Redrock Valley Ranch, LLC v. Washoe County
254 P.3d 641
Nev.2011Background
- RVR proposed interbasin water transfer from Red Rock Valley to Lemmon Valley in Washoe County; State Engineer approved 1,273 afa subject to conditions.
- Washoe County joined protests but later stipulated to limit the transfer; County would withdraw protests in exchange for reduced request.
- RVR sought a Washoe County special use permit for pipelines, wells, pump station, tanks, and related facilities; application concerned potential impacts on nearby lands and community.
- Washoe County amended its Water Management Plan to recognize RVR's water rights as potentially available; County ultimately denied the permit for policy, environmental, and community-impact concerns.
- RVR appealed; district court held substantial evidence supported denial; RVR sought de novo review on appeal.
- Nevada Supreme Court conducted de novo review and affirmed the denial, rejecting County preemption and standing concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does State Engineer ruling preempt Washoe County? | RVR argues preemption by State Engineer ruling on interbasin transfer. | Washoe County contends it retains independent land-use authority not preempted. | State Engineer ruling does not preempt Washoe County. |
| Can issue/claim preclusion apply between agencies | RVR asserts preclusion prevents re-litigation of issues decided by State Engineer. | Washoe County contends interagency preclusion may apply but should be rejected here. | Issue/claim preclusion does not apply to this proceeding. |
| Did the stipulation with the State Engineer bind the County to issue a permit | Stipulation should have governed the outcome of the County permit decision. | Stipulation related to State Engineer process, not to granting a local special use permit. | Stipulation did not obligate issuance of a special use permit. |
| Was the evidence sufficient to deny under 110.810.30(d) | Public and hydrological concerns could be outweighed by project need. | Record shows substantial public and environmental concerns justify denial. | Substantial evidence supports denial; public testimony and concerns justify finding that issuance would be detrimental. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Las Vegas v. Laughlin, 111 Nev. 557, 893 P.2d 383 (1995) (limits review of discretionary zoning decisions to record; deferential review standard)
- Serpa v. County of Washoe, 111 Nev. 1081, 901 P.2d 693 (1995) (county may independently define growth and water availability; preemption limited)
- Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe v. Washoe Co., 112 Nev. 743, 918 P.2d 697 (1996) (State Engineer lacks authority to regulate land-use decisions; counties may impose restrictions)
- Sustainable Growth v. Jumpers, LLC, 122 Nev. 53, 128 P.3d 452 (2006) (master plans deserve deference but are not a legislative straightjacket; agency discretion noted)