Kill your lawn

[FireLane]

This is a good video from Mexie, a Canadian YouTuber, making the case for getting rid of lawns:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1iFQX1_Xso

Millions of suburban dwellers think a uniform expanse of manicured grass is normal and aesthetically pleasing. In fact, lawns are ecologically barren and a giant waste of resources. Maintaining them takes gas-guzzling mowers, toxic pesticides, regular application of fertilizer that contaminates rivers and streams, and huge amounts of water - often more than natural rainfall can replenish. That's not even to mention all the time devoted to lawn care.

She talks about how lawns were originally a status symbol of European nobility. They were a way to show off how wealthy you were, that you could afford to devote all that space to useless turf rather than crops.

The middle class adopted lawns for the same reason, but they've come to be seen as an expectation. Some towns and HOAs have ordinances which mandate lawn maintenance, so that people who want to replace grass with native gardens or trees aren't allowed to. In one story from Ohio, a woman's neighbors trespassed on her property to mow her lawn when she tried to let it go wild!

There are huge benefits to replacing lawns with native plants. They attract pollinators like bees and butterflies. Caterpillars that feed on the plants are vital food for birds. The berries and seeds feed voles and mice, which in turn feed hawks, owls and foxes. If enough people did this, we could restore vanished habitat, rebuild ecosystems, and give a helping hand to species that are being squeezed by climate change.

[solon]

This is a good video from Mexie, a Canadian YouTuber, making the case for getting rid of lawns:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1iFQX1_Xso

Millions of suburban dwellers think a uniform expanse of manicured grass is normal and aesthetically pleasing. In fact, lawns are ecologically barren and a giant waste of resources. Maintaining them takes gas-guzzling mowers, toxic pesticides, regular application of fertilizer that contaminates rivers and streams, and huge amounts of water - often more than natural rainfall can replenish. That's not even to mention all the time devoted to lawn care.

She talks about how lawns were originally a status symbol of European nobility. They were a way to show off how wealthy you were, that you could afford to devote all that space to useless turf rather than crops.

The middle class adopted lawns for the same reason, but they've come to be seen as an expectation. Some towns and HOAs have ordinances which mandate lawn maintenance, so that people who want to replace grass with native gardens or trees aren't allowed to. In one story from Ohio, a woman's neighbors trespassed on her property to mow her lawn when she tried to let it go wild!

There are huge benefits to replacing lawns with native plants. They attract pollinators like bees and butterflies. Caterpillars that feed on the plants are vital food for birds. The berries and seeds feed voles and mice, which in turn feed hawks, owls and foxes. If enough people did this, we could restore vanished habitat, rebuild ecosystems, and give a helping hand to species that are being squeezed by climate change.

I don't know, I think this is mostly a matter of personal taste, or philosophy.

Just because some youtube rando says it, doesn't make it true, even if she's quoting studies. It's just personal preference.

I happen to think "a uniform expanse of manicured grass" is VERY aesthetically pleasing. I spend a lot of time and money to make it beautiful, and I think the whole "contaminating our rivers" argument is bullshit. And letting my 500 square feet go native would do exactly squat to restore vanished habitat, etc.

[Kris]

Unfortunately, most people just want what they want. (I'm not going to get into the social factors that have led them to have those preferences in the first place.) They don't want to sacrifice in their lives, especially if they perceive that not everyone else is. And as a result, many of those people will just minimize or flat-out deny any info that contradicts the rectitude of their preferences.

Which is partly how we are so fucked with regard to climate change.

[RetiredAt63]

And moving past suburban to rural, those nice lawns are really leach fields.

Plus lawns don't have to be sterile wastelands.  I always had species diversity in my lawns, usually 15-20 different species, and not all grasses.  Dandelions were early spring nectar/pollen sources, and then clovers and birds-foot trefoil allowed to bloom before mowing kept lots of honeybees and bumblebees happy.  I used to have more bees on my lawn than in my flower and vegetable gardens.

[GuitarStv]

I certainly don't water or fertilize my lawn (always seemed like a crazy waste of time and money).  While green, our lawn is a pretty diverse mix of various non-grass plants - everything from clover to green onions to crab grass to dandelions and wildflowers.  I am sympathetic to the plight of native plants.  But mowing the lawn is a health thing - we regularly cut our lawn (with an electric lawn mower) because it greatly reduces the number of ticks that my son and dog pick up.

[curious_george]

I mow my lawn when it reaches the legally maximum height for my city. Whatever grows there grows there. No water, no pesticides, no aeration, nothing.

It's not about having a nice lawn, or health, or anything. It's about saving money. If there were no laws I would be living in the woods in about 20-30 years.

[wageslave23]

I'm fine with banning certain pesticides and herbicides *if* they are proven to have a meaningful damaging effect with home use.  But otherwise, where are kids who are all becoming obese couch potatoes supposed to runaround and play? It's hard to play in a thicket of 6 ft tall grass, weeds, and bushes. My daughter plays in our yard almost everyday.  And we have no issues with clean water or food shortages where we live. If some areas have issues with these things then by all means ban what you need to. But I highly doubt me cutting my lawn in Illinois is going to have any effect on the droughts in California.

[LifeHappens]

There is a great thread on this: https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/gardening-diy/plant-your-hellstrip-(aka-get-rid-of-grass)/

[vand]

Get the fuck off my lawn.

