NRS
533.395 State Engineer may require proof of good faith and reasonable
diligence; cancellation of permit; review of cancellation; considerations when
reviewing extension of time.
1. If, at any time in the judgment of the
State Engineer, the holder of any permit to appropriate the public water is not
proceeding in good faith and with reasonable diligence to perfect the
appropriation, the State Engineer shall require the submission of such proof
and evidence as may be necessary to show a compliance with the law. If, in the
judgment of the State Engineer, the holder of a permit is not proceeding in
good faith and with reasonable diligence to perfect the appropriation, the
State Engineer shall cancel the permit, and advise the holder of its
cancellation. The failure to provide the proof and evidence required pursuant
to this subsection is prima facie evidence that the holder is not proceeding in
good faith and with reasonable diligence to perfect the appropriation.
2. If any permit is cancelled under the
provisions of this section or NRS 533.390
or 533.410, the holder of the permit may
within 60 days of the cancellation of the permit file a written petition with
the State Engineer requesting a review of the cancellation by the State
Engineer at a public hearing. The State Engineer may, after receiving and
considering evidence, affirm, modify or rescind the cancellation.
3. If the decision of the State Engineer
modifies or rescinds the cancellation of a permit, the effective date of the
appropriation under the permit is vacated and replaced by the date of the
filing of the written petition with the State Engineer.
4. The cancellation of a permit may not be
reviewed or be the subject of any judicial proceedings unless a written
petition for review has been filed and the cancellation has been affirmed,
modified or rescinded pursuant to subsection 2.
5. For the purposes of this section, the
measure of reasonable diligence is the steady application of effort to perfect
the appropriation in a reasonably expedient and efficient manner under all the
facts and circumstances. When a project or integrated system is comprised of
several features, work on one feature of the project or system may be
considered in finding that reasonable diligence has been shown in the
development of water rights for all features of the entire project or system.
6. The appropriation of water or the
acquisition or lease of appropriated water from any:
(a) Stream system as provided for in this
chapter; or
(b) Underground water as provided for in NRS 534.080,
Ê by a
political subdivision of this State or a public utility, as defined in NRS 704.020, to serve the present or the
reasonably anticipated future municipal, industrial or domestic needs of its
customers for water, as determined in accordance with a master plan adopted
pursuant to chapter 278 of NRS or a plan
approved by the State Engineer, must be considered when reviewing an extension
of time.
[68:140:1913; 1919 RL p. 3242; NCL § 7953]—(NRS A 1981,
114; 1993,
2351; 1995,
2660, 2661)
Notes of Decisions
Andersen Fam. Assocs. v. Hugh Ricci, 179 P.3d 1201 (Nev. 2008).
· cites it 20× “: In this appeal, we address whether an entity can lose its vested rights to utilize certain water flow — rights that it acquired before the adoption of Nevada’s statutory water law scheme — when a permit modifying those rights is canceled and later reinstated pursuant to NRS…”
Desert Irrigation, Ltd. v. State of Nevada, 944 P.2d 835 (Nev. 1997).
· cites it 9× “Initially, we note that although NRS 533.395 authorizes the State Engineer to cancel permitted water rights, it fails to provide for the disposition of the cancelled water rights.”
State Eng'r Vs. Happy Creek, Inc., 2019 NV 41 (Nev. 2019).
· cites it 98× “Despite the unbroken and hitherto unquestioned hne of authority just discussed, the State Engineer argues that the 1981 amendments to NRS 533.395 impheitly terrninated Nevada courts' authority to grant equitable relief in permit cancellation cases.”
Sierra Pac. Indus. v. Wilson, 440 P.3d 37 (Nev. 2019).
“Accordingly, pursuant to NRS 533.395(1), the holder of a permit to appropriate water must proceed "in good faith and with reasonable *41 diligence to perfect the appropriation" or face cancellation of the permit by the State Engineer.”
Benson Vs. State Eng'r, 2015 NV 78 (Nev. 2015).
· cites it 34× “We therefore hold that when NRS 533.395 authorizes the State Engineer to provide a party with a remedy, even when that remedy is not the remedy the party prefers, the doctrine of futility does not apply and excuse the party from complying with NRS 533.”
Benson Vs. State Eng'r, 2015 NV 78 (Nev. 2015).
· cites it 17× “We therefore hold that when NRS 533.395 authorizes the State Engineer to provide a party with a remedy, even when that remedy is not the remedy the party prefers, the doctrine of futility does not apply and excuse the party from complying with NRS 533.”
Sierra Pac. Indus. Vs. Wilson, P.E., 2019 NV 13 (Nev. 2019).
· cites it 4× “Accordingly, pursuant to NRS 533.395(1), the holder of a permit to appropriate water must proceed "in good faith and with reasonable diligence to perfect the appropriation" or face cancellation of the permit by the State Engineer.”
Sierra Pac. Indus. Vs. Wilson, P.E., 2019 NV 13 (Nev. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Accordingly, pursuant to NRS 533.395(1), the holder of a permit to appropriate water must proceed "in good faith and with reasonable diligence to perfect the appropriation" or face cancellation of the permit by the State Engineer.”
Gold Stand. Ventures (us) Inc. v. Thorson, P.E., 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 10 (Nev. 2026).
