City Council members on Tuesday delayed a vote to update the city's water conservation rules to match a 2023 state law banning irrigation of purely decorative grass after council members sought a fuller cost accounting first.
The council voted unanimously to continue the item for up to 90 days, directing staff to return with a fuller cost accounting before a final vote.
The rules exempt single-family homeowners, applying only to commercial, industrial and institutional properties and common areas of homeowners associations (HOAs), other common-interest developments and community service organizations — and only to turf the state considers "nonfunctional," grass not used for recreation or gatherings, like median strips, business-park lawns and ornamental landscaping.
Turf used for picnics, movie nights or other active use, including in HOA common areas, would be excluded, utilities staff said.
What the law requires
The proposed ordinance would bring city code into line with Assembly Bill 1572, a state law signed in 2023 that phases in a ban on using treated drinking water to irrigate nonfunctional turf, starting with government-owned property in 2027, extending to commercial, industrial and institutional properties in 2028, HOA and common-interest-development common areas in 2029, and disadvantaged-community public property in 2031 if state funding allows.
The law also requires Riverside Public Utilities (RPU), as a public water system, to update its local rules by Jan. 1, 2027 and to notify customers of the change. The city faces potential state penalties if it doesn't adopt an updated ordinance by the end of this year, utilities staff told the council.
Council pushes back on "no fiscal impact"
The debate centered on the staff report's "no fiscal impact" line. Ward 5 Council member Sean Mill challenged that characterization, arguing the city will bear real enforcement and administrative costs.
An RPU staff member told the council the ordinance itself doesn't carry a direct cost, but acknowledged enforcement would, as with any code requirement.
Mill, who called the law an “unfunded mandate from Sacramento,” wanted compliance costs spelled out before the council votes. He asked staff for a count of how many Riverside businesses, HOAs and other properties would be affected; staff didn't have the figure but said outreach and assessments are underway.
Rebates are running out
A $7-per-square-foot Metropolitan Water District rebate offered last year ran out quickly, staff said. A replacement rebate through the water district, now $4 per square foot, is nearly fully subscribed, as is RPU's matching commercial funding, staff said.
Property owners in disadvantaged communities or facing financial hardship have until 2031 to comply, and the utility can help customers apply for hardship consideration with the state, staff said.
Split views on the underlying law
Council members disagreed on the law itself. Ward 1 Councilmember Philip Falcone said he supported it, citing free turf removals at several churches and a Ward 1 park. "We have to get out of this 19th century mindset of the turf," Falcone said.
Ward 2 Councilmember Clarissa Cervantes said she saw a potential upside: lower water bills for HOAs and businesses that switch away from turf, even with upfront conversion costs. Utilities staff agreed there's long-term savings potential, though staff didn't present that analysis to the Board of Public Utilities in July and will include it in the follow-up report.
Ward 7 Councilmember Steve Hemenway asked whether turf used for HOA gatherings would be affected; staff confirmed active-use areas are excluded and HOAs will self-certify. Ward 3 Councilmember Steven Robillard asked staff to bring specific cost examples from real properties to illustrate the upfront-versus-long-term cost trade-off.
Ward 4 Councilmember Chuck Conder voiced support for Mill's position before the vote, saying Mill had been "very eloquent" and "passionate" on the issue.
Mill's motion, seconded by Cervantes, directs staff to return with a fuller cost and enforcement analysis, an affected-property count, compliance and rebate details, hardship protections, clear functional-turf standards, and confirmation the ordinance doesn't exceed what AB 1572 requires.