[draco44]

Full disclosure - I align with the OP's personal take on grass lawns. For me it's the pesticide subscription service managed lawns I dislike the most. But I get that people like the look of different landscaping types and that what makes sense to maintain will vary by your location. To respond to some of the comments so far, some general thoughts:

1. A lawn (in the sense of a vegetated level surface you can play/walk/sit on) does not have to consist of traditional Kentucky bluegrass. Fescue is a generally hardier alternative as far as grasses are concerned, and mowed clover is a popular alternative to a grass-based lawn.
2. If you want to keep a grass lawn, it's possible without pesticides. Organic Lawn Care by Paul Tukey is the best book I'm aware of on this subject. https://www.amazon.com/Organic-Lawn-Care-Manual-Low-Maintenance/dp/1580176496
3. For US-based folks open to using a non-turfgrass ground cover, I suggest checking your state's University Extension Service for local suggestions for plant species that will do well in your area with little fuss (watering/fertilizer/pesticides). Here's a quick sampling for easy reference:
Illinois: https://extension.illinois.edu/blogs/ilriverhort/2015-04-10-lawn-alternatives
Maryland: https://extension.umd.edu/resource/lawn-alternatives
Florida: https://blogs.ifas.ufl.edu/orangeco/2021/06/11/low-maintenance-florida-friendly-alternatives-to-turfgrass-lawns/
4. Be extra careful about using fertilizer and pesticides on your lawn if you or your neighbors use well water. https://agwt.org/content/lawns-safe-wells
5. Realize that if your municipality's water system has a combined sewer system, runoff from your lawn (when it rains or from over-watering) can reach water bodies even if your individual property isn't next to a stream or lake.
6. If you feel you must fertilize your lawn and want to buy a commercial fertilizer product, look for one that is phosphorus-free unless you are establishing a new lawn, or you've done a soil test proving that your lawn does not have enough phosphorus. Phosphorus can be an especially problematic element of fertilizer runoff and was the basis of a Nutrient Runoff Law in New York State (https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/67239.html). You can tell if a fertilizer product is phosphorus-free because the product bag will display a string of three numbers showing the percentage of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. So look for a product with zero as the middle number.

[Louise]

The grubs killed my lawn last year, lol.

Having no lawn is easy if you have decent sunlight. I removed the grass in a big chunk of my sunny backyard and put in a pollinator garden. I get a ton of bees and butterflies and the other part of the yard has a lot of clover. It looks great and is pretty low maintenance.

However, the front yard is full shade and I have some hostas and other shade plants planted there. I'm not sure I like it. I don't get pollinators in that part of the yard. I also don't like the look of weeds in a garden and the shady areas seems to attract a lot of invasive plants and tree saplings that I have to pull out often.  I put mulch down, but the weeds grow through it. I really hate spending a lot of time pulling weeds! I may go back to grass next year. I haven't decided. We usually get enough water where watering isn't a necessity.

[FireLane]

I'm fine with banning certain pesticides and herbicides *if* they are proven to have a meaningful damaging effect with home use.  But otherwise, where are kids who are all becoming obese couch potatoes supposed to runaround and play?

At your local park! There's no reason everyone has to have their own private green space for their exclusive use. We can have well-maintained communal spaces that everyone can use.

[bacchi]

I'm fine with banning certain pesticides and herbicides *if* they are proven to have a meaningful damaging effect with home use.  But otherwise, where are kids who are all becoming obese couch potatoes supposed to runaround and play?

At your local park! There's no reason everyone has to have their own private green space for their exclusive use. We can have well-maintained communal spaces that everyone can use.

Yep. This all links back to SFH zoning.

[tygertygertyger]

Yep, we're in the process of killing our lawn now. (I mean, technically we're replacing it with perennials and things that are lowish maintenence and still quite nice to look at.)

I'd say our backyard is maybe 35% lawn and our front yard is maybe 55-60% lawn at this point?

Given how the bird and insect populations are plummeting, it's a pleasure to walk up to our house and hear a louder insect chorus than any of our immediate neighbors. It's super nice to know that our yard is a great home to lightning bugs (fireflies), since the pristine lawns of our neighbors don't offer them any habitat.

We're going to keep a small portion of front and back yards as grass, but not a ton... Species diversity is where it's at.

[GuitarStv]

I'm fine with banning certain pesticides and herbicides *if* they are proven to have a meaningful damaging effect with home use.  But otherwise, where are kids who are all becoming obese couch potatoes supposed to runaround and play?

At your local park! There's no reason everyone has to have their own private green space for their exclusive use. We can have well-maintained communal spaces that everyone can use.

Yep. This all links back to SFH zoning.

Try letting a 9 year old kid walk to and play alone in a park and you'll probably end up with the police at your door (https://reason.com/2014/07/29/no-child-left-outside-another-mom-arrest/, https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/07/arrested-for-letting-a-9-year-old-play-at-the-park-alone/374436/).  So for a lot of kids going to the park requires one of the parents be free to take them and supervise the entire trip . . . which is often not going to be possible.

I've got to think that this push for public space only would therefore result in at least some limiting of the amount of exercise they get.

[FINate]

We maintain a small lawn. With our distinct four seasons we typically water 2-3 months of the year. Our irrigation controller is internet connected and automatically adjusts the watering scheduled based on local conditions. During cool and/or rainy periods there's almost no irrigation compared to hot dry periods. Our lawn is a mix of different plants, and I sow white clover yearly as it naturally fixes nitrogen and complements the root system. I also apply compost to the lawn at the end of every winter. We don't use herbicides.

Our area has an abundance of water so I'm not worried about that. That's one advantage of living in a state that's mostly mountainous... lots of snow and rivers and the massive Snake River Plain Aquifer. Agriculture and commercial uses way way more water than residential, so as land is converted to housing overall water usage has decreased. This has resulted in some rather ironic outcomes, such as some shallow private wells running dry -- turns out some shallow aquifers only ever existed because farmers were flood irrigating large fields.

