More yards.
More ways to save water.
A landscape redesign can save water. So can taking better care of the yard you already have. Explore what both approaches could mean, neighborhood by neighborhood.
Independent estimates · See the assumptions01 / Start with the neighborhood
Every yard has a starting point.
A neighborhood of possibilities
100 representative properties
- Planning a change · hatched
- Keeping lawn · solid
Each property represents 1% of the eligible group. Symbols are rounded for illustration; this is a schematic, not an actual map or measured homeowner intent.
131,725
Estimated turf-bearing properties
526,902
Can benefit without redesigning
03 / See the difference
A bigger opportunity than design alone.
Assess / Maintain + Design
5,107 AF / year
Less irrigation applied across participating properties.
+3,368 AF
Beyond design alone
77,718
Unique participating properties
How much changes in each yard?
New landscape irrigation is subtracted from the savings.
Reference: 15%. Test 10–20%; this is an effectiveness assumption, not an official statewide overwatering rate.
Existing planting beds stay in the water baseline. This phase counts savings from turf irrigation and turf conversion only.
Landscape water use before
267,368 AF
Turf + estimated existing non-turf use
Landscape water use after
262,261 AF
Remaining turf + existing and new planting
Average use per irrigated property
119,051 gal
Estimated annual baseline, including non-turf-only sites
Put it in the lake’s context
With 80% depletion and 100% availability assumptions, this scenario represents 4,085 AF/year of conditional lake potential. The 2026 Strike Team models sustained additional inflows of 800,000 AF/year as a recovery scenario.
04 / Open the calculations
An estimate you can inspect.
Official research supplies some inputs. Historical proxies and SimplyScapes assumptions fill the gaps. Edit any baseline below to see what changes.
Properties & existing landscapes
Historical Utah sources and explicit assumptions establish the baseline. Editing average turf size changes the property estimate, not the total turf acreage.
Modeled residential turf acreage. The selected 75,600 acres comes from four-county parcel shares extrapolated to the basin; it is not a parcel count.
Basis: Official estimates and modeled assumptions
Area ÷ this assumed mean gives property equivalents. The 5,000-ft² assumption rounds 6,585 × 75%; it is not a current basin measured mean. Counts do not drive acre-based water savings.
Basis: Official historical sample · Historical primary research transferred by SimplyScapes · Analyst assumptions; independent non-official model
Assumed property-level prevalence. Turf-bearing equivalents ÷ prevalence gives all irrigated site equivalents; this differs from turf's share of landscape area.
Basis: Analyst assumptions; independent non-official model
Historical Wasatch Front 69.1% transferred to GSL residential landscapes. Other area = turf acres × (1 ÷ share − 1). Trees already in turf receive no second allocation.
Basis: Official historical model transferred by SimplyScapes
The basin's 36-inch gross application estimate is transferred to residential turf. Do not subtract rainfall or divide by irrigation efficiency again; the source may allocate some non-turf use to turf.
Basis: Official estimates and modeled assumptions
The historical model assumes the remainder uses 40% of turf's water per acre. Existing other-landscape irrigation stays unchanged in both pathways.
Basis: Official historical model transferred by SimplyScapes
The replacement landscape
Mature low-water planting and unirrigated hardscape. New plants still need water; that use is subtracted from conversion savings. Establishment years are not modeled.
Annual GSL model weather reference for the mature replacement budget. This reconstruction gives no effective rainfall credit.
Basis: Official estimates and modeled assumptions
Mature low-water planting factor. New planting establishment demand is excluded.
Basis: Official estimates and modeled assumptions
Application efficiency used to calculate mature replacement irrigation demand; this is not catch-can distribution uniformity.
Basis: Official estimates and modeled assumptions
Assumed irrigated plant coverage within the converted footprint. The remainder is unirrigated; coverage is applied once to replacement demand.
Basis: Analyst assumptions; independent non-official model
Potential benefit for Great Salt Lake
The depletion fraction is a screening assumption. At 100% lake availability, the result shows potential if that water is available to the lake, not a delivery forecast.
Screening approximation informed by state outdoor accounting. It is not a verified marginal savings-to-depletion coefficient for both interventions.
Basis: Official estimates and modeled assumptions · Analyst assumptions; independent non-official model
100% shows conditional potential if all reduced depletion is available to Great Salt Lake. It is not a water-delivery forecast.
