Is there a regulation that points to not walking on the grass? Or states that all non hand receipt facilities are property of Drill SGT's?

CPT (Join to see), I doubt there is a regulation regarding these things (a BIG ARMY regulation that is). However, you tagged it - policy.

When I was at Bliss in the early 90s, there absolutely was a post policy letter about staying off of the grass on the parade field when it wasn't used for official activities. Sure, it was about a specific section of grass, but there was one. I know for a fact that Ft. Benning has it as part of their post regulations that you are prohibited from driving on the grass unless it's an emergency (don't think they had anything about walking on it though!).

However, the one thing that a lot of barracks lawyers seem to forget when they start scouring ARs and policy letters on things is that "because I told you so" is in fact a legally binding reason behind an order in the military. Something as tenuous as "it causes an increased wear path because multiple people walk on the grass and it will cost time, money and manpower to regrow it" is a valid military need.

I can't recall any formal NJP (i.e., Article 15) coming out of disobeying the Battalion commander's policy (which I'm sure the CSM put before the 'old man' to sign off on) but I have seen other 'informal' NJP come down -- additional duty on the weekends, being posted as a "grass guard", etc.

Now, the "don't lean on buildings you don't own" ... yeah, that's a bit more of a stretch, but still falls into the category of, "A superior’s order is presumed to be lawful and is disobeyed at the subordinate’s peril. To sustain the presumption, the order must relate to military duty. It must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order."

Now, I can't envision someone getting an Article 15 for leaning on a building or let alone UCMJ (well, it would be for disobeying an order, not 'leaning on a building'), but I absolutely can foresee some corrective action in that Soldier's future.

There may be local directives concerning walking on unpaved or unimproved areas. These rules are normally in place to prevent folks wearing unwanted, often muddy, paths around the installation. A generalized "keep off the grass" may exist only in the minds of some Sergeants or Officers. Check the installation website. Local directives may be posted there.
A similar observation may be made about the exterior of buildings. The reason for a restriction on leaning against a wall, sitting of a fence, etc., is to protect the property from damage that might happen when hundreds of people innocently stress the facility. Again, check installation directives.

Interesting!

Because I said so. Like COL Randall C. points out, no regulation is needed.

But, being the reasonable CSM that I am I reflect on the "why" of a lot of our 'given commone sense' because, like other senior leaders, we get questioned, especially in gray area policies like this.

My reflection on grass is a lot like SFC Bernard Walko's. It is about discipline. The Army pays good money to maintain its greenspace (either in contracted labor or PVTs) and as a ground force, there is one thing we are good at: tearing up the earth. There is a strong correlation with "happiness" and "satisfaction" to your external environment. Simply put people are happier and more motivated when surrounded by "pretty" things. If you want to test it, go to parts of Moscow or other eastern block countries that haven't changed since the 70s/80s concrete block architecture. It's depressing.

With that in mind, maintaining manicured greenspace is paramount to maintaining at least some little bit of a positive environment. And when Soldiers cut across said space to shave of few seconds it could highlight a couple things:
1. lack of respect for policy
2. lack of respect for the nice things the Army does have
3. lack of discipline
4. Laziness and carelessness

These may seem like little things, but in the grand scheme of development, everything we do should reinforce and develop the attributes and competencies that we seek to see in our Soldiers to form a strong base of character, so that one day, if they ever have to make an ethical decision, they make the most right one. For every inch we give for the sake of percieved uselessness or convience, we give another inch in the wrong direction of character development.

Does every Soldier need such excrutiating reminders that we should be a professional force? not necessarily, but since there is no objective test for character until the actual moment it is needed, better safe than sorry.

Now get off my grass.

"When All Else Fails,
Common Sense SHOULD Prevail.

Seriously Folks, I Served Just Before The Dinosaur Disappeared 1961 -1965, USAF.
Is Common Sense No Longer A Consideration?
I Ask Because Many Questions I'm Reading Appear To Be No More Than Fillers, Until Better Ones Come Forward.....

It’s a combination of things to include local policy, posted signage, and leadership assuming responsibility of assigned property/equipment.

I can’t speak to Army posts but Marine bases will normally have signs posted if you can’t walk in certain areas or on the grass.

Facilities, furniture and stuff like that is policed for proper usage and the leadership of that assigned unit is responsible if it is misused, damaged or lost.

There are generally local policies posted in public areas and common areas to support the signage as well.

UCMJ, Article 92 - Failure to Obey Order or Regulation. Military policies can only be given by command level in the military, thus this makes policies, whether written or stated, an order to all ranks under that person's command structure. Typically a new unit or post commander will extend policies from previous commanders until he has reviewed them and places his signature of his version of any existing policies. He may implement new policies.
Coronary Example: In the field this flow of command has the practical application that the 'Attack' doesn't halt if the commander is killed or incapacitated. The person who then assumes to command continues the mission or orders new actions based upon the current and developing situation.
When a unit policy has been 'ordered' under the commanders signature, there is requirement for all soldiers under the commander to comply as if he received a VOCO directly from said commander. All subordinate Officers and NCOS are thereby charged with the enforcement of those policies.
Any deliberate violations of the commander's written polices may result in UCMJ disciplinary action.

Regulations no, punishable offense, no, well not officially. Good way to earn a smoke session? Yea, definitely.

A LITTLE TALE FROM THE PAST, MY GRANDFATHER WAS IN THE MARINES 1912-1916, I HAVE APICTURE OF HIM IN PAINT SPLATTERED COVERALLS FROM PAINTING ROCKS USED TO DESIGNATE A WALKWAY, THIS MAY HAVE BEEN IN PANAMA OR AT FORT ELLIOT NICARAGUA, HE WAS IN THE HQ COMPANY AND APPARENTLY BACKTALKED THE GENERAL, WE HAVE A GERMAN STREAK IN OUR BLOOD THAT GOES BACK TO THE 1600'S. ALSO IN THE BOYSCOUTS IN THE 1950'S AT THE SUMMER CAMPS I ATTENDED WE HAD TO PAINT THE ROCKS DESIGNATING THE WALKWAYS. SO IT SEEMS THE STAY OFF THE GRASS MENTALITY GOES WAY BACK :)