NRS
533.370 Approval or rejection of application by State Engineer:
Conditions; exceptions; considerations; procedure.
1. Except as otherwise provided in this
section and NRS 533.0241, 533.345, 533.371,
533.372, 533.503 and 534.115, the State Engineer shall approve
an application submitted in proper form which contemplates the application of
water to beneficial use if:
(a) The application is accompanied by the
prescribed fees;
(b) The proposed use or change, if within an
irrigation district, does not adversely affect the cost of water for other
holders of water rights in the district or lessen the efficiency of the district
in its delivery or use of water; and
(c) The applicant provides proof satisfactory to
the State Engineer of the applicant’s:
(1) Intention in good faith to construct
any work necessary to apply the water to the intended beneficial use with
reasonable diligence; and
(2) Financial ability and reasonable
expectation actually to construct the work and apply the water to the intended
beneficial use with reasonable diligence.
2. Except as otherwise provided in
subsection 10, the State Engineer shall reject an application and refuse to
issue the requested permit if:
(a) There is no unappropriated water in the
proposed source of supply;
(b) The groundwater that has not been committed
for use has been reserved pursuant to NRS
533.0241;
(c) The application requests a change to or
reinstatement of groundwater rights that have been retired pursuant to NRS 534.115; or
(d) The proposed use or change conflicts with
existing rights or with protectable interests in existing domestic wells as set
forth in NRS 533.024 or threatens to
prove detrimental to the public interest.
Ê If a
previous application for a similar use of water within the same basin has been
rejected on those grounds, the new application may be denied without
publication.
3. In addition to the criteria set forth
in subsections 1 and 2, in determining whether an application for an interbasin
transfer of groundwater must be rejected pursuant to this section, the State
Engineer shall consider:
(a) Whether the applicant has justified the need
to import the water from another basin;
(b) If the State Engineer determines that a plan
for conservation of water is advisable for the basin into which the water is to
be imported, whether the applicant has demonstrated that such a plan has been
adopted and is being effectively carried out;
(c) Whether the proposed action is
environmentally sound as it relates to the basin from which the water is
exported;
(d) Whether the proposed action is an appropriate
long-term use which will not unduly limit the future growth and development in
the basin from which the water is exported; and
(e) Any other factor the State Engineer
determines to be relevant.
4. Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection and subsections 6 and 10 and NRS
533.365, the State Engineer shall approve or reject each application within
2 years after the final date for filing a protest. The State Engineer may
postpone action:
(a) Upon written authorization to do so by the
applicant.
(b) If an application is protested.
(c) If the purpose for which the application was
made is municipal use.
(d) In areas where studies of water supplies have
been determined to be necessary by the State Engineer pursuant to NRS 533.368.
(e) Where court actions or adjudications are
pending, which may affect the outcome of the application.
(f) In areas in which adjudication of vested
water rights is deemed necessary by the State Engineer.
(g) On an application for a permit to change a
vested water right in a basin where vested water rights have not been
adjudicated.
(h) Where authorized entry to any land needed to
use the water for which the application is submitted is required from a
governmental agency.
(i) On an application for which the State
Engineer has required additional information pursuant to NRS 533.375.
5. If the State Engineer does not act upon
an application in accordance with subsections 4 and 6, the application remains
active until approved or rejected by the State Engineer.
6. Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection and subsection 10, the State Engineer shall approve or reject,
within 6 months after the final date for filing a protest, an application filed
to change the point of diversion of water already appropriated when the
existing and proposed points of diversion are on the same property for which
the water has already been appropriated under the existing water right or the
proposed point of diversion is on real property that is proven to be owned by
the applicant and is contiguous to the place of use of the existing water
right. The State Engineer may postpone action on the application pursuant to
subsection 4.
7. If the State Engineer has not approved,
rejected or held a hearing on an application within 7 years after the final
date for filing a protest, the State Engineer shall cause notice of the
application to be republished and reposted pursuant to NRS 533.360 immediately preceding the time
at which the State Engineer is ready to approve or reject the application. The
cost of the republication must be paid by the applicant. After such
republication and reposting, a protest may be filed in accordance with NRS 533.365.
8. If a hearing is held regarding an
application, the decision of the State Engineer must be in writing and include
findings of fact, conclusions of law and a statement of the underlying facts
supporting the findings of fact. The written decision may take the form of a
transcription of an oral ruling. The rejection or approval of an application
must be endorsed on a copy of the original application, and a record must be
made of the endorsement in the records of the State Engineer. The copy of the
application so endorsed must be returned to the applicant. Except as otherwise
provided in subsection 11, if the application is approved, the applicant may,
on receipt thereof, proceed with the construction of the necessary works and
take all steps required to apply the water to beneficial use and to perfect the
proposed appropriation. If the application is rejected, the applicant may take
no steps toward the prosecution of the proposed work or the diversion and use
of the public water while the rejection continues in force.