Basis: Analyst assumptions; independent non-official model
Sustained additional annual inflow scenario used only for scale. The 800,000-AF reference is additional to the 2000–2025 average, not a municipal supply deficit or a project target.
Basis: Official / university modeled scenario
Method, sources & terminology
The calculation chain
- Eligible sites: turf acres × 43,560 ÷ mean turf area per site. These are estimated property equivalents, not an official parcel or household count.
- Design savings: converted turf area × (previous water per acre − replacement water per acre).
- Assess / Maintain savings: participating retained turf × previous water per acre × optimization effectiveness. Converted turf is removed first.
- Combined: design + retained-turf optimization. Participants who do both count once.
- Conditional lake potential: combined savings × depletion fraction × availability fraction. This is not a guarantee of delivery.
What this does—and does not—measure
One illustrative annual completion cohort, with annual use after replacement plants are established. Lower and higher scenarios change participation and effectiveness; they are not confidence intervals. Long-term persistence and additional conversions inspired by the tool are not credited.
Residential landscapes in the Utah coverage of the Great Salt Lake study area only. Other watersheds, agriculture and public/private nonresidential landscapes are excluded. Existing non-turf use is unchanged.
Source periods differ. The 36-inch basin depth is transferred to residential turf and may already allocate some non-turf use. The 5,000-ft² mean and 90% turf prevalence are assumptions informed by historical samples, not measured basin facts.
Source notes
Official estimates and modeled assumptions
Utah M&I Water Conservation Opportunities Report2025; turf area based on 2021 imagery · Great Salt Lake study area, Utah county coverage
Residential area: Table E-8, PDF p64; gross depth: PDF p27; replacement inputs: Table M-2, PDF p117; audit context: PDF p116
Residential transfer of the basin gross-depth estimate is ours. Audit assumptions draw on external literature; these are not measured SimplyScapes outcomes.
Official historical model transferred by SimplyScapes
Utah Regional M&I Water Conservation Goals2019 report; 2015 landscape baseline · Wasatch Front historical residential proxy
Turf share: Table 4-8, PDF p43; other-landscape rate: PDF p42
The remainder includes historical low-water grasses and hardscape, not only irrigated beds. It is an imperfect proxy for existing non-turf demand.
Official historical sample
Utah Residential Water Use Study2010 report; Salt Lake City observations from 2001–2007 · 110 Salt Lake City sites
Printed p12 / PDF p22
Two equal n=55 groups average 7,070 and 6,100 ft² of irrigated landscape. Their pooled 6,585 ft² is landscape area, not turf alone.
Historical primary research transferred by SimplyScapes
USU / Jordan Valley residential irrigation research2003 · Salt Lake County audit sites
PDF p6, Landscape and Soil Types
Roughly 75% or more turf in this sample. Applying 75% to a separate sample gives 4,938.75 ft², rounded to our 5,000-ft² mean assumption. Turf-free exclusions were not verified.
Official / university modeled scenario
Great Salt Lake Strike Team 2026 report2026 projections to 2055 · Great Salt Lake
Figures 19–20, PDF p32
Sustained additional inflow of 800,000 AF/year relative to the 2000–2025 average is a scale reference, not a municipal deficit or a project target.
Analyst assumptions; independent non-official model
SimplyScapes illustrative scenario assumptions2026-09-22 · Residential landscapes in the GSL study area
Estimates and Model tabs
Participation, property prevalence and conditional lake availability are transparent best guesses, not observed uptake, official forecasts or guaranteed delivery.
Short labels, in plain language
- AF
- Acre-foot: about 325,851 US gallons. AF/year is annual volume.
- PT
- Planning share: properties planning a landscape change; formerly group M.
- Keeping group
- Properties keeping their current yard; formerly group O.
- DS
- Design savings on converted turf, after replacement irrigation.
- AS
- Assess/Maintain savings on audited turf that remains.
- CS
- Combined savings: DS + AS, without overlapping turf.
- Depletion
- Water consumed and not returned to the water system.
- Property equivalent
- Estimated site count from acreage and assumed average turf size.
- Lake availability
- Assumed fraction of reduced depletion available to Great Salt Lake.
Independent SimplyScapes calculations using official and non-official sources. Not an official Utah or Utah Water Ways forecast or endorsement. Evidence snapshot: September 22, 2026. The neighborhood is a schematic placeholder; it does not show real addresses or measured renovation intent.