Southern Nevada Water Authority proposes holding off on nonfunctional grass fines until 2028 as lawsuit moves ahead

What happened

The Southern Nevada Water Authority has asked a judge to let enforcement of the state's ban on what it calls nonfunctional grass continue, pointing to a plan to hold off on water waste fines until 2028, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported. The request came in a court filing made Tuesday in a lawsuit challenging the ban.

According to the filing, the water authority intends to ask its board on Nov. 19 to approve a resolution setting a firm schedule for final, case-by-case appeals of required grass removal. If the board agrees, the agency would ask its member agencies not to issue water waste fines until Jan. 1, 2028. More coverage of local water policy is on our water page.

The proposed timeline

Deadlines in the resolution

The Review-Journal reported that the resolution sets specific dates for waiver requests and appeals. Fines would be issued by individual water districts, not by the water authority itself.

• April 1: all waiver requests must be received.
• July 1: the water authority would finish processing those requests.
• Sept. 1: deadline to appeal the water authority's decisions.
• Dec. 1: final determinations on appeals.
• Jan. 1, 2028: water waste fines would begin.

Which agencies would pause fines

A declaration from Deputy General Manager Colby Pellegrino says the water authority will encourage its member agencies in Las Vegas, Henderson, North Las Vegas, Boulder City and Laughlin to forgo penalties until that date. The Review-Journal described this as a clear change from the agency's earlier position.

The court fight

Judge Anna Albertson was expected to decide this week whether to issue an injunction that could have stopped the water authority from enforcing a 2021 state law, according to the Review-Journal. That law makes it illegal to use Colorado River water to irrigate nonfunctional turf beginning in 2027. Attorneys have also asked Albertson to let the case proceed as a class action, which would allow anyone meeting certain definitions to join.

The water authority's argument

The agency's lawyers wrote that "a preliminary injunction may issue only where harm is imminent and non-speculative," adding that "the enforcement Plaintiffs fear is over a year away." The water authority has argued the law lets officials shift its deadlines. The Review-Journal noted that removing grass is the responsibility of business owners and homeowners associations, not individual homeowners.

What challengers say

Sam Castor represents a range of challengers, including a Catholic church, golfers and homeowners associations. He told the Review-Journal he sees the filing as another attempt to delay relief for his clients, and that fines are only one of his concerns. He has raised issues about his clients' constitutional rights and what he views as an inadequate appeals process. "This is just a circus, and I don't say that lightly," Castor said.

A shift from the October hearing

At an Oct. 28 hearing, water authority attorneys did not answer Albertson's direct question about what options people have if agencies deny an appeal, the Review-Journal reported. Attorney Kelly Evans told the judge, "I don't think those decisions have been made by the purveyor agencies yet."

Why officials say the rule matters

Water authority spokesman Bronson Mack said this month the agency estimates about 20 million square feet of grass it considers nonfunctional remains in the valley. Officials argue the conservation measure is more necessary than ever. Nevada has sued over the Trump administration's plan to cut the state's share of the Colorado River by 71 percent in a worst-case scenario at some point in the next 10 years, according to the Review-Journal. For background on recent changes to Nevada's river supply, see our explainer on the state's Colorado River cut.

What to watch next

• Judge Anna Albertson's decision on whether to issue a preliminary injunction against enforcement.
• The water authority board's Nov. 19 vote on the resolution setting appeal deadlines and delaying fines to Jan. 1, 2028.
• Castor's planned objection to the water authority's motion.
• A ruling on the request to let the lawsuit proceed as a class action.