THINKING LIKE AN ECOSYSTEM: Grass Ain't Good

Every year, the grass would die. My dad would rip out the old sod, replace it with new sod, and hope like hell it'd actually grow this year. He'd sprinkle the lawn with every tincture and mix and serum known to man, and at the end of the year, it'd still die. Finally fed up with this cycle, we ripped out our lawn. We replaced it with beds of snap peas, green beans, crookneck squash, zucchini, tomatoes, chives, oregano, and the list goes on... The beds are connected with spiraling rock paths, and backed with a hillside of ivy-- perhaps a plant more resilient than any other.

Our removal of grass stemmed mostly from the fact that our yard was too shady to grow it successfully. But there are other rewards for replacing grass lawns too. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), "every year across the country, lawns consume nearly 3 trillion gallons of water, 200 million gallons of gas (for all that mowing), and 70 million pounds of pesticides. Also explained by the NRDC, grass fails to provide any viable habitat for pollinators and other creatures which generate a healthy ecosystem. They state, "Birds, for instance, may ingest berries and seeds that have absorbed pesticides from the ground. Likewise, rainwater runoff from lawns can carry pesticides and fertilizers into rivers, lakes, streams, and oceans via the sewer system. This can poison fish and other aquatic animals and harm humans who swim, surf, and eat seafood that may be contaminated. And then, of course, lawn mowers can pollute the air." So yeah, lawns aren't great.

Lawns especially aren't great in a state with little water and high water use, like Utah. According to the United States Geological Survey, "Utahns use more water per person than anyone else in the country [at] 248 gallons of water a day." Compounding on the seriousness of this statement is the fact that Utah is virtually always in water shortage. In fact, this year marks the first time since 2011 that Utah hasn't been saddled with a drought. Unfortunately, lawns are the norm. As Harvard magazine explains, " Of the 116 million American households, only about 25 percent do not have yards or grass to take care of."

But think how powerful it would be if the other 75% of those 116 million American households DID replace their lawns with more ecologically friendly flora? Or even if just the state of Utah replaced their lawns? Or even if a single neighborhood did? In order to see this type of widespread change, however, I believe a shift in policy will need to occur. Some policies which encourage lawn alternatives do already exist. For example, California offers a rebate of up to $500/yard for citizens who replace turf with native, water-wise xeriscaping. However, other policies do just the opposite. Multiple homeowners who have converted their yards say that their governments have penalized them for doing so. Sarah baker, a St. Albans, Ohio resident, reports that she was "forced to mow" after authorities deemed her water-wise landscape a "nuisance." Along the same line, Sandra Christos from Stone Harbor, New Jersey, explains that her new native plant landscape attracted a myriad of delightful creatures such as herons, kingfishers, and "every kind of butterfly you can imagine." Nonetheless, she was sent a letter from her town clerk that demanded she tame her landscape or else pay a fine.

Not only are there few policies like California's that incentive no-mow lawns, there are many that actually penalize for them. I propose a shift in this precedent. I propose that my local Holladay government begin by incentivizing no-mow lawns with a rebate of $550/yard, free classes on how to implement and maintain this style of yard, and an initial fleet of horticulturists to troubleshoot citizens' questions. Then I propose that this transition strategy is intensified through a policy that mandates the no-mow landscaping. Those who fail to convert their yards will be faced with a steep monetary penalty.

Even on a small scale of a single city, this shift in policy could make a massive difference in reducing the amount of water used. (As well as gas and pesticides!) It would also create such a dynamic, unique, and place-based environment, as the yards would consist of engaging, regional plants. Additionally, this would likely help to support local nurseries that specialize in endemic and regional species. I do see one complaint following this shift being "without a lawn there's no room for my 18 kids to play!" I simply don't agree. I think if anything, this style of landscaping encourages more play and interaction from children than a boring, flat lawn. Additionally, if the children really did need a place to practice sports and what not on a lawn, the money saved in water costs could be put toward the maintenance of local parks which have lawns.

To finish up, I've included a handful of photos featuring beautiful, ELEGANT, happy no-mow yards! Also, if anyone's interested, I've found these two books to be excellent resources: "Beautiful No-Mow Lawns" by Evelyn J. Hadden, and "Lawn Gone! Low-Maintenance, Sustainable, Attractive Alternatives for Your Yard" by Pam Penick.