NRS
533.220 Distribution of water; enforcement of order or decision of State
Engineer; appeal.
1. From and after the filing of the order
of determination in the district court, the distribution of water by the State
Engineer or by any of the State Engineer’s assistants or by the water
commissioners or their assistants shall, at all times, be under the supervision
and control of the district court. Such officers and each of them shall, at all
times, be deemed to be officers of the court in distributing water under and
pursuant to the order of determination or under and pursuant to the decree of
the court.
2. Upon the neglect or refusal of any
claimant to the use of water as provided in this chapter to carry out or abide
by an order or decision of the State Engineer acting as an officer of the
court, the State Engineer may petition the district court having jurisdiction
of the matter for a review of such order and cause to be issued thereon an
order to show cause why the order and decision should not be complied with.
3. The order to show cause shall be
personally served on the claimant or claimants complained of, who shall appear
and show cause on the day fixed in the court’s order so to do.
4. The hearing on the petition and order
to show cause shall be informal and summary in character, with full opportunity
afforded each party to present his or her case.
5. Appeals from the judgment may be taken
to the appellate court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to the rules fixed by
the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 4
of Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution in like manner as appeals in other
civil cases; but notice of appeal must be served and filed within 40 days from
the entry of judgment.
[36 1/2:140:1913; added 1927,
337; A 1951,
132]—(NRS A 2013,
1786)
Notes of Decisions
In Re Nevada State Engr. Ruling No. 5823 (2012)
nev
“The issue that divided the parties in Jahn was whether HLILP could proceed under section 36½ of the water law (now NRS 533.220(1)) with a request that the decree court direct the State Engineer to act as HLILP demanded or was limited to, and should have initiated, a proceeding…”
Churchill County v. State Engineer (2012)
nev
“The issue that divided the parties in Jahn was whether HLILP could proceed under section 36½ of the water law (now NRS 533.220(1)) with a request that the decree court direct the State Engineer to act as HLILP demanded or was limited to, and should have initiated, a proceeding…”
Bentley v. Hall Ranches, LLC C/W 64773/66932 (2016)
nev
“SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 10 (0) 1947A Celp NRS 533.220(1) states: From and after the filing of the order of determination in the district court, the distribution of water by the State Engineer or by any of the State Engineer's assistants or by the water commissioners or their…”
SULLIVAN, P.E. v. BAKER RANCHES, INC. (2025)
nev
“085 provides that nothing in NRS Chapter 533 shall impair a vested water right, NRS 533.220 provides that the State Engineer may petition a district court to enforce an administrative order determining distribution of water, and NRS 533.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.220(1) — 3 cases
In Re Nevada State Engr. Ruling No. 5823 (2012)
nev
“The issue that divided the parties in Jahn was whether HLILP could proceed under section 36½ of the water law (now NRS 533.220(1)) with a request that the decree court direct the State Engineer to act as HLILP demanded or was limited to, and should have initiated, a proceeding…”
Churchill County v. State Engineer (2012)
nev
“The issue that divided the parties in Jahn was whether HLILP could proceed under section 36½ of the water law (now NRS 533.220(1)) with a request that the decree court direct the State Engineer to act as HLILP demanded or was limited to, and should have initiated, a proceeding…”
Bentley v. Hall Ranches, LLC C/W 64773/66932 (2016)
nev
“SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 10 (0) 1947A Celp NRS 533.220(1) states: From and after the filing of the order of determination in the district court, the distribution of water by the State Engineer or by any of the State Engineer's assistants or by the water commissioners or their…”
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.