-We move now to what have become controversial water conservation efforts.

Starting next year, Colorado River water delivered by the Southern Nevada Water Authority cannot be used to water nonfunctional grass.

That's the result of Assembly Bill 356, which became law during Nevada's 2021 legislative session.

The law empowered the Water Authority to develop a plan to identify and remove what it considers nonfunctional grass by the end of 2026.

Nevada's Assembly Committee on Ways and Means sponsored the bill and in 2021 said this about what kind of grass the water authority would not target: (Howard Watts) First of all, while we're not defining it in statute, this bill does not target common areas for communities.

That is functional turf.

So the green spaces that people enjoy, including in multifamily developments, is not what is intended to be addressed with this bill.

However, medians and other areas that really do not serve a purpose there--as has been said by some, the only time anyone steps on it is when it's being mowed--that's the turf that we're looking to address under the provisions of this bill.

-But since then, several homeowners say the opposite has happened.

They say the Water Authority coerced HOAs to remove the green spaces in their communities that people actually used, and they blame the removal of that grass for the deaths of mature trees in their neighborhoods.

Those homeowners, along with some homeowners associations and even a church, are suing the Southern Nevada Water Authority as a result.

And joining us now to expand upon their claims is their attorney, Sam Castor, Managing Partner with the law firm Lex Tecnica.

Thank you for joining Nevada Week.

-Happy to be here.

-Will you first explain what grass removal has to do with trees dying?

(Sam Castor) Absolutely.

Trees and grass have a symbiotic relationship.

And especially here in Nevada where tree roots are oftentimes exposed to higher temperatures, grass provides a cooling effect and also retains the water so the tree can stay healthy and keep off insects and other types of disease.

And so SNWA has been removing nonfunctional turf and not taking into consideration that as they remove grass over the roots of these trees, the trees die within a year or two.

And so SNWA has directly and indirectly caused the death of over 100,000 trees here in the Las Vegas Valley over the last few years.

-And that's allegedly, correct?

-It's not allegedly.

That's according to Norm Schilling, who's SNWA own expert, a highly decorated arborist who has calculated that over the past few years, SNWA has killed more than 100,000 trees.

And we're talking very mature 40-year-old trees and obviously some younger trees that aren't able to survive the heat without some type of grass protection.

-How can you prove that it is the grass removal and not other factors like disease or extreme heat, because that is what the Southern Nevada Water Authority says, is that we are "experiencing the corresponding impacts of ongoing drought conditions and unprecedented levels of extreme heat, including disease and pests that are causing tree stress and mortality throughout the valley.

This is occurring regardless of whether the ground beneath is rock, grass, or undergoing a landscape conversion."

-So SNWA is our experts, including Norm Schilling and several others that have provided extensive YouTube instructional videos on how to take care of trees during a conversion.

All of them agree that when you remove grass over tree roots, especially trees in certain species--so ash, pine--the trees die if they're not extremely carefully cared for.

Astroturf increases the temperature substantially.

SNWA's own reports say that grass reduces the temperature in the immediate area by anywhere from 6 to 10 degrees.

And so when you're dealing with heat and a tree is exposed to a spike in heat, prolonged heat exposure, and then also is unable to retain the moisture necessary to fight off that heat, the trees decay and die.

And there's a lot of anecdotal evidence of this.

All someone has to do is walk down a neighborhood and look at the houses that have astroturf versus grass or rock, and you can see that the trees with astroturf and rock are dying.

-So in your lawsuit, you say that SNWA's unlawful overreach has now caused more than $300 million in tree loss damage.

Is that what you're seeking in this lawsuit?

What are the plaintiffs after?

-The plaintiffs aren't after money; we're after unity.

Vegas is incredible.

We can do amazing things.

We've already conserved extensive amounts of water.

We've reduced our water use dramatically, even though Vegas is one of the fastest growing cities in the United States over the last 20 years.

And so what we're saying is the SNWA is using this water conservation cause, which is a just cause, improperly.

They're using it to abuse Las Vegas residents, and they're dramatically overreaching.

They have more power than the police, they have no oversight, and they're destroying Las Vegas.

And so that's something that needs to be checked by the Nevada Constitution, by fundamental law, due process.

And right now, none of those laws are being honored by SNWA.

They're basically pretending like they don't answer to anyone and they can do whatever they want.

They've changed the rules consistently.

These rules are in their service rules.

They're not even law.

And the law AB 356 doesn't actually give them the authority to take any grass out.

It just gives them a directive from the legislature to identify a plan to remove grass, but they do not have any actual police power.

But they patrol these neighborhoods in their police-like cars that say wasting water is against the law or it's against the law to water on days that you're not allowed to.

That's not true.

That's just a service rule that they have.

And they're forcing people, scaring people, creating fear, uncertainty, and doubt to basically abuse Las Vegas.

And that needs to stop.

-So you just want them to stop-- -Correct.

---stop what they're doing entirely?

-Yeah.

I think the SNWA's job is pretty clear in their enabling statute.

Their job is to get us more water.

Their job is to advocate for us.

