Court Opinion

ID: 9927340
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-26 20:08:26.393743+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:49.332172
License: Public Domain

'140 Nev, Advance Opinithi
                      IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

                  ADAM SULLIVAN, P.E., NEVADA               No. 84739
                  STATE ENGINEER, DIVISION OF
                  WATER RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT
                  OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL
                  RESOURCES,
                  Appellant,
                  vs.
                                                              FiLE
                  LINCOLN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT;               iAN 2..5 2021/ 1
                  VIDLER WATER COMPANY, INC.;                 EL3JrH A. 3.Ra-  Vti
                                                                        esel V:IJR,'
                                                           CLER 0 ',O..:rt
                  COYOTE SPRINGS INVESTMENT,                               io
                  LLC; NEVADA COGENERATION                        DEPL-ITY CLERK —

                  ASSOCIATES NOS. 1 AND 2; APEX
                  HOLDING COMPANY, LLC; DRY LAKE
                  WATER, LLC; GEORGIA-PACIFIC
                  GYPSUM, LLC; REPUBLIC
                  ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES,
                  INC.; SIERRA PACIFIC POWER
                  COMPANY, D/B/A NV ENERGY;
                  NEVADA POWER COMPANY, D/B/A
                  NV ENERGY; THE CHURCH OF
                  JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY
                  SAINTS; MOAPA VALLEY WATER
                  DISTRICT; WESTERN ELITE
                  ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.; BEDROC
                  LIMITED, LLC; AND CITY OF NORTH
                  LAS VEGAS,
                  Respondents.

                  SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER                     No. 84741
                  AUTHORITY,
                  Appellant,
                  vs.
                  LINCOLN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT;
                  VIDLER WATER COMPANY, INC.;
                  COYOTE SPRINGS INVESTMENT,
                  LLC; NEVADA COGENERATION
                  ASSOCIATES NOS. 1 AND 2; APEX
                  HOLDING COMPANY, LLC; DRY LAKE
SUPREME COURT
         OF

                                                          2.* v2cQ9
      NEVADA

(CH 194 7A    0

                                                                               • :;:$4-4.....t,.+:17;
                WATER, LLC; GEORGIA-PACIFIC
                GYPSUM, LLC; REPUBLIC
                ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES,
                INC.; SIERRA PACIFIC POWER
                COMPANY, D/B/A NV ENERGY;
                NEVADA POWER COMPANY, D/B/A
                NV ENERGY; THE CHURCH OF
                JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY
                SAINTS; MOAPA VALLEY WATER
                DISTRICT; WESTERN ELITE
                ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.; BEDROC
                LIMITED, LLC; AND CITY OF NORTH
                LAS VEGAS,
                Respondents.

                CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL             No. 84742
                DIVERSITY,
                Appellant,
                vs.
                LINCOLN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT;
                VIDLER WATER COMPANY, INC.;
                COYOTE SPRINGS INVESTMENT,
                LLC; NEVADA COGENERATION
                ASSOCIATES NOS. 1 AND 2; APEX
                HOLDING COMPANY, LLC; DRY LAKE
                WATER, LLC; GEORGIA-PACIFIC
                GYPSUM, LLC; REPUBLIC
                ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES,
                INC.; SIERRA PACIFIC POWER
                COMPANY, D/B/A NV ENERGY;
                NEVADA POWER COMPANY, D/B/A
                NV ENERGY; THE CHURCH OF
                JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY
                SAINTS; MOAPA VALLEY WATER
                DISTRICT; WESTERN ELITE
                ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.; BEDROC
                LIMITED, LLC; AND CITY OF NORTH
                LAS VEGAS,
                Respondents.

SUPREME COURT
        OF
     NO/A0A

                                           2
(01 I947A

                       •
                MUDDY VALLEY IRRIGATION           No. 84809
                COMPANY,
                Appellant,
                vs.
                LINCOLN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT;
                VIDLER WATER COMPANY, INC.;
                COYOTE SPRINGS INVESTMENT,
                LLC; NEVADA COGENERATION
                ASSOCIATES NOS. 1 AND 2; APEX
                HOLDING COMPANY, LLC; DRY LAKE
                WATER, LLC; GEORGIA-PACIFIC
                GYPSUM, LLC; REPUBLIC
                ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES,
                INC.; SIERRA PACIFIC POWER
                COMPANY, D/B/A NV ENERGY;
                NEVADA POWER COMPANY, D/B/A
                NV ENERGY; THE CHURCH OF
                JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY
                SAINTS; MOAPA VALLEY WATER
                DISTRICT; WESTERN ELITE
                ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.; BEDROC
                LIMITED, LLC; AND CITY OF NORTH
                LAS VEGAS,
                Respondents.

                COYOTE SPRINGS INVESTMENT,        No. 85137
                LLC; LINCOLN COUNTY WATER
                DISTRICT; AND VIDLER WATER
                COMPANY, INC.,
                Appellants,
                vs.
                ADAM SULLIVAN, P.E., NEVADA
                STATE ENGINEER, DIVISION OF
                WATER RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT
                OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL
                RESOURCES,
                Respondent.

SUPREME COURT
       OF
    NEVADA

                                          3
(01 1947A e

                                                              1
            Consolidated appeals from a district court order granting
petitions for judicial review in a water law matter and from a post-judgment
order denying motions for attorney fees. Eighth Judicial District Court,
Clark County; Bita Yeager, Judge.
            Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General, Heidi Parry Stern, Solicitor General,
Jeffrey M. Conner and Kiel B. Ireland, Deputy Solicitors General, and
James N. Bolotin, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Carson City,
for Adam Sullivan, P.E., Nevada State Engineer.

Taggart & Taggart, Ltd., and Paul G. Taggart and Thomas P. Duensing,
Carson City; Steven C. Anderson, Las Vegas,
for Southern Nevada Water Authority.

Scott Lake, Reno,
for Center for Biological Diversity.

Dotson Law and Robert A. Dotson and Justin C. Vance, Reno; Steven D.
King, Dayton,
for Muddy Valley Irrigation Company.

Dylan V. Frehner, District Attorney, Lincoln County; Great Basin Law and
Wayne O. Klomp, Reno,
for Lincoln County Water District.

Allison MacKenzie, Ltd., and Karen A. Peterson and Alida C. Mooney,
Carson City,
for Vidler Water Company, Inc.

