EPA’s National “WaterSense” Program a One-Size-Fits-All for Landscaping and Harmful for Lawn and Landscape Industry
By Kris Kiser, Executive Vice President at the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is positioned to protect water in all forms, from ground water to underground sources to water coming out of the public’s tap. WaterSense, a partnership program sponsored by the EPA, was set up to work with local water utilities, product manufacturers, and retailers on the use of water-efficient products and practices among consumer and commercial audiences. Reinforced through a ‘WaterSense’ label, WaterSense, according to the EPA, “helps consumers easily identify water-efficient products in the marketplace.” WaterSense engineering standards for low flow toilets, shower heads, irrigation equipment and other engineered products are practical and measurable.
However, a disturbing development has taken place in the WaterSense program that threatens to undermine the very water quality standards the agency was established to protect and potentially undermine the well-deserved value of the WaterSense label.
Under its WaterSense new home specification, EPA developed and released draft specifications for new home construction. Home builders that follow the specs will be able to market a ‘WaterSense ®’ home. The draft specs include restrictions on the amount of turf grass that can be used on a home site. These specs are intended for implementation nationwide, border to border, coast to coast – with no exceptions. These specs do not take into account the fact that homes built in Seattle versus Oklahoma City are erected in vastly different climates.
Under current specs, no allowances for regional differences in climate or turf species exists; new home sites will be limited to 40 percent grass use on the site’s “landscape-able” area. It is a one size-fits-all specification. This means the amount of grass that can be planted on a Portland, OR home site would be the same as a home in Las Vegas. Imagine a Tucson desert landscape in Seattle and Boston neighborhoods. And, this also means, extreme desert locales would be allowed 40 percent turfgrass use on a home lot where it should not be used, requiring massive watering.
Our country is simply too large and complex, climate-wise, with multiple climatic zones for a single-national government standard on grass use for home lawns.
Yes, water should be used in a responsible manner. Lush green lawns of Kentucky Bluegrass may not be appropriate for desert landscapes and the landscape industry should work toward best management practices that support maximizing environmental benefits in a conscientious manner. The key is to plant the right plant in the right place to maximize its environmental, lifestyle and economic benefits, not eliminate them.
But, with these specs, the EPA singles out turfgrass as environmentally harmful, unfairly labeling it as a “water hog,” despite the fact that drought resistant turfgrasses are widely available in addition to the existence of large areas of the country that do not have rainfall or water availability issues.
Further, the myriad environmental benefits of turfgrass are ignored under these specs—from its well-documented carbon absorption and sequestering properties to superior water filtration, from its runoff and erosion control capabilities to dust and particulate matter capture properties, from its ability to combat the heat island effect to cooling our urban environments. These benefits –along with significant lifestyle benefits associated with a home’s yard for family use and pets — are somehow completely disregarded.
Yet, despite these facts, the EPA continues to declare war on turfgrass through such erroneous specs as the current WaterSense program promotes — even recommending mulch and artificial turf over grass green space. (Mulch and plastic grass do not filter air, remove water pollutants, produce oxygen or sequester carbon dioxide. How is this better?)
Plants are real, living things not engineered or manufactured to a specific standard. But, rather, they are ever changing and adaptable to variable climatic conditions. And, managed responsibly, have enormous benefits.
EPA has held several public hearings on its WaterSense new home specification, where these landscape criteria have come under attack as being arbitrary, non-responsive to local and regional variances and not based on science. Turfgrass utilization has not been evaluated in a holistic environmental assessment. Yet, while the agency has altered the draft specification to reflect other industries’ concerns, the turf restrictions remain in place. EPA plans to finalize its WaterSense new home specification in November of this year.
If these criteria are adopted in their current form, they will have adverse environmental, lifestyle and economic consequences, and may actually create scenarios that use more water (not less) and severely depress jobs in a host of businesses involved in the $150 billion a year lawn and landscape industry.
In its current form, the landscape criteria of the EPA’s WaterSense program, which limits the amount of turfgrass on every home built in the United States, is simply bad public policy that will produce negative outcomes for our environment and will eliminate the green jobs for which the current Administration has been vocally supportive.
Kris Kiser is the Executive Vice President of the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI). OPEI is the international trade association representing the $15 billion landscape, forestry, utility and lawn and garden equipment manufacturing industry.
What you can do about EPA’s “WaterSense” Program
OPEI, the National Turfgrass Federation, and other interested parties have submitted comments to EPA, have testified at hearings, and have met repeatedly with agency staff on our concerns. These actions, while necessary, have not been productive with the agency.
However, the numerous inquiries the agency has received from Members of Congress about the specification’s draconian treatment of turf – the singling out, in effect, of this one type of groundcover — has earned the attention of EPA. These inquiries were prompted by letters and phone calls from constituents whose livelihood depends either directly or indirectly on turfgrass or from those who seek to maintain the lifestyle and holistic environmental benefits associated with home lawns.
