Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 534.110 (2026)

Rules and regulations of State Engineer; statements and pumping tests; conditions of appropriation; designation of critical management areas; restrictions; limit to restrictions on domestic wells

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 534.110  Rules and regulations of State Engineer; statements and pumping tests; conditions of appropriation; designation of critical management areas; restrictions; limit to restrictions on domestic wells.

      1.  The State Engineer shall administer this chapter and shall prescribe all necessary regulations within the terms of this chapter for its administration.

      2.  The State Engineer may:

      (a) Require periodical statements of water elevations, water used, and acreage on which water was used from all holders of permits and claimants of vested rights.

      (b) Upon his or her own initiation, conduct pumping tests to determine if overpumping is indicated, to determine the specific yield of the aquifers and to determine permeability characteristics.

      3.  The State Engineer shall determine whether there is unappropriated water in the area affected and may issue permits only if the determination is affirmative. The State Engineer may require each applicant to whom a permit is issued for a well:

      (a) For municipal, quasi-municipal or industrial use; and

      (b) Whose reasonably expected rate of diversion is one-half cubic foot per second or more,

Ê to report periodically to the State Engineer concerning the effect of that well on other previously existing wells that are located within 2,500 feet of the well.

      4.  It is a condition of each appropriation of groundwater acquired under this chapter that the right of the appropriator relates to a specific quantity of water and that the right must allow for a reasonable lowering of the static water level at the appropriator’s point of diversion. In determining a reasonable lowering of the static water level in a particular area, the State Engineer shall consider the economics of pumping water for the general type of crops growing and may also consider the effect of using water on the economy of the area in general.

      5.  This section does not prevent the granting of permits to applicants later in time on the ground that the diversions under the proposed later appropriations may cause the water level to be lowered at the point of diversion of a prior appropriator, so long as any protectable interests in existing domestic wells as set forth in NRS 533.024 and the rights of holders of existing appropriations can be satisfied under such express conditions. At the time a permit is granted for a well:

      (a) For municipal, quasi-municipal or industrial use; and

      (b) Whose reasonably expected rate of diversion is one-half cubic foot per second or more,

Ê the State Engineer shall include as a condition of the permit that pumping water pursuant to the permit may be limited or prohibited to prevent any unreasonable adverse effects on an existing domestic well located within 2,500 feet of the well, unless the holder of the permit and the owner of the domestic well have agreed to alternative measures that mitigate those adverse effects.

      6.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 7, the State Engineer shall conduct investigations in any basin or portion thereof where it appears that the average annual replenishment to the groundwater supply may not be adequate for the needs of all permittees and all vested-right claimants, and if the findings of the State Engineer so indicate, except as otherwise provided in subsection 9, the State Engineer may order that withdrawals, including, without limitation, withdrawals from domestic wells, be restricted to conform to priority rights until the water level of the basin is stabilized.

      7.  The State Engineer:

      (a) May designate as a critical management area any basin in which withdrawals of groundwater consistently exceed the perennial yield of the basin.

      (b) Shall designate as a critical management area any basin in which withdrawals of groundwater consistently exceed the perennial yield of the basin upon receipt of a petition for such a designation which is signed by the holders of certificates or permits to appropriate water in the basin that are on file in the Office of the State Engineer who represent a majority of groundwater permitted or certificated for use in the basin.

Ê The designation of a basin as a critical management area pursuant to this subsection may be appealed pursuant to NRS 533.450. If a basin has been designated as a critical management area for 10 consecutive years, except as otherwise provided in subsection 9, the State Engineer shall order that withdrawals, including, without limitation, withdrawals from domestic wells, be restricted in that basin to conform to priority rights until the water level of the basin is stabilized, unless a groundwater management plan has been approved for the basin pursuant to NRS 534.037.

      8.  In any basin or portion thereof in the State designated by the State Engineer, the State Engineer may restrict drilling of wells in any portion thereof if the State Engineer determines that additional wells would cause an undue interference with existing wells. Any order or decision of the State Engineer so restricting drilling of such wells may be reviewed by the district court of the county pursuant to NRS 533.450.

      9.  If a court of competent jurisdiction orders the State Engineer to restrict withdrawals to conform to priority rights or if pursuant to subsection 6 or 7 or subsection 8 of NRS 534.037 the State Engineer orders that withdrawals be restricted to conform to priority rights, the State Engineer must limit the restriction of withdrawals from a domestic well to allow a domestic well to continue to withdraw 0.5 acre-feet of water per year, which must be recorded by a water meter.

