LAS VEGAS (KTNV) — The Southern Nevada Water Authority has asked a Clark County District Court judge to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that grass removal led to thousands of valley trees dying.
You may remember that several local residents sued the agency and argued the SNWA's grass removal mandates lack proper legal and constitutional oversight.
The lawsuit argues that only 10% of trees in the Las Vegas Valley survive after grass removal and that the policies have created a "valley-wide graveyard of trees" that would take decades to recover.
JANUARY| Geneva Zoltek speaks to an attorney representing locals opposed to SNWA's turf removal program
According to court records filed last week, the SNWA states the plaintiffs in the case were already paid to have grass removed, so they "cannot complain about prospective nonfunctional grass designations."
For one plaintiff, attorneys for the SNWA argued they don't presently have grass in front of their property, the tree there are "thriving in the kurapia," which is a "highly drought-tolerant, low-maintenance and eco-friendly ground cover serving as a premier grass alternative," and they received $3,273 from the SNWA for that conversion.
For the Stallion Mountain properties named in the lawsuit, SNWA attorneys stated there are no landscape strips at any of the seven homes. so none of them are subject to the grass removal designations.
For another plaintiff, attorneys for the SNWA state the only grass close to her home that is designated as non-functional is HOA property across from her house.
"The Complaint clearly seeks to litigate nonfunctional grass designations on property owned by HOAs — not by Plaintiffs," the filing reads in part. "If determinations are to be made regarding HOA property, the HOA is an indispensable party. Because plaintiffs did not sue the HOA, the Complaint should be dismissed to the extent it involves HOA property."
Because of those reasons, attorneys argued the case should be dismissed because none of the plaintiffs "have legal standing" or have demonstrated actual harm.
Attorneys for the homeowners argue the SNWA's actions are harming the homeowners.
"As demonstrated by newly discovered facts, the harm to Plaintiffs (and others) from SNWA's systemic hypocrisy is not hypothetical — and it is not reversible," last week's filing reads in part. "Not only do SNWA's attorneys say different things to the Court than to the public, so do SNWA's manager and purported (and secretly conflicted) expert."
According to the legal filings, that expert is Mike Duran. Attorneys allege he is an expert witness for SNWA and failed to disclose that he also owns a landscaping firm and has performed previous work for them. They also state he serves as a Green Valley Ranch HOA board member and "he is a supporter of the 'Useless Grass Laws' even when his neighbors were asking for a waiver."
When asked about applying for a waiver during an HOA meeting on Jan. 13, 2026, he allegedly said conversions don't harm trees and there is "no way a waiver would be granted by SWNA because 'we don't live with Peter Pan and the Easter Bunny where we can just create this alternate reality and we're suddenly going to get a turf waiver.'"
Attorneys for the homeowners also stated while SNWA has stated the reason for the grass conversion is conservation, agency experts say there is enough water to last until the 2070s.
"This is another form of double talk, where SNWA's manager says the sky is falling in Court and then insists Las Vegas is 'the most water secure city in the desert southwest' just a few days later," the filing states in part. "There must be some form of accountability."
As for next steps, the court docket shows Judge Anna Albertson will hear the matter on March 31.
FEBRUARY| Locals talk trees, grass amid ongoing lawsuit
If you have any concerns surrounding the environment and climate in the valley, reach out to Geneva at Geneva.Zoltek@KTNV.com or by clicking on the banner below:
