Jackson v. Groenendyke ( 2016 )

132 Nev., Advance Opinion 25
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
JERALD R JACKSON, TRUSTEE OF No. 67289
THE JERALD R. JACKSON 1975
TRUST, AS AMENDED; AND IRENE M.
WINDHOLZ, TRUSTEE OF THE IRENE FILE
M. WINDHOLZ TRUST DATED
AUGUST 11, 1992, APR 0 7 2016
Appellants, E K. LINDEMAN
DLO* 4:IFADWFVEMEC ID1
vs.
EDWARD H. GROENENDYKE,
TRUSTEE OF THE GROENENDYKE
FAMILY TRUST; AND THE NEVADA
STATE ENGINEER,
Respondents.
Appeal from a district court decree determining vested water
rights. Ninth Judicial District Court, Douglas County; David R. Gamble,
Judge.
Affirmed.
Woodburn and Wedge and Gordon H. DePaoli, Reno,
for Appellants.
Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General, and Bryan L. Stockton, Senior
Deputy Attorney General, Carson City,
for Respondent the Nevada State Engineer.
Kaempfer Crowell and Severin A. Carlson and Tara C. Zimmerman, Reno,
for Respondent Edward H. Groenendyke, Trustee of the Groenendyke
Family Trust.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
01 194Th e
ico - 1 061
BEFORE DOUGLAS, CHERRY and GIBBONS, JJ.
OPINION
By the Court, CHERRY, J.:
The parties disputed who had rights to certain spring waters
and the State Engineer adjudicated those rights, entering a final order of
determination under NRS 533.160. The matter was then set for a hearing
in district court as required by NRS 533.170. NRS 533.170 allows a party
aggrieved or dissatisfied by the State Engineer's final determination to file
a notice of exceptions in district court, setting forth the exceptions taken to
that determination and the relief sought. In this appeal, we consider
whether a party who timely files exceptions may later supplement those
exceptions to include property access claims arising from its water rights.
We hold that a party may so supplement. NRS 533.170(5) provides that
proceedings on exceptions to the State Engineer's order of determination
shall be held in accordance with the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, and
those rules allow amended pleadings. Thus, the district court properly
considered the notice of supplemental exceptions in affirming the State
Engineer's order of determination, as modified, including respondent
Edward H. Groenendyke's supplemental request that the district court's
judgment and decree confirm Groenendyke's right of access to certain
property for purposes of repairing and maintaining the facilities necessary
to convey water, the rights to which were adjudicated in his favor by the
State Engineer. Additionally, although Jackson challenges the district
court's determination that the Green Acres properties had a vested water
right to the waters from Spring A, we conclude that its findings were
supported by substantial evidence in the record. We therefore affirm the
district court's judgment and decree.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
10) 1947A e
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The rights implicated in this appeal pertain to water from an
unnamed spring known as "Spring A." Spring A originates in California,
but its water flows into Douglas County, Nevada. Spring A has been
improved with pipes leading water south and east into Nevada with a
valve that allows the water to either travel south towards Jerald Jackson
and Irene Windholz's (collectively Jackson's) property and eventually to
Edward Groenendyke's property, or east towards a set of properties known
as the Green Acres properties.
Arising from a water determination action that dates back to
1987, the State Engineer issued a final order of determination of water
rights in 2008. The parties affected were then allowed to file exceptions to
the State Engineer's final order. Both Jackson and Groenendyke filed
exceptions. Due to the sheer number of claims in this final order, the
portion involving the Spring A water was not heard in the district court
until November 30, 2012.
With no direct evidence regarding who installed the pipes to
convey Spring A's water or when the installation took place, the district
court observed aerial photography and geological maps. The court also
heard testimony from the State Engineer's expert and Jackson's expert
before concluding that the properties to the south (Jackson's and
Groenendyke's properties) and the east (Green Acres) each had vested
rights to the water from Spring A.
In September 2012, Groenendyke filed a supplement to his
earlier filed exceptions. In that supplement, Groenendyke moved the
district court to allow him access to Jackson's property for the limited
purpose of repair and maintenance of facilities on the waterway because
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A 4iZe49
Jackson's land was upstream from his own. Although the issue of land
access was not part of the State Engineer's final order, or either party's
original exceptions, the district court granted Groenendyke's request.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Jackson argues that (1) the district court was
without jurisdiction to grant Groenendyke access to Jackson's property to
maintain and repair the pipeline; (2) if so, Groenendyke's request for
access to the property was untimely; and (3) the district court erred in
finding that the Green Acres properties had a vested right to the Spring A
water. We disagree. Pursuant to the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, a
district court may allow a party to add a later claim when that later claim
arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the existing action.
