The Nevada Supreme Court released its opinion in Bacher v. State Engineer. This opinion adopts anti-speculation doctrine into Nevada water law.

"In this appeal, we consider whether an agent may properly apply for water rights permits on behalf of the actual appropriator. While we conclude that an agent may request permits based on the ultimate user’s need for water, we also adopt the anti-speculation doctrine, which requires the agent to have a contractual or agency relationship with the water’s appropriator. Even though the agent in this case properly applied for a water rights permit on behalf of the appropriator, we conclude that the State Engineer failed to properly consider the evidence in determining the need for water in the import basin. Accordingly, we reverse the district court order denying judicial review.

As the quote suggests the court found that Vidler Water's application did not violate the anti-speculation doctrine. The court found, however, that Vidler Water failed to provide evidence of Primm Valley's future need for water that the application was not supported by substantial evidence. "Because the State Engineer failed to make the appropriate findings, his decision to grant Vidler Water’s interbasin groundwater transfer application was not supported by substantial evidence, and we reverse the district court’s order denying appellants’ petition for judicial review," the court wrote.