12/21/2009 10:37:00 PM Editorial: Water saving is worth turf plan
The Daily Courier
Few government actions have drawn more criticism in dCourier.com online comments lately than the Town of Prescott Valley's plan to use artificial turf at Mountain Valley Park.
Various postings offered mathematical calculations to demonstrate what a terrible waste of public money the project will be. The town recently released a side-by-side comparison of the cost to the town of continuing with natural turf vs. artificial turf.
Operating costs would be $59,060 a year with natural turf vs. $5,000 a year with artificial turf. Over 20 years, the costs would be $1,181,000 for natural turf vs. $100,000 for artificial.
Over 20 years, total project costs would be $1,165,000 to $1,490,000 for natural turf vs. $1,340,000 to $1,740,000 with artificial turf.
The town also points out that artificial turf would allow an additional 322 hours per year of use time to meet scheduled demands.
Installation of new field lights will help expand the available play times on the fields. Artificial turf also expands hours of operation because games can go on despite weather conditions, such as monsoons, that would have forced cancellations on natural turf.
What's most important, artificial turf will save 3,782,000 gallons - or more than 11 acre/feet - of water each year. Just the water savings, alone, is a good reason to do the project, and it's refreshing to see an increasing sense of urgency among local municipalities about reaching the mandated 2025 deadline for safe yield.
The money for this work comes from impact fees dedicated to parks and recreation, and it's difficult to see any other projects that benefit a greater number of people.
Posted: Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Article comment by:
English is fun!
Would it kill you to just once use the word "grass" in the article? People have a happy feeling about grass, not some strange "natural turf".
Posted: Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Article comment by:
L Morocco
The water savings aspect of the whole thing is a joke and just about everybody paying attention knows that's true. We all know the real plan. Every drop of water saved will be given to new development. You have to remember this is the same town that sold its effluent credits for development. So much for using recharge to reach safe yield. With the unquenchable thirst for growth the area will never reach safe yield. The smart solution to reach safe yield is to quit begging, advertising, and paying for massive growth. Unfortunately, area leaders aren't smart and/or brave enough to face up to the bleak truth about our water situation. You just can't EVER save water by continuing to build thousand of acres of high density housing.
