Photo by Peter Burdon on Unsplash
Policy Notes: May 2025
Artificial turf becomes the subject of debate as Commissioners take up public concerns about emerging health and environmental issues.
Turning the Tide In a Sea of Plastic Grass?
At its May meeting, the Pinelands Commission voted to approve a proposal for the construction of a new artificial turf field at the Atlantic County Institute of Technology in Hamilton Township, despite concerns raised about the environmental consequences. This was not unexpected, as the Commission has consistently approved applications for artificial turf fields in the past with little resistance. However, this most recent example was notable: three commissioners voted against the application. This transpired following one of the first substantive discussions that the Pinelands Commission has ever had on the issue. You can watch the recording of the full discussion here.
Before the vote, Commissioner Rittler-Sanchez strongly cautioned against moving forward without a thorough review of the potential ecological impacts, in light of growing awareness of the environmental and health concerns associated with these fields.
Who has the burden of proof? The current assumption is that these fields are safe until advocates can prove otherwise AND get the rules changed to reflect the current science and emerging concerns.
Let’s shift the burden of proof to the applicants: require them to prove that the products they intend to use are safe. Commissioner Lohbauer highlighted CMP language that would support this shift, citing:
N.J.A.C. 7:50-6.83(b): ” no development which degrades surface or ground water quality or which establishes new point sources of pollution shall be permitted.”
However, as the debate continued, it became clear that most Commissioners were not significantly influenced by these environmental concerns, offering them little acknowledgment during deliberation. PPA staff had raised concerns about heavy metals, PFAS, urban heat island, and microplastic pollution associated with these fields at the previous Commission meeting—none of which were substantively addressed in the subsequent staff report.
When public comments are made, Commission staff are tasked with providing a response. Commissioner Lohbauer found the staff response to PPA’s comments lacking, saying “nowhere in our response does our staff say [that] what the member of the public represented in that comment was untrue… neither did the applicant say anything about that.” The staff seems to deflect from engaging with the actual environmental concern. Commissioner Lohbauer argued that these concerns deserve more substantial consideration.
Several commissioners and staff justified their willingness to approve the field by citing past approvals of similar projects, arguing that rejecting this proposal would be inconsistent or unfair. Yet this reliance on precedent sets a troubling standard—one in which new information or evolving environmental understanding cannot shift decision-making. This approach risks rendering the Commission unable to make more sustainable choices as circumstances change.
Certainly, artificial turf isn’t the only construction material that has environmental issues. One Commissioner compared this debate to the one over pavement: there are well-known environmental downsides to pavement, but they are generally tolerated for the public good of transportation. Why should artificial turf be treated any differently? Because a natural alternative exists—and it’s cheaper, to boot.
Well-designed and well–maintained natural turf athletic fields are gaining traction in New Jersey, but must contend with a wave of greenwashing from the artificial turf industry. Friction in the Pinelands Commission application process may be the push that towns need to finally consider this option.
Although there was brief discussion about tabling the proposal to allow more time for consideration, the idea was not seriously pursued. In the end, the Commission voted to approve the project. Following the vote, two members of the public voiced opposition, urging the Commission to reconsider the environmental harms the artificial turf field could inflict on the sensitive Pinelands ecosystem.
We expect to see artificial turf as an item of discussion at a future Policy & Implementation Subcommittee meeting of the Pinelands Commission. In the meantime, we are encouraging our members to stay engaged in meetings in their municipalities—especially school board meetings where they may be considering new artificial turf fields. Get informed (recommended resources below) and let decision-makers know that artificial turf is not an acceptable solution.
You can check out PPA’s webpage on this issue here.
Introductory Webinar hosted with the Sierra Club (December 2024) can be found here.
“Back to Grass” Webinar with Natural Grass Expert, Keith Fisher, can be found here.
Pinelands Municipal Council Watch
Months since the council last met: 30