Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 533 - ADJUDICATION OF VESTED WATER RIGHTS; APPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC WATERS
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.085 (2026)

Vested rights to water not impaired

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 533.085  Vested rights to water not impaired.

      1.  Nothing contained in this chapter shall impair the vested right of any person to the use of water, nor shall the right of any person to take and use water be impaired or affected by any of the provisions of this chapter where appropriations have been initiated in accordance with law prior to March 22, 1913.

      2.  Any and all appropriations based upon applications and permits on file in the Office of the State Engineer on March 22, 1913, shall be perfected in accordance with the laws in force at the time of their filing.

      [84:140:1913; 1919 RL p. 3247; NCL § 7970]

ADJUDICATION OF VESTED WATER RIGHTS

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Andersen Fam. Assocs. v. Hugh Ricci, 179 P.3d 1201 (Nev. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Andersen Fam. Assocs. v. Hugh Ricci, 179 P.3d 1201 (Nev. 2008). · cites it 16× “23 We note that although NRS 533.085 was not in existence at the time the court decided Ormsby, another provision containing similar language was part of Nevada’s Revised Laws.”
Sullivan v. Lincoln Cnty. Water Dist., 542 P.3d 411 (Nev. 2024). · cites it 18× “SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 14 )(1) 1947A atu, The State Engineer has implied authority under NRS 533.085 to create the LWRFS and to determine the maximum amount that can be pumped NRS 533.”
United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 27 F. Supp. 2d 1230 (D. Nev. 1998). · cites it 6× “NRS § 533.085, provides, in pertinent part: Nothing contained in this chapter shall impair the vested right of any person to the use of water, nor shall the right of any person to take and use water be impaired or affected by any of the provisions of this chapter where…”
United States v. State Eng'r, 27 P.3d 51 (Nev. 2001). · cites it 2× “See NRS 533.085 and NRS 533.325. This case involves the latter class of permitted water rights.”
Town of Eureka v. Off. of the State Eng'r, 826 P.2d 948 (Nev. 1992). “This approach protects vested rights and follows the general rule that statutes should not be construed to work a forfeiture where a forfeiture is not clearly required, NRS 533.085; Humphrey v. Sagouspe, 50 Nev.”
Diamond Nat. Res. Prot. & Conservation Ass'n v. Diamond Valley Ranch, LLC, 2022 NV 43 (Nev. 2022). · cites it 4× “NRS 533.085(1); Andersen Family Assocs. v.”
Sullivan, P.E. v. Baker Ranches, Inc., 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 36 (Nev. 2025). · cites it 2× “3 3Baker Ranches is mistaken in its view that NRS 533.085, 533.220, and 533.430 required the State Engineer to act.”
Ministerio Roca Solida, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019). “See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.085 (stating that “[n]othing contained in this chapter shall impair the vested right of any person to the use of water, nor shall the right of any person to take and use water be impaired or affected by any of the provisions of this chapter where…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.085(1) — 3 cases
Andersen Fam. Assocs. v. Hugh Ricci, 179 P.3d 1201 (Nev. 2008). “23 We note that although NRS 533.085 was not in existence at the time the court decided Ormsby, another provision containing similar language was part of Nevada’s Revised Laws.”
Sullivan v. Lincoln Cnty. Water Dist., 542 P.3d 411 (Nev. 2024). “SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 14 )(1) 1947A atu, The State Engineer has implied authority under NRS 533.085 to create the LWRFS and to determine the maximum amount that can be pumped NRS 533.”
Diamond Nat. Res. Prot. & Conservation Ass'n v. Diamond Valley Ranch, LLC, 2022 NV 43 (Nev. 2022). “NRS 533.085(1); Andersen Family Assocs. v.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.085(l) — 1 case
Andersen Fam. Assocs. v. Hugh Ricci, 179 P.3d 1201 (Nev. 2008). “23 We note that although NRS 533.085 was not in existence at the time the court decided Ormsby, another provision containing similar language was part of Nevada’s Revised Laws.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.