Before the Court En Banc. Opinion by Justice Pickering.
In this appeal from the district court’s order dismissing a petition for judicial review of the State Engineer’s ruling in a water rights action, the Court considered whether the district court properly interpreted NRS 533.450(1) when it dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. NRS 533.450(1) affords judicial review “in the nature of an appeal” to “[a]ny person feeling aggrieved by any order or decision of the State [Water] Engineer . . . affecting the person’s interests.” The appeal “must be initiated in the proper court of the county in which the matters affected or a portion thereof are situated.” Id. In this case, the Court considered what the statute means by “matters affected.” This matter arose when the State Engineer approved two new groundwater appropriations in a basin that lies wholly in Lyon County, and Appellants filed an appeal in neighboring Churchill County, where they have an interest that they argued would be depleted based on the new appropriations. The district court held that the appeal must be filed in Lyon County based on its interpretation of the statute. The Nevada Supreme Court interpreted the statute as contemplating more than one possible venue, and explained that using the phrase “matters affected,” refers not just to an applicant’s interests but to a protester’s as well. Thus, the Court held that the district courts in either Churchill County or Lyon County may be proper venues for the appeals under NRS 533.450. Reversed and remanded. (Brent Keele, Associate in the Reno office of McDonald Carano Wilson.)
