Xeriscape Water Savings: How Much Water Does Xeriscaping Save?

Quick definitions

gal/ft²/yr

Gallons per square foot per year of turf or irrigated area treated. The denominator is the converted area, not the lot size.

in/yr

Inches per year. Multiply gal/ft²/yr by 0.02228 to convert to inches per year, or multiply inches per year by 0.6233 to get gal/ft²/yr.

Area-normalized

The raw savings figure (gallons) divided by the converted area (square feet), expressed per year. This makes cross-study comparison possible.

Reference evapotranspiration (ET₀)

A standardized measure of atmospheric water demand. Las Vegas: 89.5 in/yr. Albuquerque: roughly 50–60 in/yr. Austin: roughly 58 in/yr.

What do the studies report?

Three tables present the full dataset. Table 1 contains only estimates expressible per square foot of converted area. Table 2 contains utility benchmarks and program projections reported differently. Table 3 contains percentage reductions, preserved with their original denominators.

Table 1 — Area-normalized empirical estimates

Source: Compiled by Albuquerque Xeriscape from the cited primary publications. All values verified against retrievable source documents. in/yr = gal/ft²/yr ÷ 0.6233. Verified 18 July 2026.

Table 2 — Program benchmarks and planning projections

Source: Compiled by Albuquerque Xeriscape from the cited publications. Verified 18 July 2026.

Table 3 — Percentage reductions (original denominators preserved)

Source: Compiled by Albuquerque Xeriscape from the cited primary publications. Percentages preserved with each source's original denominator. Verified 18 July 2026.

What this shows — and what it does not

Table 4 — Every estimate classified by denominator, control strategy, and evidence type

Source: Compiled by Albuquerque Xeriscape from the cited primary publications. Verified 18 July 2026.

Why do figures disagree?

Three mechanisms account for the range: climate, measurement method, and timing. They are not alternatives — they operate simultaneously, and no study controls for all three at once.

Table 5 — Three estimates of one program: Las Vegas, NV

Source: Compiled by Albuquerque Xeriscape from Sovocool (2005), AWE (2019), and Brelsford & Abbott (2021). Verified 18 July 2026.

Mechanism 1: Climate

AWE applied a consistent pre/post weather-adjusted method to seven utilities. Austin receives roughly 36 inches of precipitation and has a reference ET₀ around 58 in/yr. Las Vegas receives 4.2 inches of precipitation and has a reference ET₀ of 89.5 in/yr. The difference in atmospheric water demand drives how much a removed lawn was consuming. Under the same methodology, Las Vegas produced 6.8 times Austin's estimate. This is the single most important reason why a Nevada study number should not be applied to a New Mexico property without adjustment.

Mechanism 2: Measurement method

Sub-meters on the landscape record what actually reaches the grass. Household meters record everything: outdoor use plus all indoor use. When a household converts and then uses more water indoors post-conversion, the household meter captures that noise. The Sovocool (2005) sub-metered estimate for Las Vegas is 55.8 gal/ft²/yr. AWE's weather-adjusted household-meter estimate for the same program is 76.0. Brelsford & Abbott's household-meter estimate is 36.8, the lowest of the three, consistent with their method capturing behavioral rebound that sub-meters do not see.

Mechanism 3: When you measure

Bijoor's five-year series for Santa Clara County shows savings growing substantially over time as new plantings mature and homeowners adjust irrigation:

Source: Bijoor, N. (2019), Valley Water. Extracted and normalized by Albuquerque Xeriscape. Year-5 figure rests on 30 homes. Verified 18 July 2026.

A study that measures only at year 1 would show very different results from one that measures at year 5 — on the same properties.

How this dataset was assembled

Every record required a retrievable primary source — a published study, government report, or utility document that could be read directly, not inferred from a secondary citation. Studies cited only in a turfgrass-industry review that could not be independently located were excluded; their exclusion is documented in the Limitations section.

Area-normalized values were verified as follows: (1) locate the raw savings figure and area denominator in the primary document; (2) confirm the unit; (3) convert if needed using 325,851 gallons per acre-foot; (4) compare the result to any gal/ft²/yr figure the source reports itself. Where sources reported only percentage reductions, those are preserved in Table 3 and are not added to Table 1.

What did each program actually require?

Every measured turf-removal savings figure is the product of a specific program with specific requirements. The savings figure cannot be separated from those requirements, because participants who replaced turf without converting irrigation or changing schedules would have produced different results.

Table 7 — What each program's intervention bundled

Source: Compiled by Albuquerque Xeriscape from each program's published requirements as described in the cited studies and utility materials. Verified 18 July 2026.

