OCR Text |
Show Chapter 28. NEVADA CONTENTS Page 1. Development of Nevada Water Law___________________________ 471 2. State Organizational Structure for Water Administration and Control __ 472 2.1 Administration of WaterTtights_______________________ 472 2.2 Resolution of Water Use Conflicts_____________________ 473 2.3 Other Agencies Having Water Resource Responsibilities____ 475 3. Surface Waters____________________________________________ 476 3.1 Method of Acquiring Rights__________________________ 476 3.2 Nature and Limit of Rights__________________________ 478 3.3 Changes, Sales, and Transfers________________________ 481 3.4 Loss of Rights____________________________________ 481 3.5 Storage Waters, Artificial Lakes, and Ponds_____________ 483 3.6 Springs__________________________________________ 483 3.7 Diffused Surface Waters_____________________________ 484 4. Ground Water____________________________________________ 484 Publications Available________________________________________ 486 DISCUSSION 1. Development of Nevada Water Law Most of the State of Nevada was originally included within the territory of Utah, and it was not until 1861 that the separate terri- tory of Nevada was created. Nevada was admitted into the Union in 1864-\ While the appropriation doctrine is the sole and exclusive doctrine governing the acquisition and use of water in Nevada today, this was not the situation in the early territorial days. As early as 1866, the Nevada Supreme Court applied the appropriation doctrine where the parties based their claims only on prior appropriation and use of the water.2 But in 1872, the Nevada Supreme Court stated that the corn- law doctrine of riparian rights was the law of Nevada and must prevail in situations where the right to water was based on ownership of riparian land.3 This position was followed in subsequent decisions.4 However, in 1855 the Nevada Supreme Court reversed itself, and repudiated the riparian rights doctrine. In so doing, the court stated that such a doctrine did not serve the wants or necessities of the people of the area, and that development could only be accomplished under the doctrine of prior appropriation.5 In reaching this conclu- sion, the court expressly overruled its earlier decisions which had adopted and followed the riparian doctrine. Repudiation of the ripar- ian doctrine was subsequently repeated and confirmed in a number of Nevada Supreme Court decisions, as well as in Federal court deci- sions arising from controversies in that State.6 1 Hutchins, The Nevada Law of Water Bights. 1 (1955). 2 Lobdell v. Simpson, 2 Nev. 274 (1866). 3 Vansickle v. Haines, 7 Nev. 249 (1872). * Dalton v. Bowker, 8 Nev. 190 (1873) ; Lake v. Tolles, 8 Nev. 285 (1873). 6 Jones v. Adams, 19 Nev. 78, 6 Pac. 442 (1885). a Reno Smelting, Mill and Reduction Works v. Stevenson, 20 Nev. 269, 21 Pac. 317 (1889) ; Walsh v. Wallace, 26 Nev. 299, 67 Pac. 914 (1902) ; United States v. Walker River Irr. Dist., 11 Fed. Supp. 158 (D. Nev. 1935). 471 |