Opinion ID: 783261
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Irrigable Areas, Water Rights, Abandonment, and Forfeiture

Text: 93 After concluding that dirt-lined ditches are a part of an irrigable area, the Engineer stated that it was his understanding that the Bureau of Reclamation required these areas to be water-righted. Nev. State Eng'r Ruling 4798 at 37. In other words, because the Engineer understood that dirt-lined ditches were not excluded from irrigable acreage under BOR regulations, he presumed that the parcels covered by dirt-lined ditches must have had water rights subject to transfer. However, this presumption constitutes an error of law, and we therefore reverse the district court's judgment to the extent that it upholds the Engineer's blanket rulings on dirt-lined ditches. 94 The initial designation of an area as an irrigable area on farms within the Project is relevant to determining the extent of existing water rights subject to transfer. Individual farms obtained rights to water from the Project through written contracts or agreements with the Reclamation Service. The contract granted rights to use water on a certain number of irrigable acres on each farm which amounted to an area less than the total number of acres on the farm. Nev. State Eng'r Ruling 4798 at 21-24. The TCID developed color-coded maps to identify the irrigable and non-irrigable areas defining the outer limit of lands with appurtenant water rights subject to transfer. 95 However, not all water-righted parcels within an irrigable area are subject to transfer. A water right appurtenant to a parcel cannot be perfected and therefore subject to transfer unless it was put to beneficial use. See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 533.035 (Beneficial use shall be the basis, the measure and the limit of the right to the use of water.). If the right was not perfected, the water right in an irrigable area is subject to abandonment and forfeiture as set forth in the Nevada laws that we have consistently held apply to all land within the Project. See, e.g., Alpine III, 983 F.2d at 1494; Alpine II, 878 F.2d at 1222-23 (applying § 8 of the Reclamation Act to conclude that Nevada law has governed transfers within the project since 1902). 96 Irrigation is a beneficial use, under Section 8 of the Reclamation Act, because the right to use the water attaches to the land that is irrigated, not the land through which the water passes: [t]he right to the use of water acquired under the provisions of this Act shall be appurtenant to the land irrigated, and beneficial use shall be the basis, the measure, and the limit of the right. Section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902, codified in part at 43 U.S.C. § 372. 97 Water can be used beneficially for the purposes of irrigation when it is applied to a tract of land to produce crops. See Alpine I, 697 F.2d at 854. Water rights do not, however, attach to all parcels that line the length of the ditch. This is exemplified by the practice of granting an overall water right or water duty that includes a greater amount of water than can be beneficially applied because of the water loss from the point of diversion to the place of use. See, e.g., Doherty v. Pratt, 34 Nev. 343, 348, 124 P. 574, 576 (Nev.1912) (observing that nature of land through which water is conveyed must... be taken into consideration in determining the amount of water to which an appropriator is entitled). The fact that the loss due to the inefficiencies inherent in the transportation of water in a ditch is accounted for in the grant of water rights indicates that for purposes of determining what part of the parcel gains appurtenant water rights, the actual transportation of water does not create rights in the land along the entire course of the ditch. 98 Thus, the Engineer's blanket conclusion that if a dirt-lined supply ditch is within the irrigable area of an existing place of use, water was beneficially used on the parcel of land covered by the dirt-lined ditch was erroneous. There is a possibility that along the course of a ditch, there may be some beneficial use and appurtenant rights if the water is used for lateral root irrigation; however, there was no evidence in any of the proceedings before the Engineer to this effect. Therefore, we reverse the district court's ruling upholding the State Engineer's finding with respect to dirt-lined ditches and order on remand individual findings as to the beneficial use of the water as it relates to all parcels claiming an appurtenant right due to the transfer of the water through a dirt-lined ditch.