And there's this doctrine that's a fundamental legal premise in water law called the doctrine of beneficial use.

If you don't use the water, you lose the water.

And it's insane to me that SNWA is saying, Well, we need to start using less so that we can give more away.

Instead, SNWA should be acting like an advocate.

They should be advocating for more water, sourcing more water, not placating the upper states, not pretending like they need to be nice.

Yes, we can disagree and still be professional and respectful with each other, but Vegas needs more water.

And Pat Mulroy herself, the former head of SNWA, has, on the record several times, said we cannot conserve our way out of this problem.

We need more water.

And the person that's supposed to do that is John Entsminger at SNWA, and he's not doing it.

-Want to go back to the trees.

And there is one plaintiff in this case who had the grass removed in the landscape strip in front of their house and replaced it with what the SNWA said was drought-resistant ground cover.

That has not impacted the tree there, correct, or has that tree been impacted?

-The trees have seen more stress, but it is a better situation for the trees.

-So that does prove-- well, at least the SNWA says in their response that that shows you can do turf removal and a tree can survive.

-That's true, but you can't walk on these types of lower water use grass.

They're usually clover or some type of non-grass river type of grass.

And in that situation, if you walk on it, it kills the plant.

And so in that same neighborhood, the-- I think you're talking about the Edingtons-- -Yes.

- --in particular.

They have a park, Wingbrook Park, that was frequented by people with dogs, children doing lemonade stands.

It ran right along the front of their neighborhood.

It was a community gathering space.

People would use it every single day.

It's right next to a playground.

-There are pictures in the lawsuit of how that was being used.

-Yeah.

And unfortunately, SNWA said that that grass was, quote/unquote, nonfunctional or useless.

It's not useless; people use it all the time.

And the trees that are affected by that grass are now decaying and dying.

They're ash trees and other trees that have, in that same neighborhood, have begun to die within a year or two after this type of conversion.

-And so that park example contradicts what we heard Assemblyman Howard Watts say in that sound bite from earlier.

At the same time, though, isn't that the HOA's decision whether to remove that grass; it's not the homeowner's decision?

-Oh, absolutely.

Well, let me say it this way: The HOA and the homeowner have unique rights.

The homeowner has what's called an undivided property interest in the common area, and so the homeowner does have claim on that grass.

Also the HOA has an opportunity to protect that grass, and they have an obligation under NRS 116 to ensure that if something happens to those common areas, they have to get consent from the HOA members.

And so, yes, the HOA has the voice.

Yes, the HOA is the watchdog to make sure that that is protected or used the way the community wants it to be used.

But they still have to listen to the homeowners, and they have to get their consent.

-Okay.

But what homeowners do have control over is their own home.

-Yes.

-And there are plaintiffs in this case who have converted the property, the grass at their own home and received rebates from the Southern Nevada Water Authority.

How can you justify that?

-Well, that's actually not entirely true.

So SNWA was misrepresenting that, unfortunately, and that's part of the litigation.

I think you're talking about Alexander Neal, who was also-- -Or the Edington family.

-So the-- Yeah, the Edington's primary interest was over their common area grass.

But Alexander Neal, he had converted, because what happened was the HOA said, Well, we're not going to water the grass that we're contractually obligated to water anymore, even though it's on your property, because every HOA has different rules and agreements.

-That one is so bizarre to me-- -It is.

- --because you look at-- I had to look up on Zillow these homes, and I don't see any grass in front of any of the homes.

-Yeah.

It's all died.

-But that was the homeowner's grass, you're saying?

-Yeah.

It's the homeowner's property.

-It was the HOA's responsibility to water their grass?

-Yeah.

Sometimes HOAs have-- When you create an HOA, you have these obligations that it's an agreement with the homeowners that there are certain things the homeowners will do and certain things the HOA will do.

And Las Vegas, 50% of Las Vegas is in HOAs.

We're probably one of the largest congregation of HOAs in the United States.

And so when, when that particular HOA created itself, it said, we will water these areas that are yours to make sure that they're uniform.

We'll landscape and take care of them, but it's still your property.

And it's because they wanted to create a uniform environment, make the community esthetically pleasing.

And so when SNWA misrepresented to the HOA that they could no longer use that water on that grass, then the HOA decided that they had to stop watering that grass.

And then Mr.

Neal faced a very serious dilemma.

The trees and the grass that were supposed to be taken care of by the HOA were no longer receiving water, and they began to die.

And that materially affects the property value and the use of the home.

And so he converted, but he did not accept rebates on the houses that are at issue in the litigation.

-I think that's a big issue is property values, because if you're going into a community and you see all this beautiful grass, you may be more inclined to purchase there.

It offers something that the dry desert landscaping does not.

-100%.

-And I do need to read some of their statement on this topic.

"Collectively, we need to acknowledge our scarce water resources and extreme heat challenges and continue making sensible outdoor landscaping choices that apply to everyone.

Homes, businesses, schools, and parks have been built for more than a decade in compliance with Water Smart development codes valleywide.

Water conservation has taught us one thing: There is always a portion of the community that won't like doing their part."