Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.365 (2026)

Procedure concerning verified protest filed by interested person against granting of application

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 533.365  Procedure concerning verified protest filed by interested person against granting of application.

      1.  Any person interested may, within 30 days after the date of last publication of the notice of application, file with the State Engineer a written protest against the granting of the application, setting forth with reasonable certainty the grounds of such protest, which, except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, must be verified by the affidavit of the protestant, or an agent or attorney thereof.

      2.  If the application is for a permit to change the place of diversion, manner of use or place of use of water already appropriated within the same basin, a protest filed against the granting of such an application by a government, governmental agency or political subdivision of a government must be verified by the affidavit of:

      (a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b), the director, administrator, chief, head or other person in charge of the government, governmental agency or political subdivision; or

      (b) If the governmental agency or political subdivision is a division or other part of a department, the director or other person in charge of that department in this State, including, without limitation:

             (1) The Regional Forester for the Intermountain Region, if the protest is filed by the United States Forest Service;

             (2) The State Director of the Nevada State Office of the Bureau of Land Management, if the protest is filed by the Bureau of Land Management;

             (3) The Regional Director of the Pacific Southwest Region, if the protest is filed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service;

             (4) The Regional Director of the Pacific West Region, if the protest is filed by the National Park Service;

             (5) The Director of the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, if the protest is filed by any division of that Department; or

             (6) The chair of the board of county commissioners, if the protest is filed by a county.

      3.  On receipt of a protest that complies with the requirements of subsection 1 or 2, the State Engineer shall advise the applicant whose application has been protested of the fact that the protest has been filed with the State Engineer, which advice must be sent by certified mail.

      4.  The State Engineer shall consider the protest, and may, in his or her discretion, hold hearings and require the filing of such evidence as the State Engineer may deem necessary to a full understanding of the rights involved. The State Engineer shall give notice of the hearing by certified mail to both the applicant and the protestant. The notice must state the time and place at which the hearing is to be held and must be mailed at least 15 days before the date set for the hearing.

      5.  Each applicant and each protestant shall, in accordance with a schedule established by the State Engineer, provide to the State Engineer and to each protestant and each applicant information required by the State Engineer relating to the application or protest.

      6.  If the State Engineer holds a hearing pursuant to subsection 4, the State Engineer shall render a decision on each application not later than 240 days after the later of:

      (a) The date all transcripts of the hearing become available to the State Engineer; or

      (b) The date specified by the State Engineer for the filing of any additional information, evidence, studies or compilations requested by the State Engineer. The State Engineer may, for good cause shown, extend any applicable period.

      7.  The State Engineer shall adopt rules of practice regarding the conduct of a hearing held pursuant to subsection 4. The rules of practice must be adopted in accordance with the provisions of NRS 233B.040 to 233B.120, inclusive, and codified in the Nevada Administrative Code. The technical rules of evidence do not apply at such a hearing.

      [62:140:1913; A 1951, 132]—(NRS A 1967, 192; 1993, 2081; 2007, 2016; 2011, 757, 3505)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2010–2026 · leading case: Great Basin Water Network v. State Eng'r, 234 P.3d 912 (Nev. 2010).
Great Basin Water Network v. State Eng'r, 234 P.3d 912 (Nev. 2010). “Instead, we conclude that, in circumstances in which a protestant filed a timely protest pursuant to NRS 533.365 and/or appealed the State Engineer’s untimely ruling, the proper and most equitable remedy is that the State Engineer must re-notice the applications and reopen the…”
Eureka Co. Vs. State Eng'r c/w 63258, 2015 NV 84 (Nev. 2015). · cites it 2× “2d 262, 264 (1979); see also NRS 533.365(5) ("Each applicant and each protestant shall.”
Egger Enter., LLC v. State Eng'r (civil), 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 18 (Nev. 2026). “In his decision, the “The nonparty challenged Egger’s application pursuant to NRS 533.365, which permits individuals to file a protest against an application to change the place of diversion or manner or place of use with the Office of the State Engineer.”
Eureka Co. v. State Eng'r C/W 63258 (Nev. 2015). “2d 262, 264 (1979); see also NRS 533.365(5) ("Each applicant and each protestant shall.”
Eureka Co. v. State Eng'r C/W 63258 (Nev. 2015). “2d 262, 264 (1979); see also NRS 533.365(5) ("Each applicant and each protestant shall.”
Eureka Cnty. v. State Eng'r, 2015 NV 84 (Nev. 2015). “2d 262, 264 (1979); see also NRS 533.365(5) ("Each applicant and each protestant shall .”
Eureka Co. Vs. State Eng'r c/w 63258, 2015 NV 84 (Nev. 2015). “2d 262, 264 (1979); see also NRS 533.365(5) ("Each applicant and each protestant shall.”
Eureka Co. Vs. State Eng'r c/w 63258, 2015 NV 84 (Nev. 2015). “2d 262, 264 (1979); see also NRS 533.365(5) ("Each applicant and each protestant shall.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.365(5) — 6 cases
Eureka Co. Vs. State Eng'r c/w 63258, 2015 NV 84 (Nev. 2015). “2d 262, 264 (1979); see also NRS 533.365(5) ("Each applicant and each protestant shall.”
Eureka Co. v. State Eng'r C/W 63258 (Nev. 2015). “2d 262, 264 (1979); see also NRS 533.365(5) ("Each applicant and each protestant shall.”
Eureka Co. v. State Eng'r C/W 63258 (Nev. 2015). “2d 262, 264 (1979); see also NRS 533.365(5) ("Each applicant and each protestant shall.”
Eureka Cnty. v. State Eng'r, 2015 NV 84 (Nev. 2015). “2d 262, 264 (1979); see also NRS 533.365(5) ("Each applicant and each protestant shall .”
Eureka Co. Vs. State Eng'r c/w 63258, 2015 NV 84 (Nev. 2015). “2d 262, 264 (1979); see also NRS 533.365(5) ("Each applicant and each protestant shall.”
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.