Great Basin Water Network v. State Engineer

222 P.3d 665 (Nev. 2010) · Supreme Court of Nevada · January 28, 2010 · No. No. 49718

Summary

The Supreme Court of Nevada held that the State Engineer violated his statutory duty by failing to act within one year on Southern Nevada Water Authority's 1989 groundwater appropriation applications. The court concluded that a 2003 amendment to NRS 533.370 did not apply retroactively because the applications were not "pending" within the meaning of the amendment. The court reversed the district court and remanded to determine whether new applications were required or whether the State Engineer had to re-notice the existing applications and reopen the protest period.

Holdings

  1. The State Engineer violated his mandatory statutory duty by failing to approve or reject the 1989 applications within one year after the final protest date because the record showed neither the written authorization required for postponement nor an applicable water-supply study or court action.
  2. The 2003 amendment did not apply retroactively to the 1989 applications because they were not 'pending' on July 1, 2003; an application was pending only if the one-year period for State Engineer action had not yet elapsed.
  3. The State Engineer's failure to comply with the one-year deadline did not automatically approve or reject the applications and did not require voiding the applications or barring further agency action. The proper remedy required further proceedings to determine whether new applications were necessary or whether the State Engineer had to re-notice the applications and reopen the protest period.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the 2003 amendment to NRS 533.370 applied retroactively to Southern Nevada Water Authority's 1989 groundwater appropriation applications.
  2. Whether the 1989 applications were pending on July 1, 2003, within the meaning of the 2003 amendment.
  3. Whether the State Engineer violated the statutory duty under the 1989 version of NRS 533.370(2) by failing to act on the applications within one year after the final protest date.
  4. What remedy was appropriate for the State Engineer's failure to comply with the statutory timing requirement.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (8)

  • Sonia F. v. Dist. Ct., 125 Nev. 38, 215 P.3d 705 (2009)(followed)
  • Blaine Equip. Co. v. State, Purchasing Div., 122 Nev. 860, 867, 138 P.3d 820, 824 (2006)(followed)
  • Adkins v. Oppio, 105 Nev. 34, 37, 769 P.2d 62, 64 (1989)(followed)
  • Bacher v. State Engineer, 122 Nev. 1110, 1117-18, 146 P.3d 793, 798 (2006)(followed)
  • Attorney General v. Nevada Tax Comm'n, 124 Nev. ___, 181 P.3d 675, 681 (2008)(followed)
  • Karcher Firestopping v. Meadow Valley Contr., 125 Nev. ___, 204 P.3d 1262, 1263 (2009)(followed)
  • Allstate Insurance Co. v. Fackett, 125 Nev. ___, 206 P.3d 572, 576 (2009)(followed)
  • Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 428-29, 102 S. Ct. 1148, 71 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1982)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…