Letters to the Editor: Ban water-guzzling decorative grass? Careful what you wish for

To the editor: Some years ago I organized efforts to plant trees on street medians here in Long Beach. Street trees help cool our neighborhoods, reduce noise and pollution, and make our cities more livable. (“California is moving to outlaw watering some grass that’s purely decorative,” Sept. 13)

The city staff told me that I would need to water the trees because they only watered for the grass. I asked the city manager if this made any sense, and he admitted it didn’t.

The state is planning to ban watering these medians, which will likely stress the trees and cause many to die. It would be much better if the state provided the resources for cities like Long Beach to replace the grass with mulch and to convert the sprinklers to irrigation that more effectively waters the roots of trees.

Alan Coles, Long Beach

..

To the editor: I am all for water conservation but am leery of how this bill will be implemented in light of rising air temperatures.

Reducing green space increases heat in cities; this is not what we need. Visit the hard-scaped homes in Las Vegas and Palm Springs to feel the radiating heat, which makes those cities ghost towns much of the year, with residents largely huddled inside refrigerated homes.

Will the state ensure that remaining or newly planted shrubbery and shade trees are irrigated with non-potable water in the designated “nonfunctional turf” areas?

Felipe Hernandez, Glendale

..

To the editor: While the loss of “purely decorative turf grass” may seem inconsequential, the loss of trees that may be growing in the irrigated area is definitely not.

The loss of urban trees resulting from a blanket application of the policy would decrease tree cover, resulting in intensification of the urban heat island effect. It will also reduce carbon capture and destroy wildlife habitat.

Frederick Roth, Rancho Cucamonga