Limit Turf in New Residential Development
HB1113 limits the use of nonfunctional turf, nonfunctional artificial turf, and invasive plant species in certain new development and redevelopment projects in Colorado. The bill’s core policy is to reduce irrigation demand by steering new landscaping away from water-intensive grass in places that are not regularly used for civic, community, or recreational purposes. It also defines several key terms, including “functional turf,” “functional artificial turf,” “urban tree,” and “applicable residential real property,” and it expressly preserves the use of turf in athletic fields, parks, playgrounds, golf-course playing areas, and certain civil infrastructure applications.
The bill requires local governments with land-use and zoning authority to adopt or amend ordinances by January 1, 2028, to regulate turf installation in new residential development and redevelopment so as to reduce outdoor water demand. For multifamily residential housing premises with more than 12 dwelling units, local entities are prohibited beginning January 1, 2028, from installing or allowing nonfunctional turf, nonfunctional artificial turf, or invasive plant species in new development or redevelopment projects. The bill also directs local governments to consider applicable residential real property and allows them to use whatever regulatory standard or mechanism they choose, so long as they meet the bill’s water-conservation goals. Separate provisions apply to state facilities, barring the installation of these materials in new state facility construction or renovation projects beginning January 1, 2025.
HB1113 would amend Colorado’s statutes governing turf and landscaping in land-use planning, expanding the state’s existing water-conservation framework to include residential development and multifamily properties. It creates new statutory definitions and adds affirmative limits on local and state project landscaping choices, while preserving local authority to impose stricter rules. The bill also protects the installation of native, arid-adapted, and low-water grasses, and it expressly allows the preservation and installation of urban trees.
The overall sentiment around the bill appears generally favorable but not unanimous. The committee and floor votes show strong support in both chambers, including unanimous or near-unanimous committee action on amendments and passage, but with meaningful opposition on the House and Senate floor votes. That pattern suggests broad agreement on the water-conservation objective, paired with some concern about the scope and mandates of the regulation.
The main points of contention are likely the bill’s reach into local land-use decisions, the requirement that local governments regulate turf in new residential development, and the restrictions on landscaping choices in multifamily housing and redevelopment projects. Supporters appear to emphasize water savings, climate adaptation, and reduced urban heat, while opponents likely focus on local control, development flexibility, cost, and the practical effects on property design and landscaping standards. The bill’s carveouts for functional turf, athletic fields, and urban trees indicate an effort to balance conservation goals with recreational and infrastructure needs.
HB1113 would amend Colorado Revised Statutes title 37, article 99, by expanding the state’s turf-regulation framework to cover new residential development and redevelopment, including multifamily residential housing premises with more than 12 dwelling units. It imposes statewide restrictions on local entities and state agencies regarding the installation of nonfunctional turf, nonfunctional artificial turf, and invasive plant species, while requiring local governments with land-use authority to adopt or update ordinances by January 1, 2028. The bill also preserves the ability to install native, arid-adapted, and low-water grasses, and it explicitly allows functional turf, artificial turf on athletic fields, and urban trees.
The bill appears to have broad support for its water-conservation and climate-adaptation goals, as reflected in strong committee votes and passage in both chambers. At the same time, the floor votes show a notable minority in opposition, indicating that the measure was not universally embraced. Overall, the sentiment is favorable but mixed, with the strongest support coming from members aligned with water policy, environmental, and urban heat mitigation concerns.
The main contention centers on whether the state should direct local landscaping standards in new development and redevelopment, especially for residential and multifamily projects. Critics are likely concerned about state preemption or intrusion into local land-use authority, as well as the practical and economic effects on builders, property owners, and housing design. Supporters, by contrast, emphasize water scarcity, climate resilience, and the need to reduce nonfunctional, water-intensive turf. The bill’s exemptions for athletic fields, parks, golf-course playing areas, infrastructure uses, and urban trees appear designed to address some of these concerns while preserving functional landscaping uses.