Carson City v. Estate of Lompa

501 P.2d 662, 88 Nev. 541, 1972 Nev. LEXIS 516
Nevada Supreme Court·Decided October 6, 1972·No. 6705·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

OPINION

Per Curiam:

The City sought to condemn a parcel of real property and all water appropriated from the point of diversion located thereon as evidenced by Certificate No. 5404 issued by the State Engineer. The parties stipulated to the value of the parcel of real property and submitted to the jury only the task of deciding the value of the water right. The jury fixed that value at $33,000, which amount is not challenged. The appellant *542 does appear to contend, however, that a water right is not subject to condemnation.

When a right to use water has become fixed either by actual diversion and application to beneficial use or by appropriation as authorized by the state water law, it is a right which is regarded and protected as real property. In re Application of Filippini, 66 Nev. 17, 22, 202 P.2d 535 (1949); Nenzel v. Rochester Silver Corporation, 50 Nev. 352, 357, 259 P. 632 (1927); Adams-McGill Co. v. Hendrix, 22 Fed.Supp. 789, 791 (D. Nev. 1938); Dalton v. Bowker, 8 Nev. 190, 201 (1873). Indeed, NRS 37.010(3) specifically allows for a city to exercise its right of eminent domain to acquire water rights.

Other claimed errors have been examined and also are without merit.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Carson City v. Estate of Lompa, 501 P.2d 662, 88 Nev. 541, 1972 Nev. LEXIS 516 (Neb. 1972).

501 P.2d 662 (Carson City v. Estate of Lompa) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dermody v. City of Reno
931 P.2d 1354 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1997)
Town of Eureka v. Office of the State Engineer
826 P.2d 948 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1992)
Fallini v. Hodel
725 F. Supp. 1113 (D. Nevada, 1989)