LAS VEGAS (CN) - A Las Vegas judge on Wednesday poured cold water on an attempt to dissolve a restraining order its supporters claim saves trees from dying.
Eighth District Court Judge Anna Albertson approved an agreement by attorneys to significantly narrow an existing order that prohibited the Southern Nevada Water Authority from designating certain areas of grass as "useless," and affected a wide swath of the Las Vegas Valley.
Now, only properties within the three plaintiffs' communities are affected and cannot have areas of grass within them designated as "useless."
It's that designation which the plaintiffs have claimed leads to grass removal and, in turn, weakened and dead trees.
The "useless" designation stems from a 2021 state law passed in the wake of reduced flow in the Colorado River. The law starting in 2027 prohibits people from using Colorado River water to irrigate non-functionable turf - or grass used for decorative purposes.
The Legislature didn't define "non-functional turf," but an entity that spawned from the law did, said attorney Nicholas Santoro, representing the authority. The water authority has worked with communities, even approving some 75% of waiver requests of the designation.
Three people filed suit last month against the Southern Nevada Water Authority, seeking to stop the authority for designating certain areas of grass as "useless." They say that designation pressures homeowners' associations and residents to remove the grass, which in turn weakens trees and leads to their deaths.
The plaintiffs say over 100,000 trees have died since the authority started labeling certain grass as "useless." Las Vegas has had $300 million in tree damage.
Attorney Samuel Castor, representing the plaintiffs, argued that he wanted the existing restraining order extended, allowing time for the judge to properly examine the issue.
"We have individuals who have lost trees," Castor said to the judge. "You are the only person standing in the way of another 100,000 trees dying."
The authority also works with communities to remove designated grass, which could lead to 3 billion gallons of water savings a year, Santoro said. Castor argued the authority instead tells people their turf is nonfunctional and must be removed to comply with the law, claiming its designations are law and must be obeyed to avoid fines and penalties.
Santoro said three people are challenging a law that's five years old, claiming they need emergency relief. It's only speculation that converting grass to a more drought-resistant material kills trees.
"This lawsuit is really about the wants of the few versus the needs of the many," he added.
Attorney Oliver Pancheri, also representing the authority, argued the plaintiffs had no standing to bring the case. He called claims that 100,000 trees had died hearsay and questioned how the plaintiffs had suffered irreparable harm.
Castor described his own experiences, which Pancheri said couldn't be considered evidence and was merely an airing of grievances. He said no basis for any injunction existed.
"What's the real harm here to pause this for a couple of months and do some discovery?" the judge said, referring to the process of gathering evidence.
Attorneys will work toward reaching a more complete agreement by Friday, tweaking the properties affected. If none is reached, they'll submit competing proposed orders to the judge next week.
"I think we've got enough here to put something in place," Albertson said.
The temporary agreement about the order, and expected update next week, gives breathing space to both sides as they work toward a resolution in the case. Albertson anticipated having a refined order prepared by the attorneys by Feb. 12, with a potential status check in her court in 30 days.
Source: Courthouse News Service
