PRESCOTT - Lawn sizes will remain unrestricted in Prescott, but local landscapers have agreed to step up their efforts to educate the public about the amount of water the grassy areas require.
Facing continued objections to the prospect of heavy-handed enforcement, the Prescott City Council voted 6-1 Tuesday for an "active public education program promoting turf reduction."
That choice came despite the Prescott Water Conservation Committee's recommendation for a code amendment that would have restricted lawn areas for new homes to 600 square feet.
At the previous week's study session, the council heard from both sides of the issue. One side, including representatives from the landscaping industry, voiced concerns about how the city would enforce the restrictions, as well as whether the size limits would take away homeowners' rights.
But others in the audience, including members of the Water Conservation Committee, maintained that the turf restrictions would send a water-
conservation message to the community and would be an important step in the city's efforts to cut back on water use.
This week, Public Works Director Craig McConnell outlined several options for the council. Among them: A permanent restriction on lawn size; a restriction that would "sunset" after two years; and a public education campaign promoting lawn reduction.
Most of this week's comments - both from the audience and from the council - favored a less restrictive stance by the city.
"The purpose of this whole process is to reduce the use of water," said Councilman Bob Roecker, adding that - especially if the landscaping industry helps with education - "Maybe we can do this without being turf Nazis..."
Charles Hildebrant, the chairman of the Yavapai County Nursery and Landscaping Association, agreed that local landscapers would help to send the message of turf reduction.
Several local residents added their objections to a lawn size restriction.
Resident Helen Goodman, for instance, maintained that the city should "lead on water conservation, but they should do it by example, not by policing its residents."
Mount Vernon Avenue resident Ralph Rodarte told the council, "I don't appreciate somebody telling me what I can plant and what I can do."
Rodarte and others suggested that turf restrictions would take away a right of property ownership.
Along with the direction to develop an active public-education program on turf reduction, the council motion instructs the city water conservation coordinator, working in concert with the Water Conservation Committee, to supplement the program with other measures, such as more efficient irrigation practices and systems.
Councilman Robert Luzius cast the lone vote against the motion for a public education program focusing on turf reduction.
Reader Comments
Posted: Friday, November 16, 2007
Article comment by:
Nancy Shelton
I've done alot. However, local government has never sought "real input" from anyone or any group trying to inhibit development or protect the local water resources. BTW Lothario, why don't you reveal your real name?
Posted: Thursday, November 15, 2007
Article comment by:
lothario
Nancy,
How much did you do to influence the City leadership when they were looking for input?
Posted: Thursday, November 15, 2007
Article comment by:
Nancy Shelton
There is no better evidence that current City Council members are influenced by private industry. First development, now landscapers. The 600 sq ft requirement for NEW HOMES only, came after the conservation committee had already allowed itself to be influenced from tighter restrictions by the landscape industry. City leadership has allowed development to use up our water and now we "are forced to import to achieve Safe-Yield" at considerable taxpayer expense(or water users expense, same thing) and they won't even allow the most minimal restrictions (on new homes only)? They will force us to pay for the pipeline so new homeowners can have lawns? What about MY rights? My property rights are being abused as Prescott becomes a less and less desirable place to live, with traffic, pollution, and yes, less greenery. Soon enough, there will be tax increases to everyone to pay for the infrastructure for all the development, which the City has not saved any money to pay for (they are already cutting back on expenses due to the slowdown in the economy).