The bottom row is the closest thing to a clean comparison anyone has published. Valley Water measured weather-based irrigation controllers with rain shut-off devices — installed with no landscape change at all — saving an average of 9 gal/ft²/yr across years one through four. Nine gallons from a controller, against 31 for a full conversion in the same service area, by the same author, using the same method. No study included in this database isolates turf removal with irrigation held constant against irrigation conversion with landscape held constant. Until one does, the honest statement is that these programs measure a bundle.

Can the Albuquerque numbers be quoted together?

Table 8 — The arithmetic check

Source: Calculations by Albuquerque Xeriscape from figures published in the ABCWUA FY2023 Annual Report. Conversion at 325,851 gallons per acre-foot. Verified 18 July 2026.

If all three figures described the same area at the same annual rate, the implied rate would be 417 gal/ft²/yr — 6.4 times the report's own 65-gallon benchmark, and well above the 73.0 gal/ft²/yr that SNWA sub-metered as the total application to Las Vegas turf. The three published figures do not reconcile as one calculation. The report does not state whether they use different scopes, time periods or methods.

We are not saying ABCWUA published an error. We are saying the figures do not multiply together, and the report does not explain how they relate.

How to quote them safely: cite each figure separately, name the FY2023 Annual Report, and do not multiply them.

Source: Compiled by Albuquerque Xeriscape from the cited publications. Verified 18 July 2026.

Does the “35% to 70%” New Mexico savings figure come from New Mexico?

We verified this on 18 July 2026 by reading NMSU Extension publication WTF5, Landscape Attitudes and Choices. The body text cites 35%–75% and attributes it to Sovocool et al. (2004), the Southern Nevada Water Authority's xeriscape research. Table 1 in WTF5 is titled for Southern Nevada.

The two climates are not interchangeable. Las Vegas receives 4.2 inches of precipitation against 89.5 inches of reference evapotranspiration. Albuquerque receives roughly twice the precipitation. The AWE data show what happens to a savings estimate when climate changes under a constant method: Austin (25.4 inches of rain) produced 11.2 gal/ft²/yr against Las Vegas's 76.0.

We flag this not to criticize NMSU — the citation is right there, correctly attributed. The problem is downstream, where the figure gets repeated as New Mexico guidance with the Nevada provenance stripped off.

How much water does a lawn use per square foot?

Source: Sovocool, K.A. (2005), Xeriscape Conversion Study Final Report, Southern Nevada Water Authority, Table 17. Peer-reviewed as Sovocool, Morgan & Bennett (2006), Journal AWWA 98(2):82–93.

Grass species matters more than most homeowners expect. In the same study, fescue — a cool-season grass that stays green year-round with enough water — required roughly 91 inches annually against about 56 inches for Bermuda. EPA WaterSense reports that outdoor water use accounts for more than 30% of household water use on average and as much as 60% in arid regions, and that as much as 50% of water used outdoors is lost to wind, evaporation and runoff from inefficient irrigation.

Does xeriscaping always save water?

• Eleven percent of homes in the flagship study did not save. SNWA reports 285 of 321 analyzed homes reducing consumption. Thirty-six did not. The utility published this in its own final report.
• First-year savings can be statistically marginal. Valley Water's year-one estimate of 8 ± 4 gal/ft²/yr carried p = 0.0738, labeled marginally significant. Savings were significant in years two through five.
• Participants are not typical customers. SNWA found participants' pre-conversion consumption significantly below the comparison group (t = 4.32, p < 0.01). Bijoor found Valley Water participants at 161 CCF annually against a sector average of 191 (p = 0.0007). AWE found statistically distinguishable differences at every utility with a control group.
• Background conservation can swamp program effects. Bijoor reports participant household use falling 6%, 13%, 18%, 23% and 32% across five years. Over the same period, the average household in the same service areas fell −2%, 7%, 11%, 19% and 28%, because California was in the 2012–2016 drought. The author explicitly declines to treat the sector average as a control.
• Removing turf is not sufficient on its own. AWE's own introduction: “Removing turf alone is often not enough to achieve sustained reduction in water use. Irrigation systems and schedules, as well as behavior must be changed to achieve water use reductions.”
• Without a rebate, payback is long. Brelsford and Abbott estimate water bill savings of $1.04 per square meter converted per year — a median of about $94 per household. Against a typical $15 per square meter conversion cost, that is a 14-year undiscounted payback on water savings alone.

None of this means turf removal fails. Every estimate in Table 1 found real savings. It means the outcome is conditional.

Is it the plants, or is it the irrigation?

Almost every turf-removal rebate requires converting spray irrigation to drip. So the measured effect is turf removal plus irrigation conversion plus inspection plus program education, reported as though it were the effect of plants alone.