I worry that Xeriscaping is an example of local optimization that's not good at large scale. The canopy in Boise (aka The City of Trees) largely depends on irrigation beyond immediate river habitat. Yards that have been Xeriscaped need to take care to provide water to trees, so the water savings isn't as much as one might assume. It's also not purely aesthetic, since landscaping (including lawn) also reduces the heat island effect in urban areas. From a big picture perspective, I'd much rather have green irrigated cities with trees and shade and lawn that are pleasant to live in. Attracting people to dense walkable cities is our best hope of mitigating climate change. If cities become hot with sparse/dry vegetation, folks are going to gravitate towards living in low density housing in forests that require a lot of driving.

[Just Joe]

We don't do anything to our big grassy patch. Acres left over from a 100 year old dairy operation long gone. It just grows. Like GuitarStv and others, there is a ton of diverse green things growing there. I mow my yard with an electric lawn tractor that is ~52 years old. We also have acres of trees that I don't do anything about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5kP4g57Ycw

Next spring we plan to use the tiller attachment to plant rows of flowers to increase the diversity and make it more interesting. The funny thing is I expect to spend money on all sorts of specialty gardener supplies that my grass doesn't require such as fertilizer, perhaps some herbicide, or pesticides, etc.

Or we can just leave it alone and keep mowing it for less than a dollar in electricity.

I expect the right answers depends on what part of the world you live in. Using thousands of gallons of water to make grass grow in the southwest might be counter-productive. Here we just leave it alone and it grows.

[Turtle]

I mow my lawn when it reaches the legally maximum height for my city. Whatever grows there grows there. No water, no pesticides, no aeration, nothing.

It's not about having a nice lawn, or health, or anything. It's about saving money. If there were no laws I would be living in the woods in about 20-30 years.

Same.  My area gets enough rain that I've never needed to water to keep the grass growing.

Longer grass also keeps the soil temperature cooler by providing additional insulation and blocking some of the sunlight. 

[bacchi]

I'm fine with banning certain pesticides and herbicides *if* they are proven to have a meaningful damaging effect with home use.  But otherwise, where are kids who are all becoming obese couch potatoes supposed to runaround and play?

At your local park! There's no reason everyone has to have their own private green space for their exclusive use. We can have well-maintained communal spaces that everyone can use.

Yep. This all links back to SFH zoning.

Try letting a 9 year old kid walk to and play alone in a park and you'll probably end up with the police at your door (https://reason.com/2014/07/29/no-child-left-outside-another-mom-arrest/, https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/07/arrested-for-letting-a-9-year-old-play-at-the-park-alone/374436/).  So for a lot of kids going to the park requires one of the parents be free to take them and supervise the entire trip . . . which is often not going to be possible.

When crime was higher in the 70s and 80s, kids roamed "wild." Now, parents put up front yard fences to stop kidnappings and insta-report suspicious cars/people to nextdoor. "This car is driving slowly down my street. Watch out for it!"

As long as we're discussing societal level changes, such as reducing our dependence on cars and getting rid of SFH with 1/6 acre lots, we can also include curing our stranger FUD.

I've got to think that this push for public space only would therefore result in at least some limiting of the amount of exercise they get.

That train has left the station with the use of tablets as pacification devices.

[wageslave23]

I'm fine with banning certain pesticides and herbicides *if* they are proven to have a meaningful damaging effect with home use.  But otherwise, where are kids who are all becoming obese couch potatoes supposed to runaround and play?

At your local park! There's no reason everyone has to have their own private green space for their exclusive use. We can have well-maintained communal spaces that everyone can use.

You must not have kids. We go to the park almost everyday.  But we aren't going to take her to the park 4 times a day just so there can be a few extra flowers in the yard for bees.

[FireLane]

I'm fine with banning certain pesticides and herbicides *if* they are proven to have a meaningful damaging effect with home use.  But otherwise, where are kids who are all becoming obese couch potatoes supposed to runaround and play?

At your local park! There's no reason everyone has to have their own private green space for their exclusive use. We can have well-maintained communal spaces that everyone can use.

You must not have kids. We go to the park almost everyday.  But we aren't going to take her to the park 4 times a day just so there can be a few extra flowers in the yard for bees.

I do have a son, thank you very much. My neighborhood has several playgrounds, lots of public green space and some big parks nearby, all of which we take advantage of frequently.

I also take him with me on nearby errands, which I always walk to - the bank, the pharmacy, the post office. There are plenty of creative solutions for getting kids enough physical activity that don't require them to play by themselves in fenced-off private lots.

[wageslave23]

Also what are we talking about here - maybe 1 or 2% of the total US land space?

[nereo]

Also what are we talking about here - maybe 1 or 2% of the total US land space?

As with most of ecology, the scale is important.  Total US land space isn’t relevant when you are talking about pollinators who have a foraging range of a few hundred meters. What’s done in the Midwest won’t have an impact on California, or vice versa. It won’t even have a big impact on the next town over. Impacts are hyper local, and depend on what’s immediately around you.

In a many urban and suburban communities the native biodiversity has gone off a cliff because nearly every parcel of land is a developed lot. In those spots even a few hundred square feet of native flowing plants can boost pollinators 10 fold for a couple block radius.  Same can be true for farmland that extends hundreds of acres.

If that doesn’t describe where you live, and you have patches of meadow or even small undevelop3d lots nearby then yeah it’s not going to make a noticeable difference.

[RetiredAt63]

What Nereo said.

What do you think when you see this picture?  I think introduced pollinator on introduced flower.  At least it has pollen and nectar, a full double would not.