      [10:178:1939; A 1947, 52; 1949, 128; 1955, 328]—(NRS A 1993, 2641; 2001, 553; 2011, 1385; 2019, 1789; 2023, 844)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Sullivan v. Lincoln Cnty. Water Dist., 542 P.3d 411 (Nev. 2024).
Sullivan v. Lincoln Cnty. Water Dist., 542 P.3d 411 (Nev. 2024). · cites it 28× “110(3) is not limited to "aquifer" or "basin," because "aquifer" is used at NRS 534.110(2), and "basin" is used at NRS 534.”
Wilson, P.E. Vs. Pahrump Fair Water, LLC, 2021 NV 2 (Nev. 2021). · cites it 20× “304, § 1, at 1790 (enacting NRS 534.110(9)). Because these amendments completely brought domestic wells into the prior appropriative system, and NRS Chapter 534 and NRS 534.”
Diamond Nat. Res. Prot. & Conservation Ass'n v. Diamond Valley Ranch, LLC, 2022 NV 43 (Nev. 2022). · cites it 172× “037 and amended NRS 534.110 to allow the State Engineer to approve a GMP that helps resolve groundwater shortages in over-appropriated basins like Diamond Valley, which was designated a CMA in 2015.”
Eureka Cnty. v. Seventh Jud. Dist. Court of State, 417 P.3d 1121 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 4× “Based on our disposition, we decline to address petitioners' arguments concerning the interpretation of NRS 534.110 and real parties in interest's unclean hands arguments.”
Bailey v. State, 594 P.2d 734 (Nev. 1979). “” NRS 534.110(4). The court found, however, that Bailey had failed to show “diligence in developing and applying water to a beneficial use” on the remaining acreage, and for that reason, denied relief to that extent.”
Griffin v. Westergard, 615 P.2d 235 (Nev. 1980). “See also NRS 534.110(3) and (7). The district court committed no error in finding that this issue was established by substantial evidence.”
Eureka Cty. Vs. Dist. Ct. (sadler Ranch, Llc), 2018 NV 37 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 8× “Stiglich 3 Based on our disposition, we decline to address petitioners' arguments concerning the interpretation of NRS 534.110 and real parties in interest's unclean hands arguments.”
Eureka Cty. Vs. Dist. Ct. (sadler Ranch, Llc), 2018 NV 37 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 8× “Stiglich 3 Based on our disposition, we decline to address petitioners' arguments concerning the interpretation of NRS 534.110 and real parties in interest's unclean hands arguments.”
Eureka Cty. Vs. Dist. Ct. (sadler Ranch, Llc), 2017 NV 111 (Nev. 2017). · cites it 4× “Therefore, we grant the petition and direct the clerk of this court to issue a writ of mandamus vacating the district court's order denying the State Engineer's motion for Sadler Ranch to provide notice to all affected appropriators in Diamond Valley and direct 3 Based on our…”
Egger Enter., LLC v. State Eng'r (civil), 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 18 (Nev. 2026). · cites it 2× “Further, nothing in Egger’s requests suggested that the Pine Forest Valley basin has been classified as a critical management area under 10 Supreme Court OF NEvaAvA (OMA TA Bae subsection 7 of NRS 534.110. Accordingly, the State Engineer's finding was supported by substantial…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 534.110(2) — 1 case
Sullivan v. Lincoln Cnty. Water Dist., 542 P.3d 411 (Nev. 2024). “110(3) is not limited to "aquifer" or "basin," because "aquifer" is used at NRS 534.110(2), and "basin" is used at NRS 534.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 534.110(3) — 2 cases
Sullivan v. Lincoln Cnty. Water Dist., 542 P.3d 411 (Nev. 2024). “110(3) is not limited to "aquifer" or "basin," because "aquifer" is used at NRS 534.110(2), and "basin" is used at NRS 534.”
Griffin v. Westergard, 615 P.2d 235 (Nev. 1980). “See also NRS 534.110(3) and (7). The district court committed no error in finding that this issue was established by substantial evidence.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 534.110(4) — 1 case
Bailey v. State, 594 P.2d 734 (Nev. 1979). “” NRS 534.110(4). The court found, however, that Bailey had failed to show “diligence in developing and applying water to a beneficial use” on the remaining acreage, and for that reason, denied relief to that extent.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 534.110(6) — 2 cases
