Lawrence v. Clark County

Supreme Court of Nevada · 2011 · Property

PropertyPublic trust doctrineNavigable watersState landspublic trustnavigable watersstatehoodequal footing

Facts

The Fort Mohave Valley Development Law authorized acquisition of federal land in the Fort Mohave Valley, and an amendment required the Colorado River Commission's Fort Mohave Valley land to be transferred to Clark County. Lawrence deeded the Commission's interest to the County except for about 330 acres adjacent to the Colorado River, which he believed could not be transferred under the public trust doctrine. Clark County sought a declaration that legislative mandate required transfer, while Lawrence counterclaimed that the land was subject to the public trust and therefore nontransferable. The district court focused on the present location of the Colorado River channel and held the doctrine inapplicable.

Issue

Whether Nevada expressly recognizes the public trust doctrine and, if so, whether land adjacent to the Colorado River that is no longer submerged may be transferred by the state to Clark County. More specifically, does transferability depend on whether the land was under navigable waters at statehood, how it became dry, and whether the transfer is consistent with the public trust?

Rule

Nevada expressly adopts the public trust doctrine. Land is subject to the doctrine if it was beneath navigable waters on October 31, 1864, when Nevada attained statehood; if such land later became dry through reliction, title passes to adjoining shoreland owners and the doctrine does not apply, but if it became dry through avulsion, the state's title remains and the land remains subject to the public trust. When reviewing a dispensation of public trust property, courts must consider whether the dispensation was made for a public purpose, whether the state received fair consideration, and whether the dispensation satisfies the state's special obligation to maintain the trust for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations, including effects on navigation, fishing, recreation, commerce, cumulative impacts, the resource's primary suited purposes, and whether broad public uses are displaced by limited or private ones.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Reno, the Nevada Legislature directs the State Land Office to convey a dry parcel beside the Truckee River to Sierra Basin Parks District for a new maintenance yard. Historical maps suggest the parcel lay below the river's ordinary high-water mark in 1864, but the parcel has been dry for over a century and lies well outside the river's present channel.

Which is the best analysis of whether the parcel may be treated as outside the public trust doctrine?

Explanation. The majority held that the relevant inquiry is whether the land was beneath navigable waters at Nevada statehood, October 31, 1864, not whether it lies within the waterway's current channel. Land now dry and outside the present channel may still be public trust land if it was submerged beneath navigable waters at statehood and later exposed in a manner that left title in the state.