My last house was on an acre in farm country.  Farm field (corn/soy) behind me, hay field across the street.  Most wildlife habitat was in hedgerows and along the sides of the roads.  When I moved in the soil was poor, there were very few birds and fewer insects.  There was a big almost empty bag of lawn weed and feed in the garage.  I mowed and left the clippings,  I cut the grass at the highest setting on my mower to encourage deeper roots.  I didn't use fertilizer or herbicides or insecticides.  I let the bottom of the ditch by the road grow goldenrod and cat tails and Joe Pye weed and milkweed. I was on a well, so the lawn got watered when it rained.  When we had a dry spell the grass went dormant and the broad-leaf plants stayed green.

Within a few years I had barn swallows nesting on the garage, phoebes, robins, killdeer, and others.  Honeybees and bumble bees came to all the flowers in the lawn and gardens (flowers and vegetables and fruits).   I didn't have to worry about the dog licking paws contaminated with pesticides when she ran around on the lawn.

The thing is that to encourage wildlife (and I definitely include insects and other invertebrates here) you need to meet all their needs.  Wild bees need more than just nectar and pollen, they need places to lay their eggs and raise brood.  Solitary bees are still our most important pollinators but because they are solitary we don't really notice them.  There insects also need the proper plants to lay their eggs on.  If you see insect damage you either have an introduced plant that has an introduced plant pest, or you have a native species that is providing species for the young of native insets.  Plus all those gorgeous flowers with masses of petals are pretty but don't have nectar or pollen.  I saw mostly honeybees on Birds-foot trefoil, which is a naturalized introduced legume.  Our native bumblebees didn't like it as much.

I also added a lot of flowers.  I had a flowering allium that attracted a huge blue-black wasp (or bee, I never got close enough to tell which it was, they were intimidating).  They were obviously around, I had just never planted anything attractive to them before.  I left the plant remains on the garden until spring to provide winter habitat for overwintering insects. 

[wageslave23]

Also what are we talking about here - maybe 1 or 2% of the total US land space?

As with most of ecology, the scale is important.  Total US land space isn’t relevant when you are talking about pollinators who have a foraging range of a few hundred meters. What’s done in the Midwest won’t have an impact on California, or vice versa. It won’t even have a big impact on the next town over. Impacts are hyper local, and depend on what’s immediately around you.

In a many urban and suburban communities the native biodiversity has gone off a cliff because nearly every parcel of land is a developed lot. In those spots even a few hundred square feet of native flowing plants can boost pollinators 10 fold for a couple block radius.  Same can be true for farmland that extends hundreds of acres.

If that doesn’t describe where you live, and you have patches of meadow or even small undevelop3d lots nearby then yeah it’s not going to make a noticeable difference.

I included that in my previous post. We don't have any of these issues in my local area. Plenty of fresh water, most don't ever water their lawns, plenty of bees and woodlands and prairies.  So I have a very hard time believing my 5,000 sq ft of grass, trees, bushes, and flowers for a household of 3 is really detrimental in any meaningful way.

[Ron Scott]

This gets added to the list, right after ripping out my gas cooktop.

[Metalcat]

I've personally never lived anywhere where perfectly manicured/chemically controlled lawns are the norm, so I'm kind of fascinated by how that culturally even becomes a thing.

[nereo]

Also what are we talking about here - maybe 1 or 2% of the total US land space?

As with most of ecology, the scale is important.  Total US land space isn’t relevant when you are talking about pollinators who have a foraging range of a few hundred meters. What’s done in the Midwest won’t have an impact on California, or vice versa. It won’t even have a big impact on the next town over. Impacts are hyper local, and depend on what’s immediately around you.

In a many urban and suburban communities the native biodiversity has gone off a cliff because nearly every parcel of land is a developed lot. In those spots even a few hundred square feet of native flowing plants can boost pollinators 10 fold for a couple block radius.  Same can be true for farmland that extends hundreds of acres.

If that doesn’t describe where you live, and you have patches of meadow or even small undevelop3d lots nearby then yeah it’s not going to make a noticeable difference.

I included that in my previous post. We don't have any of these issues in my local area. Plenty of fresh water, most don't ever water their lawns, plenty of bees and woodlands and prairies.  So I have a very hard time believing my 5,000 sq ft of grass, trees, bushes, and flowers for a household of 3 is really detrimental in any meaningful way.

Right, and as I said if that’s the case you won’t see an observable difference. But saying “ [residential yards are] maybe 1 or 2% of the total US land space“ shows a misunderstanding of the scales involved. It’s not about total area across the US, it’s about diversity at the hectare by hectare scale.

[FireLane]

Mexie's video says that lawns take up an area that's more than the total area of state and national parks, state forests and wildlife management areas in the United States. I can't find another source for that, but I did find this:

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Lawn/lawn2.php

This NASA study estimates that lawns take up 128,000 square kilometers in the U.S., which would make them the single largest irrigated "crop" in the country. There's another study which says that three-quarters of residential water use is people watering their lawns:

https://www.businessinsider.com/americas-biggest-crop-is-grass-2016-2?op=1

[Just Joe]

My last house was on an acre in farm country.  Farm field (corn/soy) behind me, hay field across the street.  Most wildlife habitat was in hedgerows and along the sides of the roads.  When I moved in the soil was poor, there were very few birds and fewer insects.  There was a big almost empty bag of lawn weed and feed in the garage.  I mowed and left the clippings,  I cut the grass at the highest setting on my mower to encourage deeper roots.  I didn't use fertilizer or herbicides or insecticides.  I let the bottom of the ditch by the road grow goldenrod and cat tails and Joe Pye weed and milkweed. I was on a well, so the lawn got watered when it rained.  When we had a dry spell the grass went dormant and the broad-leaf plants stayed green.

