U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nevada > Las Vegas
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should Las Vegas ban ornamental grass?
Yes, ban it. 32 71.11%
No, don't ban it. 13 28.89%
Voters: 45. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-11-2021, 05:54 PM
 
Location: ☀️
1,271 posts, read 1,068,104 times
Reputation: 1464

Advertisements

Let's talk water. What do you all think of this proposal? I think it's a good idea to help further secure sustained water resources here in Southern Nevada. Grass such as in the image below, should be replaced with xeriscaping. Further, a water shortage is expected to be declared next year due to the fact the surface level of Lake Mead continues to decline.

Quote:
LAS VEGAS (AP) — A desert city built on a reputation for excess and indulgence wants to become a model for restraint and conservation with a first-in-the-nation policy banning grass that nobody walks on.

Las Vegas-area water officials have spent two decades trying to get people to replace thirsty greenery with desert plants, and now they’re asking the Nevada Legislature to outlaw roughly 40% of the turf that’s left.

The Southern Nevada Water Authority estimates there are almost 8 square miles (21 square kilometers) of “nonfunctional turf” in the metro area — grass that no one ever walks on or otherwise uses in street medians, housing developments and office parks.

They say this ornamental grass requires four times as much water as drought-tolerant landscaping like cactus and other succulents. By ripping it out, they estimate the region can reduce annual water consumption by roughly 15% and save about 14 gallons (53 liters) per person per day.

https://apnews.com/article/legislatu...08a635e2c98346

https://www.ktnv.com/news/further-dr...ge-declaration



Last edited by Code Stemi; 04-11-2021 at 06:04 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-11-2021, 06:41 PM
 
23,301 posts, read 42,674,098 times
Reputation: 24094
Added a poll to make it easy to see the extent people are for or against the idea.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2021, 06:58 AM
 
Location: Tucson/Nogales
20,481 posts, read 24,218,098 times
Reputation: 28408
I had a neighbor in Winchester who insisted on having a green grass lawn:

"I moved here from Southern CA, I had a nice green lawn there and I'm going to have a nice green lawn here no matter how much the water bill is."

If you drive up into the historical districts of Phoenix you'll see green grass lawns everywhere, they refuse to surrender!

Here in Tucson, if you see a house with a green grass lawn, consider it an hallucination, as water is very expensive here.

I'm lucky enough to live in a 55+ mobile home co-op, established 1963, and back then, you had your own well, and due to that, we have nice grassy areas in different parts of the community, and I love it, and my ferret loves it even more.

I lived at Greenbriar Townhouse complex, 433 units, near DI/Pecos, established 1969, and even when I left there 2-3 years ago, there were green lawns everywhere. The residents insist that green grass remains, as the community is called Greenbriar and not Brownbriar! Up the street at Heritage Square South and Braewood, the green lawns also remain as these communities all date back to 1970 or so.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2021, 09:10 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX and Las Vegas, NV
7,025 posts, read 5,926,420 times
Reputation: 15835
Yes, banned for using city water. Wells or grey water no ban.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2021, 09:27 AM
 
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, originally from SF Bay Area
34,854 posts, read 63,392,130 times
Reputation: 39312
I see the point but it's not really fair, when you consider that people topping up their swimming pools to replace evaporation loss use more water than it takes to water a small lawn. Also, people could use gray water on their lawn, or plant a drought resistant type. Better to simply have an inclining rate structure and charge a lot more for water above the average inside use, 80-100 GPD, and let the consumer choose how they use the higher cost water or not.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2021, 11:01 AM
 
9,335 posts, read 3,093,028 times
Reputation: 16381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemlock140 View Post
I see the point but it's not really fair, when you consider that people topping up their swimming pools to replace evaporation loss use more water than it takes to water a small lawn.
It turns out that's not true. It takes more water to keep grass green than the evaporation replenishment amount for a swimming pool of the same surface area.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2021, 11:02 AM
 
9,335 posts, read 3,093,028 times
Reputation: 16381
I voted to ban such ornamental grass, but I think it should be conditional upon the State of California also banning it in the locations served by the Colorado River. After all, I don't see why we should ban it just so California has more water to waste. Ditto with Arizona and Mexico.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2021, 08:31 PM
 
895 posts, read 372,521 times
Reputation: 1054
I thought Nevada was about less restrictions and less laws!? I vote NO ban! Let California enact such a law but not Nevada! If municipalities want to rip out ornamental lawns, as was done in my almost former home in California, then so beit. Don't need a law for it though!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2021, 03:02 AM
 
Location: ☀️
1,271 posts, read 1,068,104 times
Reputation: 1464
Quote:
Originally Posted by longviewJoe View Post
I thought Nevada was about less restrictions and less laws!? I vote NO ban! Let California enact such a law but not Nevada! If municipalities want to rip out ornamental lawns, as was done in my almost former home in California, then so beit. Don't need a law for it though!
What? So what is your solution to our water problems here? Your post comes off as very much NIMBY.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2021, 08:28 AM
 
Location: New Jersey and hating it
8,790 posts, read 4,493,361 times
Reputation: 11635
Don’t ban it but make it costly. Anyone who wants it can pay for it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nevada > Las Vegas
View detailed profiles of:

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top