Why grass is greener for the environment and the state budget

Plastic fields cost more over time and carry environmental risks.

In a recent interview on WHYY, Gov. Mikie Sherrill discussed New Jersey’s budget challenges and said so-called “Christmas tree items” for legislators need to be trimmed. She cited artificial turf fields as a common example. It was an offhand comment that was not necessarily a judgment on turf itself, but it underscores two important realities: Artificial turf fields are expensive, and they are heavily subsidized by the state government.

If we are serious about closing the state’s structural deficit, that is one obvious place to start.

Artificial turf fields have become an expensive bandage for field mismanagement. Too often, municipalities invest in products instead of people, installing synthetic carpets rather than hiring trained sports field managers to properly maintain natural grass. But the long-term math is clear. Over its full life cycle, an artificial turf field typically costs at least twice as much as a well-managed grass field. Even accounting for higher staffing and maintenance costs, grass remains far more affordable than installing plastic and replacing it every eight to 10 years.

And that’s before factoring in the hidden costs: microplastic pollution, PFAS “forever chemicals,” mounting disposal challenges, greenhouse gas emissions, and the urban heat island effect. These environmental liabilities do not show up neatly in municipal budgets, but taxpayers will bear them over time.

There is a widespread assumption that synthetic turf is the only way to increase recreational access. But that premise does not hold up. In many communities, fields actually become less accessible after conversion because repairs are so costly.

When grass fields fail, it is usually not because grass “can’t handle it.” Degraded fields typically reflect management gaps rather than material limitations. Many towns lack certified sports field managers, and the fields in question are often schoolyards or parks never designed for sustained, high-intensity use. Predictably, overuse and poor maintenance lead to compaction, drainage failures, and declining conditions. Those outcomes are then used to justify synthetic conversion, without ever investing in what natural grass can achieve.

Town leaders are often swayed by glossy marketing and flawed cost comparisons that favor big-ticket turf projects over investment in people. Yet many cash-strapped school districts pursue plastic fields they cannot afford. Redirecting those funds to drainage upgrades and professional management would deliver durable, storm-resilient grass fields, without recurring replacement costs.

The oft-cited advantage of synthetic turf, rapid reopening after storms, is largely a function of drainage design, not surface material. Grass fields built with comparable subsurface systems can perform very well, while also supporting groundwater recharge and better stormwater management.

Globally, artificial turf is not the standard for elite play. Organizations like FIFA have increasingly moved toward natural or hybrid surfaces, and major U.S. stadiums, including New Jersey’s own MetLife Stadium, are converting fields to meet those standards for the 2026 World Cup. Yet once the tournament ends, some plan to revert to plastic.

New Jersey should move in the opposite direction.

At the same time, global instability is exposing another weakness in our system: our continued dependence on fossil fuels. The war with Iran has sent shocks through energy markets, driving up prices and highlighting how deeply petroleum is embedded in our economy, not just in fuel, but in products like plastic. Artificial turf fields are, at their core, large-scale petroleum installations. As oil and gas prices rise, so too will the cost of manufacturing, transporting, and replacing these fields. That makes now the right moment to re-examine our reliance on plastic, especially when viable, lower-cost alternatives already exist. The grass, it turns out, is not greener on the plastic side.

Last year alone, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Green Acres program awarded millions in grants for artificial turf installations. Senate Bill No. 3254 would prohibit the use of those funds for turf projects, and Senate Bill No. 2936 would go further by preventing public entities from installing artificial turf altogether.

In a year defined by tough fiscal choices, this one should be easy. Instead of continuing to pour public dollars into plastic fields that must be ripped up and replaced every decade, New Jersey can choose a path that is both fiscally responsible and environmentally sound.