Robison, Sharp, Sullivan & Brust and Kent R. Robison and Hannah E.
Winston, Reno; Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, and Bradley J.
Herrema, Las Vegas; Coulthard Law PLLC and William L. Coulthard, Las
Vegas; Wingfield Nevada Group and Emilia K. Cargill, Coyote Springs,
for Coyote Springs Investment, LLC.

                                       4

                     -
                          •
                Dyer Lawrence, LLP, and Francis C. Flaherty and Sue S. Matuska, Carson
                City,
                for Nevada Cogeneration Associates Nos. 1 and 2.

                Kaempfer Crowell and Severin A. Carlson and Sihomara L. Graves, Reno,
                for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

                Marquis Aurbach and Christian T. Balducci, Las Vegas,
                for Apex Holding Company, LLC, and Dry Lake Water, LLC.

                McDonald Carano LLP and Lucas Foletta, Sylvia Harrison, and Jane
                Susskind, Reno,
                for Georgia-Pacific Gypsum, LLC, and Republic Environmental
                Technologies, Inc.

                Parsons Behle & Latimer and Gregory H. Morrison, Reno,
                for Moapa Valley Water District.

                Schroeder Law Offices, P.C., and Laura A. Schroeder, Caitlin R. Skulan,
                and Therese A. Ure Stix, Reno,
                for Bedroc Limited, LLC, City of North Las Vegas, and Western Elite
                Environmental, Inc.

                Timothy M. Clausen and Michael D. Knox, Reno,
                for Sierra Pacific Power Company.

                BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, EN BANC.

                                                OPINION

                By the Court. LEE, J.:
                           This case examines whether the State Engineer has the
                authority to redesignate multiple existing hydrographic basins as one
                "superbasin" based on a shared source of water for purposes of the water's

SUPREME COURT
        OF
     NEVADA

40) I947A
                                                    5
                administration and management.         We also look at whether the State
                Engineer complied with due process in creating the superbasin at issue
                here.
                            In Order 1309, the State Engineer determined that the waters
                of seven basins were interconnected in a manner such that withdrawals
                from one basin affected the amount of water in the other basins.
                Consequently,    the    State   Engineer     combined    those    basins,   for
                administration purposes, into one superbasin.        Further, the previously
                granted appropriations of water exceeded the rate of recharge in the
                superbasin, now known as the Lower White River Flow System (LWRFS).
                The State Engineer found that permitted groundwater pumping from that
                flow system may reduce the amount of water available to parties with
                vested surface water rights, including rights to waters from the Muddy
                River, a vital source of water for Las Vegas.        Additionally, the State
                Engineer determined that no more than 8,000 afa, and perhaps less, could
                be appropriated from the flow system without affecting the vested rights
                and other public interests.
                            Respondents, owners of water rights throughout the new
                superbasin, petitioned for judicial review in the district court, alleging that
                the State Engineer lacks authority to conjunctively manage surface waters
                and groundwater and to jointly administer the multiple basins that form
                the LWRFS. They also asserted that the State Engineer violated their due
                process rights in issuing Order 1309. The district court largely agreed with
                respondents and granted their petitions for judicial review.        The State
                Engineer and others interested in the flow of water throughout the LWRFS
                appealed.

SUPREME COURT
     OF
   NEVADA

                                                      6
                                We hold that the State Engineer has authority to conjunctively
                    manage surface waters and groundwater and to jointly administer multiple
                    basins and thus was empowered to issue Order 1309. We also conclude that
                    the State Engineer did not violate due process protections because
                    respondents received notice and had an opportunity to be heard.
                    Accordingly, we reverse the district court's order insofar as it granted
                    respondents' petitions for judicial review and dismissed appellants'
                    petitions for judicial review and remand this matter to the district court for
                    further proceedings as to the State Engineer's factual determinations. We
                    further affirm in part and reverse in part the district court's conflicting
                    order on whether appellants had notice that the State Engineer would
                    adjudicate the absence of a conflict to Muddy River rights. Finally, we do
                    not reach the merits of the attorney fees issue here, given our reversal of
                    the order granting petitions for judicial review.
                                     FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
                                In 2001, the State Engineer considered pending applications to
                    appropriate groundwater from several basins that sit just north of Las
                    Vegas. The groundwater is from an underground water resource known as
                    the carbonate rock aquifer system, or the LWRFS, a large area of
                    underground water whose rate of recharge and boundaries were unknown
                    at the time. The State Engineer held those applications in abeyance and
                    instead issued Order 1169. In Order 1169, he opined that groundwater in
                    the various basins originated from the same carbonate rock aquifer system
                    and that pumping groundwater from one basin might reduce the flow of
                    water to other basins, including to the springs supplying the fully

SUPREME COURT
        OF
     NEVADA

                                                          7
(0) 1447A    .4P.

                                                                                              '2.4r
                      appropriated Muddy River.' He indicated that it was unclear how much
                      additional groundwater could be appropriated without causing adverse
                      effects throughout the LWRFS.       In order to determine the effects of
                      additional pumping, the State Engineer ordered water rights holders in
                      Coyote Springs Valley, one of the subject basins, to conduct a pump test to
                      obtain further information by stressing the aquifer. During the pump test,
                      the water rights holders in Coyote Springs Valley pumped at least 50% of
                      their permitted water rights over a period of two years.
                                  Based on the results of the pump test, the State Engineer issued
                      Order 1169A in 2012. In that order, the State Engineer determined that
                      the increased pumping resulted in an unprecedented decrease in water flow
                      to the highest elevation springs fed by the carbonate rock aquifer system.
                                  The State Engineer found that the pump test measurably
                      reduced flows in the headwater springs that feed the Muddy River, which
                      was fully appropriated for use prior to 1905 under the Muddy River Decree.
                      Rights holders under the Muddy River Decree hold prestatutory vested
                      water rights, and the State Engineer is statutorily required to not impair
                      these types of water rights. Further, the springs and tributary headwaters
                      of the Muddy River are the only habitat of the Moapa Dace, a fish protected
                      under the Endangered Species Act.        As a result, the State Engineer
                      acknowledged that groundwater pumping in the subject basins could
                      negatively impact Muddy River surface water rights holders and the public
                      interest.