Exactly describes our situation. Our house came with several gallons of Roundup, bags of this and that and cans of pesticides in the barn. That's how the previous owner managed the place - mow the grass and poison anything else that was unwanted. I disposed of those things. PO also liked to kill all the things that grew in the ditch along the road which worsened the erosion there.

I mow the grass on the highest setting, don't mow the ditch and let anything and everything grow down there, etc. This is our 4th season in this house and this year we've noticed more diversity in the yard plants, more insects such as bees, etc. I think it took that long for the poisons to wear out/wash out/whatever. I look forward to next year's yard too.

At my house weeds that encroach on the house and barn or what few shrubs we have are managed with our string trimmer. I have a propane torch I've tried once but that is not an exact tool. The string trimmer takes 20 minutes to circle the house, barn and shed.   

We love owning acres of green. That's trees and weeds and grass and whatever wants to grow - as long as it isn't kudzu or poison ivy/oak/etc (which we do have). If the five acres next door ever comes available I'll buy it too and let it stay wild. If I was a multi-millionaire I'd buy all the fields around us too. They host small herds of cattle and hay. They also are self-sustaining.

People talk about buying carbon offsets. We own our carbon offsets. As we wind down our careers we want to garden more. Flowers and food. 

[GuitarStv]

This NASA study estimates that lawns take up 128,000 square kilometers in the U.S., which would make them the single largest irrigated "crop" in the country. There's another study which says that three-quarters of residential water use is people watering their lawns:

https://www.businessinsider.com/americas-biggest-crop-is-grass-2016-2?op=1

I certainly have never watered my lawn - and that seems to be true for the overwhelming majority of people who have a lawn:


If you want to ban watering lawns (probably a sensible thing to do), seems like the majority of people with lawns would not be impacted.  There are a few psychopaths (twice a day????) who are ruining things for everyone else.


Of course, if we really gave a shit about water conservation we would simply charge more for it.  People waste it because it's cheap enough that they don't think twice about wasting it.

[RetiredAt63]

Just Joe, from a distance our lawns look fine.  And close up we are the ones who walk on them.  I could never see the point of a pristine lawn, that is for golf courses.   And even a lot of golf courses don't use a lot of pesticides.

If I hadn't sold the house, my side yard would have become an orchard by now.  I already had 2 sour cherries, a self-pollinating cold-hardy pear tree and 3 European/American hazelnut crosses.   

Roundup - oh my.  Farmers in my area would use it to kill off a pasture so it could be plowed as part of the rotation.  I only used it for poison ivy, and then I painted it on, instead of spraying.  Nothing else would work, 20% acetic acid was useless.  I was too far north to worry about kudzu.  North of the 45th parallel, actually.


GuitarStv, a lot of places ban lawn watering except for new seeding or sod.  Makes sense.  Grass goes dormant when it is dry, and comes back when the water comes back.  Plus overwatering means super shallow roots, which then means it dies unless it gets watered constantly.  It's poor management.


Generally, what people don't think about is the details of those beautiful English lawns.  Sure, lovely lawns close to the house - but the large expanses were grazed by sheep or cows, and they were kept away from the house area.  So it was more like a closely grazed pasture than a lawn.

[GuitarStv]

Generally, what people don't think about is the details of those beautiful English lawns.  Sure, lovely lawns close to the house - but the large expanses were grazed by sheep or cows, and they were kept away from the house area.  So it was more like a closely grazed pasture than a lawn.

Well . . . that and they were in England.  All natural daily watering schedule!  An English drought is like what, two days without drizzle?  :P

[GilesMM]

I would love to see examples of lawns that were converted from grass to something else (besides xeriscape rocks) which don't look wild and messy.

[GilesMM]

...
4. Be extra careful about using fertilizer and pesticides on your lawn if you or your neighbors use well water. https://agwt.org/content/lawns-safe-wells
...

If your lawn fertilizer is contaminating a water well, the well has a casing integrity problem which should be addressed as all sorts of bacteria will be entering the well.

[Just Joe]

Just Joe, from a distance our lawns look fine.  And close up we are the ones who walk on them.  I could never see the point of a pristine lawn, that is for golf courses.   And even a lot of golf courses don't use a lot of pesticides.

If I hadn't sold the house, my side yard would have become an orchard by now.  I already had 2 sour cherries, a self-pollinating cold-hardy pear tree and 3 European/American hazelnut crosses.   

Roundup - oh my.  Farmers in my area would use it to kill off a pasture so it could be plowed as part of the rotation.  I only used it for poison ivy, and then I painted it on, instead of spraying.  Nothing else would work, 20% acetic acid was useless.  I was too far north to worry about kudzu.  North of the 45th parallel, actually.


GuitarStv, a lot of places ban lawn watering except for new seeding or sod.  Makes sense.  Grass goes dormant when it is dry, and comes back when the water comes back.  Plus overwatering means super shallow roots, which then means it dies unless it gets watered constantly.  It's poor management.


Generally, what people don't think about is the details of those beautiful English lawns.  Sure, lovely lawns close to the house - but the large expanses were grazed by sheep or cows, and they were kept away from the house area.  So it was more like a closely grazed pasture than a lawn.

Your yard sounds beautiful.

Painting Roundup onto poison ivy - now I like that idea. I saw a YT video where a fellow talked about killing climbing kudzu mechanically by cutting the vines.

Our house's PO was spraying Roundup all over. We pass a house on our commute to work where the owner sprays it on a fence row. Dead grass for 3 ft on both sides of the fence. This is only a yard boundary fence. Posts and barb wire. Would be really easy to mechanically trim (string trimmer). Minutes of work.

