Water Conservation Could Limit Suburban Lawns
By: Susan Sward

John Boyle, a 51-year-old venture capitalist in Menlo Park, built a new home on his property more than a decade ago largely to create a big lawn where his children could play football or baseball.

So Mr. Boyle, who is also a city councilman, is particularly sensitive to the idea that a proposed municipal ordinance to cut landscaping watering would prohibit other people from doing the same. He says he applauds conservation but is against the government dictating how to do it.

“I think it is important, where possible, for people to design their yards the way they want,” he said in an interview last week.

The all-American suburban lawn, the backdrop for everything from the illustrations in old Dick & Jane readers to House Beautiful, long ago began to fade in the drought-prone suburbs around San Francisco Bay.

But now a 2006 state law, designed to conserve water by altering landscaping practices, is taking effect, and the changes that began three decades ago are likely to accelerate. One proposal being considered in Menlo Park could restrict lawns on new or reconfigured landscapes to no more than 500 square feet per dwelling unit or to no more than 25 percent of the landscaped area, whichever is larger.

Cities and towns around the Bay Area are scrambling to meet the state-imposed deadline to adopt water conservation landscaping ordinances intended to drive down their outdoor usage — which in this region is usually 50 percent or more of total household use — and many are considering ordinances tougher than the model ordinance prepared by state officials.

The communities must report to the state what they have done by Jan. 31.

Environmental groups call the coming changes a major step forward. But some homeowners — particularly in towns along the peninsula like Los Altos Hills, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton and Hillsborough with a tradition of water-intensive landscaping — dislike the idea of government limits on gardening choices.

Others think the proposals are too complex. Asher Waldfogel, a citizen adviser to Palo Alto on water use issues, said of that city’s proposed restrictions: “With this ordinance, you’re subject to water use audits, you’re financially held responsible to mulch your lawn, to aerate, dethatch, prune and fertilize. It’s an unenforceable regime that doesn’t make sense.”

Neighboring Menlo Park, like Palo Alto, is trying to design its own ordinance. This approach is allowed by the state law as long as the local ordinance conserves at least as much water as the state’s model. Mayor Richard Cline is not yet sure what form his town’s ordinance will take, but he is sure that it is likely to offend some residents.

“There is a keen sensitivity on the part of many people to any measure that would seem draconian in the sense it would reduce their ability to have a lawn of their own in the size they want on their own property,” he said. “The sensitivity is rather acute.”

But that is not the only reaction, he added. “The other side says, ‘It’s our planet, it’s our climate, we need to conserve water,’ ” he said. “I think that side views a big lawn as a luxury — not something a homeowner has to have.”

The history of local lawns is relatively brief. Kathleen Brenzel, the editor of the garden section of Sunset Magazine, said that when the Spaniards moved in, they brought Mediterranean plants suited to the dry climate. But, she said, “As the influx of people came from the East, they said, ‘Oh, we want our green lawns,’ they wanted English-style gardens.” Sunset’s own seven-acre campus in Menlo Park includes large areas of lawn.

But those who prefer lawns often overestimate the amount of water their turf requires, said John Harpootlian, the chairman of the Los Altos Hills Water Conservation Committee. In two-thirds of Los Altos Hills, where home lots must cover at least one acre, water comes from the Purissima Hills Water District. Per capita residential water use in that district is the highest in the area; the town of Hillsborough 25 miles to the north is close behind.

One of the reasons “we are high is because our lots are larger,” Mr. Harpootlian said. He added, “Households that put in large lawns are always going to be a problem.”#