                            "'Aquifer' means a geological formation or structure that stores or
                            1

                      transmits water, or both." NRS 534.0105.
 SUPREME COURT
          OF
      NEVADA

                                                           8
11)1 194 7A    ABM>
                            Moreover, the State Engineer found that the pump test impacts
                were widespread, extending far beyond the Coyote Springs Valley pump test
                sites to multiple nearby basins, including Kane Springs Valley, Hidden
                Valley, Garnet Valley, the Muddy River Springs Area, California Wash, and
                a small part of the Black Mountains Area (the Subject Basins), all of which,
                with the exception of Kane Springs Valley, the State Engineer had
                previously designated     as individual     basins for   the   purposes   of
                administration. As a result, he concluded the pump test provided clear
                proof of the close hydrologic connection of the Subject Basins, with the
                notable omission of Kane Springs Valley.        The State Engineer then
                determined that all the Subject Basins, except Kane Springs Valley and the
                Black Mountains Area, shared the same perennial yield and held no
                unappropriated groundwater.2       He consequently denied hundreds of
                applications for further appropriations of groundwater throughout the
                Subject Basins based on his conclusion that there was no unappropriated
                water remaining in the source of supply.3

                      21t appears that the State Engineer suspected Kane Springs Valley
                and a portion of the Black Mountains Area were a part of the LWRFS but
                did not have enough information at the time to incorporate them in the
                LWRFS for the purposes of further administration. The Black Mountains
                Area was considered for management with the rest of the superbasin in
                Order 1303, and Kane Springs Valley was added in Order 1309.

                      31n issuing Order 1169A, the State Engineer found that the Muddy
                River was supplied by springs that recharge from groundwater in carbonate
                rocks and that the area of recharge included other nearby topographical
                areas throughout the LWRFS. As a result, groundwater pumping from the
                LWRFS in the Subject Basins may reduce the springs' discharge and thus
                reduces the flow of the Muddy River itself.
SUPREME COURT
       OF
    NEVADA

                                                     9
{07 IM7A
                             Thereafter, in 2019, the State Engineer began addressing
                concerns that the carbonate aquifer was over-appropriated by existing
                groundwater rights. He issued Order 1303, designating the Subject Basins,
                with the exception of Kane Springs Valley, as a "joint administrative unit
                for purposes of administration of water rights" called the "Lower White
                River Flow System."     Instead of administering water rights separately
                within each of the previously recognized six basins, the State Engineer
                reordered and administered water rights throughout the newly created
                LWRFS based upon the respective priority dates throughout the entirety of
                the LWRFS.
                             The State Engineer further solicited reports from water rights
                holders on the following topics: (a) the geographic boundary of the LWRFS;
                (b) infbrmation related to the pump test, Muddy River headwater spring
                flow, and aquifer recovery; (c) the long-term annual quantity of
                groundwater that may be pumped from the LWRFS; (d) the effect of moving
                water rights between wells on senior decreed rights to the Muddy River;
                and (e) any other matter believed to be relevant. Lastly, Interim Order 1303
                announced a future administrative hearing and held applications to change
                existing groundwater rights i.n abeyance, issued a temporary moratorium
                on development and construction, and allowed rights holders to use the
                order to support extensions of time and prevent forfeitures.
                Order 1309
                             Following the anticipated administrative hearing, and based on
                the scientific evidence and testimony presented, the State Engineer in 2020
                issued the order challenged herein, Order 1309. Order 1309 in pertinent
                part delineated the LWRFS, this time including Kane Springs Valley, as a
                single hydrographic basin and determined that no more than 8,000 afa (and

SUPREME COURT
        OF
     NEVADA

(0) 1947A
                                                    10
                  perhaps less) could be pumped from that flow system without adversely
                  affecting the Muddy River and Moapa Dace, providing:
                               1. The Lower White River Flow System consisting
                               of the Kane Springs Valley, Coyote Spring Valley,
                               Muddy River Springs Area, California Wash,
                               Hidden Valley, Garnet Valley, and the northwest
                               portion of the Black Mountains Area as described
                               in this Order, is hereby delineated as a single
                               hydrographic basin. The Kane Springs Valley,
                               Coyote Spring Valley, Muddy River Springs Area,
                               California Wash, Hidden Valley, Garnet Valley and
                               the northwest portion of the Black Mountains Area
                               are hereby established as sub-basins within the
                               Lower White River Flow System Hydrographic
                               Basin.
                               2. The maximum quantity of groundwater that
                               may be pumped from the Lower White River Flow
                               System Hydrographic Basin on an average annual
                               basis without causing further declines in Warm
                               Springs area spring flow and flow in the Muddy
                               River cannot exceed 8,000 afa and may be less.
                               3. The maximum quantity of water that may be
                               pumped from the Lower White River Flow System
                               Hydrographic Basin may be reduced if it is
                               determined that pumping will adversely impact the
                               endangered Moapa dace.
                  (Emphases added.)        Finally, Order 1309 lifted the moratorium on

                  development and construction and also rescinded all other matters not
                  addressed from Interim Order 1303, including the portion of Order 1303
                  that reordered rights throughout the LWRFS based on date of priority.
                   Petitions for judicial review
                               Water rights holders affected by Order 1309 petitioned the
                  district court for judicial review under NRS 533.450, and the cases were
                  consolidated. After oral argument, the district court granted respondents'

                  petitions. The district court took judicial notice that, unlike the six other
SUPREME COURT
        OP
     NEVADA
                                                       11
(CA I947A

                4,1A;
                basins, Kane Springs Valley was not previously statutorily designated as a
                basin for administration. The district court found that the State Engineer

                exceeded his statutory authority when creating the LWRFS out of multiple
                distinct, already established hydrographic basins. The district court further
                found that    the State    Engineer   lacked the statutory authority to
                conjunctively manage surface water and groundwater and to jointly
                administer multiple sub-basins within the LWRFS.           Additionally, the
                district court determined that the State Engineer violated the water rights

                holders' constitutional right to due process by failing to provide adequate
                notice of the topics addressed at the hearing and a meaningful opportunity
                to be heard on the issues. The district court declined to reach whether the
                factual findings in Order 1309 were supported by substantial evidence. The
                district court later filed an addendum to the order, granting in part and
                dismissing in part the petition from the Southern Nevada Water Authority

                (SNWA) and dismissing the petitions from the Muddy Valley Irrigation
                Company (MVIC) and the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), which had
                primarily challenged Order 1309 only insofar as it determined that the
                8,000 afa pumping cap did not impact vested water rights.
                             The State Engineer appealed from the district court's decisions,
                as did SNWA, MVIC, and CBD.4                Respondents are parties with
                appropriations throughout the LWRFS whose petitions for judicial review

