Is the grass really greener? Rethinking UCLA's largest crop and the American dream

No, this article's title is not in reference to wacky tobacky, medical or otherwise. I'm talking about good ol' all American turf. The stuff you grew up skinning your knees on and rolling around in until you itched like crazy. This Wednesday, the Daily Bruin's headline piece was all about UCLA lawn care in the aftermath of the weekend long LA Times Festival of Books, which took place spread out across the many lawned quads in the heart of campus. The result of tents and people was most definitely bad for the lawns, but have no fear. They should be back in tip top shape in days or weeks- just in time for graduation most likely, when more tents, chairs, and people will mash down and kill the lawns. Use of these lawns is only intermittent and by departmental or adminstrative preference ("Wouldn't be nice to have graduation out on the lawn!?") not out of necessity. I pose the question, Is there a better use of these lawns than that of growing lawns?

With over 80% of US households maintaining a private lawn, grass isn't as green as it looks. Estimates vary but the total area of lawns in the US is somewhere between 15 and 30 million acres! Let's put this into perspective. About 10 million acres of cotton are harvested per year; 70-80 million acres of corn; 50 million acres of wheat; and less than 5 million of rice (more details). Harvesting these crops generates billions of dollars in revenue each year. Wow! Grass could be a major player in US agriculture right? Um...well not really because you see, here in America, we don't really do anything with our lawns except trample them, water them, mow them, and trample them some more. Until recently, all the mowed grass went to landfills. Now, some cities have composting programs but not nearly enough to handle the large crop of grass clippings that are wasted each year. And how many pesticides are sprayed and how many gallons of water poured into a crop with little value other than its use value? I have no idea, but consider this use-value next time you cruise through your neighborhood. Let's say your driving down your street...no wait...You're riding your bike down your street- there, that's greener- what percentage of lawns are actually being used for playing, lounging, pooping (if you're a dog) or some other activity? I have no idea but usually in my neighborhood there's nobody 'lawning' or whatever it is you call it, unless of course its Saturday afternoon and lawns are being mowed.

If you asked me, I'd say this situation appears to be a shamefully wasteful and destructive one. No one asks me though and when I mention it, it gets me in trouble. Why? Because people love their lawns. They are infatuated with them and hold and ideal image of home that includes a soft, poofy, 4 inch thick mat of green lawn framing the suburban abode and distinguishing one plot (and neighbor) from the next. Just to prove how much people adore their lawns and think of them as a necessity, I'll tell you a story.

I was once strolling across one of UCLA's wide grassy quads, talking with someone I'd just met when the subject of grass came up. I commented that UCLA should get rid of all of its unused lawns because they were wasteful and required constant fertilizing and upkeep. I might has well have insulted this persons family honor because they were not pleased with me at all. "What?! Are you kidding?! You can't get rid of this grass! Don't you love it? Why would you suggest such a thing.." The disbelief and offense in their voice betrayed such sentimental fondness. "Well, I won't go there- on that lawn- again," I thought, and we dropped the subject.

But here I am again, on that lawn, that big, green, and wide expanse of American dream dotted with doggy doody that many of us, myself included, share a fondness for (the grass, not the doody). Is it somehow blasphemy to say we should get rid of it? Part of some pinko commie liberal plot? I don't think so. It just seems like common sense: Keep the parks, the soccer fields, the baseball diamonds, but get rid of the lawns. And do what? Grow something else instead? Precisely. Grow food instead. A garden uses less water and saves you loads of money on organic produce. Grow food and share it or trade it with your neighbors because that builds solidarity within your community. If you want, keep a nice small plot of lawn in the middle so you can lie there surrounded on all sides by the bountiful fruits of your labor. These fruits are substantial, not aesthetic. You can live off them, as has the Dervaes family of Pasadena, a model of self-sufficiency, frugality, and innovation amongst Los Angeles's big city suburban sprawl. It doesn't get more local than picking food from your own yard. If you want to live the American dream with American ideals then take out the lawns and grow your own food. To my mind, the Dervaes are the quintessential all-American family- they are self-sufficient, hardy, and innovative like the pioneers; they are frugal entrepreneurs who make a living off of the goods they grow to meet local demand for healthy organic produce; they represent family and community values by the children they've raised (who still live at home and help out with the business of growing and selling produce) and by the community they've fostered through educational efforts and regular neighborhood potlucks. This could be the alternative to the American Lawn, if people would let go of their sentimental fondness for green turf and be open to more traditional alternatives.

So, at risk of offending grass-lovers all over again, I ask, "Is there a better use of UCLA's lawns than that of growing lawns for aesthetic purposes and the occasional book fair?" By now you should know what the answer to this is. We should tear out some, most in fact but not all, of the lawns and turn the remaining spaces into student run organic community gardens that produce fruits and vegetables for the dining halls and for a student run farmers market. I envision a hillside next to Janss steps, stepped with garden plots, park benches, and cozy patches of lawn where you can take a nap between classes and munch on a peach or apple while friends tend to their garden plots. I challenge anyone and everyone to come up with a good reason why this shouldn't be so. It would save UCLA loads of money on food. It would teach business and entrepeneurial skills to UCLA students. It would provide an opportunity for UCLA to become a leader in alternative, sustainable agricultural programs. It would create a strong sense of community and community values on campus that would spread to communities around the country as graduates went off to find their way in life, taking with them a strong belief in protecting the environment and building up local, sustainable, food economies. I don't know about you, but to me this sounds like a pretty appetizing recipe for success, for everyone involved...except maybe John Deere.