Because Groenendyke's supplemental exception, in which he asked the
district court to order that he be allowed access to the pipeline located on
Jackson's property, arises from the same dispute adjudicated by the State
Engineer in its final order of determination, the district court had
jurisdiction to consider Groenendyke's supplemental exception. Further,
the district court's findings regarding Green Acres' vested water rights
were not clearly erroneous, and they were based on substantial evidence.
Standard of review
In a water rights case, the district court must make its own
findings and draw its own conclusions in an appeal of the State Engineer's
final order. Scossa v. Church, 43 Nev. 407, 410, 187 P. 1004, 1005 (1920);
see also NRS 533.170; NRS 533.185. Appeals from the decree of the
district court are taken to this court "in the same manner and with the
same effect as in civil cases." NRS 533.200.
This court reviews a district court's factual findings for an
abuse of discretion and will not set aside those findings unless they are
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A e
clearly erroneous or not supported by substantial evidence. Sowers v.
Forest Hills Subdivision, 129 Nev., Adv. Op. 9, 294 P.3d 427, 432 (2013).
Substantial evidence is evidence that a "reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion." Mason-McDuffie Real Estate, Inc. v.
Villa Fiore Dev., LLC, 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 83, 335 P.3d 211, 214 (2014)
(internal quotations omitted). This court accords "deference to the point of
view of the trial judge since he had the opportunity to weigh evidence and
evaluate the credibility of witnesses—an opportunity foreclosed to this
court." Harris v. Zee, 87 Nev. 309, 311, 486 P.2d 490, 491-92 (1971).
When reviewing questions of law, however, including issues of
statutory interpretation, this court applies de novo review. State, Dep't of
Motor Vehicles v. Taylor-Caldwell, 126 Nev. 132, 134, 229 P.3d 471, 472
(2010).
Groenendyke's access to Jackson's land
Jackson argues that whether one party in a water rights
dispute may enter onto another party's property to exercise vested water
rights is not appropriate for adjudication under NRS Chapter 533.'
Jackson argues that NRS 533.090-.200 do not expressly provide
jurisdiction to adjudicate land entry claims. However, nothing in Chapter
'Jackson also argues, for the first time in his reply brief, that even if
the district court could grant land access, Groenendyke should have
sought this relief in his initial exceptions to the State Engineer's final
order rather than seeking to file a supplement to his exceptions after the
deadline had passed. Because Jackson failed to raise this claim until his
reply brief in this court, it is waived. Francis v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC,
127 Nev. 657, 671 n.7, 262 P.3d 705, 715 n.7 (2011); see also Carrigan v.
Comm'n on Ethics, 129 Nev., Adv. Op. 95, 313 P.3d 880, 887 n.6 (2013)
("Arguments not raised. . . in district court normally cannot be raised for
the first time on appeal.").
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
5
(0) 1947A ceo
533 prevents a court of general jurisdiction, such as a district court, from
hearing related claims. Further, because NRS 533.170(5) requires that
these proceedings accord as much as possible with the Nevada Rules of
Civil Procedure, and those rules allow a district court to hear related
claims arising out of the same transaction or occurrence, we conclude that
a district court in a water rights action may hear directly related claims,
so long as those claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.
NRS 533.170 sets procedures for filing exceptions to the State
Engineer's final order of determination. NRS 533.170(5) provides that
district court proceedings on the State Engineer's final order of
determination shall be held in accordance with the Nevada Rules of Civil
Procedure to the extent possible. The rules of civil procedure allow parties
to amend their prior pleadings. NRCP 15(a). Amended pleadings arising
out of the same transaction or occurrence set forth in the original
pleadings may relate back to the date of the original filing. NRCP 15(c).
"NRCP 15(c) is to be liberally construed to allow relation back of the
amended pleading where the opposing party will be put to no
disadvantage." Costello v. Casler, 127 Nev. 436, 441, 254 P.3d 631, 634
(2011). When the original pleadings give "fair notice of the fact situation"
giving rise to the new claim, it relates back. Nelson v. City of Las Vegas,
99 Nev. 548, 556, 665 P.2d 1141, 1146 (1983). Where there is no statutory
authority preventing a district court from hearing related claims, the rules
of civil procedure are intended to allow the court to reach the merits of
claims, rather than dispose of claims on "technical niceties." Costello, 127
Nev. at 441, 254 P.3d at 634. Thus, we conclude that NRS 533.170 allows
additional related claims because amended pleadings accord with the
Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure. So long as the new claim arises out of
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
6
(0) 194Th e
the same facts and circumstances of the original action, namely the
determination of water rights, the district court has jurisdiction to
consider those claims.
