2_ - ict 2 6 'I 

No. 84275 

MAY 0 4 2022 

A BROWN 

UPREME Cour 

CLERK 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

IN THE MATTER OF THE 

DETERMINATION OF THE RELATIVE 

RIGHTS IN AND TO ALL WATERS. 

BOTH SURFACE AND 

UNDERGROUND, LOCATED WITHIN 

THE DIAMOND VALLEY 

HYDROGRAPHIC BASIN 10-153, 

EUREKA AND ELKO COUNTIES, 

NEVADA. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA 

DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION 

AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES; 

ADAM SULLIVAN, P.E., STATE 

ENGINEER; AND EUREKA COUNTY, 

Appellants. 

vs. 

SOLARLJOS, LLC; DANIEL S. 

VENTURACCI; AMANDA L. 

VENTURACCI; CHAD D. BLISS; ROSIE 

J. BLISS; WILFRED BAILEY AND 

CAROLYN BAILEY, TRUSTEES OF 

THE WILFRED AND CAROLYN 

BAILEY FAMILY TRUST, DATED 

FEBRUARY 20, 2018; JAMES E. 

BAUMANN; VERA L. BAUMANN; 

NORMAN C. FITZWATER; KINDY L. 

FITZWATER; ARC DOME PARTNERS, 

LLC; ROBERT F. BECK AND KAREN A. 

BECK, TRUSTEES OF THE BECK 

FAMILY TRUST DATED APRIL 1, 2005; 

IRA R. RENNER; MONTIRA RENNER; 

SADLER RANCH, LLC; MW CATTLE, 

LLC; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

OF INTERIOR, BUREAU OF LAND 

MANAGEMENT; PETER 

GOICOECHEA; AND GLADY 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 
GOICOECHEA, 

Resk.mdents. 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

This is an appeal from a district court summary judgment, 

certified as final under NRCP 54(b), resolving an exception filed in a water 

rights adjudication. 

In January 2020, the State Engineer issued a final order of 

determination adjudicating vested surface and underground water rights in 

the Diamond Valley Hydrographic Basin. Per NRS 533.165, the order of 

determination was filed in the district court, and thereafter, several 

interested parties filed exceptions thereto, under NRS 533.170. One of 

those parties, respondent Solarljos, LLC, moved for summary judgment on 

its exception, which the district court granted on October 27, 2021 (corrected 

order). Three months later, the court granted Solarljos's motion for NRCP 

54(b) certification, determining that Solarljos was not involved in any of the 

other exceptions before the court, that none of those exceptions was 

interrelated with that of Solarljos for certification purposes, and that the 

summary judgment resolved all issues concerning Solartos. such that 

certification would not result in piecemeal iitigation. Further, the court 

found that Solarljos would be prejudiced by any delay in appealing and that 

no just reason for delay existed. Accordingly, the court granted NRCP 54(b) 

certification and directed entry of final judgment as to Solarljos. 

The State of Nevada, Department of Conservation and Na tural 

Resources, Division of Water R.esources and the State Engineer filed a 

protective appeal and moved both for a• stay pending appeal and to 

determine jurisdiction, arguing that the summary judgment was 

2 
improperly certified as final under NRCP 54(b). See Fernandez v. Infusaid 

Corp., 110 Nev. 187, 192-93, 871 P.2d 292, 295 (1994). Appellant Eureka 

County has joined in both motions. 

On March 1, 2022, we granted a temporary partial stay pending 

the completion of briefing on both motions and further order of this court. 

Briefing is now completed.' 

Jurisdiction 

With respect to water law adjudications, "Wile purpose of the 

Water Law is perfectly obvious. If seeks not only to have the water rights 

adjudicated but to have them adjudicated in such a proceeding as to 

terminate for all time litigation between all such water users." Ruddell v. 

Sixth Judicial Dist. Court, 54 Nev. 363, 367, 17 P.2d 693, 694-95 (1933). 

Thus, early on we recognized that "the character of an adjudication, under 

the Water Code, forbids the idea of separate controversies being involved." 

In re Water Rights in Silver Creek & Its Tributaries, in Lander County, 57 

'The Renner respondents filed an opposition to the jurisdiction 

motion on March 4, 2022, which the Venturacci respondents and Solarljos 

joined. Solarljos filed an opposition as well (Solarljos's motion for leave to 

exceed the NRAP 27(d)(2) page limit by 7 pages is granted; the opposition 

was timely filed on March 4, 2022). The State appellants have filed a reply 

(the State appellants March 9, 2022, motion for leave to file replies to the 

responses to the stay motion and jurisdictional motion that exceed the page 

limit by 8 and 3 pages, respectively, is granted; both replies were filed on 

March 9, 2022). Eureka County also filed a reply to the responses for both 

motions, joining in the State appellants' arguments (Eureka County's 

motion to exceed the page limit for its reply by 3 pages is granted; the reply 

was filed on March 9, 2022). Additionally, Solarljos's March 4 motion to 

exceed the page limit with respect to its opposition to the stay motion and 

March 7 motion for brief extension of time are granted. Finally, in light of 

the March 7 filing by Peter and Gladys Goicoechea, we direct the clerk of 

this court to remove those parties as respondents to this appeal. 

