Executive Summary

During periods of drought, municipalities impose watering restrictions on households, businesses, and public institutions. Yet one of the most common and emotionally charged complaints that arises is: “Why are cemeteries watering their grass when residents cannot?”

This white paper examines:

The structural and regulatory reasons cemeteries often maintain irrigation during restricted periods. The ethical and political tensions generated when visible institutions continue watering while ordinary residents face penalties. The real water-cost tradeoffs between cemetery maintenance, cultural expectations, and urban water equity. A framework for “just watering standards” that protect public resources, preserve essential public goods, and prevent perceptions of favoritism or regulatory loopholes.

The purpose is to clarify misconceptions, analyze competing obligations, and propose actionable and principled standards for drought-era water governance.

I. Introduction: The Paradox of Drought Governance

Water scarcity magnifies every visible inequity. When residents are told to let lawns die, let gardens wilt, and accept “brown is the new green,” it is emotionally jarring to pass a cemetery with vivid green turf.

This inconsistency triggers broader concerns:

Government fairness: Are rules applied equally? Regulatory capture: Are influential institutions protected? Cultural expectations: Do living communities over-prioritize landscapes of the dead? Moral tension: Should memorial landscapes take precedence over daily family life?

Understanding this requires unpacking the regulatory and historical structure of cemetery irrigation, as well as the communal values embedded in burial traditions.

II. Why Cemeteries Often Appear Exempt

1. Legal or Institutional Status

Many cemeteries fall under categories—public, quasi-public, religious, or nonprofit land—that are administratively grouped with parks, city grounds, historic properties, or essential public facilities.

Thus, a cemetery may not be “exempt” but may be classified differently than residential parcels.

2. Health, Safety, and Maintenance Concerns

A cemetery lawn is not purely cosmetic. Municipal codes often consider:

Soil stability around burial vaults Prevention of erosion exposing gravesites Safe walking conditions for visitors Maintenance access for groundskeepers

Dry, dusty erosion can pose practical hazards, unlike drying grass on residential lots.

3. Cultural and Religious Expectations

Many municipalities implicitly recognize cemeteries as sacred communal spaces. Citizens often expect:

A dignified resting place for ancestors Green space serving as a quiet park Respectful visual environments for funerals

Politically, few local governments willingly allow cemeteries to become barren landscapes.

4. Long-Standing Service Agreements

Some cemeteries—especially older ones—operate under historic water agreements, often predating modern drought codes, including:

Flat-rate water contracts Perpetual-care trusts paying for irrigation Pre-purchased maintenance obligations Grandfathered rights under earlier utility charters

These agreements make sudden restrictions difficult without legal adjustments.

5. Technical Infrastructure Differences

Cemeteries frequently use:

Non-potable wells Reclaimed water lines Deep irrigation loops connected to municipal gray-water networks

To passersby, sprinklers look identical, but the water source may not compete with household potable use.

III. Why Residents Feel the Disparity Strongly

Even when cemeteries legally or ethically justify irrigation, perception becomes reality in municipal politics.

1. Symbolic Injustice

Residents face real penalties—fines, warnings, meter shutoffs—while large parcels visibly water lawns.

This creates a narrative of:

“One set of rules for the powerful” “Households sacrifice while institutions waste”

2. Visual Prominence

Cemetery lawns are often large, open, and centrally located.

People do not compare their lawn to industrial cooling towers or agricultural irrigation, both of which use far more water.

They compare to what they see daily.

3. Emotional and Moral Dimensions

The contrast between “watering the dead” and restricting the living intensifies resentment.

In drought, water takes on moral significance, so waste (even if not actually wasteful) becomes a symbol of poor stewardship.

4. Asymmetric Enforcement Pressures

It is easier for cities to:

Enforce restrictions on individuals Issue citations to homeowners Monitor neighborhoods

Much harder to enforce against:

Large cultural or religious institutions Historic properties Politically influential nonprofits

This uneven enforcement—real or perceived—erodes trust in water authorities.