An English garden would be beautiful. That is what we have in mind for a portion of our front yard. It'll be a DIY version anyhow, never as manicured as the real thing. DW needs to plan the plants. I'll keep the weeds in check with an electric tiller. Sunflowers are a must though. They are a favorite of mine.

As several people have mentioned - we have the same situation - if we didn't mow we'd be living in the woods in a few years. In fact once a year I work the edges of the woods with my electric chain saw to keep the branches trimmed back. Electric tractor + inverter + 120V electric chainsaw + utility trailer = easy

[GuitarStv]

...
4. Be extra careful about using fertilizer and pesticides on your lawn if you or your neighbors use well water. https://agwt.org/content/lawns-safe-wells
...

If your lawn fertilizer is contaminating a water well, the well has a casing integrity problem which should be addressed as all sorts of bacteria will be entering the well.

"Before the mid-1970s, it was thought that soil acted as a protective filter that stopped pesticides from reaching groundwater. Studies have now shown that this is not the case.  Pesticides can reach water-bearing aquifers below ground from applications onto crop fields, seepage of contaminated surface water, accidental spills and leaks, improper disposal, and even through injection waste material into wells."  - https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/pesticides-groundwater

[FINate]

This NASA study estimates that lawns take up 128,000 square kilometers in the U.S., which would make them the single largest irrigated "crop" in the country. There's another study which says that three-quarters of residential water use is people watering their lawns:

https://www.businessinsider.com/americas-biggest-crop-is-grass-2016-2?op=1

I certainly have never watered my lawn - and that seems to be true for the overwhelming majority of people who have a lawn:


If you want to ban watering lawns (probably a sensible thing to do), seems like the majority of people with lawns would not be impacted.  There are a few psychopaths (twice a day????) who are ruining things for everyone else.


Of course, if we really gave a shit about water conservation we would simply charge more for it.  People waste it because it's cheap enough that they don't think twice about wasting it.

We should probably ban other non-essential water uses as well, such as producing beer, wine, and recreational weed. Strictly speaking, these are not necessities yet require a lot of water.

[StarBright]

I'm in the midwest and never water or fertilize my lawn. It looks okay as long as we cut the grass. Plenty of clover and  low creeping purple flower plants (I have no idea what they are, but they were there when we moved in) mixed in.

Our hell strips are off limits due to town ordinances, but our alley strips are ours to do as we please! A few years ago several neighbors met up at a local pollinator plant sale and now there are six of us that share an alley that all have pollinators planted.

Sometimes we go outside and count the bees! Our little strip has various blooms from May-September. Two of my neighbors even have yards designated as monarch watch stations.

Our alley is kind of magical :)

[tygertygertyger]

This NASA study estimates that lawns take up 128,000 square kilometers in the U.S., which would make them the single largest irrigated "crop" in the country. There's another study which says that three-quarters of residential water use is people watering their lawns:

https://www.businessinsider.com/americas-biggest-crop-is-grass-2016-2?op=1

I certainly have never watered my lawn - and that seems to be true for the overwhelming majority of people who have a lawn:


If you want to ban watering lawns (probably a sensible thing to do), seems like the majority of people with lawns would not be impacted.  There are a few psychopaths (twice a day????) who are ruining things for everyone else.


Of course, if we really gave a shit about water conservation we would simply charge more for it.  People waste it because it's cheap enough that they don't think twice about wasting it.

We should probably ban other non-essential water uses as well, such as producing beer, wine, and recreational weed. Strictly speaking, these are not necessities yet require a lot of water.

It’s so weird how we’re living through a mass extinction event and still get defensive about not wanting to manage resources. Like, do we really need to pull stats on how much water ends up in beer vs what is used to water golf courses, obviously not a necessity?

Good lord. I remember how many bugs used to die on the car windshield during a suburban night drive when I was a kid. When’s the last time you needed to wash bug guts off your windshield (unless you live in a very rural area…)

[Raenia]

Yeah, I don't get the "all lawns are pesticided, herbicided, fertilized, water-wasting monocultures kept in check by gas-guzzling mowers" argument. I've never watered my lawn, don't use any chemicals, have an electric mower (and pay for the fully renewable electricity plan), and my lawn is full of clover, dandelions, violets, plantain, and other "weeds." The bees love it.

Do we plan to decrease the amount of space dedicated to lawn? Yes, absolutely - I plan to put in a lot of fruit-bearing bushes, raised gardening space, and a dedicated wildflower/pollinator garden. The decrease in mowing time alone would be worth it, but I would want the food garden either way. Even so, we'll probably always keep a portion of the back yard in lawn for kids to play - the local park is great, but children can't be unsupervised there. If we have outdoor play space at home too, then kids can play outside while I'm weeding the garden, or DH is working in the shed/workshop. And we'll most likely have to keep at least part of the front yard grass to keep the township and neighbors happy. But that doesn't mean it has to be a monoculture hellscape.

[GuitarStv]

This NASA study estimates that lawns take up 128,000 square kilometers in the U.S., which would make them the single largest irrigated "crop" in the country. There's another study which says that three-quarters of residential water use is people watering their lawns:

https://www.businessinsider.com/americas-biggest-crop-is-grass-2016-2?op=1

I certainly have never watered my lawn - and that seems to be true for the overwhelming majority of people who have a lawn:


If you want to ban watering lawns (probably a sensible thing to do), seems like the majority of people with lawns would not be impacted.  There are a few psychopaths (twice a day????) who are ruining things for everyone else.


Of course, if we really gave a shit about water conservation we would simply charge more for it.  People waste it because it's cheap enough that they don't think twice about wasting it.

