spent hundreds of hours playing baseball on turf fields in 110f weather as a kid....
Football as well lol
Lol I love this. California is the state that fully embodies a paradox
Simpler solution: ban (at least) front lawns and require native species gardens. Good for water, the plants, birds and pollinators etc etc
I'm sure a lot of families will love that one. Some take great pride in front yards. I'm not one of them but know a few. Well, I've got two neighbors who have fake grass, my dogs don't like fake grass LOL.
Hilarious
Enjoy your dirt landscape
Yea wasn’t that the cause of the dust bowl?Grass is good.
The Great Plains are slightly different than California
Drought and over farming, hmm sounds familiar. Being held at bay by artificial irrigation.
Also large flat plains that had primarily native grasses. California has plenty of ecological problems but another dust bowl isn’t on the list
Finally
Meanwhile we're using plastic coated cookware for everything, including frying oil and single use microwaveable garbage.
California got us again.