HB85 would prohibit the installation of “nonfunctional turf” on state-owned or state-funded property beginning January 1, 2027. The bill defines nonfunctional turf as irrigated grass with no recreational purpose or that is primarily decorative, including turf in medians, roundabouts, parking lots, and landscape strips between sidewalks and streets, as well as similar turf on commercial and industrial properties when tied to the bill’s definition. It also sets a later transition date, January 1, 2032, after which only recycled or reclaimed water may be used to irrigate nonfunctional turf on covered property, and any such turf removed must be replaced with drought- and climate-resilient landscaping.
Impact
The bill would create new restrictions on landscaping practices for public projects and for capital improvement projects that receive at least 40% state funding. It would effectively phase out decorative, irrigated turf on covered properties and shift replacement landscaping toward xeriscaping, native and drought-tolerant plants, water-harvesting systems, drip irrigation, mulches, and other low-water approaches. The measure would not ban all turf, only nonfunctional turf as defined in the bill, and it would change how state-funded properties may be landscaped and irrigated over time.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a policy preference for water conservation, drought resilience, and reduced reliance on potable water for ornamental landscaping. The delayed effective dates suggest an incremental approach intended to give agencies and project sponsors time to adjust.
Contention
The main likely points of contention are the scope of the term “nonfunctional turf,” the cost and feasibility of replacing existing landscaping, and the practical implications for state-owned and state-funded capital projects. Stakeholders concerned about aesthetics, project design flexibility, or upfront conversion costs may object, while water conservation advocates and agencies focused on long-term resource management are likely to support the bill. Another possible issue is how broadly the 40% state-funding threshold will apply to mixed-funded projects.