Does Florida's Florida-friendly landscaping law allow artificial turf as part of a yard's landscape plan?

Plain-English summary

The City Attorney for Clearwater asked whether Florida's Florida-friendly landscaping statute, section 373.185, allows artificial turf as a component of a landscape plan. The Attorney General's office gave informal comments.

The office explained that the statute contemplates the use of non-living materials, such as rocks, pebbles, sand, mulch, walls, fences, and decorative paving, as part of a Florida-friendly landscape. The statute does not expressly mention artificial turf, but it also does not appear to preclude it. The Department of Environmental Protection, which administers the program, defines "landscape" in its guidance models to include both living plants and non-living materials, which supports the view that non-living components are part of Florida-friendly landscaping. At the same time, local governments may regulate non-living materials (for example, the guidance discourages gravel, river rock, and shell as a major ground cover and lets local governments limit how much space such materials occupy). The key limit runs the other way: under sections 166.048 and 373.185, a municipal ordinance may not prevent a property owner from implementing Florida-friendly landscaping on his or her land.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2011. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Background and statutory framework

Section 166.048, Florida Statutes, states the Legislature's view that Florida-friendly landscaping contributes to water conservation, quality protection, and restoration, directs municipalities to consider ordinances consistent with section 373.185, and prohibits a municipality from enacting an ordinance that would prevent a property owner from implementing Florida-friendly landscaping. Section 373.185(3)(c) carries a parallel prohibition.

Section 373.185(1)(b) defines "Florida-friendly landscaping" as quality landscapes that conserve water, protect the environment, are adaptable to local conditions, and are drought tolerant, listing principles such as right-plant-right-place, efficient watering, mulching, and reduction of stormwater runoff. Water management districts must provide a model ordinance and technical assistance, and may use the model in the Department of Environmental Protection's "Florida-Friendly Landscape Guidance Models for Ordinances, Covenants, and Restrictions" manual. That manual defines "landscape" to include living plants and non-living material such as rocks, pebbles, sand, mulch, walls, fences, or decorative paving.

The office gave weight to DEP's interpretation, citing the principle that an administering agency's construction of a statute is entitled to great weight (AmeriSteel Corporation v. Clark, 691 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1997); Daniel v. Florida State Turnpike Authority, 213 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1968); Miller v. Brewer Co. of Florida, 122 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1960)). The conclusion: non-living materials are part of a Florida-friendly landscape, artificial turf is not precluded, and local governments retain authority to regulate non-living materials within the bounds set by the statute.

Common questions

Q: Can a Florida homeowner use artificial turf and still comply with Florida-friendly landscaping?
A: The informal comments indicate the statute does not preclude artificial turf and contemplates non-living materials as part of a landscape plan. Specific local ordinances can still regulate non-living materials.

Q: Can a city ban Florida-friendly landscaping or force traditional grass lawns?
A: No. Sections 166.048 and 373.185(3)(c) prohibit a local ordinance that would prevent a property owner from implementing Florida-friendly landscaping.

Q: Can a city limit gravel, rock, or shell in a yard?
A: The DEP guidance discourages those as a major ground cover and allows local governments to restrict the percentage of space they occupy, so local regulation of non-living materials is permitted within the statute's limits.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• s. 373.185, Fla. Stat. (Florida-friendly landscaping; definition and model ordinance)
• s. 166.048, Fla. Stat. (municipal Florida-friendly landscaping ordinances)
• s. 373.185(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (ordinance may not prohibit Florida-friendly landscaping)

Cases:

• AmeriSteel Corporation v. Clark, 691 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1997), deference to administering agency's interpretation
• Daniel v. Florida State Turnpike Authority, 213 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1968)
• Miller v. Brewer Co. of Florida, 122 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1960)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/ag-opinions/florida-friendly-landscaping-artificial-turf
• Original PDF: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/print/pdf/node/8171

Original opinion text

Ms. Pamela K. Akin

City Attorney

City of Clearwater

Post Office Box 4748

Clearwater, Florida 33758-4748

Dear Ms. Akin:

You have asked this office to comment upon whether the Florida-friendly landscaping statute, section 373.185, Florida Statutes, would allow the use of artificial turf as a component of a landscape plan.

