New apartments and condominium complexes would be prohibited from planting non-functional turf beginning in 2028 under a bill being advanced by Colorado lawmakers. 

House Bill 1113 is aimed at limiting non-native grass and artificial alternatives in areas where it doesn’t serve a purpose. The bill’s sponsors say it’s another step toward reducing water use in a drought-stricken state. 

“This bill sends a strong signal to Colorado as a whole that we need to rethink how we build our communities and make them resilient to climate change,” said Rep. Leslie Smith, a Boulder Democrat and prime sponsor, during a bill hearing on Thursday. “Drought-proofing our landscapes across the state will help us accomplish this.” 

House Bill 1113 is also sponsored by Rep. Karen McCormick, D-Longmont, and Sen. Dylan Roberts, D-Frisco.

The bill would still allow turf, both real and synthetic, to be used for recreational, civic and community purposes, such as playgrounds, sports fields and amphitheaters. The bill does not limit turf for single-family homes but would require local governments to come up with policies for how to regulate turf in all new residential areas by 2028. 

“We know that historically, residential developers have long installed turf as a default in new housing,” McCormick said, adding that high-water use turf, like the popular Kentucky bluegrass, requires significant amounts of water

“And that type of turf … is not sustainable in an arid environment such as Colorado,” McCormick said. 

The proposal builds off a previous measure passed last year that bans local governments from planting turf in areas like medians and right-of-ways. That legislation is slated to go into effect in 2026. 

Those who spoke in support of the measure on Thursday included conservationists who advocated for native landscapes in residential development, while representatives from the turf industry were largely against the bill over concerns that it would hurt their business. 

Sod producers said they’ve worked to develop turf that uses less water while artificial turf manufacturers questioned why their product would be included in the ban, arguing that synthetic grass helps with water conservation. 

Bill sponsors cited the overheating that can occur with artificial turf, which absorbs and traps heat more easily than real grass. Environmentalists have also criticized the plastic involved in making artificial turf, which can hurt soil health by blocking water from permeating the earth. 

Governmental groups agreed on the need for more conservation policy but raised concern over the bill’s timeline for implementation given that cities and counties are already working to comply with the requirements of last year’s turf bill. Some said the latest proposal could also restrict local governments’ abilities to make planning decisions that are best for their communities. 

“Local government should be considered during the legislative process as Colorado is not a one-size-fits-all state,” said Brittany Dixon, executive director for Club 20, a coalition of Western Slope counties. 

Dixon said the group is worried that the bill’s push for local governments to rewrite policies could be a challenge for rural communities “that may find themselves up against unfunded mandates and fiscal restraints.” 

“Should we see future incentives and rewards programs to achieve the proposed conservation efforts, we could potentially find our way closer to a support position,” Dixon said. 

Bill sponsors introduced amendments to the legislation aimed at giving local governments more flexibility when it comes to turf policies and clarifying the differences between functional and non-functional turf. 

The bill passed out of the House Agriculture, Water and Natural Resources Committee on a party-line 9-3 vote, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed. It now heads to the House for a full chamber vote.