BLM challenges state’s water rights law

Tuesday, June 2, 1998 | 2:44 a.m.

But a deputy Nevada attorney general argues the law, amended by the 1995 Legislature, is needed to protect state sovereignty and the livestock industry.

The conflicting views regarding the BLM's appeal of a ruling by the state engineer that was based on the law were heard Monday by Douglas County District Judge Dave Gamble.

"The state law (on stockwatering) is unreasonable and has no valid purpose," said federal lawyer Stephen Bartell. "Its only purpose is to retaliate against the agency."

Bartell said the law was changed during a period of paranoia throughout the West as federal rangeland reform rules were under consideration.

Many Nevadans saw the BLM action as another bid at over-regulation, said Deputy Attorney General Marta Adams.

"Water rights are traditionally relegated to the states," Adams said. "So the alarms went off when rangeland reform passed because it deviated from the norm. There is definite concern about federal domination."

Citing the Nevada law and an attorney general's opinion upholding its validity, state Engineer Mike Turnipseed last year denied BLM applications on nine Douglas County springs. About 100 additional BLM applications are pending.

archive