                      4 To the extent that SNWA and MVIC challenge two paragraphs in
                Order 1309 as an adjudication that the order does not conflict with their
                rights under the Muddy River Decree, the State Engineer has agreed with
                them that any such determination exceeded the scope of the hearing notice
                and thus violated due process. We agree that such an adjudication exceeded
                the scope of the hearing notice and therefore affirm the partial grant of
                SNWA's petition and reverse the dismissal of MVIC's petition as discussed
                in the conclusion.
SUPREME COURT
         OF
     NEVADA

                                                      12
O   194-7A
                were granted by the district court. Certain respondents have separately
                appealed from a post-judgment order denying their motions for attorney
                fees. The appeals have been consolidated for the purposes of briefing, oral
                argument, and disposition.
                                                DISCUSSION
                Prior appropriation doctrine
                            "As the driest state in the Nation," Nevada long ago adopted the
                prior appropriation doctrine to allocate its water, "this most precious of
                natural resources." United State.s v. State Eng'r, 117 Nev. 585, 592, 27 P.3d
                51, 55 (2001) (Becker, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). "The
                prior appropriation doctrine grants an appropriative right that may be
                described as a state administrative grant that allows the use of a specific
                quantity of water for a specific beneficial purpose if water is available in the
                source free from the claims of others with earlier appropriations." Mineral

                County v. Lyon County, 136 Nev. 503, 509, 473 P.3d 418, 423 (2020)
                (internal quotations and alterations omitted).        "The doctrine of prior
                appropriation ... is itself largely a product of the compelling need for
                certainty in the holding and use of water rights." Arizona v. California, 460
                U.S. 605, 620 (1983), decision supplemented, 466 U.S. 144 (1984). Both
                surface water and groundwater are subject to the doctrine of prior
                appropriation.    Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128, 142 (1976).
                "Nevada's supply of water, even with the most effective management tools,
                is often insufficient to supply the state's needs," and thus, "allowing water

                to be controlled by individual landowners was deemed to be harmful to the
                public at large." United States v. State Eng'r, 117 Nev. at 592, 27 P.3d at
                55 (Becker, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). As a result, "[t]he
                water of all sources of water supply" in Nevada "belongs to the public," and

SUPREME COURT
        OF
     NEVADA

                                                      13
i01 I947A
                       the State Engineer administers water rights on the public's behalf. NRS

                       533.025 (emphasis added).
                                   "The term 'water right' means generally the right to divert
                       water by artificial means for beneficial use . . . ." Application of Filippini,
                       66 Nev. 17, 21, 202 P.2d 535, 537 (1949). The      types   of   water   rights

                       recognized in Nevada may be thought of as two groups: (1) prestatutory
                       GCvested" rights that existed under common law prior to 1913, which may not

                       be impaired by statutory law, and (2) statutorily granted rights, which

                       include permitted and certificated rights.     See Andersen Farn. Assocs. v.
                       Hugh Ricci, P.E., 124 Nev. 182, 188-89, 179 P.3d 1201, 1204-05 (2008).
                       Relevant here, "vested water rights are subject to regulation under
                       Nevada's statutory system, [but] such regulation may not impair the
                       quantity or value of those rights." Id. at 190, 179 P.3d at 1206.
                       The State Engineer has authority to delineate the LWRFS as a single
                       hydrographic basin for conjunctive management and joint administration
                                   "[T]he scope of the State Engineer's authority here is a question
                       of statutory interpretation, subject to de novo review." Wilson v. Pahrump
                       Fair Water, LLC, 137 Nev. 10, 14, 481 P.3d 853, 856 (2021).               "The
                       Legislature has established a comprehensive statutory scheme regulating
                       the procedures for acquiring, changing, and losing water rights in Nevada."
                       Id. at 13, 481 P.3d at 856. "The State Engineer's powers thereunder are
                       limited to only those ... which the legislature expressly or implicitly
                       delegates." Id. (internal quotations omitted). "[F]or implied authority to
                       exist, the implicitly authorized act must be essential to carrying out an
                       express duty." Stockrneier v. State, Bd. of Parole Cornrn'rs, 127 Nev. 243,
                       248, 255 P.3d 209, 212 (2011).

SUPREME COURT
         OF
     NEVADA

                                                             14
)(1) 1947A

                atu,
                      The State Engineer has implied authority under NRS 533.085 to
                      create the LWRFS and to determine the maximum amount that can be
                      pumped
                               NRS 533.085 prohibits the impairment of vested water rights,
                regardless of the source of the water.5 See Andersen Fam. Assocs., 124 Nev.

                at 190, 179 P.3d at 1206. All statutorily granted water rights in Nevada are
                given subject to existing rights.      NRS 533.030 ("Subject to existing
                rights ... all water may be appropriated for beneficial use . . . ."); NRS
                534.020 ("All underground waters . . . subject to all existing rights to the
                use thereof, are subject to appropriation for beneficial use only under the
                laws of this State relating to the appropriation and use of water and not
                otherwise."). Because vested water rights by definition exist prior to the
                grant of statutorily granted water rights, all statutory rights are granted
                subject to vested rights, and no statutorily granted water right may impair
                vested water rights.
                               Rights under the Muddy River Decree are prestatutory vested
                rights under the protection of NRS 533.085 because the rights were
                appropriated before 1913. In order to protect prestatutory vested rights
                from impairment, the State Engineer must be able to determine the extent
                of the groundwater resource that feeds the Muddy River to determine which
                users are pumping from it and how much.           See Rasmussen v. Moroni

                      5   NRS 533.085(1) states.
                              Nothing contained in this chapter shall impair the
                              vested right of any person to the use of water, nor
                              shall the right of any person to take and use water
                              be impaired or affected by any of the provisions of
                              this chapter where appropriations have been
                              initiated in accordance with law prior to March 22,
                              1913.
SUPREME COURT
        OF
     NEVADA

                                                      15
(0) 1947A
                 Irrigation Co., 189 P. 572, 577 (Utah 1920) (-When therefore all of the water
                 is appropriated by a prior appropriator which flows in a given stream at
                 some point some distance down said stream, such appropriator acquires a
                 right to all of the sources of supply of such stream whether visible or
                 invisible, or whether underneath or on the surface."). The State Engineer
                 concluded that the best available science, as presented at the Order 1309
                 hearing, established that the basins in the LWRFS all share the same,
                 interconnected source of water. The State Engineer must then have the
                 authority to determine the maximum amount that can be pumped from the
                 LWRFS as a whole in order to determine whether water is available for
                 further appropriation and to protect the flow of water to senior vested
                 rights.6 Therefore, in determining the amount of unappropriated water in
                 the LWRFS and in accounting for the impact on the source of water, the
                 State Engineer has the implied authority to conjunctively manage surface
                 and groundwater and to jointly administer across multiple basins based on
                 the interconnected source of water that flows to vested rights holders.
                             NRS 533.085 gives the State Engineer the statutory authority
                 to conjunctively manage surface waters with groundwater. If statutory
                 rights holders deplete groundwater resources such that the flow of water to
                 the elevated springs that feed the Muddy River is reduced to the point of
                 impairing vested rights, then the State Engineer has the authority to invoke
                 NRS 533.085 to protect vested rights. Cf. Andersen Fam. Assocs., 124 Nev.