Sullivan v. Lincoln Cnty. Water Dist., 542 P.3d 411 (Nev. 2024). “110(3) is not limited to "aquifer" or "basin," because "aquifer" is used at NRS 534.110(2), and "basin" is used at NRS 534.”
Diamond Nat. Res. Prot. & Conservation Ass'n v. Diamond Valley Ranch, LLC, 2022 NV 43 (Nev. 2022). “037 and amended NRS 534.110 to allow the State Engineer to approve a GMP that helps resolve groundwater shortages in over-appropriated basins like Diamond Valley, which was designated a CMA in 2015.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 534.110(7) — 7 cases
Diamond Nat. Res. Prot. & Conservation Ass'n v. Diamond Valley Ranch, LLC, 2022 NV 43 (Nev. 2022). “037 and amended NRS 534.110 to allow the State Engineer to approve a GMP that helps resolve groundwater shortages in over-appropriated basins like Diamond Valley, which was designated a CMA in 2015.”
Eureka Cnty. v. Seventh Jud. Dist. Court of State, 417 P.3d 1121 (Nev. 2018). “Based on our disposition, we decline to address petitioners' arguments concerning the interpretation of NRS 534.110 and real parties in interest's unclean hands arguments.”
Sullivan v. Lincoln Cnty. Water Dist., 542 P.3d 411 (Nev. 2024). “110(3) is not limited to "aquifer" or "basin," because "aquifer" is used at NRS 534.110(2), and "basin" is used at NRS 534.”
Eureka Cty. Vs. Dist. Ct. (sadler Ranch, Llc), 2018 NV 37 (Nev. 2018). “Stiglich 3 Based on our disposition, we decline to address petitioners' arguments concerning the interpretation of NRS 534.110 and real parties in interest's unclean hands arguments.”
Eureka Cty. Vs. Dist. Ct. (sadler Ranch, Llc), 2018 NV 37 (Nev. 2018). “Stiglich 3 Based on our disposition, we decline to address petitioners' arguments concerning the interpretation of NRS 534.110 and real parties in interest's unclean hands arguments.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 534.110(7)(a) — 5 cases
Eureka Cnty. v. Seventh Jud. Dist. Court of State, 417 P.3d 1121 (Nev. 2018). “Based on our disposition, we decline to address petitioners' arguments concerning the interpretation of NRS 534.110 and real parties in interest's unclean hands arguments.”
Diamond Nat. Res. Prot. & Conservation Ass'n v. Diamond Valley Ranch, LLC, 2022 NV 43 (Nev. 2022). “037 and amended NRS 534.110 to allow the State Engineer to approve a GMP that helps resolve groundwater shortages in over-appropriated basins like Diamond Valley, which was designated a CMA in 2015.”
Eureka Cty. Vs. Dist. Ct. (sadler Ranch, Llc), 2018 NV 37 (Nev. 2018). “Stiglich 3 Based on our disposition, we decline to address petitioners' arguments concerning the interpretation of NRS 534.110 and real parties in interest's unclean hands arguments.”
Eureka Cty. Vs. Dist. Ct. (sadler Ranch, Llc), 2018 NV 37 (Nev. 2018). “Stiglich 3 Based on our disposition, we decline to address petitioners' arguments concerning the interpretation of NRS 534.110 and real parties in interest's unclean hands arguments.”
Eureka Cty. Vs. Dist. Ct. (sadler Ranch, Llc), 2017 NV 111 (Nev. 2017). “Therefore, we grant the petition and direct the clerk of this court to issue a writ of mandamus vacating the district court's order denying the State Engineer's motion for Sadler Ranch to provide notice to all affected appropriators in Diamond Valley and direct 3 Based on our…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 534.110(8) — 1 case
Wilson, P.E. Vs. Pahrump Fair Water, LLC, 2021 NV 2 (Nev. 2021). “304, § 1, at 1790 (enacting NRS 534.110(9)). Because these amendments completely brought domestic wells into the prior appropriative system, and NRS Chapter 534 and NRS 534.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 534.110(9) — 2 cases
Wilson, P.E. Vs. Pahrump Fair Water, LLC, 2021 NV 2 (Nev. 2021). “304, § 1, at 1790 (enacting NRS 534.110(9)). Because these amendments completely brought domestic wells into the prior appropriative system, and NRS Chapter 534 and NRS 534.”
Diamond Nat. Res. Prot. & Conservation Ass'n v. Diamond Valley Ranch, LLC, 2022 NV 43 (Nev. 2022). “037 and amended NRS 534.110 to allow the State Engineer to approve a GMP that helps resolve groundwater shortages in over-appropriated basins like Diamond Valley, which was designated a CMA in 2015.”
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.