The economics of turf replacement programs

This column takes a slight detour from the usual ag-related focus; however, I think you’ll see a connection to our own sector of the irrigation industry.

Following-up on the Southern Nevada Water Authority’s and others’ turf replacement programs, proposed Colorado House Bill 1151 would create a $2 million to $4 million annual pool to pay homeowners, businesses and other property owners to replace irrigated bluegrass on lawns, common areas, road medians and other areas where turf may not be actively contributing to the community’s aesthetics. The turf buyout bill would provide $1 per square foot to those communities not currently offering a buyout program and add an additional $1 per square foot for those already offering such a program. The main beneficiaries of this program are water-conscious consumers who can reduce their water bill by reducing irrigation and water providers using this program to leverage the conserved water into needed drought reserves or, in some cases, accommodate additional growth.

About any measure that conserves water is economical in this environment.

I’m currently working on a team focused upon the water provider angle and the potential for turf replacements for nonresidential customers. The study is in its early stages and results are a few months away. However, current raw water acquisition costs along the Colorado Northern Front Range are in the $50,000 to $85,000 per acre-foot range, translating to an annual equivalent cost of raw water of $12 to $20 per 1,000 gallons. That’s about three times higher than consumers’ current water rates in the region, even before water treatment and distribution costs are added. About any measure that conserves water is economical in this environment. So, the important question to the irrigation industry is not whether the turf replacement is economical, but what does a turf replacement program do to overall investment in irrigation systems? Hopefully, some insights will soon be available.

Speaking as a water-conscious, former suburban Denver resident, however, I conducted my own personal turf replacement pilot study in the early 1990s and can speak from experience. Since water rates were lower back then, it took awhile to fully recover the cost of conversion. Hiring a landscape architect to design something that was both water conserving and attractive to my skeptical neighbors turned out to be an invaluable first step. Also, I preserved enough turf to keep my dog happy and recover my investment in a lawn mower. I lived on a 1-acre parcel in a sprawling neighborhood and invested a LOT of money on a wide range of water-conserving plants. And darned if I was going to let this investment, plus what I spent for installation and mulch, die due to a lack of water, even it only needed a few inches of supplemental water per year. So, the unanticipated major cost was modifying my sprinkler system to accommodate the reduced turf and increased need for precision applications on the remaining parts. In this spirit, I also installed a lot of drip irrigation.

The takeaway from my past and ongoing experience is that well-designed and implemented turf replacement programs work as intended. But maybe more important to this audience is that the irrigation industry has nothing to fear from turf replacement initiatives and may experience net benefits due to increased demand for precision irrigation equipment, at least on the residential side of the business. The jury may still be out on the nonresidential side, but I would speculate the results are also good for the industry.

George Oamek, PhD, is an economist with Headwaters Corp. and is also on the staff of the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program’s executive director’s office.