                       6We do not determine at this time exactly how the State Engineer is
                 to manage previously granted appropriation rights throughout the sub-
                 basins in the LWRFS, or whether he can apply a pump cap to individual
                 users, as those issues are not before us.
SUPREME COURT
       OP
    NEVADA
                                                       16
MI 1447A

             •
                                                     174.1                                  '9,4,:b7.41f.TE
                at 191, 179 P.3d at 1206 (stating that "a loss of priority can amount to a de
                facto loss of rights depending on water flow").
                            We likewise decline to hold that NRS 533.085 solely applies
                within a single previously delineated basin and cannot extend across
                multiple basins regardless of the location of the supply of water. Without
                this authority, junior rights holders could deplete the shared water resource
                according to their local priority and previously granted appropriation,
                regardless of the impact such appropriation has on vested rights holders
                outside of the local basin. This result would be contrary to both NRS
                533.085 and the prior appropriation doctrine because it could impair the
                rnost senior prestatutory vested rights that rely on this supply of water. See
                An,dersen Farn. Assocs., 124 Nev. at 191, 179 P.3d at 1206; see also Proctor
                v. Jennings, 6 Nev. 83, 87 (1870) ("Priority of appropriation, where no other
                title exists, undoubtedly gives the better right.").
                            We further note the legislative policy declarations set forth in
                NRS 533.024(1)(c) and (e), which require the State Engineer to "consider
                the best available science in rendering decisions concerning the available
                surface and underground sources of water" and "No manage conjunctively
                the appropriation, use and administration of all waters," support our
                interpretation. If the best available science indicates that groundwater and
                surface water in the LWRFS are interrelated and that appropriations frorn
                one reduces the flow of the other, then the State Engineer should manage
                these rights together based on a shared source of supply. Since the State
                Engineer must have the ability to conjunctively manage and jointly
                administer water across multiple basins in order to prevent the impairment
                of senior vested rights under NRS 533.085, we hold that he has the implied
                statutory authority to do so.

SUPREME COURT
        OF
     NEVADA

                                                      17
101 1947A
                      The State Engineer also has authority to issue Order 1309 pursuant to
                      a multitude of other statutory provisions
                             Appellants point to a multitude of other statutory authority,
                including but not limited to NRS 534.080(1), NRS 533.370(2), NRS 534.030,
                NRS 534.110(6), NRS 534.110(3), and NRS 534.120, that give the State

                Engineer the power to conjunctively manage and jointly administer the
                subject basins. Respondents assert that no statute authorizes the State
                Engineer to redefine, combine, or delineate previously established basins

                into a new superbasin. We take this opportunity to interpret each statute
                in turn in order to clarify the State Engineer's authority to conjunctively
                manage and jointly administrate water.
                             Under NRS 534.080(1), the right to appropriate groundwater
                can be obtained only by complying with the provisions of NRS Chapter 533
                pertaining to the appropriation of water." NRS Chapter 533 addresses
                both surface water and groundwater, and several provisions implicitly
                require conjunctive management and joint administration. NRS 533.030(1)
                makes the appropriations of"all water" "[s]ubject to existing rights." Thus,
                any appropriation granted under NRS 534.080(1) is subject to existing
                surface water and groundwater rights. Any appropriation of groundwater
                under NRS 534.080(1) is likewise subject to nonimpairment of vested rights
                under NRS 533.085 and is thus subject to conjunctive management and
                joint administration concepts based on a shared source of supply, as earlier
                discussed.
                             NRS 534.080(1)'s requirement to comply with NRS Chapter 533

                also requires compliance with NRS 533.370(2). NRS 533.370(2) requires
                the State Engineer to reject applications for permitted water rights "where
                there is no unappropriated water in the proposed source of supply . . . or
                where its proposed use or change conflicts with existing rights." (Emphasis
SUPREME COURT
       OF
    NEVADA

                                                    18
  19.,I7A

                                           •
                      added.) We previously interpreted NRS 533.370(2) in Eureka County v.
                      State Engineer, 131 Nev. 846, 856, 359 P.3d 1114, 1121 (2015), and held
                      that the State Engineer must consider the effect that groundwater
                      appropriations have on spring discharge. There, we deterrnined that new
                      groundwater appropriations that deplete springs were a "conflict" for the
                      purposes of NRS 533.370(2). Id. at 852, 359 P.3d 1118. Although we did
                      not use the term "conjunctive rnanagement," it is clear the concept was
                      recognized in that caselaw. See id.; see also Cappaert, 426 U.S. at 142
                      (noting that "Nevada itself may recognize the potential interrelationship
                      between surface and groundwater since Nevada applies the law of prior
                      appropriation to both").
                                  We next turn to NRS 534.030 and NRS 534.110(6).           NRS
                      534.030(1) and (2) give the State Engineer authority to designate an area
                      as a "basin" for the purposes of further administration, and NRS 534.110(6)
                      gives him authority to "conduct investigations in any basin or portion
                      thereof' where replenishment appears inadequate and to restrict
                      withdrawals to conform to priority rights. To determine whether these
                      statutes support Order 1309, we must first determine the definition of
                      -basin" as used in these statutes.
                               The State Engineer asserts that "basin" is broad and inclusive,
                      and thus may include an aquifer and multiple previously delineated
                      topographical basins. In its ruling, the district court narrowly defined
                      "basin" as the 253 hydrographic areas originally established by the United
                      States Geological Survey (USGS), which was adopted and published on a
                      map by Nevada's Division of Water Resources in 1968. See NRS 532.170
                      (the State Engineer is authorized to enter into agreements with the USGS
                      for "investigations related to the development and use of the water
SUPREME COURT
         OF
     NEVADA

