A Las Vegas judge has denied a request to keep new plaintiff names out of the public record in a case challenging the Southern Nevada Water Authority’s enforcement of a ban on irrigating certain grass with water from Lake Mead.
“I think there’s a very high standard for something like this,” Judge Anna Albertson said. “I understand why you want it. I really do. However, I think when you’re using public resources, when you’re filing a public lawsuit and this room is paid for by our taxpayer dollars, I think we have to consider that.”
The case concerns the water authority’s enforcement of a 2021 law that will make it illegal at the beginning of next year to use water from the Colorado River to irrigate “useless grass,” or grass that an expert committee has deemed nonfunctional.
Lawmakers passed the bill in an effort to rein in irrigation of grass, which the water authority says remains the highest use of water in the Las Vegas Valley that isn’t recycled and brought back to Lake Mead. But plaintiffs in the lawsuit claim the agency’s rollout has been heavy-handed and yielded unintended consequences.
A sworn declaration from a Las Vegas arborist claimed that the removal of grass cover under trees has led to the death of 100,000 trees throughout the valley, though the water authority submitted a competing declaration from an expert who cast doubt on whether there’s any evidence to support that.
The request for a protective order stemmed from a desire to keep the water authority from doxing or somehow shaming added parties to the case, said Michael Gayan, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys.
In a 102-page document, they claimed the water authority has done so before. They even alleged the opinion expressed in a Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial about the case had to do with advertising sales.
“More and more people are willing to come forward, but there are still, as of this morning, a handful of potential plaintiffs who would like to join, but fear retribution,” Gayan said.
In response, water authority attorney Will Kemp called the request “draconian,” and urged the judge to deny it.
Order remains in place, for now
Albertson also denied a motion to void a very narrow order that prevents the water authority from enforcing the ban on properties owned by the three plaintiffs, who each live in different parts of the valley.
Kemp said the order doesn’t matter much anyway, as two plaintiffs had voluntarily converted to desert landscaping with the help of the water authority’s rebate program and the other didn’t own any property that has been mapped and declared to have nonfunctional grass.
Albertson said at a Friday afternoon hearing that the public interest in the case has exploded, with members of the public approaching her inappropriately and asking her about it. She issued a warning to attorneys to ensure she is not forced to remove herself from the case.
“I can’t have those conversations, and I don’t want to have those conversations, because what they will result in is me having to get off the case and then this being reassigned to another judge,” Albertson said. “It’s going to have to start fresh, and my colleagues won’t appreciate it either, because this isn’t exactly a tiny, little case that’s going to resolve itself easily.”
Attorneys for the plaintiffs now have until April 21 to submit a new legal complaint with additional parties who wish to challenge the water authority’s enforcement of the ban.
Depending on the type of plaintiffs added, the case could have much wider implications. Albertson has cautioned extending any orders to entire homeowners associations, for instance, unless they join as parties to the case.
Contact Alan Halaly at ahalaly@reviewjournal.com. Follow @AlanHalaly on X.
