The Nevada Supreme Court published their opinion in Bacher v. State Engineer on Wednesday. The case speaks to several critical areas of Nevada water law and incorporates the "anti-speculation doctrine" in interpretation of Nevada water law.
The court also gave indications of a number of items around beneficial use like the following footnote:
Some projects, including the theme park, had contingencies attached to them. In other words, the projects may be speculative in nature. Although we do not reach whether contingent projects may be considered in evaluating a need for water under NRS 533.370(6) because we conclude that the State Engineer abused his discretion on other grounds, we note that speculative evidence of development projects is not sufficient to survive a substantial evidence inquiry on review.
Comments
Post new comment