Home » New Law Allows Cities to Ban Artificial Turf

New Law Allows Cities to Ban Artificial Turf

by CC News
Turf

Last week, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a new law that would allow for cities and counties to ban artificial turf.

The bill, introduced by Senator Ben Allen (D-Redondo Beach) in response to them containing Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a class of chemicals known as “PFAS,” are highly toxic and highly persistent in the environment.

Under SB 676:

Existing law prohibits a city, including a charter city, county, and city and county, from enacting or enforcing any ordinance or regulation that prohibits the installation of drought-tolerant landscaping, synthetic grass, or artificial turf on residential property, as specified.
This bill would instead prohibit a city, including a charter city, county, or city and county from enacting or enforcing any ordinance or regulation that prohibits the installation of drought-tolerant landscaping using living plant material on residential property. The bill would specify that drought-tolerant landscaping does not include the installation of synthetic grass or artificial turf.
However, the Governor vetoed AB 1423 which was introduced by Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo (D-Santa Clarita Valley) which aimed to ban hazardous chemicals in astroturf.

She said in May: “So proud to present my first bill on the Assembly Floor today! #AB1423 get PFAS, cancer-causing forever chemicals, out of artificial grass fields starting so we ensure our student athletes, community and water supply are safe and healthy when they play”

The governor said in his veto message :

I am returning Assembly Bill 1423 without my signature.

This bill would prohibit, by 2026, a person, public entity, or educational institution from purchasing or installing artificial turf that contains intentionally added perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) at a certain concentration level.

This is one of three single-product chemical bans passed by the Legislature this year that attempt to address serious concerns with the presence of PFAS in consumer products. These bills do not identify or require any regulatory agency to determine compliance with, or enforce, the proposed statute.

While I strongly support the author’s intent and have signed similar legislation in the past, I am concerned that this bill falls short of providing enhanced protection to California consumers due to lack of regulatory oversight. Previously enacted single-product chemical bans, which also lack oversight, are proving challenging to implement, with inconsistent interpretations and confusion among manufacturers about how to comply with the restrictions.

In order to instill consumer confidence and effectively address public health and environmental concerns, I am directing the Department of Toxic Substances Control to engage with the author and the Legislature and consider alternative approaches to regulating the use of these harmful chemicals in consumer products.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Under the AB 1423:

This bill would prohibit, except as provided and commencing January 1, 2026, a public entity, including a charter city, charter county, city, or county, any public or private school serving pupils in kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, a public institution of higher education, other than the University of California, or a private institution of higher education from purchasing or installing a covered surface containing regulated PFAS, as defined.

Commencing January 1, 2026, the bill would prohibit a person or entity from manufacturing, distributing, selling, or offering for sale in the state any covered surface that contains regulated PFAS. The bill would provide that a violation of this prohibition is punishable by a specified civil penalty, upon an action brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney. The bill would require a manufacturer of a covered surface to use the least toxic alternative when replacing regulated PFAS in a covered surface in accordance with these provisions.

The hazardous waste control laws require the Department of Toxic Substances Control to regulate the handling and management of hazardous materials and hazardous waste. Existing law, known as the Green Chemistry Program, requires the department to adopt regulations to establish a process to identify and prioritize chemicals or chemical ingredients in consumer products that may be considered as being chemicals of concern. Existing law provides that the Green Chemistry Program does not authorize the department to supersede the regulatory authority of any other department or agency or duplicate or adopt conflicting regulations for product categories already regulated or subject to pending regulation, as provided. The department’s Safer Consumer Products Program implements the Green Chemistry Program pursuant to regulations adopted by the department known as the Safer Consumer Products Regulations.

This bill would provide that if the Department of Toxic Substances Control adopts regulations pursuant to these provisions, as provided, that conflict with the above-described prohibitions concerning regulated PFAS, enforcement mechanisms, or requirements to replace regulated PFAS with the least toxic alternative, then those regulations adopted by the department shall prevail.

Previous Stories:

You may also like

1 comment

MODERATE October 20, 2023 - 6:39 am

We have long been lectured by government, at various levels, that it is “good” to replace sod with artificial turf to save water. My local water district actually offers a rebate for doing so. But now, we are told, artificial turf is “bad.” So that leaves what? Gravel and palm trees? But wait..everywhere there’s an operational rock quarry there is some group or local government trying to close it. Too much noise, too many trucks, yada yada yada. Disfunction, thy name is California.

Comments are closed.