Clark County judge weighs halting enforcement of Southern Nevada's nonfunctional grass removal law

What happened

A Clark County judge is considering whether the Southern Nevada Water Authority must stop enforcing a 2021 law that requires removal of grass deemed "nonfunctional," the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported. Judge Anna Albertson heard arguments on two motions Wednesday and Thursday in downtown Las Vegas.

Albertson has not ruled. According to the Review-Journal, she is waiting to learn whether the attorney general's office wants to be involved in the case. She said she will decide during the week of Nov. 9 whether enforcement can continue and whether the case becomes a class action.

What the lawsuit challenges

The law and how it would be enforced

The law bars the use of Colorado River water to irrigate turf that a committee decided is nonfunctional or decorative. It takes effect at the beginning of next year. The Las Vegas Valley Water District, one of the water authority's member agencies, has floated water use fines for those who keep watering nonfunctional turf, the Review-Journal reported.

That fine approach is still pending. It awaits a business impact statement and a vote by the agency's governing board. Water managers say outdoor landscape irrigation is the single largest use of Lake Mead water that cannot be captured and recycled through Southern Nevada's wastewater systems. More coverage of local supply issues is on our water page.

Who is suing

The named plaintiffs include a Las Vegas church, homeowners associations, a golf association and others. Their attorneys, Sam Castor and Michael Gayan, argued that an immediate pause in enforcement and class-action status are both needed to protect Nevadans' constitutional rights before fines begin Jan. 1. They say the water authority has gone beyond the bounds of a law they consider poorly carried out.

Castor objected that the agency plays several roles at once. "If I am a police officer, I can certainly give someone a ticket. But I can't also be the judge," he said, according to the Review-Journal. He argued the water authority defines what grass is allowed, issues the penalty and then decides whether the grass can stay.

The class-action question

Three proposed classes

Attorneys proposed three classes: individuals; entities such as HOAs; and churches or other religious organizations. Each would cover people and groups who have been subject to turf removal under the law. They would need to be in Las Vegas, Henderson, North Las Vegas, Boulder City, Laughlin or other unincorporated areas within the water authority's service territory.

If the judge certifies the case, anyone who meets those definitions would be added to the challenge, whether or not they agree with the plaintiffs. Water authority attorney Chad Fears said the case could then become one of the biggest class-action lawsuits in the nation's history.

The water authority's objection

Fears warned that a broad class would sweep in people who support turf removal and disagree with the lawsuit. "This is not a data breach where everyone can agree that it's bad," he said, according to the Review-Journal. He described the case as a dispute over public policy and argued a class was improper given that conflict.

Trees and heat at issue

Albertson asked what would happen to property owners who are told to remove grass and are denied a waiver. "If they take their grass away, they risk the mature trees going away, too," she said. She asked whether that would amount to irreparable harm.

The Review-Journal noted that turf removal is controversial in Las Vegas, the second-fastest-warming city in the nation, because of alleged tree canopy loss. The water authority and its experts say grass removal does not cause tree deaths. A Las Vegas arborist who opposes the mandate has argued the policies have killed an estimated 100,000 trees so far through root exposure.

What to watch next

• Judge Albertson's ruling on pausing enforcement and certifying a class action, expected the week of Nov. 9.
• Whether the attorney general's office decides to become involved in the case.
• The business impact statement and governing board vote on the Las Vegas Valley Water District's proposed water use fines.
• The Jan. 1 start date that plaintiffs say fines would begin, as the law takes effect next year.