Lawmakers open debate on turf removal, urban heat and water-equity study

CARSON CITY — The Assembly Committee on Natural Resources on May 5 took testimony on Senate Bill 143, a bill sponsored by Senator Rochelle Wynne that would task the interim Natural Resources committee with reviewing a range of issues tied to turf removal, water rates and urban heat impacts.

Wynne told the committee the amendment removes a stand-alone agency study and instead asks the interim legislators to examine topics including excessive-use charges assessed by the Las Vegas Valley Water District (LVVWD) and Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA), protection for mature trees and the classification of grass under trees, equitable application of penalties, material toxicity and surface temperatures for replacement surfaces. “These older residential communities are really the closest things that we do have to an urban green space,” Wynne said, urging a fairness review for neighborhoods with large, mature trees.

Dr. Kelly Cope, a professor of landscape water conservation and turfgrass science at Utah State University, testified by remote connection about the cooling benefits of trees combined with turfgrass. She cited a Desert Research Institute (DRI) study in Henderson that found grass areas were among the coolest mapped surfaces and warned turf removal can raise surface temperatures. “The combination of trees and grass together created more cooling than either trees or grass alone,” Cope said.

Supporters at the hearing — including the Southern Nevada Arborist Group, Water Fairness Coalition and the Nevada Conservation League — urged the committee to examine SNWA’s turf-removal program, its rebates and the effects on mature trees and neighborhoods. Witnesses testified about apparent tree deaths following turf removal, the impact of excessive-use charges on older neighborhoods, and concerns about artificial turf, including high surface temperatures and potential chemical contamination in Nevada’s hot climate. One witness, Stacy Stanley, estimated the cost of converting 3,900 acres of turf at roughly $1.2 billion in conversion costs after rebates (witness-provided estimate), and urged more oversight into SNWA decision-making.

Andy Belanger of the Las Vegas Valley Water District testified in neutral and said the district supports interim study conversations. He noted the district’s objective with pricing tools such as the excessive-use charge was to hit the top water users and said behavior change has reduced that cohort from the program’s design target. “The excessive use charge was designed to hit the top 10% of water customers. It only hits the top 6% of water customers because nearly half of them have changed their behavior,” Belanger told the committee. He also said Las Vegas’ allotment is a small portion of Colorado River flows, which he cited as context for the region’s conservation approach.

The committee set a 20‑minute period each for public testimony in support, opposition and neutral positions; hundreds of residents did not testify in person but a mix of conservation groups, arborists and residents spoke in support of the interim review. No committee vote occurred at the hearing.

Ending: Sponsors asked that an interim legislative review examine science, equity and regulation before pursuing further statutory changes; the committee closed the hearing and moved to the scheduled work session.