Laserfiche WebLink
<br />00194; <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />issued an order cancelling the six permits and granting the permittee <br />30 days within which to reinstate them or else cease using the water. <br />No effort being made by the Government to reinstate the permits with- <br />in the time allowed, the State of Nevada, through its Attorney General <br />Mr. Harvey Dickerson, filed a "Bill of Complaint" against the United <br />States. <br /> <br />The United States removed the case to the United States <br />Dis~rict Court for the District of Nevada, and Nevada's motion for <br />remand was denied. A motion to dismiss made by the Government was <br />also denied. The factual basis of the case before the court is con- <br />tained in the admitted allegations of the complaint and in a stipula- <br />tion of facts, and is substantially as outlined above. The case was <br />argued early this year and now stands submitted, subject to the filing <br />of ,briefs. The opening brief on behalf of Nevada is due on October <br />31, 1957. The United States will have at least 30 and probably 60 <br />or more days to file a reply,;.brief. After that Nevada will have 30 <br />days to file its closing brief. <br />,A decision in this case favorable to the Federal Government <br />would have far-reaching effects on the water law of every state. <br />It would allow the United States to ignore state laws and state water <br />resource planning, and seriously t~reaten vested property rights. <br />Its pendency dramatizes the need for cocrrective legislation that <br />will establish once and for all that the Federal Government must <br />carry on its functions in conformity with the water laws of the <br />several states. <br />