Groenendyke timely filed his exceptions. Although the
exceptions did not address land access for maintenance and repair on the
pipe, they did concern vested rights to the water from Spring A, the same
water that travels through the pipe in question. The issue of land access
for pipe maintenance and repair arises from the same transaction or
occurrence as the vested right to receive water from that pipe because the
quest to assert water rights necessarily includes reasonable action to
ensure the continued flow of that water. Jackson responded to
Groenendyke's supplement when he filed his points and authorities
opposing Groenendyke's motions. Therefore, Jackson has not been
prejudiced by the district court's consideration of Groenendyke's motion
for access in his supplement, and the requirements in NRCP 15(c) are
satisfied. See Costello, 127 Nev. at 441, 254 P.3d at 634.
Jackson additionally argues that Groenendyke failed to add
necessary parties because there are many pipe facilities that are not on
Jackson's property and, therefore, the district court was without
jurisdiction to grant Groenendyke the access he sought. This argument is
without merit. Groenendyke did not ask for access to the other properties,
nor are the other property owners necessary to determine access to the
facilities on Jackson's property. Although the district court was unable to
grant access to other properties because the respective owners were not
joined to this action, the district court had the necessary parties before it
to grant access to Jackson's property.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
7
(0) 1947A e
We conclude that because the issue of repair arises out of the
same transaction or occurrence as the vested water rights, the district
court had jurisdiction to consider the issue of limited land access to
conduct reasonable maintenance and repair. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court's judgment and decree on this ground.
Green Acres' vested water rights
Regarding the vested water rights themselves, the State
Engineer determined that the Green Acres properties, along with both
Jackson and Groenendyke, had vested water rights to the water from
Spring A. Jackson and Groenendyke challenged this finding in their
exceptions. The district court agreed with the State Engineer, finding that
the Green Acres properties had a vested water right. Only Jackson
challenges that finding on appeal.
Jackson argues that the district court relied only upon
circumstantial evidence and that the circumstantial evidence does not
support the district court's conclusion that Green Acres also diverted the
water. He claims that the Green Acres properties receive their water from
numerous other sources. 2 Having considered the arguments and
appendix, we conclude that the district court's determination regarding
Green Acres is supported by substantial evidence.
In Nevada, Ibleneficial use shall be the basis, the measure
and the limit of the right to the use of water." NRS 533.035. "The concept
of beneficial use is singularly the most important public policy underlying
2In this appeal, Jackson raised, for the first time, an issue of
whether he has a prescriptive right to the water. Jackson withdrew this
claim in his reply brief. Therefore, we will not consider it.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
8
Tmtk
the water laws of Nevada and many of the western states." Desert
Irrigation, Ltd. v. State, 113 Nev. 1049, 1059, 944 P.2d 835, 842 (1997).
Vested water rights are "water rights which came into being by diversion
and beneficial use prior to the enactment of any statutory water law,
relative to appropriation." Waters of Horse Springs v. State Eng'r, 99 Nev.
776, 778, 671 P.2d 1131, 1132 (1983) (internal quotations omitted).
Here, the State Engineer made factual findings regarding the
Green Acres properties' use of water from Spring A. First, the State
Engineer found that the natural channel of Spring A water flowed directly
to the Green Acres properties. The State Engineer also found that water
flowed through the six-inch pipe to the Green Acres properties. The State
Engineer concluded that the water which flows through the pipe and
reaches the Green Acres properties was diverted and put to beneficial use,
irrigating the Green Acres properties; therefore, the Green Acres
properties had a vested right.
In its answering brief on appeal, the State Engineer argues
that he and the district couri relied upon expert testimony and culture
maps showing homogenous vegetation to reach the conclusion that
although water from Spring A had been diverted towards Jackson's
property by his predecessors in interest, some was allowed to continue
along its more natural path to the Green Acres properties. The district
court, after visiting the site with the parties and holding a hearing with
expert testimony, affirmed the State Engineer's conclusions.
Jackson seeks to have us reweigh the facts and conclude in his
favor; however, the record supports that the district court's findings are
not clearly erroneous •and are based on substantial evidence, even if
Jackson disagrees with the ultimate findings. We will not substitute our
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
9
(0) 1947A ea
judgment for that of the district court unless the district court's findings
were clearly erroneous, which they were not.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we order the
judgment and decree of the district court affirmed.
J.
We concur:
OP, 0
J.
GibliOns
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
10
(0) 1947A aft9,9