Therefore, water rights appurtenant to lands dedicated, pursuant to NRS 278.390, pass with the dedication. Case law providing an analogy to this question involves the effect of statutory dedications on title to the mineral estates. Water differs from minerals in that all underground waters, as well as surface waters, within the boundaries of the state belong to the public. Those holding water rights do not actually own the water, but they have the right to the beneficial use of water. In contrast, the mineral estate is owned by the overlying landowner unless the estates have been severed.
Jurisdictions disagree as to whether statutory dedications of streets include the mineral estates.
The Belgum court held that the city owned the minerals under the surface of the streets, dedicated to the city by the recording of plats, until such streets were vacated by the city pursuant to law. On the other hand, the Robinson court held that the city acquired no interest in the minerals underlying its streets as a result of the recording and acknowledgment of subdivision plats. Despite this difference of opinion, even those courts excepting the minerals and mineral rights construe dedication statutes as conveying fee in the surface estates. Thus, these cases either directly support the conclusion that statutory dedications for streets include appurtenant water rights, or, at a minimum, they do not contradict the conclusion that water rights pass with dedications as an appurtenance to the surface estate. This conclusion is further bolstered by the general rule that dedicators may impose such reservations and restrictions as they see fit when dedicating their property to public purposes, subject to the limitation that the reservations and restrictions neither be repugnant to the dedications nor contrary to public policy.