We urgently recommend all interested parties to write to their congressional representative and Senators asking him or her to raise these issues with EPA and ask that the agency set aside the WaterSense outdoor landscape criteria for now, evaluate the science, and work with stakeholders to improve the product. Contact information for your representatives can be found at www.senate.gov and www.house.gov or you can contact Kris Kiser at OPEI at kkiser@opei.org.
Remind lawmakers that when properly managed and maintained, the benefits of turfgrass are multifold:
Captures Water Runoff and Dust
• Turfgrass does an excellent job of capturing water runoff and lessening dust and particulate matter pollution, versus alternatives such as hard surfaces, mulched areas and impervious or bare surfaces.
According to a Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) 2006 Publication, turfgrass decreases dust emissions and for controlling soil erosion, a live, functioning grass cover, including urban lawns, is a cost-effective option, since a grass root system is one of the most effective in soil stabilization because of the fibrous, dense character of its roots.
Lessens Heat Island Effect
• Turfgrass lessens the “heat island” effect, especially in urban areas. Urban areas generally have higher temperatures than surrounding rural areas, well known as the urban “heat island” effect. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states that “the annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F (1–3°C) warmer than its surroundings. In the evening, the difference can be as high as 22°F (12°C).”
Captures, Stores Carbon in Roots
• Properly managed turf areas are significant carbon sinks. When kept in a growing state, carbon sequestration in turf areas can range anywhere from four to seven times the carbon emissions, according to a report, Technical Assessment of the Carbon Sequestration Potential of Managed Turfgrass in the United States by Dr. Ranajit (Ron) Sahu. See study at: http://www.opei.org/ht/d/sp/i/1428/pid/1428
Boosts the Oxygen Footprint
• Turfgrass can boost your oxygen footprint. Compared to bare ground, non-green areas, and lawn substitutes, such as painted concrete or even artificial turf, actual grass and green areas generate oxygen. For example, a turf area 50′ x 50′ produces enough oxygen to meet the everyday needs of a family of four and each acre of grass produces enough oxygen for 64 people a day. (Source: http://www.turfgrasssod.org/lawninstitute/environmental_benefits.htm)
Help The Lawn Blog grow add us to the Stumble!


















Blog Posts Feed (RSS)
September 5th, 2009 at 1:24 am
Artificial turf is as good as natural grass and has been designed to be like real grass, not like a carpet.
The most important ideas and necessities to start building artificial grass were developing a synthetic system was that it presented the favorable biomechanical properties of natural grass, combined with the best features of a robust synthetic system:
• low maintenance
• all-weather playability
• unlimited playing time
Heavenly Greens have been designing artificial materials as an engineered system. They have been carefully and thoroughly developing it, with the usability purpose, not just thrown together for the purpose of a sale. In order to obtain total high level quality control, manufacturers have invested profoundly in modernizing its plants with the latest technologies, top manufacturing talent and specialized installation equipment for its experienced install teams.
October 7th, 2009 at 9:45 am
This is an excellent point to expose and correct, or make allowance for.
It’s one of those subtle things. Oddly, it reminds me of something barely related, which is awards for landscapers. Why do I mention that?
Because awards sound good, coming from an organization where the stamp of approval sounds good. But landscapers often buy a ticket to enter, so they are not shown to be the best of all choices available. Usually the peers judging, would not be arborists for the tree aspect, or agronomists for the soil aspect.
So the inner workings and framework of the award system have inherent weakness and its never exposed.
This Watersense Program seems so like that in a couple of aspects. It has a stamp of approval by what seems a respectful organization, but the whole scenerio limits the possibilities.
At least as thiis article points out though, the weakness and limitations are being exposed, opening the door for improvement.
MDV
Oregon
November 26th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
The WaterSense program has been a trusted label, but its current plan to apply that label indiscriminately to new home lawns is not science-based and has potential adverse effects on the environment. Reducing grass will decrease the ability to absorb and sequester carbon, and increase runoff, erosion, dust and particulate matter and the heat island effect, as well as lead to the loss of lifestyle benefits.
December 2nd, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Despite the fact that I currently live in the UK, as an Israeli garden designer- I am well familiar with water issue.
And so are few important things to add:
1. The green and fresh is also important for the feeling and look: areas with gardens got less violent and stress in general.
2. another effect the lawn area has that is not mentioned is reducing noise which is important thing in cities and town.
We also found that the drought is usually for few years and so can change a bit so the solutions should be saving water but keeping lawns:
1. better irrigation systems.
2. In the Us there are saving water varites
3. Having lawns were needed for use. so in diffrent words reducing the size to the size that people will use to play on. And use ground covers were not actually using the lawn actively.
Surprisingly there huge areas in israel for example along the highway with irrigated lawns- In the last few years. all new project were planted with native plants instead.
Personally, in gardens, I prefer to see a small green well maintained lush lawn than a big drying lawn that got many weeds in.
April 17th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
While I agree with much of this article I also want to point out that lawn and irrigation mandates are only one portion of what the Water Sense program has sought to enact. The initial focus on the program was to set guidelines for water usage on toilets and faucets.
http://www.accentmowing.com