Abstract
In July 1989, Eureka County in Nevada transferred water rights to the town of Eureka to augment the latter's decline in the yield of water. The town also had applied for a change in the point of diversion to use another well, which was less degraded. Two county residents protested, claiming the town had forfeited the purchased water rights by failure to use for five consecutive years, 1983‐1988. The state engineer held a hearing and concluded that 440 acre‐feet of water had been forfeited because of nonuse. The town appealed. The trial court ruled against the town, finding that the state forfeiture‐and‐abandonment law was constitutional and could be applied retroactively. The appeallate court agreed the forfeiture statute was constitutional; however, it reversed the trial court because the town's resumption of substantial use cured the forfeiture.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
