Colorado lawmakers take aim at turf — again

HB 1113 would add apartment and condo complexes to list of properties where bluegrass is restricted

News | Feb 9, 2025

Heather Sackett

Glenwood Springs homeowners Ginny and Jim Minch replaced their lawn with drought-tolerant plants and decorative rocks using a rebate program through the city of Glenwood. Colorado lawmakers have introduced another bill this session taking aim at thirsty turf as a way of conserving water.
*Heather Sackett/Aspen Journalism*

Colorado lawmakers want to add more restrictions on thirsty grass in new residential developments in an effort to conserve water.

House Bill 1113 would limit planting non-functional turf, artificial turf or invasive plant species in new and redeveloped apartment or condominium housing. This year’s bill is an extension of last year’s Senate Bill 5, which requires local governments by Jan. 1, 2026, to establish policies prohibiting the planting of nonfunctional turf as part of any new development or redevelopment alongside roads and streets or in medians, as well as in areas surrounding offices or other commercial buildings, in front of government buildings, and in entryways and common areas managed by homeowners associations.

Under HB 1113, local governments would also have to enact their own policies about how to limit new turf on properties not covered by either of the two state bills by 2028.

The bill represents a continuing effort across the Colorado River basin to wring savings from municipal water use in the face of a warming and drying climate. State Sen. Dylan Roberts, who represents District 8, is a sponsor of the bill, along with representatives Karen McCormick and Lesley Smith, all Democrats. Roberts, whose district includes Garfield, Routt, Summit and Eagle counties, said the bill was born out of a general desire to conserve water.

“Whether it’s ongoing drought that is putting a strain on our water supply, negotiations over interstate compacts like the Colorado River or population growth, there’s just a lot of demands on Colorado’s water,” Roberts said. “Water that’s being used for non-functional turf is a pretty obvious place to look for water savings.”

Real estate developers in Aurora typically created lavish areas devoted to turf along streets, including this one, but a 2022 law dramatically reduced what is permitted in future developments. A new bill would require local entities to enact their own regulations regarding turf.

The prohibition on new grass is not aimed at lawns for single-family homes, parks, playgrounds or sports fields. Non-functional turf is defined as grass that is not used for civic, community or recreation purposes. Often planted alongside roads or sidewalks, medians or around offices, commercial or government buildings, it is purely ornamental and the only person who ever walks on it is pushing a lawnmower.

In recent years, municipalities and urban water providers have focused on thirsty Kentucky bluegrass as low-hanging fruit in reducing outdoor water use. Outdoor water use can be the biggest factor in a development’s water use overall. Voluntary turf removal incentives have grown in popularity, with lawmakers creating a state funding source in 2022 for property owners to replace lawns with less water-intensive landscaping. A 2023 statewide drought task force also recommended to the legislature that they continue to fund turf removal programs.

Rep. Karen McCormick, whose district includes Boulder County, said the second part of the bill that requires local entities to enact their own regulations on turf is a nod to local control. Those regulations could include limiting new turf planted around single-family homes, as a handful of municipalities, including Aurora and Castle Rock, have done.

“We’re not telling the local entities how to do that or what to do, but to do this your way that works for your community and your county, your city,” McCormick said. “We’re just saying, please look at how you are allowing high-water-use turf and please sit down and address how you can be part of the solution.”

Environmental groups like Conservation Colorado, Western Resource Advocates, the Sierra Club and 350 Colorado are supporting the measure.

Chelsea Benjamin, a policy adviser at WRA, said the organization is supporting HB 1113 to build on the statewide progress over the past few years toward more water-wise landscaping.

“Especially in the context of Colorado becoming a hotter and drier place, our resources are getting stretched thin,” Benjamin said. “There have been a lot of efforts to date to focus on water conservation because we know that it’s the cheapest, fastest and most reliable way to help our communities thrive in this new reality.”

The place where HB 1113 may be most effective is in fast-growing Front Range cities. Several large municipal water providers on the east side of the Continental Divide are monitoring the legislation as it makes its way through the state House and Senate, including Denver Water, Colorado Springs Utilities and Aurora Water, which together serve about 2.4 million residents.

Colorado Springs, like some other communities around the state, is already addressing turf in its land use code. According to Julia Gallucci, water conservation supervisor for CSU, the city of Colorado Springs, which is a separate entity, would need to make only minor tweaks to its land use code to be in compliance with state rules. In Colorado Springs’ 2023 land use code update, new construction projects are limited to 25% turf in any irrigated areas.

For cities, reducing outdoor water use is key to meeting conservation goals and stretching existing water supplies. Gallucci said that outdoor watering accounts for 40% of Colorado Springs’ total use system wide.

“Water is a limited resource,” Gallucci said. “We are a water-depleted state, and we are a growing city so we have to do our part.”

The lone group opposing the bill as of Wednesday was Colorado Counties, Inc., which represents all of the state’s 64 counties. Reagan Shane, CCI’s legislative and policy advocate, said that while many county representatives, especially those on the Western Slope, supported the idea of water conservation, more than 65% of the state’s counties voted to oppose the bill.

“We just don’t even know that it’s something we can police,” Shane said. “How do we pass regulations that we can’t functionally police and what are the implications of that and is that good governance?”

The National Association of Landscape Professionals, GreenCO and the Synthetic Turf Council are looking to amend the bill.

John McMahon is CEO of Associated Landscape Contractors of Colorado, which is one of the seven organizations under the umbrella of GreenCO. He said his group is hoping to amend the bill so that certain species of less-thirsty grass are excluded from the definition of “turf.”

“We are looking for exemptions for new species of hybridized turf available out there,” McMahon said. “Our overall view is the right turf for the right climate and certainly the right part of the yard. We don’t agree with having Kentucky bluegrass everywhere either.”

HB 1113 is scheduled for a hearing before the House Agriculture, Water & Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 20.