Sharks! Tomatoes! Astroturf?!

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

For the last several years, the Southern Nevada Water Association (SNWA) has experienced great success with its turf replacement program. Under the program, SNWA pays property owners $1.50 per square foot for grass removed and replaced with a water-efficient landscape, including artificial turf. According to its Web site, SNWA estimates that by replacing thirsty lawns with “water-smart” alternatives, the average property owner can save thousands of gallons per year.
No doubt inspired by SNWA’s success, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California recently began its own rebate program. As of July 1, 2008, both commercial and residential property owners are eligible to receive a 30-cent rebate for replacing grass with synthetic turf. The district anticipates similar water savings, about 33,000 gallons per year for a 750-square-foot parcel.
Similar turf replacement programs have sprouted up across the country as water scarcity and extreme drought conditions have pushed many communities to look for water-saving alternatives to traditional lawns and other water-intensive landscaping. The Synthetic Turf Council estimates that upwards of 3,500 synthetic playing fields exist throughout the nation, with another 800 installed annually at universities, parks, and stadiums.
As an artificial turf user myself – I’ve got about 20 square feet laid out on a rooftop patio at home – one of the most attractive features of artificial turf is that it stays green year-round with no irrigation needed. We’ve all felt that sense of satisfaction when a previously dry patch suddenly blooms with color, even if that color is fake. But now it appears the pigment used to keep this grass green contains lead chromate, which many of you might remember from the massive Chinese toy recall that happened earlier this year.
In fact, a Center for Environmental Health (CEH) study, released on June 23, 2008, included test results showing high levels of lead in all kinds of artificial turf – from the type used on big, stadium-like installations, all the way down to the stuff you can buy one yard at a time at your local home improvement center. Reaction to the test results was swift: On June 25, the CEH initiated legal action against the retailers and synthetic turf companies under California’s Proposition 65 law.
This is not good news for the MWD, but the storm’s been brewing for a while. In May of this year, the California Senate passed a bill sponsored by Senator Abel Maldonado (R-Santa Maria), calling for a state study investigating the health and environmental impacts of natural versus synthetic turf fields. And earlier this year, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) released its own warning about potential lead exposures from turf, stating that “As the turf ages and weathers, lead is released in dust that could then be ingested or inhaled, and the risk for harmful exposure increases.”
Additionally, when the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services (NJDHSS) closed several artificial turf fields, one of the potential hazards cited was the possibility of ingesting the turf dust created from dissolved turf fibers. And although the artificial turf industry continues to assert that its products are safe, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has launched its own investigation into the potential risks of lead poisoning from artificial turf.
So what is the solution? On the one hand, there is no denying that replacing real grass with artificial turf can save thousand of gallons of water … but at what price? Are our kids really at risk, or this just another “shark week” moment – just one more opportunity for the media to ramp up the hype and induce consumer hysteria?