The silver state. [volume] (Winnemucca, Nev.) 1909-1925, 1923-12-08
WATER DECISION
BEFORE FEB. 1sT
Injunction Proceedings in Humboldt
River Adjudication in Hands
of Supreme Court of State
Holding Up Projects

A decision from the supreme
court of Nevada some time between
now and February l is expected to
clear the way for further action in
regard to the proposed irrigation
projects along the Humboldt river,
including that one which would turn
sagebrush land south of this city
in Grass Valley and also in the
vicinity of Golconda into farm land
of considerable value, providing
such decision is favorable to the
state engineers adjudication of
water rights.
At the present time the status of
the matter is that all improvement
is held up by water right owners
along the river who have been sue
cessful in securing an injunction
against Judge Bartlett of Reno, who
is hearing the adjudication proceed
ings, prohibiting him from continu-
ing such hearings. The supreme
court has heard arguments of at
torneys for these water right
holders and also those for the state
engineers office, and the case has
been submitted to the supreme
court for decision. Under the law
the judges of the supreme court
must render a decision in all mat
ters submitted to them before the
expiration of ninety days, or forego
drawing their pay from the state
until such decisions are rendered.
AS the case above referred to
was submitted to them on November
6 an opinion must be provided some
time about February l.. Prevail
ing opinion seems to be that it will
favor the state engineers office and
permit Judge Bartlett to proceed
with the hearings. All of this in
formation has been secured to
satisfy many readers of this news
paper who are interested in irri-
cation proposals and who of late
have expressed considerable curl
osity concerning the status of affairs
in that connection.
1t is probable that if the supreme
court does decide that Nevada's
water law is constitutional and that
Judge Bartlett does have jurisdic-
tion in the adjudication proceed
ings, two points which are contested
by attorneys for certain land own
ers, then Judge Bartlett will pro
coed with hearings in this city as
rapidly as possible, ending to q
large extent further litigation in
water right matters.
There is nothing in the present
litigation which would prohibit the
construction of irrigation project:
in this county, Elko and Pershing
for the reason that permits for sucf
projects were issued to cover only
food waters of the river and con
sequently do not touch upon regu
lar water rights. At least, this /!
the opinion which seems to prevail
in the minds of many who hav,
inquired into the matter. But il
the case of the Taylor-SheehaI
project in Grass Valley it seems t,
be that the men who would provid,
the money for construction have M
desire to invest and then rul
against the possibility of law sui
and probable injunction proceeding
At any rate it is the adjudication
suit now before the supreme cour
which has held back the work, an,
as the ground is now frozen it |
improbable that any further actiol
will be taken until next spring.
The possibility of the suprem
court deciding adversely to the ad
judication of the state engineer
office has not been considered, an,
in such event it has not~been state
what step would then be taken
neither has it been stated what eff
feet such adverse decision woul
have upon the construction of il
rigation projects along the river.