9. If a person is the successor in
interest of an owner of a water right or an owner of real property upon which a
domestic well is located and if the former owner of the water right or real
property on which a domestic well is located had previously filed a written
protest against the granting of an application, the successor in interest must
be allowed to pursue that protest in the same manner as if the successor in
interest were the former owner whose interest he or she succeeded. If the
successor in interest wishes to pursue the protest, the successor in interest
must notify the State Engineer in a timely manner on a form provided by the
State Engineer.
10. The provisions of subsections 1 to 9,
inclusive, do not apply to an application for an environmental permit or a
temporary permit issued pursuant to NRS
533.436 or 533.504.
11. The provisions of subsection 8 do not
authorize the recipient of an approved application to use any state land
administered by the Division of State Lands of the State Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources without the appropriate authorization for
that use from the State Land Registrar.
12. As used in this section, “domestic
well” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS
534.350.
[63:140:1913; A 1945,
87; 1947,
777; 1949,
102; 1943 NCL § 7948]—(NRS A 1959,
554; 1973,
865, 1603;
1977,
1171; 1981,
209, 359;
1989,
319; 1991,
759, 1369;
1993,
1459, 2082,
2349;
1995,
319, 697,
2523;
1999,
1045; 2001,
552; 2003,
2980; 2005,
2561; 2007,
2017; 2009,
597; 2011,
758, 1566;
2013,
499, 3679;
2019,
2516; 2023,
1037; 2025,
1397, 1937)
Notes of Decisions
Great Basin Water Network v. State Eng'r, 234 P.3d 912 (Nev. 2010).
· cites it 34× “However, in 2003, the Legislature amended NRS 533.370 to permit the State Engineer to postpone action on pending applications made for a municipal use.”
Bacher v. Off. of the State Eng'r, 146 P.3d 793 (Nev. 2006).
· cites it 30× “” 25 Consequently, an applicant seeking an interbasin groundwater transfer under NRS 533.370 must have an agency or contractual relationship with the party intending to put the water to beneficial use.”
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Washoe Cnty., 918 P.2d 697 (Nev. 1996).
· cites it 32× “Appellants petitioned for judicial review, claiming that the State Engineer did not enter adequate findings in compliance with NRS 533.370(3). [3] The district court granted judicial review and remanded the decision to the State Engineer.”
Redrock Valley Ranch, LLC v. Washoe Cnty., 254 P.3d 641 (Nev. 2011).
· cites it 7× “As required by NRS 533.370, the State Engineer made *454 findings that these changes in use would not conflict with existing rights or protectable interests in domestic wells, or threaten to prove detrimental to the public interest.”
Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 637 P.2d 534 (Nev. 1981).
· cites it 3× “NRS 533.370(3) provides: The state engineer shall either approve or reject each application within 1 year from the final date for filing protest; but: (b) In areas where .”
United States v. State Eng'r, 27 P.3d 51 (Nev. 2001).
· cites it 4× “If the concurrent applications meet the criteria set forth in [Nevada Revised Statutes] NRS 533.370, all must be approved with the same priority.”
Sierra Pac. Indus. v. Wilson, 440 P.3d 37 (Nev. 2019).
· cites it 4× “In Bacher , we addressed the situation where a permittee applicant applies for a permit for an interbasin water transfer under NRS 533.370 but does not intend to put the appropriated water to beneficial use itself.”
State v. Morros, 766 P.2d 263 (Nev. 1988).
· cites it 2× “The Board of Agriculture also contends that the grant of a water right for Blue Lake to a United States agency is against the public interest in Nevada and that pursuant to NRS 533.370(3) the state engineer should have denied the application on that basis.”
United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 919 F. Supp. 1470 (D. Nev. 1996).
· cites it 3× “§ 533.370. Under the decree, “[a]ny person feeling himself aggrieved by any order or decision of the State Engineer on these matters may appeal that decision or order to this Court.”
Off. of the State Eng'r v. Morris, 819 P.2d 203 (Nev. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Under NRS 533.370(3) 2 the State Engineer must deny applications when there is no unappropriated water in the proposed source or when the proposed use conflicts with existing rights or is detrimental to the public interest.”
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Ricci, 245 P.3d 1145 (Nev. 2010).
· cites it 2× “The State Engineer is prohibited by law from granting a permit under a change application to appropriate public waters if: (1) there is no unappropriated water at the proposed source, (2) the “proposed use or change conflicts with existing rights or protectable interests in…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.370(1) — 6 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.370(10) — 1 case
Bacher v. Off. of the State Eng'r, 146 P.3d 793 (Nev. 2006).
“” 25 Consequently, an applicant seeking an interbasin groundwater transfer under NRS 533.370 must have an agency or contractual relationship with the party intending to put the water to beneficial use.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.370(2) — 13 cases
Great Basin Water Network v. State Eng'r, 234 P.3d 912 (Nev. 2010).
“However, in 2003, the Legislature amended NRS 533.370 to permit the State Engineer to postpone action on pending applications made for a municipal use.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.370(2)(a) — 2 cases
Great Basin Water Network v. State Eng'r, 234 P.3d 912 (Nev. 2010).
