Palomino Dev. v. King, P.E. ( 2013 )

 then appealed this letter to the district court. The district court dismissed
Palomino's appeal, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the
State Engineer's 1997 decision.
Palomino now brings this appeal, arguing that the State
Engineer did not have authority to forfeit a supplemental underground
water right and that it is entitled to equitable relief. Because this district
court lacked jurisdiction to review the State Engineer's 1997 decision, we
conclude that it properly dismissed Palomino's challenge.
Under Nevada law, forfeiture occurs following a permit
holder's failure for five successive years "to use beneficially all or any part
of the underground water for the purpose for which the right is acquired."
NRS 534.090(1). A State Engineer's forfeiture ruling becomes final 30
days after it is issued and not appealed. Id.; NRS 533.450; see also
Preferred Equities Corp. v. State Engineer, 119 Nev. 384, 387, 75 P.3d 380,
382 (2003) (holding that "under NRS 534.090(1), [appellant's] water rights
reverted to the public once the State Engineer determined them
forfeited . . . , and the forfeiture became final upon [appellant's] failure to
appeal that ruling within thirty days"). Although we have considered
letters from the State Engineer as final appealable decisions in the past,
we have done so only where the letter "affects a person's interests that
relate to the administration of determined rights." Howell v. State
Engineer, 124 Nev. 1222, 1228, 197 P.3d 1044, 1048 (2008).
The record shows that Permit 13630 was forfeited by
operation of law on April 2, 1997. This is the determinative ruling
affecting Palomino's subsequently acquired water right, and the decision
was not appealed. Therefore, because the propriety of the State
Engineer's 1997 determination was not challenged within NRS
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A 447
534.090(1)'s statutory timeframe, we conclude that this appeal is untimely
and outside the jurisdiction of the district court. See G. & M Props. v.
Second Judicial Dist. Court, 95 Nev. 301, 304, 594 P.2d 714, 716 (1979)
(strictly construing NRS 533.170's five-day filing timeline and concluding
that the district court was without jurisdiction to consider late-filed water
rights exceptions) •2 Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
N esty
J.
- V3
64,A1 J.
Parraguirre
J.
2 We also reject Palomino's argument that because the State
Engineer's notice of Permit 13630's forfeiture was not provided to the
original permit holder, the forfeiture should be invalidated regardless of
the district court's jurisdiction. NRS 533.384(1)(a) expressly mandates
that the conveyee of a water right must file a Report of Conveyance with
the State Engineer. The State Engineer shall not recognize the
conveyance of any water right until such a report is confirmed. NRS
533.386(5). Because it is undisputed that the original permit holder failed
to file a Report of Conveyance, he was not entitled to notification of the
impending forfeiture.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Janet J. Berry, District Judge
William E. Nork, Settlement Judge
Parsons Behle & Latimer/Reno
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A