3 
Nev. 232, 237, 61 P.2d 987, 989 (1936). "Necessarily such interrelated 

rights must be adjusted as a whole in order to reach an equitable settlement 

of the controversy." Id. Therefore, even water users who are "satisfied with 

the final order of determination of the state engineer, . . . are still vitally 

concerned in every other appropriation, because a modification of the order 

might affect thern." Id. at 238„ 61 P.2d at 989. 

To this end, the statutes provide that the district court must 

hear any exceptions to the order of determination and then "shall enter a 

decree affirming or modifying the order of the State Engineer." NRS 

533.185; see also NRS 533.165(6); NES 533.170. NRS 533.200 provides for 

appeals "from such decree" pursuant to the NRAP and "in the same manner 

and with the same effect as in civil cases," except that notice must be 

provided not only to those who filed exceptions, but also to claimants and 

water users who have not appeared in the case, through the attorney 

general. NRS 533.200. See Jackson v. Groenendyke, 132 Nev. 296, 300, 369 

P.3d 362, 365 (2016). In 1932, this court recognized that "the right to appeal 

in a proceeding of this kind is expressly conferred by the provisions of the 

Water Law," and based on that law, which has changed little since that 

time, "it appears quite clearly that an appeal will not lie in a proceeding for 

the determination of the relative rights to use of the waters of a stream or 

stream system until the decree is entered." In re Waters of Humboldt River 

Stream Sys., 54 Nev. 115, 119, 7 P.2d 813, 814 (1932) (dismissing appeal 

from a judgment deterrnining certain rights to stream waters). Four years 

later, this court again dismissed an appeal from a judgment on exceptions, 

because "[a]n appeal in a water adjudication proceeding . . . must be taken 

from the decree as entered." In re Silver Creek, 57 Nev. at 239, 61 P.2d at 

990 CThe statute does not contemplate such an appeal and it is therefore 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A c1011i> 

• 
without any legal effect."). Accordingly, as far back as the 1930s, this court 

has recognized that the right to appeal in adjudication cases exists solely by 

statute and "appellants are limited to the plan therein outlined to protect 

their rights," which does not include taking an appeal from a judgment 

resolving an exception. Id. at 238, 61 P.2d at 989. 

Nevertheless, respondents argue that nothing in our caselaw or 

in the statutes precludes the district court from entering more than one 

decree in an adjudication or from certifying a subpart of the adjudication as 

final for appeal purpoSes. They point out that the cited cases Predate the 

adoption of NRCP 54(b) and that, here, no other clainiants chose to be 

involved in the proceedings concerning Solarljos's exception. 

NRCP 54(b) allows the district court to direct entry of final 

judgment upon the resolution of the action as to slime claims or parties, but 

fewer than all. Here, the dištrict court appears to have based its 

certification decision on both prongs--that the summary judgment resolved 

both Solarljos's "claim" and completely removed it from the case--

concluding that the matter was "more akin to consolidated caseS retaining 

their separate identity." But this goes against the nature of adjudications, 

which, as noted above, "forbids the idea of separate controversies being 

involved." Id. at 237, 61 P.2d at 989. Even • after one or more of the 

exceptions is resolved, the decree may ultimately In odi fy the order of 

determination in a way affecting other water users. And the character of 

the adjudication does not change upon appeal. Id. at 238, 61 P.2d at 989. 

Thus, the legislature has determined that an appeal may be taken only from 

the district court's decree, and certification as to only part of the whole 

matter necessarily results in piecemeal litigation and is improper in 

adjudication cases. While respondents suggest that, here, the Solarljos 

.,„ t 

.5:N.": 2 .4'.1•• 
SUPREME COUR

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 194 7A .1141411> 

matter involved water sources unconnected and unrelated to the others, 

such that this is not a typical adjudication, they have not supported that 

assertion and the State appellants and Eureka County disagree, indicating 

that the water sources involved are hydrologically connected and the 

concern of all Diamond Valley water users. As a result, we conclude that 

NRCP 54(b) certification was improvidently granted, such that we lack 

jurisdiction over this appeal. 

Because we lack jurisdiction, we 

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.2 

J. 

Hardesty 

AlLcips-0 

Stiglich 

J. 

J. 

Herndon 

cc: Hon. Gary Fairman, District Judge 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Allison MacKenzie, Ltd. 

Eureka County District Attorney 

Kaempfer CrowelliReno 

Schroeder Law Offices, P.C. 

Taggart & Taggart, Ltd. 

2In light of this order, we deny appellants stay motion and vacate our 

March 1 temporary stay. 

6 
U.S. Department of Justice/Boise 

Woodburn & Wedge 

Dotson Law 

Robertson, Johnson, Miller & Williamson 

Steven D. King 

Eureka County Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I 947A .44NE, 7 

- 

• -• 

;",