Lawrence v. Clark County
254 P.3d 606
Nev.2011Background
- Nevada adopts public trust doctrine principles implicitly and expressly adopts them in this decision.
- Clark County seeks transfer of Fort Mohave Valley land from the Colorado River Commission to Clark County.
- Land Registrar Lawrence deeded the CRC’s interest to Clark County, except for ~330 acres he believed were nontransferable under the public trust.
- District court held the land was not subject to the public trust because it was not within the current channel of the Colorado River.
- FMVDL amendments require transfer of Fort Mohave Valley land to Clark County; issue is whether the land was submerged under navigable waters at statehood and how it dried.
- Question presented is whether the land’s transfer complies with the public trust and trustee duties; remand ordered to determine navigability at statehood and mechanism of drying.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nevada adopts the public trust doctrine and applies it to government land transfers. | Lawrence argues no doctrine adoption; transfer violates public trust. | Clark County argues doctrine exists and transfer is permissible under Legislature. | The court expressly adopts the public trust doctrine and applies it to review transfers. |
| Was the disputed land submerged beneath navigable waters on October 31, 1864 (statehood) in Colorado River system? | Land was submerged under navigable waters at statehood. | Transferable if not submerged under navigable waters at statehood. | Land’s status depends on navigability at statehood; must be determined on remand. |
| Did the land become dry by reliction or avulsion, affecting public trust status? | If reliction, land may leave trust; if avulsion, trust may persist. | Mining/engineering changes may create avulsion; state may retain trust if avulsion. | Determination of reliction vs avulsion is essential; remand to resolve. |
| If land was submerged and dried by avulsion, does transfer to Clark County violate the public trust? | Transfer would undermine public trust protections. | Legislature found the transfer in public interest and allowed disposition. | Dependent on remand findings; not decided in this appeal. |
| What framework governs transferability of public trust land in Nevada? | Public trust land transfers require safeguards and public purposes. | Arizona Hassell framework can guide Nevada review; deference to Legislature. | Adopts Hassell framework: public purpose, fair consideration, and public-trust stewardship; require review on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bunkowski, 88 Nev. 623, 503 P.2d 1231 (Nev. 1972) (lands underlying navigable waters belong to the state in trust for the public)
- State Engineer v. Cowles Bros., Inc., 86 Nev. 872, 478 P.2d 159 (Nev. 1970) (navigable waters and beds belong to the state; reliction when land dries may transfer title)
- Mineral County v. State, Dep't of Conservation, 117 Nev. 235, 20 P.3d 800 (Nev. 2001) (public trust doctrine grounded in Nevada law and public ownership of water)
- Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892) (U.S.) (state holds navigable waters and beds in trust for the public; cannot abdicate trust)
- Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest v. Hassell, 172 Ariz. 356, 837 P.2d 158 (Ariz. App. 1991) (adopts Hassell framework for reviewing public trust dispositions: public purpose, fair consideration, and trustee duty)