In sum, the Florida-friendly landscape statute contemplates the use of non-living materials such as rocks, pebbles, sand, mulch, walls, fences, or decorative paving materials as a component of a Florida-friendly landscape. While there is no express mention of the use of artificial turf in the Florida-friendly landscape statute, it does not appear to preclude the use of artificial turf as a component of a landscape plan. The model ordinance developed by the Department of Environmental Protection to implement the act addresses the ability of a municipality to regulate the use of non-living materials in a landscape plan, but specifically states that a municipal ordinance may not prevent a property owner from implementing Florida-friendly landscaping .

Section 166.048, Florida Statutes, expresses both the Legislature’s determination that "Florida-friendly" landscaping contributes to the conservation, protection, and restoration of water and its intent to make such landscaping an essential part of water conservation, water quality protection, and restoration planning. The statute directs municipalities to consider enacting ordinances consistent with section 373.185, Florida Statutes, requiring the use of Florida-friendly landscaping, and specifically prohibits a municipality from enacting an ordinance which would prevent a property owner from implementing Florida-friendly landscaping on his or her land.[1]

Section 373.185(1)(b), Florida Statutes, defines "Florida-friendly landscaping" as:

"quality landscapes that conserve water, protect the environment, are adaptable to local conditions, and are drought tolerant. The principles of such landscaping include planting the right plant in the right place, efficient watering, appropriate fertilization, mulching, attraction of wildlife, responsible management of yard pests, recycling yard waste, reduction of stormwater runoff, and waterfront protection. Additional components include practices such as landscape planning and design, soil analysis, the appropriate use of solid waste compost, minimizing the use of irrigation, and proper maintenance."

It would appear that the primary focus of the Florida-friendly landscaping statute is to encourage appropriate plantings to conserve, protect, and restore water sources. Water management districts are directed to provide a model Florida-friendly landscaping ordinance and other technical assistance to local governments in order to facilitate the requirements of the act.[2] Each district may develop its own model or use a model contained in the "Florida-Friendly Landscape Guidance Models for Ordinances, Covenants, and Restrictions" manual developed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. [3]

The "Florida-Friendly Landscape Guidance Models for Ordinances, Covenants, and Restrictions" manual defines "[l]andscape" as "[a]ny combination of living plants (such as grass, ground cover, shrubs, vines, hedges, or trees) and non-living landscape material (such as rocks, pebbles, sand, mulch, walls, fences, or decorative paving materials)." (e.s.) "Ground Cover" is defined in the manual as "[l]ow growing plants, other than turfgrass, used to cover the soil and form a continuous, low mass of foliage."[4] Moreover, the guidance models state that "[g]ravel, river rock, shell and similar materials should not be used as a major landscape ground cover or mulch" and allow local governments to restrict the percentage of space such materials occupy in a landscape plan, "as they increase the need for herbicide use, have no habitat value, reflect rather than absorb heat, and do not produce oxygen like plants."

Thus, the Department of Environmental Protection, the state agency charged with the administration of the Florida-friendly landscape legislation, has provided a definition for materials which constitute "landscape" for purposes of the act and recognizes that use of non-living materials, such as gravel, river rock, and shell, is part of a Florida-friendly landscape.[5] The use of non-living materials, however, may be subject to regulation by local governments.

I trust that these informal comments will be of assistance to you.

Sincerely,

Lagran Saunders

Assistant Attorney General

ALS/tsh

[1] Section 166.048(2) and (3)(c), Fla. Stat. See also s. 373.185(3)(c), Fla. Stat., stating that a "local government ordinance may not prohibit or be enforced so as to prohibit any property owner from implementing Florida-friendly landscaping on his or her land."

[2] Section 373.185(3), Fla. Stat.

[3] Section 373.185(2), Fla. Stat.

[4] "Florida-Friendly Landscape Guidance Models for Ordinances, Covenants, and Restrictions," Florida Department of Environmental Protection and University of Florida, January 2009, p. 5.

[5] See AmeriSteel Corporation v. Clark, 691 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1997) (interpretation by agency charged with administration of a statute is entitled to great weight); Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 74-71 (1974) (construction of a statute by the administrative agency charged with its enforcement and interpretation is entitled to great weight and a court generally will not depart therefrom except for the most cogent reasons and unless the construction is clearly erroneous), citing Daniel v. Florida State Turnpike Authority, 213 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1968); Miller v. Brewer Co. of Florida, 122 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1960).