LAS VEGAS (KTNV) — Thousands of homeowners have now joined a lawsuit against the Southern Nevada Water Authority and the grass removal program.
In January, several local residents sued the agency, arguing the SNWA's grass removal mandates lack proper legal and constitutional oversight.
Geneva Zoltek speaks to an attorney representing locals opposed to SNWA's turf removal program
Attorneys for SNWA previously stated the plaintiffs in the case were already paid to have grass removed, so they "cannot complain about prospective nonfunctional grass designations."
They also argued the case should be dismissed because none of the plaintiffs "have legal standing" or have demonstrated actual harm.
However, the court disagreed and the lawsuit has now become a class action lawsuit. According to the amended complaint, which was filed on Tuesday, multiple homeowners associations have joined as well as the Our Lady of Victory Catholic Church.
In total, the HOAs and entities in this case represent more than 10,000 homes and more than 25,000,000 square feet of grass. They also claim that since the grass removal mandate was put into place, "to date, more than 4,000 trees are now diseased, or dead, some of which have toppled and damaged property."
Attorneys representing the church state SNWA's designation of its garden as "non-functional" was based on satellite imagery, rather than an in-person inspection, interviews of anyone affiliated with the Church, "or any other reasonable inquiry into whether or how the Church used the grass located on its property."
They also stated the garden is used as a place of meaningful reflection and that removing the grass could kill their trees and "substantially impair and burden the Church's ability to conduct outdoor religious worship, religious observances, and community gatherings, which have been longstanding and meaningful to the congregation."
According to the complaint, church officials tried to seek waivers from SNWA, which were partially denied, and "The Church has been forced to retain counsel to protect its religious liberties from SNWA overreach."
Attorneys for the homeowners association had some of the same arguments.
"After the conversions, trees began to die throughout Green Valley Ranch," the complaint reads in part. "Now that the grass is gone and the trees are dying, it's as if SNWA has been working to make it Brown Valley Ranch."
So many trees have died in the area, that according to the complaint, a December 2025 Community Newsletter stated a $10 monthly assessment would be imposed to replace all the "dead, dying and diseased trees in our community!"
Attorneys for the Sun City Association also stated removing grass could create safety issues.
"Certain areas, including designated flood channels, must remain as turf to prevent erosion and to protect the City's storm drain infrastructure," the complaint reads in part. "Upon information and belief, conversion of these areas to hardscape or decorative materials would result in increased erosion risks, displacement of materials during storm events, and create a risk of obstruction and damage to public infrastructure."
They also previously argued 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."
FEBRUARY| Locals talk trees, grass amid ongoing lawsuit
After the original lawsuit was filed, a temporary restraining order was put in place against the SNWA, blocking them from removing nonfunctional turf.
That issue made it up to the Nevada Supreme Court. On Monday, the court dismissed the SNWA's request to dissolve that order.
"Having reviewed the petition and the supporting documents, we conclude the petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court clearly erred, manifestly abused its discretion, or exceeded its jurisdiction such that our extraordinary intervention is warranted," the ruling reads in part. "Moreover, it appears that the challenged temporary restraining order has expired or will expire [on Tuesday], and the standing issues raised have not been finally determined in the district court."
We reached out to the SNWA to see if they had a statement on the Nevada Supreme Court's ruling or the new amended complaint. As of the time this article was published, we have not heard back from them.
District court records show that both parties are set to be in court on May 21 to discuss the SNWA's motion to dismiss the complaint.
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:
