Opinion ID: 6350574
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Any other factor deemed relevant by the

Text: State Engineer. Again, nothing in this statute expressly allows the State Engineer to approve a GMP that restores hydrological balance by usurping senior rights. The use of the phrase without limitation to introduce the list of factors in NRS 534.037(2) and the reference to [a]ny other factoF as the last item in the list makes the list non-exhaustive. The statute's silence as to the prior appropriation and beneficial use doctrines thus does not support reading it to say that neither doctrine applies. Cf. Scalia & Garner, supra, at 132-33 (noting that the negative-implication canon does not apply to expressly non-exhaustive lists). The opposite is true: These doctrines apply to GMPs because the statute does not expressly state they do not. NRS 534.037(2) directs the State Engineer to consider certain technical environmental factors in evaluating a GMP (as well as other relevant factors without limitation). The prior appropriation and beneficial use doctrines--bedrock principles founding the entirety of Nevada water law, see Mineral County, 136 Nev. at 513, 473 P.3d at 426— do not fit in the category of enumerated environmental considerations that NRS 534.037(2) lists. Nor would a reasonable reader expect them to be listed. Thus, the enumeration of factors the State Engineer may consider in approving a GMP does not excuse the State Engineer from adhering to the prior appropriation and beneficial use doctrines in addressing overpumped basin shortages. In short, NRS 534.110(7) and NRS 534.037 neither expressly nor impliedly authorize the State Engineer to abdicate responsibility for enforcing the prior appropriation and beneficial use doctrines by approving a GMP that violates these doctrines. SUPREME COURT NEVADA OF 6 1111 1.17