Back when I was an active-duty Air Force officer, I was heavily involved in a variety of environmental areas that were of interest to the military. Heck, while working on the National Security Council staff at the White House back in the summer of 1998, I was directed to write the first draft statement from the Department of Defense on the impact of climate change on military operations in years to come. My Ph.D. studies had examined that very question, and I concluded that climate change would likely make “traditional” types of war more intense (a “conflict multiplier,” as we called such things) and would create new climate-based conflicts, as areas ran out of water and overheated, among other effects.

One of the ways I was active on my local base, the Air Force Academy, was to submit various suggestions on things the AF could do, through a long-established suggestion program. Any AF vet will recall the colorful Air Force Form 1000, often found lying around in most squadrons. One of the incentives for the suggestion program was that if a person submitted an idea that eventually saved the AF money, the suggester could get a bonus of up to 10% of the savings.

So, with visions of doing ecological good and maybe getting a nice bonus check, I set out researching ideas that I could turn into suggestions via the program. My first was a complete survey of the electrical use at the AF Academy, and I concluded that if a change was made in only the main academic building (Fairchild Hall), and all 55,000 light fixtures therein were retrofitted to more efficient forms of lighting, the AF would save millions. That suggestion was rejected, and the rejection included the rationale for the rebuff: we already bought a lot of regular light bulbs.

But the suggestion I was sure would get approved was my proposal regarding water use on the Academy. With then more than 1,220 units of base housing, and with many common areas all filled with non-native Kentucky Bluegrass (that requires a lot of water to grow), there were massive areas that needed regular watering to keep them green. Because of this watering, there were saving to be had, or so I thought. I figured out how much was spent on keeping yards and common areas green, and then contrasted that to the costs of maintaining yards of native grasses and found that the Academy would save $180,000 in the first six months alone after digging out the old bluegrass and switching to native species, and the savings would grow from there.

You can see where this is going, right?

My suggestion was rejected with a single sentence: “of all our utility bills, water is the lowest.”

I was reminded of those long ago failed suggestions when I read a recent story in The Gazette. It seems that the Colorado Springs Utilities folks are considering removing lots of “nonfunctional grass” in the city, in hopes of helping to meet Colorado’s commitment to water-saving goals required during this time of drought by the 7-state compact on use of Colorado river water. Now, Colorado Springs does not directly use river water, but the idea of removing thirsty grass from areas where it is not needed is a good one. CS Utilities was already looking at limits on the installing of the “wrong” type of grass in new home construction, but the idea of reaching back to existing grassy areas is a new one, and an idea that is long overdue.

Folks, we live in a wonderful and beautiful state. But we also live in a semi-arid high desert-like environment. The natural plants that grow here are lovely in their own right. And while it is nice to walk barefoot through Kentucky bluegrass, that is best done in, well, Kentucky. Here in Colorado, we should embrace xeriscaping to the degree possible. Heck, the CS Utilities has two different demonstration gardens to show off what can be done with far less water.

It is probably a bridge too far to ask current homeowners to rip out their yards of thirsty species and to replace them with native plants and rocks and such. But it is a good first step to rethink new home construction. And perhaps there could be incentives for current homeowners with big yards that would encourage them to rethink the bluegrass.

I applaud CS Utilities for even thinking about the removal of major sections of the city’s green grasses, and I hope their efforts can be an example for much of the western United States, which is most certainly not Kentucky-like. Deserts are beautiful in their own ways, and the sooner we who are living in the west accept that, the better it will be for our rivers, our cities and our future.

Hal Bidlack is a retired professor of political science and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who taught more than 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.