“However, in 2003, the Legislature amended NRS 533.370 to permit the State Engineer to postpone action on pending applications made for a municipal use.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.370(2)(b) — 2 cases
Great Basin Water Network v. State Eng'r, 234 P.3d 912 (Nev. 2010).
“However, in 2003, the Legislature amended NRS 533.370 to permit the State Engineer to postpone action on pending applications made for a municipal use.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.370(3) — 8 cases
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Washoe Cnty., 918 P.2d 697 (Nev. 1996).
“Appellants petitioned for judicial review, claiming that the State Engineer did not enter adequate findings in compliance with NRS 533.370(3). [3] The district court granted judicial review and remanded the decision to the State Engineer.”
Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 637 P.2d 534 (Nev. 1981).
“NRS 533.370(3) provides: The state engineer shall either approve or reject each application within 1 year from the final date for filing protest; but: (b) In areas where .”
State v. Morros, 766 P.2d 263 (Nev. 1988).
“The Board of Agriculture also contends that the grant of a water right for Blue Lake to a United States agency is against the public interest in Nevada and that pursuant to NRS 533.370(3) the state engineer should have denied the application on that basis.”
United States v. State Eng'r, 27 P.3d 51 (Nev. 2001).
“If the concurrent applications meet the criteria set forth in [Nevada Revised Statutes] NRS 533.370, all must be approved with the same priority.”
Off. of the State Eng'r v. Morris, 819 P.2d 203 (Nev. 1991).
“Under NRS 533.370(3) 2 the State Engineer must deny applications when there is no unappropriated water in the proposed source or when the proposed use conflicts with existing rights or is detrimental to the public interest.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.370(3)(b) — 1 case
Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 637 P.2d 534 (Nev. 1981).
“NRS 533.370(3) provides: The state engineer shall either approve or reject each application within 1 year from the final date for filing protest; but: (b) In areas where .”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.370(3)(c) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.370(4) — 3 cases
Bacher v. Off. of the State Eng'r, 146 P.3d 793 (Nev. 2006).
“” 25 Consequently, an applicant seeking an interbasin groundwater transfer under NRS 533.370 must have an agency or contractual relationship with the party intending to put the water to beneficial use.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.370(5) — 3 cases
Redrock Valley Ranch, LLC v. Washoe Cnty., 254 P.3d 641 (Nev. 2011).
“As required by NRS 533.370, the State Engineer made *454 findings that these changes in use would not conflict with existing rights or protectable interests in domestic wells, or threaten to prove detrimental to the public interest.”
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Ricci, 245 P.3d 1145 (Nev. 2010).
“The State Engineer is prohibited by law from granting a permit under a change application to appropriate public waters if: (1) there is no unappropriated water at the proposed source, (2) the “proposed use or change conflicts with existing rights or protectable interests in…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.370(6) — 4 cases
Bacher v. Off. of the State Eng'r, 146 P.3d 793 (Nev. 2006).
“” 25 Consequently, an applicant seeking an interbasin groundwater transfer under NRS 533.370 must have an agency or contractual relationship with the party intending to put the water to beneficial use.”
Sierra Pac. Indus. v. Wilson, 440 P.3d 37 (Nev. 2019).
“In Bacher , we addressed the situation where a permittee applicant applies for a permit for an interbasin water transfer under NRS 533.370 but does not intend to put the appropriated water to beneficial use itself.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.370(6)(a) — 3 cases
Bacher v. Off. of the State Eng'r, 146 P.3d 793 (Nev. 2006).
“” 25 Consequently, an applicant seeking an interbasin groundwater transfer under NRS 533.370 must have an agency or contractual relationship with the party intending to put the water to beneficial use.”
Redrock Valley Ranch, LLC v. Washoe Cnty., 254 P.3d 641 (Nev. 2011).
“As required by NRS 533.370, the State Engineer made *454 findings that these changes in use would not conflict with existing rights or protectable interests in domestic wells, or threaten to prove detrimental to the public interest.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.370(6)(d) — 1 case
Bacher v. Off. of the State Eng'r, 146 P.3d 793 (Nev. 2006).
“” 25 Consequently, an applicant seeking an interbasin groundwater transfer under NRS 533.370 must have an agency or contractual relationship with the party intending to put the water to beneficial use.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.370(l)(c)(2) — 1 case
Bacher v. Off. of the State Eng'r, 146 P.3d 793 (Nev. 2006).
“” 25 Consequently, an applicant seeking an interbasin groundwater transfer under NRS 533.370 must have an agency or contractual relationship with the party intending to put the water to beneficial use.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.370(l)(c)(l) — 1 case
Bacher v. Off. of the State Eng'r, 146 P.3d 793 (Nev. 2006).
“” 25 Consequently, an applicant seeking an interbasin groundwater transfer under NRS 533.370 must have an agency or contractual relationship with the party intending to put the water to beneficial use.”
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.