Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1# <br />...,.OUi; 7~6 <br /> <br />On September 7, 1955, following the failure of the <br />permittee to file the proofs, the State Engineer, Mr. Hugh <br />Shamberger, issued an order cancelling the six permits and grant- <br />ing the permittee 30 days within which to reinstate them or else <br />cease using the water. No effort being made by the Government to <br />reinstate the permits within the time allowed, the State of Nevada, <br />through its Attorney General, Mr. Harvey Dickerson, filed a <br />"Bill of Complaint" against the United States. <br />The United States removed the case to the United States <br />District Court for the District of Nevada, and Nevada's motion <br />for remand was denied. A motion to dismiss made by the Government <br />was also denied. The factual basis of the case before the court <br />is contained in the admitted allegations of the complaint and in <br />a stipulation of facts, and is substantially as outlined above. <br />The case was argued early this year and now stands submitted, <br />subject to the filing of briefs. The opening brief on behalf of <br />Nevada is due on October 31, 1957. The United States will have at <br />least 30 and probably 60 or more days to file a reply brief. After <br />that Nevada will have 30 days to file its closing brief. <br />A decision in this case favorable to the Federal Govern- <br /> <br />ment would have far-reaching effects on the water law of every <br /> <br />state. It would allow the United States to ignore state laws and <br /> <br /> <br />state water resource planning, and seriously threaten vested prop- <br /> <br /> <br />erty rights. Its pendency dramatizes the need for corrective <br /> <br /> <br />legislation that will establish once and for all that the Federal <br /> <br />Government must carry on its functions in conformity with the water <br />laws of the several states. <br />