Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt

Nevada Today

Nevada Today is a nonpartisan, independently owned and operated site dedicated to providing up-to-date news and smart analysis on the issues that impact Nevada's communities and businesses.

On The Water FrontSouthern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA)Virgin Valley Water Board (VVWB)

Judge Denies Dismissal of Water Case

Las Vegas, NV., Aug 30, 2018.  Yesterday morning Judge Timothy C. Williams, of the Eighth Judicial Court, Las Vegas denied two motions in a May 15th civil case (A-18-774539B) brought by Paradise Canyon (Wolf Creek) against the Virgin Valley Water District (VVWD), Mesquite, NV.

On June 9, Jedidiah Bingham, acting for the VVWD filed a dismissal motion in the Eighth Judicial District, Las Vegas.

Motion to dismiss the civil action

During the dismissal part of the hearing, Bingham argued that the VVWD had sole and absolute discretion to set water rates. He argued that the board acted in good faith by charging Paradise Canyon the lease price paid by the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA). For irrigation water.

Jeffrey R. Sylvester, Attorney for Paradise Canyon (Wolf Creek), argued that rate setting activities by the VVWD board violate the good faith and dealing provisions required by Nevada contract law. He argued that the market rate and the requirement on the board to act reasonably are matters of fact for a court to decide.  

Judge Williams pointed out that the water district is a political subdivision of the State of Nevada and had to act both in good faith and without being arbitrary and capricious. They do not have a right to do whatever they want, the Judge said. He denied the motion to dismiss.

Motion for Summary Judgement.

During the hearing, Sylvester asked the judge for summary judgment on a VVWD allegation that Paradise Canyon violated a 2011 agreement to put to beneficial use city provided waste water (effluent) before using irrigation water provided by the VVWD.

Judge Williams denied the request for a summary judgement without prejudice. That means the judge is not giving the relief requested but is allowing Paradise Canyon to re-file the same but a new motion (perhaps with different, better facts) at a later time.

The Judge and parties agreed to hold a mandatory pretrial discovery hearing (RULE 16.1) on October, 16th.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

About Author

Michael McGreer Mesquite, Nevada
Dr. Michael Manford McGreer is managing editor of and writes on issues that impact public policy.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.