IV. The Real Water Tradeoffs: How Much Water Do Cemeteries Use?

Although public outrage focuses on symbolic inequity, the quantitative side matters:

1. Cemeteries Have Large, Continuous Turf

Most cemeteries use 10–50% of the irrigation of a city park of similar size—but far more than xeriscaped areas.

2. Alternative Landscaping is Technically Difficult

Cemeteries cannot easily shift to:

Native scrub Gravel yards Desert landscaping

These visually clash with cultural expectations and can expose gravesites.

3. Switching to Reclaimed Water Is Often Feasible

A large portion of cemetery irrigation in western states already uses:

Recycled gray water On-site wells Seasonal irrigation controls

Thus, visible watering does not necessarily equate to diverting potable water.

V. What “Just Watering Standards” Look Like in Drought

A fair and effective drought policy must not only manage water supply—it must maintain public confidence, cultural priorities, and transparent reasoning.

Below is a proposed framework.

A. Principles of Justice in Water Restrictions

1. Proportionality

Reduction should fall more heavily on nonessential, individual, and privilege-displayed consumption (e.g., decorative lawns) than on:

Public health Food security Critical infrastructure Cultural heritage sites

2. Transparency

Residents must understand:

The exact category each parcel falls under Why certain sites receive different watering schedules Which water source (potable vs reclaimed) is used Timeline for restrictions to tighten or loosen

3. Uniform Enforcement

If cemeteries have privileges, the city must:

Clearly state those privileges Provide evidence they are not undermining drought goals Subject institutions to penalties for violation of stated allowances

4. Cultural Accommodation

A just system should acknowledge the social value of burial grounds, but not grant blanket exemptions.

5. Shared Sacrifice

Institutional properties should not appear immune from restrictions.

Even culturally significant sites must demonstrate visible conservation.

B. Policy Options for Just Watering Standards

Option 1: Tiered Restrictions by Category

Tier 1 (Essentials): hospitals, drinking water, firefighting Tier 2 (Quasi-essential): cemeteries, parks, turf at schools, public safety facilities Tier 3 (Nonessential): ornamental lawns, golf-course roughs, decorative gardens Tier 4 (Superfluous): private fountains, water features, purely aesthetic uses

Cemeteries fall into Tier 2—allowed minimal irrigation for dignity and safety, but not cosmetic perfection.

Option 2: Potable vs Non-potable Differentiation

Allow irrigation only if the site uses:

Gray water Reclaimed water On-site wells

Potable use would then be restricted or banned.

Option 3: Shrink-Wrap Rules

Require cemeteries to:

Maintain active burial and ceremonial areas Let peripheral areas go brown Reduce watering frequency by fixed percentages Replace nonfunctional turf with drought-resistant grass

Creates visible shared sacrifice without compromising dignity.

Option 4: Public Reporting Dashboard

Publish:

Water source Allowed irrigation schedule Compliance metrics

This combats rumors and resentment.

VI. Recommendations

1. Cemeteries should provide clear signage

“This lawn is irrigated using non-potable reclaimed water” eliminates 80% of public misinterpretation.

2. Municipalities should adopt uniform, category-based restriction tiers

Avoid ad hoc exemptions.

3. Cemeteries should commit to partial turf reduction

Converting even 10–20% of turf to drought-tolerant groundcover has large ecological impact and signals solidarity.

4. Enforcement should be transparent and non-selective

Cities must avoid “only residents get fined” reputations.

5. Public education campaigns must explain the soil-stability and erosion-prevention role of cemetery irrigation

This reframes watering as a functional maintenance issue rather than mere aesthetics.

VII. Conclusion: Toward Fairness and Trust in Drought Governance

The visibility of cemetery irrigation during drought is a flashpoint for deeper emotions: identity, grief, fairness, and symbolic justice. The issue is not merely about water—it is about equity, civic trust, and the moral economy of shared sacrifice.

A just watering system must therefore:

Recognize cultural obligations Avoid arbitrary favoritism Communicate decisions clearly Ensure proportional and transparent restrictions

Cemeteries need not be stripped into dust bowls, but neither should they be immune from conservation duties. With thoughtful tiered standards and clear communication, communities can navigate drought with fairness, dignity, and collective responsibility.