The details of the state Senate proposal to limit (residential?) lawn size to 15 percent of the size of the lot don’t seem to be available yet. But, I hope senators remember lawns do serve useful purposes. Given the sloping nature of much undeveloped land here, builders must do much leveling to get a lot ready for building. This often involves scraping off native vegetation from more that 15 percent of the lot. The question is then, what to use to replace the dust and mud around the structure? Some sort of paving could be done, but this isn’t very attractive to some. Worse, it increases run-off during heavy rains.

Grass lawns provide an attractive and clean answer, and they slow rain water runoff and prevent erosion. And it can take years, perhaps decades, to restore native vegetation to the bare areas. Even if this could be quickly done, much native vegetation is good fuel for wildfires and is too sparse to prevent mud, dust, runoff and erosion. I read fire-mitigation experts recommend a 30-foot defensible area around a structure to protect it from summer fires. A good, green lawn provides a good defensible area. And in small-lot additions, a lawn of 15 percent of lot size wouldn’t do.

If the state is going to get into the business of regulating residential landscaping (which I don’t think it should), water conservation should be one consideration – but far from the only one.

Fire, erosion and localized flood mitigation should also be considered. Perhaps one good water-saving solution would be to require all new residential lawns to have professionally installed and maintained irrigation systems, which can be set to run at night to reduce evaporation and to irrigate only in the needed amount. But this would be costly for new homeowners.

Perhaps the state should just stay out of this matter.

Richard Ruth

Durango