· cites it 2× “Important here, that range encompasses NRS 533.395 and NRS 533.400, which impose the proof of beneficial use (PBU) requirements that Orla contends the State Engineer and Nevada Division of State Lands (NDSL) dishonored with the conditional relinquishment agreed to in this case.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.395(1) — 5 cases
Desert Irrigation, Ltd. v. State of Nevada, 944 P.2d 835 (Nev. 1997).
“Initially, we note that although NRS 533.395 authorizes the State Engineer to cancel permitted water rights, it fails to provide for the disposition of the cancelled water rights.”
Andersen Fam. Assocs. v. Hugh Ricci, 179 P.3d 1201 (Nev. 2008).
“: In this appeal, we address whether an entity can lose its vested rights to utilize certain water flow — rights that it acquired before the adoption of Nevada’s statutory water law scheme — when a permit modifying those rights is canceled and later reinstated pursuant to NRS…”
Sierra Pac. Indus. v. Wilson, 440 P.3d 37 (Nev. 2019).
“Accordingly, pursuant to NRS 533.395(1), the holder of a permit to appropriate water must proceed "in good faith and with reasonable *41 diligence to perfect the appropriation" or face cancellation of the permit by the State Engineer.”
Sierra Pac. Indus. Vs. Wilson, P.E., 2019 NV 13 (Nev. 2019).
“Accordingly, pursuant to NRS 533.395(1), the holder of a permit to appropriate water must proceed "in good faith and with reasonable diligence to perfect the appropriation" or face cancellation of the permit by the State Engineer.”
Sierra Pac. Indus. Vs. Wilson, P.E., 2019 NV 13 (Nev. 2019).
“Accordingly, pursuant to NRS 533.395(1), the holder of a permit to appropriate water must proceed "in good faith and with reasonable diligence to perfect the appropriation" or face cancellation of the permit by the State Engineer.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.395(2) — 3 cases
State Eng'r Vs. Happy Creek, Inc., 2019 NV 41 (Nev. 2019).
“Despite the unbroken and hitherto unquestioned hne of authority just discussed, the State Engineer argues that the 1981 amendments to NRS 533.395 impheitly terrninated Nevada courts' authority to grant equitable relief in permit cancellation cases.”
Benson Vs. State Eng'r, 2015 NV 78 (Nev. 2015).
“We therefore hold that when NRS 533.395 authorizes the State Engineer to provide a party with a remedy, even when that remedy is not the remedy the party prefers, the doctrine of futility does not apply and excuse the party from complying with NRS 533.”
Benson Vs. State Eng'r, 2015 NV 78 (Nev. 2015).
“We therefore hold that when NRS 533.395 authorizes the State Engineer to provide a party with a remedy, even when that remedy is not the remedy the party prefers, the doctrine of futility does not apply and excuse the party from complying with NRS 533.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.395(3) — 4 cases
Andersen Fam. Assocs. v. Hugh Ricci, 179 P.3d 1201 (Nev. 2008).
“: In this appeal, we address whether an entity can lose its vested rights to utilize certain water flow — rights that it acquired before the adoption of Nevada’s statutory water law scheme — when a permit modifying those rights is canceled and later reinstated pursuant to NRS…”
State Eng'r Vs. Happy Creek, Inc., 2019 NV 41 (Nev. 2019).
“Despite the unbroken and hitherto unquestioned hne of authority just discussed, the State Engineer argues that the 1981 amendments to NRS 533.395 impheitly terrninated Nevada courts' authority to grant equitable relief in permit cancellation cases.”
Benson Vs. State Eng'r, 2015 NV 78 (Nev. 2015).
“We therefore hold that when NRS 533.395 authorizes the State Engineer to provide a party with a remedy, even when that remedy is not the remedy the party prefers, the doctrine of futility does not apply and excuse the party from complying with NRS 533.”
Benson Vs. State Eng'r, 2015 NV 78 (Nev. 2015).
“We therefore hold that when NRS 533.395 authorizes the State Engineer to provide a party with a remedy, even when that remedy is not the remedy the party prefers, the doctrine of futility does not apply and excuse the party from complying with NRS 533.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.395(4) — 3 cases
State Eng'r Vs. Happy Creek, Inc., 2019 NV 41 (Nev. 2019).
“Despite the unbroken and hitherto unquestioned hne of authority just discussed, the State Engineer argues that the 1981 amendments to NRS 533.395 impheitly terrninated Nevada courts' authority to grant equitable relief in permit cancellation cases.”
Benson Vs. State Eng'r, 2015 NV 78 (Nev. 2015).
“We therefore hold that when NRS 533.395 authorizes the State Engineer to provide a party with a remedy, even when that remedy is not the remedy the party prefers, the doctrine of futility does not apply and excuse the party from complying with NRS 533.”
Benson Vs. State Eng'r, 2015 NV 78 (Nev. 2015).
“We therefore hold that when NRS 533.395 authorizes the State Engineer to provide a party with a remedy, even when that remedy is not the remedy the party prefers, the doctrine of futility does not apply and excuse the party from complying with NRS 533.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 533.395(5) — 1 case
Desert Irrigation, Ltd. v. State of Nevada, 944 P.2d 835 (Nev. 1997).
“Initially, we note that although NRS 533.395 authorizes the State Engineer to cancel permitted water rights, it fails to provide for the disposition of the cancelled water rights.”
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.