Water agencies and conservation advocates now avoid their earlier favorite low-water term, “xeriscaping,” after a lot of ugly landscape designs raised the ire of homeowners who perceived the results as aesthetically “zeroscaping.” The agency will design a homeowner’s low-water garden for free, and pay material costs up to $3,000 for 500 square feet - even more for a zero-water landscape. A robust plan needs two elements, they say: Limits on largely ornamental or “aesthetic” grass in new development, and a turf buyback program for existing homes and businesses that pays to rip out thirsty grass and design pleasing, water-wise landscaping.Īurora Water is one of the few Colorado utilities currently buying existing turf. “We can think of these types of turf replacement programs as our next reservoir of water, and it’s going to be our cheapest, fastest, most reliable form of new supply.”Īurora Water says it recently spent $17,000 an acre-foot for water rights on a South Platte Basin farm.Ĭolorado water experts increasingly point to southern Nevada and Las Vegas authorities as their models for saving water by controlling turf. “Think about that across hundreds of thousands of acres of turf in the Front Range and throughout Colorado,” Rogers said. An acre-foot covers a football field in a foot of water, and supplies one to three households for a year. WRA estimates replacing an acre of grass with more efficient landscape saves 1 to 2 acre-feet of water a year. The turf-limiting programs make a real impact, Rogers added. “Aurora Water is certainly ahead of the trend in moving toward replacing turf, or progressive turf limits in new development,” said Lindsay Rogers, water analyst with the nonprofit Western Resource Advocates. But fast-growing Aurora, with 385,000 residents and big housing developments on many edges, is turning heads, they added. Smaller cities like Castle Rock and Aspen have also made progressive moves on water efficiency and alternative landscaping, water experts say.
Aurora Water says the proposed limits would knock about $2,500 off the roughly $25,000 tap fees builders pay for each home because the efficiencies would mean the agency doesn’t need to acquire as much water to supply that area.Īn Aurora City Council committee will review the turf-limiting proposals again Wednesday, with votes scheduled in June and a proposed effective date for developers Jan. “Water resources are becoming increasingly scarce in the state and we have to recognize that.”Ĭoffman said he’s long had the philosophy that developers should not burden existing homeowners, and water prices for Aurora’s future needs are skyrocketing. “It’s a new reality for Colorado,” said Coffman, who previously served in Congress. With Republican Aurora Mayor Mike Coffman helping to lead the charge, it appears the tide of fresh water onto grass has officially ebbed. Some see it as the beginning of the end of purely “aesthetic” turf. Denver is working with Denver Water on green building codes that could include Las Vegas-style caps on decorative turf and seasonal gallon limits on watering per square foot. No home lawns sprawling out front and back - turf in backyards would max out at 750 square feet.īut get ready, metropolitan water users everywhere else in the state - water experts say similar restrictions on thirsty, traditional turf lawns are on their way. No grass in medians or decorative spots near offices.
The climate-conscious, first-in-Colorado edicts proposed by the City of Aurora are clear: No new golf courses flooding grass with precious water.
0 kommentar(er)