Valley Water measured weather-based irrigation controllers with rain shut-off devices, installed with no landscape change at all, saving 4, 7, 11 and 14 gal/ft²/yr across years one through four — an average of 9 gal/ft²/yr. High-efficiency nozzles alone averaged 1,243 gallons per unit per year. Nine gallons per square foot from a controller, against 31 for a full conversion in the same service area, by the same author, using the same method. The areas measured are different and the interventions are not additive, but it establishes that a meaningful share of what turf-removal programs measure is available without removing any turf.

Bijoor writes that turf-removal savings “may not necessarily occur if irrigation practices are not changed concurrently.”

No study included in this database isolates turf removal with irrigation held constant against irrigation conversion with landscape held constant. Until one does, the honest statement is that these programs measure a bundle.

What is a realistic estimate for an Albuquerque property?

Table 10 — Scenario estimates anchored to named studies

If you need a working number, use a range anchored to named studies. Each scenario cites a real, retrievable source. None is an Albuquerque measurement.

Source: Compiled by Albuquerque Xeriscape from the cited primary publications. “Middle empirical” is the selected central benchmark, not a statistical median of the dataset. Verified 18 July 2026.

To calculate: turf area in square feet × the scenario rate = estimated annual gallons.

At ABCWUA's current $3.00 per square foot, a 1,000-square-foot conversion carries a mathematical maximum credit of $3,000 — if all 1,000 square feet qualify, the project receives pre-approval before removal, and program requirements and funding are met. ABCWUA sets and administers all of that.

Why does this matter now?

Table 11 — Western non-functional turf policy, as of July 2026

Sources: Nevada AB 356 (2021); California AB 1572 (2023), Chapter 849; Colorado HB22-1151 (2022); ABCWUA FY2023 Annual Report. AB 1572 does not apply to individual residential customers within an HOA, and functional recreational-use turf is not non-functional turf. Verified 18 July 2026.

When savings figures drive rebate budgets and compliance projections, a 6.8× spread across climates and a 2.1× spread across methods become material planning problems. Colorado's own analysis put the statewide cost of turf replacement at up to $2.5 billion to save up to 20,000 acre-feet, on a roughly 12 gal/ft²/yr assumption. Substitute Las Vegas's numbers and the same money buys a very different answer — which is exactly why the per-square-foot figure a jurisdiction adopts deserves more scrutiny than it usually gets.

Limitations

• These are not interchangeable measurements. They span three decades, climates from 30 to 89.5 inches of reference evapotranspiration, different xeriscape definitions, different baselines and different time horizons. The 11.2-to-76.0 range describes a set of published estimates, not a confidence interval.
• Seven of the eleven empirical estimates come from one study. AWE's method is consistent across those seven, which makes the climate comparison possible, but it also means a single research team's modelling choices carry most of the geographic range.
• AWE's estimates are weather-adjusted pre/post, not control-group estimates. The report says so explicitly. That likely places them at the higher end.
• Austin's estimate rests on 65 participants, with a 95% confidence interval spanning 9.4% to 28.4%.
• Valley Water's fifth-year figure rests on 30 homes.
• Some records are projections, not measurements. Utah's figure is forward-looking. Colorado's is a planning model available only through news reporting. ABCWUA's 65 gal/ft² is published without a stated derivation.
• Most studies measure volunteers. Three independent analyses found participants differed from non-participants before enrolling.
• The bundle problem is unresolved. No study here isolates landscape change from irrigation change.
• Open leads not yet verified: A per-square-foot figure for Albuquerque's pre-2005 program; one for El Paso Water Utility; a reported share of Albuquerque participants whose use rose after conversion; Arizona State University findings on Phoenix/Tempe comparative water application; and Testa & Newton's 1993 Mesa rebate evaluation. All appear only in a turfgrass-industry review. Numerical values are excluded pending direct source access.
• Nothing here predicts what a specific property will save.

Frequently asked questions

How much water does xeriscaping save per square foot?

Between 11.2 and 76.0 gallons per square foot per year across eleven area-normalized empirical estimates. The most-quoted single figure is 55.8 gal/ft²/yr, from the Southern Nevada Water Authority’s sub-metered study published in 2005. The range is driven mainly by climate and secondarily by measurement method.

What percentage of water does xeriscaping save?

It depends on the denominator, which most sources omit. Whole-household reductions of 18.9% to 38.8% across seven utilities (AWE, 2019), 20% in Las Vegas (Brelsford & Abbott) and 30% in Las Vegas (SNWA) are the best-supported figures. ABCWUA’s ~35% refers to irrigation need, not household use — a different and smaller base.

How much water does a lawn use per square foot?

