A turf ban in Santa Clara County hurts families, students, and communities

For years, synthetic turf has provided California schools, parks, and sports facilities with affordable, durable, and eco-friendly surfaces. In Visalia, a new synthetic turf field immediately benefited young students, replacing an unusable grass surface and offering safe, usable space for play. As the superintendent of schools in Visalia put it, "the new field gives the kids more fun and less boredom. I know this space is an incredible asset to our Highland community".  

Our recreational fields are more than just playing surfaces; they are essential community infrastructure. Synthetic turf plays a crucial role in providing year-round access to these fields across California. That's why I'm deeply concerned about a proposal by some on the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to restrict its use.

In April, the Board approved a study on the implications of artificial turf, paving the way for the current consideration of a ban, despite opposition from Board President Susan Ellenberg and Supervisor Cindy Chavez. On August 27th, the Board is likely to vote on a proposal to restrict turf in the county. This decision should not be made lightly, nor without input from those most affected: Santa Clara County residents.

The community benefits of turf work hand in hand with achieving other important priorities for Californians, including when it comes to protecting the environment. In a state where water conservation is vital, a full-size synthetic turf field can save up to 1 million gallons annually, contributing significantly to our drought efforts. Additionally, synthetic turf eliminates nearly a billion pounds of pesticides and fertilizers, protecting ecosystems. The industry is also advancing recyclability, with companies transforming worn-out fields into raw materials for new installations, supporting sustainability and the circular economy.

Take the City of Irvine, where their sports complex hosts over 5 million visitors annually. In just the last few days, the city decided to expand the use of synthetic turf in the complex specifically because of the benefits it provides in increased access and more manageable maintenance. The city stated: "Synthetic turf is available for use all day, withstands diverse, heavy sports traffic, and can be used in the rain. These advantages mean a synthetic turf field will provide almost four times more use hours over its life cycle than a comparable, well-maintained, natural grass field.” The proposed ban in Santa Clara County overlooks these benefits.

The industry is committed to the safety of our products and to working with policymakers to ensure communities can continue to benefit from its use. As many know, synthetic turf contains no intentionally-added PFAS. Studies show PFAS levels around synthetic turf fields are often lower than those in grass fields and other environments. Manufacturers also continue to innovate to further enhance the use of turf. For instance, new cooling systems counter "heat island" effects, with all-natural infills cooling the turf by 25 to 45 degrees.

The voices of Santa Clara County residents—those who regularly benefit from turf fields—are what matter most. On August 13, many spoke out at the Board of Supervisors hearing against any proposals to restrict the use of turf. As one resident, Noah Guzman, testified, "the grass is hard to maintain, costly, and turf is the way to go." Residents can testify again on August 27th or contact the Board of Supervisors before the vote, urging the Board to reconsider the turf ban.

A turf ban in Santa Clara County hurts families, students, and communities. The Board should have all the facts and hear from the voices in this community before voting on such a decisive policy.