                                                           19
i(J1 1947A    445T.
                       resources of Nevada"); Eugene F. Rush, Water Resources Information
                       Series, Report 6, Index of Hydrographic Areas in Nevada, Nevada
                       Department of Conservation        and     Natural Resources,    Division of
                       Water Resources (1968), http://images.water.nv.gov/images/publications/
                       Information%20series/6.pdf (Rush Report). We disagree with the district
                       court's interpretation that "basin" refers only to the 253 hydrographic areas
                       or topographical "sub-basins," and we hold that "basin" includes the
                       meaning the State Engineer ascribes to it.
                                   "[A]n agency charged with the duty of administering an act is
                       irnpliedly clothed with power to construe it as a necessary precedent to
                       administrative action." State v. Morros, 104 Nev. 709, 713, 766 P.2d 263.
                       266 (1988) (internal quotations omitted). However, this court will only
                       "defer to an agency's interpretation of its governing statutes . . . if its
                       interpretation is reasonable." Pub. Ernps.' Ret. Sys. of Nev. v. Nev. Pol'y
                       Rsch. Inst., Inc., 134 Nev. 669, 673 n.3, 429 P.3d 280, 284 n.3 (2018).
                                   Although used throughout NRS Chapters 532, 533, and 534,
                       "basin" is not defined by statute. See, e.g., NRS 534.030(1)(b) (describing
                       the State Engineer's procedure to "designate the area by basin" for the
                       purposes of administration); see generally NRS Chapters 532-534 (leaving
                       "basin" undefined).     The State Engineer's interpretation of "basins'
                       reasonably fits within a dictionary definition as "an enclosed or partly
                       enclosed water area" or "a broad area of the earth beneath which the strata
                       dip [usually] from the sides toward the center."       See Basin, Merriam-
                       Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 102 (11th ed. 2003).       Further, statutes
                       containing the word "basin" expressly contemplate underground water and
                       thus should not be limited to solely a surface level or topographical
                       meaning. See NRS 534.030(2) and (5) (discussing "groundwater basin[s]");

SUPREME COURT
      OF
    NEVADA

                                                            20
10) I947A AIX*

                 NO,
                   NRS 534.110(6) (stating the State Engineer "shall conduct investigations in
                   any basin" where "the average annual replenishment to the groundwater
                   supply may not be adequate").7
                               The State Engineer is charged with the duty of administering
                   and construing his statutory authority and his interpretation is reasonable.

                   See Morros, 104 Nev. at 713, 766 P.al at 266. Therefore, "basin" as used by
                   the State Engineer in water law may include an "aquifer" and may include
                   multiple previously delineated basins as sub-basins.
                               Turning to NRS 534.110(6), it states in pertinent part,
                               [T]he State Engineer shall conduct investigations
                               in any basin or portion thereof where it appears
                               that the average annual replenishment to the
                               groundwater supply may not be adequate [,] . . . and
                               if the findings of the State Engineer so
                               indicate, ... the State Engineer may order that
                               withdrawals . . . be restricted to conform to priority
                               rights . . . .

                         7We likewise disagree with the district court's conclusion that "basin"
                   is singular and that management of water was only authorized on a sub-
                   basin within a basin approach. While this interpretation of basin as
                   singular is a permissive way to manage water, it is not exclusive of the
                   phiral management of multiple basins. See NRS 0.030(1) ("Except as
                   otherwise expressly provided in a particular statute or required by the
                   contextH . . . [t]he singular number includes the plural number, and the
                   plural includes the singular."). Nor in context does the meaning of "basin"
                   require the individual management of sub-basins and yet prohibit
                   management of a larger basin composed of sub-basins.
SUPREME COURT
        OF
     NEVADA

                                                        21
101 I947A    46.
                                          "[W]hen statutory language is clear and unambiguous, the
                              court will not look beyond its plain meaning and will give effect to its
                              apparent intent from the words used, unless that meaning was clearly not
                              intended." Andersen Farr- Assocs., 124 Nev. at 187, 179 P.3d at 1204
                              (internal quotations omitted). NRS 534.110(6) is clear and unambiguous:
                              the State Engineer shall conduct investigations in a basin or any portion
                              where the groundwater replenishment may not be adequate for all
                              permittees and all vested-right claimants and may order restrictions based
                              on those findings.
                                          In order to investigate a basin and determine if the
                              replenishment to the groundwater supply is adequate, the State Engineer
                              must be able to determine the boundaries of the basin that contains the
                              groundwater supply, the boundaries of the area that replenishes the basin,
                              and the rate of replenishment. See NRS 534.110(6); Stockrneier, 127 Nev.
                              at 248, 255 P.3d at 212 ("[E]or implied authority to exist, the implicitly
                              authorized act must be essential to carrying out an express duty."). "Basin,"
                              as discussed, may mean a large area and include aquifers or an area with
                              multiple basins that share the same source of interconnected groundwater
                              supply. We hold that NRS 534.110(6) gives the State Engineer the implied
                              authority to make a factual finding as to the boundaries of the LWRFS and
                              determine the maximum amount that can be pumped from the LWRFS
                              without reducing the supply of groundwater.8 He may then delineate the
                              boundary of the basin for administration under NRS 534.030. All of this
                              requires conjunctive management and joint administration.

                                    8The factual findings in Order 1309 do not by themselves re-prioritize
                              the rights of individual permittees, and Order 1309 revoked the portions of
                              Interim Order 1303 that re-prioritized rights.
SUPREME COURT
        OF
     NEVADA

                                                                   22
101 1947A

             -.4itNi;fmtv.,
                                                 The State Engineer also has the express statutory authority to
                               make the factual finding that the "area affected" by new appropriations is
                               broader than a previously defined basin. NRS 534.110(3) states, "The State
                               Engineer shall determine whether there is unappropriated water in the
                               area affected and may issue permits only if the determination is
                               affirmative." An "area affected" as used in NRS 534.110(3) is not limited to
                               "aquifer" or "basin," because "aquifer" is used at NRS 534.110(2), and
                               "basin" is used at NRS 534.110(6)-(8). Andersen Farn. Assocs., 124 Nev. at
                               187-88, 179 P.3d at 1204 (stating "no statutory language should be rendered
                               mere surplusage if such a consequence can properly be avoided"). The State
                               Engineer must delineate the "area affected" to determine whether there is
                               unappropriated water in the "area" in order to protect prior existing water
                               rights. See NRS 533.030(1); see also NRS 533.085.9
                                                 Finally, we turn our attention to NRS 534.120(1), which states,
                                                 Within an area that has been designated by the
                                                 State Engineer, as provided for in this chapter,
                                                 where, in the judgment of the State Engineer, the
                                                 groundwater basin is being depleted, the State
                                                 Engineer in his or her administrative capacity may
                                                 make such rules, regulations and orders as are
                                                 deemed essential for the welfare of the area
                                                 involved.
                                                 We hold that the plain language of this statute supports the
                               State Engineer's authority to issue Order 1309 in the six previously
                               designated basins. NRS 534.120(1) is silent as to the specific ability of a
                               State Engineer to redraw boundaries or group basins together. However,

