| OCR Text |
NEVADA 481 3.3 Changes, Sales, and Transfers The Nevada statute authorizes changes in the point of diversion, place of use, or purpose of use of a water right. The change pro- cedure must be initiated by filing a change application with the State engineer.111 A change application shall be approved if the proposed change will not impair the value of existing rights and if it is not otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. If the change does not meet the statutory criteria, it must be rejected.113 The right to make a change has consistently been recognized in Nevada where the change causes no injury to or does not impair the value of the rights of others.114 The decision of the State engineer is subject to appeal.115 Once the change is accomplished and a satisfactory proof of change submitted, the engineer issues the applicant a certificate of change.116 Since no change can be made if it impairs other rights, in one case the use of water was restricted to certain land because the re- turn flow from that land found its way back to the stream, and supplied the right of a junior appropriator downstream.117 The court said that the junior appropriator was entitled to have conditions re- main substantially as they were at the time he made his appropri- ation. 3.4 Loss of Rights The following procedures govern the loss of water rights from a watercourse in Nevada: a. STATUTORY FORFEITURE The Nevada statute on forfeiture provides that when any water right owner fails to use water during any 5 successive years, the right shall be deemed abandoned and the owner shall forfeit all rights previously acquired, and the water may again be appropria- ated.118 The intent of the appropriator is immaterial, since forfeiture is based solely on a failure to use the water when it is available.119 The Nevada Supreme Court has upheld the application of this forfeiture provision to rights acquired pursuant to the appropriation code. However, in one early case the court suggested that the rule would be different for rights acquired prior to the enactment of the for- feiture statute, and that such rights could only be lost by intentional abandonment. This ruling was based on the theory that to impose stricter conditions on those rights than those conditions applicable when they were acquired would constitute an impairment of such rights.120 "i Nev. Rev. Stat., sees. 533.325, 533.345. us Nev. Rev. Stat., sec. 533.370. 1U Smith v. Logan, 18 Nev. 149, 1 Pac. 678 (1883) ; Miller & Lux v. Rickey, 127 Fed. 573 (D. Nev. 1904). "5Nev. Rev. Stat., sec. 533.450. 118 Nev. Rev. Stat., sec. 533.425. 11? Vineyard Land & Stock Co. v. Twin Falls Salmon River Land & Water Co., 245 Fed. 9 (CCA. 9th 1917). "8 Nev. Rev. Stat., sec. 533.060. "«/w re Manse Spring and Its Tributaries, 60 Nev. 280, 108 P. 2d 311 (1940). 120 in re Manse Spring and Its Tributaries, 60 Nev. 280, 108 P. 2d 311 (1940). |
