Eighth District Court Judge Anna Albertson approved an agreement Wednesday that substantially narrows a restraining order against the Southern Nevada Water Authority, limiting the agency's restrictions on grass designations to three specific communities rather than the entire Las Vegas Valley.
The modified order means only properties within the three plaintiffs' communities are protected from having their grass areas designated as 'useless' by the water authority. This designation, according to the lawsuit, pressures homeowners associations and residents to remove turf, which plaintiffs claim weakens trees and leads to their deaths.
The dispute stems from a 2021 Nevada law enacted in response to reduced flow in the Colorado River. Beginning in 2027, the statute prohibits using Colorado River water to irrigate non-functional turf, defined as grass used for decorative purposes rather than practical use.
While the Legislature did not define 'non-functional turf' in the original law, entities created under the legislation have developed their own definitions, according to attorney Nicholas Santoro, who represents the water authority. The authority has worked collaboratively with communities, approving approximately 75% of waiver requests for the 'useless' designation.
Three residents filed suit last month against the Southern Nevada Water Authority, seeking to prevent the agency from designating certain grass areas as non-functional. The plaintiffs argue these designations create pressure for grass removal that ultimately harms urban forestry.
According to the complaint, over 100,000 trees have died since the authority began labeling certain grass as 'useless.' Las Vegas has reportedly suffered $300 million in tree damage, though the direct causal relationship between grass removal and tree deaths remains a central point of contention in the litigation.
Attorney Samuel Castor, representing the plaintiffs, argued for extending the existing restraining order to allow proper judicial examination of the underlying issues. 'We have individuals who have lost trees,' Castor told Judge Albertson. 'You are the only person standing in the way of another 100,000 trees dying.'
The water authority defends its program as necessary for conservation efforts. Santoro argued that the agency works collaboratively with communities to remove designated grass, potentially saving 3 billion gallons of water annually. The authority maintains that its approach balances environmental conservation with community needs.
However, Castor contested the authority's characterization of its role, arguing that the agency tells property owners their turf is non-functional and must be removed to comply with state law. He claims the authority presents its designations as legally binding requirements that property owners must follow to avoid fines and penalties.
Santoro countered that the plaintiffs are challenging a five-year-old law while seeking emergency relief based on speculation rather than concrete evidence. He emphasized that the water conservation program has operated for years with established procedures and community input processes.
The narrow scope of the modified restraining order represents a compromise between competing interests. While the three plaintiff communities retain protection from grass designations, the water authority can continue its conservation efforts in other areas of the Las Vegas Valley.
The case highlights broader tensions between water conservation efforts and urban forestry concerns in the southwestern United States, where Colorado River water restrictions are forcing communities to balance environmental protection with drought mitigation strategies.
Legal experts note that the lawsuit raises questions about regulatory authority and the scope of state conservation laws. The plaintiffs' claims that water authority designations carry the force of law, while the authority maintains it merely provides guidance under existing legislation, illustrate ongoing disputes over regulatory interpretation.
The water authority's approval rate for waivers suggests some flexibility in implementation, but plaintiffs argue this discretionary approach creates uncertainty for property owners and homeowners associations trying to comply with conservation requirements while maintaining healthy urban forests.
Environmental groups have generally supported water conservation measures like the non-functional turf restrictions, viewing them as necessary responses to ongoing drought conditions in the Colorado River basin. However, the tree mortality claims raise questions about unintended consequences of conservation policies.
The modified restraining order will remain in effect for the three plaintiff communities while litigation continues. Judge Albertson's decision to narrow rather than dissolve the order suggests the court recognizes legitimate concerns on both sides while avoiding broader disruption to regional water conservation efforts.
Future proceedings will likely focus on establishing the causal relationship between grass removal and tree mortality, as well as determining the appropriate balance between water conservation mandates and urban forestry protection. The outcome could influence how other southwestern jurisdictions implement similar water conservation measures while protecting existing urban tree canopies.