The City of Austin Environmental Commission voted Nov. 5, 2025 to recommend the City treat artificial turf as impervious cover, pursue an opt‑in buyback and education program, and convene a working group to draft a code amendment and carve out narrowly defined exceptions.

Vice Chair Krueger read the commission's motion, citing Watershed Protection staff findings on water‑quality tradeoffs and emerging contaminants. Liz Johnston, the city's environmental officer, told commissioners that typical professional artificial‑turf installations compact native soil, add a gravel base and often include underdrains—conditions the department treats as impervious cover. "Our recommendation is that it does be considered impervious cover," Johnston said during the presentation.

Johnston outlined the principal concerns driving the recommendation: common infill materials and some blade manufacturing can contain PFAS and microplastics; turf can amplify urban heat‑island effects; compacted subgrades reduce infiltration and increase stormwater runoff; and end‑of‑life disposal typically sends turf material to landfills. She also noted operational tradeoffs—while turf reduces routine irrigation and mowing, it requires periodic mechanical cleaning and can be watered to reduce surface heat before events.

Two environmental advocates who testified during public comment urged codifying the interpretation so the city avoids ad‑hoc, one‑off approvals. "For the most part, the city has been very consistent with its interpretation that any compacted subsurface has been impervious cover. So that's not been too much of an issue, but it would be really good to get it in the code," said Bob Levinczak of Save Our Springs/Silver Springs Alliance.

Commissioners split over scope and approach. Some members argued for a citywide ban citing health and ecosystem risks; others favored a regulatory approach that treats turf as impervious cover while allowing exceptions—temporary accessibility mats, limited use in highly used athletic fields, or new pervious products that demonstrably lack PFAS. Commissioner Flurry encouraged a technology‑neutral standard that would allow pervious or PFAS‑free products to qualify for exceptions.

The final motion, amended on the floor to soften enforcement language and specify an opt‑in buyback, asked the city to:

- Initiate a code amendment to define artificial turf as impervious cover;
- Recommend a citywide ban with the option to make exceptions where mitigating environmental conditions are met or where turf is necessary for accessibility;
- Explore a residential and commercial education campaign and an opt‑in buyback program for existing turf; and
- Create a commissioner working group to develop recommended regulatory language and stakeholder outreach.

The vote recorded eight commissioners in favor and one abstention; the motion passed. Commissioners volunteered to serve on the working group, and staff said it will assist subject to bandwidth and public‑engagement rules. The commission asked the working group to return with draft language and stakeholder recommendations for parks, schools, HOAs and vendors.

What happens next: the Environmental Commission's recommendation will be transmitted to city staff and can be forwarded to the Planning Commission or City Council to initiate a code amendment. The commission's motion called for an education campaign and exploration of an opt‑in buyback rather than immediate enforcement or mandatory removal of existing turf.