Opinion ID: 2511823
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: NRS 533.370 as it existed in 1989

Text: Appellants argue that the State Engineer violated his statutory duty because he did not rule on SNWA's 1989 applications within one year after the final date for filing a protest and that the district court erred in failing to address this argument when it was raised below. In 1989, NRS 533.370(2) required the State Engineer to take action on water appropriation applications within one year after the final date for filing a protest, subject to three exceptions: The state engineer shall either approve or reject each application within 1 year after the final date for filing protest. However: (a) Action can be postponed by the state engineer upon written authorization to do so by the applicant or, in case of a protested application, by both the protestant and the applicant; and (b) In areas where studies of water supplies are being made or where court actions are pending, the state engineer may withhold action. (Emphases added.) This court has determined that `[t]he word shall is a term of command; it is imperative or mandatory, not permissive or directory.' Blaine Equip. Co. v. State, Purchasing Div., 122 Nev. 860, 867, 138 P.3d 820, 824 (2006) (alteration in original) (quoting Adkins v. Oppio, 105 Nev. 34, 37, 769 P.2d 62, 64 (1989)). Therefore, we conclude that the State Engineer violated his duty by failing to act on the applications within one year of the closing of the protest period, unless, pursuant to the 1989 version of NRS 533.370(2)(a) or (b), the State Engineer properly postponed action on the applications beyond the one-year statutory requirement.