Sub-metered turf in Las Vegas received 73.0 gallons per square foot per year, equivalent to 117 inches of applied water. Cool-season fescue required roughly 91 inches annually against about 56 for warm-season Bermuda in the same study.

Does xeriscaping always save water?

No. Thirty-six of 321 analyzed homes in SNWA’s own study did not reduce consumption. Valley Water’s first-year result was only marginally significant (p = 0.0738). Outcomes depend heavily on irrigation practice, and AWE states directly that removing turf alone is often not enough.

Do xeriscape water savings last?

The evidence says yes, and they may grow. Brelsford and Abbott found no rebound effect over a decade in Las Vegas. AWE reports savings lower in the first year of establishment and growing over time. Bijoor measured 8 gal/ft²/yr in year one and 48 by year five, on a declining sample.

How long does it take to pay off a xeriscape conversion?

Without a rebate, about 14 years on water bill savings alone — $1.04 per square meter per year against a typical $15 per square meter conversion cost (Brelsford & Abbott). Reduced maintenance improves that: SNWA measured 2.2 fewer hours per month and $206 less in annual direct spending for homes at least 60% xeric.

How much water does xeriscaping save in Albuquerque?

We did not locate a current, independently measured Albuquerque-specific per-square-foot estimate in the public sources searched through 18 July 2026. ABCWUA publishes a 65 gal/ft²/yr benchmark in its FY2023 Annual Report without a stated derivation.

Why do published xeriscape savings figures disagree?

Climate first: under one consistent method, Austin produced 11.2 gal/ft²/yr and Las Vegas 76.0. Method second: three analyses of the same Las Vegas program produced 36.8, 55.8 and 76.0. Sub-meters measure the landscape, household meters capture indoor rebound, and savings change with landscape age.

Is it the plants or the irrigation system that saves the water?

No study in this dataset separates them. Weather-based irrigation controllers alone, with no landscape change, saved 9 gal/ft²/yr on average in Valley Water’s study — evidence that irrigation carries a meaningful share, but not a measurement of how much.

Sources

Peer-reviewed and academic

• Sovocool, K.A., Morgan, M. & Bennett, D. (2006). “An in-depth investigation of Xeriscape as a water conservation measure.” Journal AWWA 98(2): 82–93.
• Brelsford, C. & Abbott, J.K. (2021). “How smart are ‘Water Smart Landscapes’?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. Earlier working paper: arXiv:1803.04593.
• Schmitt, E., Tull, C. & Atwater, P. (2016). “How Much Water Does Turf Removal Save? Applying Bayesian Structural Time-Series to California Residential Water Demand.” SIGKDD Workshop on Data Science for Food, Energy and Water, San Francisco, August 2016.
• Price, J.I., Chermak, J.M. & Felardo, J. (2014). “Low-flow appliances and household water demand: An evaluation of demand-side management policy in Albuquerque, New Mexico.” Journal of Environmental Management 133: 37–44.
• Klaiber, H.A., Abbott, J.K. & Smith, V.K. (2017). “Some Like It (Less) Hot.” JAERE 4(4).
• Dukes, M.D. (2012). “Water conservation potential of landscape irrigation smart controllers.” Transactions of the ASABE 55: 563–569.

Research consortia

• Alliance for Water Efficiency (2019). Landscape Transformation Study: 2018 Analytics Report. Research team: Tom Chesnutt, David Pekelney, Dana Holt and Alec Holt, A&N Technical Services; Maureen Erbeznik & Associates; Sligo Creek Resources. allianceforwaterefficiency.org

Utility and agency publications

• Sovocool, K.A. (2005). Xeriscape Conversion Study Final Report. Southern Nevada Water Authority, funded in part by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. snwa.com
• Bijoor, N. (2019). Water savings from turf removal and irrigation equipment rebates. Valley Water (Santa Clara Valley Water District).
• Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority (2024). FY2023 Annual Report.
• Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority (2018). WATER 2120: Water Conservation Plan Update.
• Utah Division of Water Resources (2025). Landscape Incentive Program, 2024 results.
• U.S. EPA WaterSense. Statistics and Facts. epa.gov/watersense (page last updated 11 March 2026).

Extension

• New Mexico State University Extension. Landscape Attitudes and Choices (WTF5).

Reported via news coverage

• Water Education Colorado, Fresh Water News (February 2024), reporting BBC Research and Consulting analysis for the Colorado Water Conservation Board.
• Denver Water outdoor water use benchmark, as reported June 2022.

Legislation and policy

• Nevada AB 356 (2021).
• California AB 1572 (2023), Chapter 849, Statutes of 2023.
• Colorado HB22-1151 (2022).
• Colorado River Basin memorandum of understanding to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (2022).