A new lawsuit filed this week reveals a shocking consequence of Nevada’s water conservation efforts: an estimated 100,000 mature trees across the Las Vegas Valley have died because of a state law targeting “useless grass.” Four homeowners are now taking the Southern Nevada Water Authority to court, claiming the 2021 law has caused $300 million in tree damage while trying to save water.
The Law That Started It All
Back in 2021, state legislators passed Assembly Bill 356 to help conserve water from the drought-stricken Colorado River. The law makes it illegal to water certain types of grass starting in 2027. Sounds reasonable enough, right? Well, here’s where things went sideways.
The Southern Nevada Water Authority created a committee to decide what counts as “nonfunctional” or “useless” grass. Their definition includes any grass within 10 feet of a street. The problem? That’s exactly where most neighborhoods have their trees planted.
“There have to be alternative ways to conserve water if we really are in jeopardy,” said Kim Snyder, a 25-year resident of Summerlin’s Canyon Fairways neighborhood who joined the lawsuit.
“Why are we paying the price to conserve when we are the most conservation-oriented city in the world? Why come after us?”
Trees Don’t Survive Without Grass
Local horticulturist Norm Schilling, who’s been working with desert plants for 35 years, explained in court documents that many trees simply can’t survive once you remove the grass around them. The grass and trees share irrigation systems, and their roots have grown together over decades.
“Beyond monetary loss, the green mature canopy (and its heat mitigation benefits) cannot be replaced quickly,” Schilling wrote.
“It will take decades for the Las Vegas Valley to recover, if it can at all.”
Think about it: in a desert city where summer temperatures regularly hit 115 degrees, mature shade trees aren’t just nice to have – they’re essential for keeping neighborhoods livable. Scientists say trees are the single most important way to prevent heat-related deaths in the Desert Southwest.
Government Overreach in Action
The lawsuit challenges something even more fundamental: Does the water authority even have the legal power to enforce these rules? According to the complaint, the authority keeps changing its definitions on its website without any public input or legislative approval.
The lawsuit states:
“SNWA claims its interpretations are binding law but they are not. They are not fixed by statute, regulation, or formally adopted rule, but instead exist as changeable website content that may be (and has been) revised at any time without notice.”
Mark Edington, a Henderson dentist who calls himself the “Henderson tree hugger” on Instagram, sees this as classic government overreach.
Edington said:
“It’s not the spirit of the law, and not what the politicians sold us when that law took effect. We were told that there was no intent to affect community spaces, and that it would not affect our parks. Those were lies.”
The Water Authority’s Response
When asked about the dying trees, water authority spokesman Bronson Mack has previously blamed property owners for mismanaging their irrigation after removing turf. He declined to comment on the lawsuit itself.
The authority hasn’t said exactly how they’ll enforce the law when it takes effect next year, only mentioning continued “outreach and education” at recent board meetings.
A Conservative Perspective
This situation perfectly illustrates what happens when government bureaucrats make sweeping decisions without considering real-world consequences. Private property owners who’ve spent decades maintaining beautiful neighborhoods are being forced to destroy their landscaping – and their property values – based on arbitrary definitions created by an unelected committee.
Laura McSwain, founder of the Water Fairness Coalition, has heard from hundreds of frustrated valley residents over the past three years.
“My goal has never been to save every blade of grass in the valley,” McSwain said.
“But it’s the sensitive areas. It’s the areas that preserve our quality of life, that protect the trees, that protect wildlife.”
Did Republicans Vote for AB 356?
Yes, but the support was split. While the bill was primarily driven by the Democratic majority in the Nevada Legislature, it did receive some notable Republican support during its passage in 2021.
In the Nevada Assembly: The bill passed with a 30-12 vote on April 29, 2021.
-
Four Republicans crossed party lines to vote “Yes”:
-
Glen Leavitt (R-Boulder City)
-
Heidi Kasama (R-Las Vegas)
-
Melissa Hardy (R-Henderson)
-
Jill Tolles (R-Reno)
-
-
The remaining 12 “No” votes were all Republicans. Many who opposed the bill, like Assemblywoman Alexis Hansen (R-Sparks), argued that while conservation is important, such mandates should be handled by local governments rather than the state legislature.
In the Nevada Senate: The bill passed the Senate with a unanimous 21-0 vote on May 21, 2021.
-
At this stage, all 9 Senate Republicans voted in favor of the bill. This unanimous support likely stemmed from the dire projections regarding Lake Mead’s water levels and the consensus that the “nonfunctional turf” ban was a necessary, albeit aggressive, step to meet Colorado River reduction targets.
What You Can Do
If you’re concerned about government overreach in water management, consider contacting your state legislators to express your views on Assembly Bill 356. Support local groups like the Water Fairness Coalition that are pushing back against excessive regulations. Most importantly, pay attention to what your local water authority is doing – they work for you, not the other way around.
The lawsuit is just beginning, but it represents something bigger than grass and trees. It’s about whether unelected agencies can dictate how you manage your own property based on rules they can change at any time without public input.
The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Nevada News & Views. This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