We should probably ban other non-essential water uses as well, such as producing beer, wine, and recreational weed. Strictly speaking, these are not necessities yet require a lot of water.

I don't really drink any more (last time I had a beer was last year?), so this one doesn't personally impact me . . . but given that about 63% of Americans do (https://news.gallup.com/poll/467507/percentage-americans-drink-alcohol.aspx) I feel like banning booze would have a far greater impact.

This is even more true when you realize that the actual water usage appears to be an awful lot less for beer than grass.  A gallon of beer takes somewhere between 2-8 gallons of water to make depending on variables (https://www.montana.edu/mmec/news/article.html?id=18735).  The average lawn needs 12 gallons per square foot (https://yourhub.denverpost.com/blog/2019/07/how-much-water-does-your-landscape-really-need/246452/) to look really lush.  That's at least an order of magnitude more water for the average lawn . . .

[FINate]

This NASA study estimates that lawns take up 128,000 square kilometers in the U.S., which would make them the single largest irrigated "crop" in the country. There's another study which says that three-quarters of residential water use is people watering their lawns:

https://www.businessinsider.com/americas-biggest-crop-is-grass-2016-2?op=1

I certainly have never watered my lawn - and that seems to be true for the overwhelming majority of people who have a lawn:


If you want to ban watering lawns (probably a sensible thing to do), seems like the majority of people with lawns would not be impacted.  There are a few psychopaths (twice a day????) who are ruining things for everyone else.


Of course, if we really gave a shit about water conservation we would simply charge more for it.  People waste it because it's cheap enough that they don't think twice about wasting it.

We should probably ban other non-essential water uses as well, such as producing beer, wine, and recreational weed. Strictly speaking, these are not necessities yet require a lot of water.

I don't really drink any more (last time I had a beer was last year?), so this one doesn't personally impact me . . . but given that about 63% of Americans do (https://news.gallup.com/poll/467507/percentage-americans-drink-alcohol.aspx) I feel like banning booze would have a far greater impact.

This is even more true when you realize that the actual water usage appears to be an awful lot less for beer than grass.  A gallon of beer takes somewhere between 2-8 gallons of water to make depending on variables (https://www.montana.edu/mmec/news/article.html?id=18735).  The average lawn needs 12 gallons per square foot (https://yourhub.denverpost.com/blog/2019/07/how-much-water-does-your-landscape-really-need/246452/) to look really lush.  That's at least an order of magnitude more water for the average lawn . . .

Sure. But if the metric is simply need vs. want (i.e. aesthetics), then alcohol and weed are examples of waste that should also be eliminated. To be clear, I don't think it should be that smiple. My point is just that this is more nuanced than virtue signaling with lawn=bad xeriscape=good. Should places like Phoenix or SoCal have lots of lawns and golf courses? Probably not given the sever water shortage and need to for year round irrigation. But places with adequate water and short irrigation season... I think it depends on how it's done. Using lots of chemicals and insisting on a pristine monoculture isn't a good idea, yet this is true of landscaping in general.

[Ron Scott]

This NASA study estimates that lawns take up 128,000 square kilometers in the U.S., which would make them the single largest irrigated "crop" in the country. There's another study which says that three-quarters of residential water use is people watering their lawns:

https://www.businessinsider.com/americas-biggest-crop-is-grass-2016-2?op=1

I certainly have never watered my lawn - and that seems to be true for the overwhelming majority of people who have a lawn:


If you want to ban watering lawns (probably a sensible thing to do), seems like the majority of people with lawns would not be impacted.  There are a few psychopaths (twice a day????) who are ruining things for everyone else.


Of course, if we really gave a shit about water conservation we would simply charge more for it.  People waste it because it's cheap enough that they don't think twice about wasting it.

We should probably ban other non-essential water uses as well, such as producing beer, wine, and recreational weed. Strictly speaking, these are not necessities yet require a lot of water.

I don't really drink any more (last time I had a beer was last year?), so this one doesn't personally impact me . . . but given that about 63% of Americans do (https://news.gallup.com/poll/467507/percentage-americans-drink-alcohol.aspx) I feel like banning booze would have a far greater impact.

This is even more true when you realize that the actual water usage appears to be an awful lot less for beer than grass.  A gallon of beer takes somewhere between 2-8 gallons of water to make depending on variables (https://www.montana.edu/mmec/news/article.html?id=18735).  The average lawn needs 12 gallons per square foot (https://yourhub.denverpost.com/blog/2019/07/how-much-water-does-your-landscape-really-need/246452/) to look really lush.  That's at least an order of magnitude more water for the average lawn . . .

Sure. But if the metric is simply need vs. want (i.e. aesthetics), then alcohol and weed are examples of waste that should also be eliminated. To be clear, I don't think it should be that smiple. My point is just that this is more nuanced than virtue signaling with lawn=bad xeriscape=good. Should places like Phoenix or SoCal have lots of lawns and golf courses? Probably not given the sever water shortage and need to for year round irrigation. But places with adequate water and short irrigation season... I think it depends on how it's done. Using lots of chemicals and insisting on a pristine monoculture isn't a good idea, yet this is true of landscaping in general.

In the US the government doesn’t just “ban” all this. While we may share our heads at how nutty they get at times, we still elect lawmakers and they are still beholden to the will of the electorate if they want to stay in office.

If a candidate wants to ban watering lawns, she can run on that pledge and see how she does on Election Day.

[Cranky]

I'm fine with banning certain pesticides and herbicides *if* they are proven to have a meaningful damaging effect with home use.  But otherwise, where are kids who are all becoming obese couch potatoes supposed to runaround and play?

At your local park! There's no reason everyone has to have their own private green space for their exclusive use. We can have well-maintained communal spaces that everyone can use.