                                     9We note that the State Engineer has already effectively used this
                               authority to protect existing rights holders throughout the LWRFS,
                               including respondents, by denying applications for appropriations based on
                               the results of Order 1169.
SUPREME COURT
         OF
     NEVADA

                                                                         23
i:01 1947A

              '   ••
                       1:411         1-• 4j.C:
                the clause enabling the State Engineer to "rnake such rules, regulations and
                orders as are deemed essential for the welfare of the area involved" is a
                broad delegation of authority, one that encompasses the creation of the
                LWRFS out of multiple sub-basins for future management and determining
                the maximum amount of water that can be pumped.'°
                            We disagree with respondents' argument that an area must be
                designated as a critical management area under NRS 534.110(7) before the
                State Engineer is authorized to make orders under NRS 534.120(1). There
                is no indication that an "area" in NRS 534.120(1) has the exact same
                meaning as a "critical management area" under 534.110(7). Additionally,
                it would be illogical and unreasonable to require the State Engineer to
                define a "critical management area" without first making a factual finding
                as to the boundaries of the area containing groundwater.
                      The State Engineer has the implied authority to determine the
                      boundaries of the source of water in order to protect the Moapa Dace
                      against future appropriations
                           Finally, we turn to the statutory arguments regarding the
                protection of the Moapa Dace. Appellants assert that delineation of the
                LWRFS boundary was necessary to protect the State of Nevada from
                liability under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) for failing to
                protect the endangered Moapa Dace from groundwater pumping, citing
                NRS 533.367 and NRS 533.370(2). Respondents assert that the State
                Engineer lacks the authority to combine multiple basins in order to protect
                an endangered species and that the plain language of NRS 533.367 and

                      '°Because Kane Springs was not previously designated a basin for
                administration, the State Engineer may not rest on his authority in NRS
                534.120(1) to issue orders in that area and must instead rely on the
                previously discussed statutory authority.
SUPREME COURT
          OF
      NEVADA

40) 14,17/k
                                                    24

      •                                                                              1,.:i4444):1E
                          NRS 533.370(2) does not provide the State Engineer with the authority to
                          manage existing water rights.11
                                      NRS 533.367 states in pertinent part that "[Nefore a person
                          may obtain a right to the use of water from a spring or water which has
                          seeped to the surface of the ground, the person must ensure that wildlife
                          which customarily uses the water will have access to it." Although the plain
                          language of this statute places the onus on the person seeking the right to
                          use water, there is no way for a person to know how much water they can
                          take without impeding "access" to wildlife such as fish without first
                          obtaining information on the flow of water from the source of supply from
                          the State Engineer.     Thus, NRS 533.367 impliedly requires the State
                          Engineer to determine the amount of water in the source of supply to
                          springs or seeps, in order to determine how much water can be drawn.
                                      NRS 533.370(2) similarly provides that the State Engineer
                          shall reject applications "where there is no unappropriated water in the
                          proposed source of supply" or that "threaten[ ] to prove detrimental to the
                          public interest."   Both of these statutes require the State Engineer to
                          determine the amount of water "in the proposed source of supply" in order
                          to determine if an application would be a threat to the public interest.12 The

                                11 Respondents also assert that the Moapa Dace is already protected
                          via a variety of agreements the parties entered into with the federal
                          government. We note that not all of the appellants, and in particular the
                          State Engineer, are party to all of the agreements cited; thus the Moapa
                          Dace rnay not be fully protected by preexisting agreements.
                                12 Neitherof these statutes, however, permits the impairment of
                          already existing rights in order to protect the Moapa Dace or avoid ESA
                          liability.
SUPREME COURT
        OF
     NEVADA

                                                               25
(0) 1947A    arlP:a

                      L                               v
preservation of wildlife is part of the public interest. See Pyrarnid Lake
Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Washoe County, 112 Nev. 743, 752, 918 P.2d 697,
702 (1996) (discussing whether the potential impact from pumping would
impact wildlife and thus be detrimental to the public interest). The State
Engineer has implied authority to make a factual determination as to the
boundaries of the source of water in order to make determinations on new
applications for appropriations.13
There is no due process violation because respondents received notice and
had an opportunity to be heard on the State Engineer's order
            Respondents assert that they lacked notice of the topics of the
Order 1309 hearing and were not afforded a full and complete opportunity
to address the implications of the State Engineer's decision to subject the
basins to conjunctive management and joint administration. We review
"constitutional challenges de novo, including a violation of due process
rights challenge." Eureka County v. Seventh Jud. Dist. Ct., 134 Nev. 275,
279, 417 P.3d 1121, 1124 (2018). "In Nevada, water rights are 'regarded
and protected as real property." Id. (quoting Application of Filippini, 66
Nev. 17, 21-22, 202 P.2d 535, 537 (1949)). "Both the United States
Constitution and the Nevada Constitution guarantee that a person must
receive due process before the government may deprive him of his property."
Callie v. Bowling, 123 Nev. 181, 183, 160 P.3d 878, 879 (2007). "Procedural
due process requires that parties receive notice and an

      '3We note that the State Engineer's 8,000 afa pump cap does not
reference the Moapa Dace and is not yet applied. We decline to extend our
ruling to address whether the State Engineer may apply a pump cap for the
benefit of an endangered species because that issue is not before us.

