September 8, 2026.
The decision to replace natural grass with artificial turf may save water and reduce some maintenance today. But for communities planning athletic fields, parks and landscapes, the larger question is what that decision means for the land, climate and future generations.
Artificial turf can reduce irrigation, mowing and some fertilizer and pesticide use. Those advantages can matter in places where water is scarce or a field receives heavy use. But synthetic turf is generally made with petroleum-based materials. Manufacturing and transporting it require energy; the surface can become very hot; synthetic and rubber particles can enter the environment; and the installation eventually must be removed or replaced.
Natural grass has environmental costs as well. High-maintenance lawns can require substantial water, mowing, fertilizer and pesticides. The better question is not simply grass or turf. It is which landscape is appropriate for the local climate, water supply, soil, ecosystem and people who will use it for decades.
Think beyond one season.
Fall planning is a useful time to look beyond the next summer. Communities can maintain natural turf where people actually need a durable play surface while converting unnecessary lawn to native plants, meadows, trees or rain gardens. Climate-appropriate grass, efficient irrigation and rainwater management can also reduce water use without replacing living vegetation with plastic.
The Anishinaabe relationship with the land.
For Anishinaabe people, the natural world is more than a collection of resources or a surface to be managed. Sault Tribe's Natural Resources Division describes its work through a relationship with relatives — fish, animals, plants and others — and says its programs support Tribal-led stewardship of air, water, land, fish, wildlife and plants. The Tribe also describes land-based education as part of preserving Anishinaabe life ways and traditions.
That perspective gives ordinary grass a deeper meaning. Living grass is part of a system that includes soil, water, roots, insects and microorganisms. It grows, reproduces, cycles nutrients and interacts with the other life around it. Artificial turf can look like grass, but it does not perform the same functions because it is not alive.
Sault Tribe teachings also emphasize respect for the land and all living things. In a Sault Tribe Natural Resources publication, the Tribe describes Anishinaabe people as a sacred part of creation rather than above or below other beings, including plants and soil, and teaches the principle of "giving in return for what we receive." Another Seven Grandfathers teachings include respect and humility, including treating all life equally.
Why the grass beneath your feet matters.
The phrase "the grass beneath your feet" can be understood as more than a description of a lawn. For many Anishinaabe people, being connected to the land carries cultural, practical and spiritual meaning. The ground is where plants grow, water moves, insects and microorganisms live, and food and medicines can be gathered. It is also the place where knowledge is learned through experience and passed from one generation to another.
Sault Tribe's cultural programs emphasize land-based education and traditional life skills. That matters when considering a landscape decision: children and families do not experience land only by looking at it. They walk on it, learn from it, observe what grows there and develop relationships with the natural world.
This does not mean every lawn should be preserved or that artificial turf is always the wrong choice. A carefully selected athletic field may have practical reasons for using synthetic turf, particularly where water limitations and intensive use make natural grass difficult to maintain. The Anishinaabe perspective instead adds another question: What relationship with the land are we creating, maintaining or replacing?
The climate and life-cycle questions.
Artificial turf does not have zero environmental impact simply because it does not need watering. Its greenhouse-gas footprint includes the production of synthetic materials, transportation, maintenance, replacement and end-of-life management. A 2026 life-cycle assessment found that the type of infill can substantially affect environmental outcomes and that maintenance and disposal also matter.
Heat is another consideration. Artificial turf can become substantially hotter than living vegetation in direct sunlight. Living vegetation cools the landscape through evapotranspiration and shade. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency identifies vegetation as an important tool for reducing heat, while noting that urbanized areas can be warmer than surrounding areas.
The water argument remains real. In drought-stressed regions, artificial turf can sharply reduce irrigation. But water conservation does not always require replacing living vegetation. Communities can reduce lawn areas, choose climate-appropriate plants, improve irrigation efficiency, capture rainwater and preserve grass where it provides a clear recreational or environmental benefit.
Ask what happens at the end.
Before installing artificial turf, communities should consider its entire life cycle: what it is made from, how much infill it requires, how long it will last, whether its components can be recovered or recycled, who will remove it and where the materials will go. A low-maintenance surface today can become a waste-management problem later.
A decision measured in generations.
The strongest landscape decision may be a combination of approaches. Keep living turf where people need a durable play area. Replace unnecessary lawn with native vegetation. Plant trees for shade. Improve soil. Capture rainwater. Reduce irrigation. Use plants suited to the local climate. And when artificial turf is considered, account for manufacturing, heat, maintenance, replacement and disposal — not just the water saved.
For an Anishinaabe community, there is an additional responsibility. The Sault Tribe has described environmental stewardship as protecting and restoring homelands and culturally significant ecosystems for present and future generations. That makes the ground beneath our feet part of a longer conversation about responsibility, respect and what we leave behind.
The question, then, is not simply which surface is easiest to maintain. It is what we want the ground beneath our feet to be 20 or 30 years from now: something manufactured to look alive, or a landscape that is still alive.
