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 

(0) 1947A 447 

2 
J. 

J. 

J. 

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. 

Nesty 

-V364,A1 

Parraguirre 

2We 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 

(0) 1947A 

3 
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 

(0) 1947A 

4