San José adopts potable-water ban for nonfunctional turf
San Jose Municipal Water System, California · Meeting date: October 27, 2026 · Published: October 28, 2026
San José City Council has unanimously approved an ordinance implementing California’s restrictions on potable-water irrigation of nonfunctional turf at specified properties. The city will take an education-first approach and expects water retailers and Valley Water to play the central enforcement roles.
Key points
- Council unanimously approved amendments to Chapter 15.10 of the municipal code to implement Assembly Bill 1572 and California Water Code Section 10608.14.
- The ordinance establishes a phased prohibition on potable water used to irrigate nonfunctional turf on specified properties.
- Staff said enforcement is expected to sit principally with the relevant retail water providers, with Valley Water also able to act as an enforcement authority.
- San José Water sought a larger city enforcement role, but city staff said a citywide programme would require additional code-enforcement capacity and General Fund support.
Full report
San José has moved to restrict potable-water irrigation of nonfunctional turf, approving a new ordinance that will phase in the state-mandated prohibition across specified properties while leaving frontline enforcement largely to water retailers.
The City Council unanimously approved the amendment to Chapter 15.10 of the San José Municipal Code on 27 October, implementing Assembly Bill 1572 and California Water Code Section 10608.14. The measure is one of the clearest local policy steps affecting outdoor potable-water demand at the meeting.
City staff said the initial approach would focus on education rather than penalties. John Tang, deputy director of water resources, told councillors that the state’s preferred model is for cities, wholesalers and retail water providers to resolve enforcement responsibilities among themselves.
Under the city’s proposed approach, a report that nonfunctional turf is being watered with potable supply would be handled by the relevant water utility in its service territory. Tang compared the arrangement with previous mandatory-conservation periods, when water-waste reports were handled by the respective retailers.
The ordinance allows civil penalties of up to $1,000 per day per violation, Tang said. But he noted that enforcement attention is more likely to intensify during periods of mandatory conservation or calls for conservation from Valley Water.
The policy exposes a practical challenge for San José, whose boundaries contain multiple retail water service areas. Tang said the city had worked with San Jose Water since July, including exchanging ordinance drafts, and had raised the matter through Valley Water meetings involving retailers. San Jose Water subsequently argued for the city to enforce the rule across municipal boundaries.
Staff rejected that as the immediate model. Tang said the city could not use San José Municipal Water System employees to enforce requirements in other utilities’ service areas because of Proposition 218 constraints. He added that the city’s code-enforcement function is not currently set up for a citywide nonfunctional-turf enforcement programme, which would require a General Fund budget proposal.
Instead, staff pointed to Valley Water’s role as a possible additional enforcement authority, particularly when conservation measures are in place. The city intends to continue discussions with retailers and the wholesaler as implementation progresses.
Councilmember David Cohen, who moved approval, said he also welcomed work already under way by the Parks Department to replace park areas not intended for recreation with alternatives to nonfunctional turf.
This summary was generated by AI based on the source document and may contain errors.
Source: City Council, San Jose Municipal Water System