More Plaintiffs Join ‘Useless Turf’ Lawsuit After Nevada Supreme Court Ruling
More plaintiffs, including a Catholic church, have joined the lawsuit over “useless turf” regulations after the Nevada Supreme Court ruled against an appeal by the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA). An amended class action complaint filed in Clark County District Court on Tuesday shows multiple community associations, homeowners and Our Lady of Victory Catholic Church have been added to the case against SNWA.
The suit alleges that SNWA’s enforcement of the state law to reduce non-functional turf, part of larger water conservation efforts, has killed many trees and destroyed property interests. According to the complaint, the church also received a letter from SNWA ordering it to remove two sections of grass used for outdoor prayer.
A Clark County District Court judge initially granted a temporary restraining order that prevented SNWA from designating any turf as functional or nonfunctional. That order was later downsized to just the plaintiffs’ properties. SNWA appealed to the state Supreme Court to intervene, arguing that none of the homeowners applied for waivers. Two of the homeowners voluntarily removed their grass before the suit was filed, and a third never had a “nonfunctional turf” designation.
A three-member panel of the Supreme Court ruled against SNWA, saying the water agency failed to demonstrate that the lower court abused its discretion.
More Plaintiffs Join ‘Useless Turf’ Lawsuit After Nevada Supreme Court Ruling
More plaintiffs, including a Catholic church, have joined the lawsuit over “useless turf” regulations after the Nevada Supreme Court ruled against an appeal by the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA). An amended class action complaint filed in Clark County District Court on Tuesday shows multiple community associations, homeowners and Our Lady of Victory Catholic Church have been added to the case against SNWA.
The suit alleges that SNWA’s enforcement of the state law to reduce non-functional turf, part of larger water conservation efforts, has killed many trees and destroyed property interests. According to the complaint, the church also received a letter from SNWA ordering it to remove two sections of grass used for outdoor prayer.
A Clark County District Court judge initially granted a temporary restraining order that prevented SNWA from designating any turf as functional or nonfunctional. That order was later downsized to just the plaintiffs’ properties. SNWA appealed to the state Supreme Court to intervene, arguing that none of the homeowners applied for waivers. Two of the homeowners voluntarily removed their grass before the suit was filed, and a third never had a “nonfunctional turf” designation.
A three-member panel of the Supreme Court ruled against SNWA, saying the water agency failed to demonstrate that the lower court abused its discretion.
Related reading