Yep. This all links back to SFH zoning.

Try letting a 9 year old kid walk to and play alone in a park and you'll probably end up with the police at your door (https://reason.com/2014/07/29/no-child-left-outside-another-mom-arrest/, https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/07/arrested-for-letting-a-9-year-old-play-at-the-park-alone/374436/).  So for a lot of kids going to the park requires one of the parents be free to take them and supervise the entire trip . . . which is often not going to be possible.

I've got to think that this push for public space only would therefore result in at least some limiting of the amount of exercise they get.

We often walk through beautiful neighborhoods with lush yards and we see a lot of lawn service tracks than we see kids outside playing. 9 year olds are more likely to get their exercise playing soccer at school/at a park than they are plying outside. Indeed, I see more kids outside shooting hoops in urban neighborhoods than I do in suburban neighborhoods.

I have no problems with keeping a grassy area for kids and dogs, but there’s no need to water, fertilize or spray it. That stuff (and road salt) absolutely does end up in the water.

Happily, there are many houses in my area with beautiful no/low grass yards.

[simonsez]

Of course, if we really gave a shit about water conservation we would simply charge more for it.  People waste it because it's cheap enough that they don't think twice about wasting it.

Can't argue with that!  Where I live you get charged a flat amount for water no matter how much or how little you use.  Luckily we don't need much water, if any depending on the rain in a given season.  But walking around the neighborhood(s), it definitely seems that if we were charged by the unit, the lawn usage would dramatically decrease.  At times, it's impossible to stay dry from sprinklers on evening walks, they're omnipresent on every block!

[Davnasty]

This NASA study estimates that lawns take up 128,000 square kilometers in the U.S., which would make them the single largest irrigated "crop" in the country. There's another study which says that three-quarters of residential water use is people watering their lawns:

https://www.businessinsider.com/americas-biggest-crop-is-grass-2016-2?op=1

I certainly have never watered my lawn - and that seems to be true for the overwhelming majority of people who have a lawn:


If you want to ban watering lawns (probably a sensible thing to do), seems like the majority of people with lawns would not be impacted.  There are a few psychopaths (twice a day????) who are ruining things for everyone else.


Of course, if we really gave a shit about water conservation we would simply charge more for it.  People waste it because it's cheap enough that they don't think twice about wasting it.

We should probably ban other non-essential water uses as well, such as producing beer, wine, and recreational weed. Strictly speaking, these are not necessities yet require a lot of water.

I don't really drink any more (last time I had a beer was last year?), so this one doesn't personally impact me . . . but given that about 63% of Americans do (https://news.gallup.com/poll/467507/percentage-americans-drink-alcohol.aspx) I feel like banning booze would have a far greater impact.

This is even more true when you realize that the actual water usage appears to be an awful lot less for beer than grass.  A gallon of beer takes somewhere between 2-8 gallons of water to make depending on variables (https://www.montana.edu/mmec/news/article.html?id=18735).  The average lawn needs 12 gallons per square foot (https://yourhub.denverpost.com/blog/2019/07/how-much-water-does-your-landscape-really-need/246452/) to look really lush.  That's at least an order of magnitude more water for the average lawn . . .

Sure. But if the metric is simply need vs. want (i.e. aesthetics), then alcohol and weed are examples of waste that should also be eliminated. To be clear, I don't think it should be that smiple. My point is just that this is more nuanced than virtue signaling with lawn=bad xeriscape=good. Should places like Phoenix or SoCal have lots of lawns and golf courses? Probably not given the sever water shortage and need to for year round irrigation. But places with adequate water and short irrigation season... I think it depends on how it's done. Using lots of chemicals and insisting on a pristine monoculture isn't a good idea, yet this is true of landscaping in general.

I don't think anyone said that's the metric. Costs vs benefits, how many people it effects, public opinion... there's lots of other ways to analyze a ban/restriction on resource usage and I think we should be more open minded about it. There's going to be tough decisions in our future, we can be proactive now and ease the pain or we can wait until it gets too painful to ignore but either way it's my opinion that restrictions on water usage and lots of other resources will be commonplace someday.

By the way, restrictions on lawn watering already exist, so the precedent is there. I didn't even know this until I looked it up just now but there are restrictions on when you can water a lawn where I live. You get 3 days/week and only early morning/evening water is allowed. Seems pretty reasonable to me. I'd also be in favor of limiting gallons/person but I realize that's harder to work out.

[Jakestersquat]

I'm fine with banning certain pesticides and herbicides *if* they are proven to have a meaningful damaging effect with home use.  But otherwise, where are kids who are all becoming obese couch potatoes supposed to runaround and play?

At your local park! There's no reason everyone has to have their own private green space for their exclusive use. We can have well-maintained communal spaces that everyone can use.

Yeah but it’s not a big deal to let my kids who are all under 8 play in the backyard by themselves. I’ve already had idiotic neighbors call CPS for letting my kids play in our front yard “unsupervised”. So sending them off to the park isn’t the solution you may think it is.

[Spiffy]

I would love to see examples of lawns that were converted from grass to something else (besides xeriscape rocks) which don't look wild and messy.

Check out Pam Penick's blog,Cools Gardens in a Hot Climate . She is in Austin Texas. She also wrote the Book "Lawn Gone".

https://www.penick.net/digging/

[YttriumNitrate]

A gallon of beer takes somewhere between 2-8 gallons of water to make depending on variables (https://www.montana.edu/mmec/news/article.html?id=18735).

This number is off by close to two orders of magnitude. It takes about two pounds of barley to make a gallon of beer [1] and it takes about 200 gallons of water to make a pound of barley [2].