                                     26
                     opportunity to be heard." Eureka County, 134 Nev. at 279, 417 P.3d at 1124
                     (internal quotations omitted). Due process attaches when there is even the
                     possible outcome" of curtailment; thus water rights holders must be
                     noticed. Id. at 279-80, 417 P.3d at 1125.
                                 Apart   from   respondents            in   Kane         Springs Valley,       all
                     respondents were afforded adequate notice, through Interim Order 1303, of
                     the topics of the Order 1309 hearing. Interim Order 1303 contemplated all
                     of the issues under contention in Order 1309. Thus, respondents other than
                     those from Kane Springs Valley received constitutionally adequate notice.
                                 With regard to the respondents with wells in Kane Springs
                     Valley, their inclusion in the Order 1309 hearing was not contemplated in
                     Interim Order 1303. They likewise did not participate in the Order 1169
                     pump test. However, Kane Springs Valley respondents participated in the
                     administrative hearing due to a request from the SNWA to the State
                     Engineer to consider including Kane Springs in the Order 1309 hearing and
                     the LWRFS in late 2018. The record also reflects that the Kane Springs
                     Valley respondents received over one month of formal notice of the potential
                     inclusion of Kane Springs Valley, with time allotted for a presentation
                     through a Notice of Hearing dated August 23, 2019.                       Thus, all of the
                     respondents received constitutionally adequate notice.
                                 We likewise hold that all of the respondents had an adequate
                     opportunity to be heard on the factual issues.                     There are no policy or
                     management issues resolved in Order 1309 such that respondents needed
                     the opportunity to be heard on those issues. No deprivation of priority
                     property rights occurred because Order 1309 rescinded the portion of
                     Interim Order 1303 that reordered priority rights. Additionally, there was

SUPREME COURT
       OF
     NEVADA
                                                             27
WI 1'14Y. ,411D
              - I.

                                                        „,,.........                            ••,±11•41Vi.
                                                                            :Fr 421.!
                no loss of flow to any respondent as a result of Order 1309. much less the
                "possible outcome" of curtailment, because the findings of the State
                Engineer were purely factual. The Order 1309 hearing resulted in factual
                findings as to the boundaries of the LWRFS and the maximum amount of
                water that could be pumped, and the State Engineer did not consider
                capping or curtailing any individual user as a result of the hearing.
                Further, the record is clear that all respondents, including the Kane Springs
                Valley respondents, were able to provide meaningful input on the factual
                issues at the administrative hearing." Cf. Sw. Gas Corp. v. Pub. Utils.
                Comrn'n of Nev., 138 Nev. 37, 46, 504 P.3d 503, 511-12 (2022) (holding the
                due process claims failed because the issue was raised in the prefiled direct
                testimony, providing notice that the issue would be considered, and the
                appellant was afforded the opportunity to argue against it at the hearing).
                Any findings regarding the maximum amount that can be pumped from the
                LWRFS were not contemplated for the actual management of individual
                users and were instead made for future proceedings.15

                      "Respondent Nevada Cogeneration Associates Nos. 1 and 2 asserts
                that the State Engineer violated due process by improperly shifting the
                burden of proof regarding the delineation of the boundary for the LWRFS.
                We conclude there was no such burden shifting.
                      15We  note that the inclusion of Kane Springs Valley and part of the
                Black Mountain Area appears to be in part for the opportunity to conduct
                additional studies on their hydrologic connection to the LWRFS. This
                appears to be an acknowledgment from the State Engineer that the parties
                raised factual issues that merit further study, which further strengthens
                our holding that there was sufficient opportunity to be heard.
SUPREME COURT
         OF
      NEVADA

                                                     28
((>) 1941A
                                 Finally, appellants assert that the district court erred when it
                    held that the State Engineer violated respondents' due process rights by not
                    disclosing the criteria he used to evaluate hydrologic connections before the
                    Order 1309 hearing. Respondents assert that the State Engineer failed to
                    give notice of the six criteria he used for determining the boundary of the
                    new basin.
                                 The "opportunity to be heard" is "a right that includes the
                    ability to challenge the evidence upon which the State Engineer's decision
                    may be based." Eureka County v. State Eng'r, 131 Nev. 846, 855, 359 P.3d
                    1114, 1120 (2015).    "The Due Process Clause forbids an agency to use
                    evidence in a way that forecloses an opportunity to offer a contrary
                    presentation." Id. (quoting Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight
                    Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 288 n.4 (1974)). However, the Due Process Clause
                    does "not preclude a factfinder from observing strengths and weaknesses in
                    the evidence that no party identified." Bowman Transp., Inc., 419 U.S. at
                    288 n.4.
                                 Here, respondents are not alleging that they lacked access to
                    the underlying data or the factual issues; rather, they assert that they did
                    not have access to the State Engineer's method of interpreting, analyzing,
                    and weighing facts prior to the hearing. The Due Process Clause does not
                    require the State Engineer to explain how he will analyze and weigh
                    evidence prior to the evidence being submitted at a hearing.          See id.

                    Therefore, the district court erred by finding violations of due process.

SUPREME COURT
       OF
    NEVADA

                                                         29
(0 1947A    AOSSW
                                                     CONCLUSION
                                   The State Engineer did not exceed his statutory authority in
                       issuing Order 1309. The State Engineer has statutory authority to combine
                       multiple basins into one hydrographic "superbasin" based on a shared
                       source of water. Additionally, respondents' due process rights were not
                       violated because they received notice and had the opportunity to be heard

                       at the Order 1309 hearing. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's order
                       granting respondents' petitions for judicial review. For the same reason, we
                       reverse the district court's order dismissing MVIC and CBD's petitions for
                       judicial review and reverse the district court's order to the extent it
                       dismissed in part SNWA's petition for judicial review, directing the district
                       court to grant those petitions insofar as they assert the State Engineer has
                       the statutory authority to make the findings in Order 1309.
                                   Additionally, we agree with appellants SNWA, MVIC, and the

                       State Engineer that the adjudication of an absence of conflict between
                       current groundwater puinping and rights under the Muddy River Decree
                       exceeded the scope of the hearing notice. We therefore affirm the district
                       court's decision to the extent it granted SNWA's petition and reverse the
                       dismissal of MVIC's petition, directing the district court to grant it in part
                       on remand. We remand for the district court to continue its review under
                       NRS 533.450 to determine whether substantial evidence supports Order
                       1309 and for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.         We

                       likewise lift our Order Granting Stay filed October 3, 2022.

       SUPREME COURT
            OF
          NEVADA

                                                            30
   (CI) I947A

‘. •                                                                            ;
                                   Finally, we do not reach the issue of attorney fees in Docket No.
                      85137 because our decision in this matter renders the issue moot.         See
                      Personhood Nev. v. Bristol, 126 Nev. 599, 602, 606, 245 P.3d 572, 574-75

                      (2010) (dismissing appeal where subsequent events rendered the case

                      moot).

                                                                                          J.
                                                             Lee

                      We concur:

                                                   , C.J.
                      Cadish

                                                       J.
                      Stiglich

                                                       J.
                      Pickering

                                                       J.
                      Herndon

                                                   ,   J'•

                                                       J.
                      Bell

SUPREME COURT
        OF
     NEVADA

iUl 1947A    lOY.X>
                                                              31