Opinion ID: 2461173
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sources of the Nevada public trust doctrine

Text: As an initial matter, we note that the public trust doctrine is not simply a common law remnant. Indeed, in addition to the Nevada caselaw discussed above, public trust principles are contained in Nevada's Constitution and statutes and are inherent from inseverable restraints on the state's sovereign power.
Article 8, Section 9 of the Nevada Constitution prohibits the gift or loan of public funds and credit: The State shall not donate or loan money, or its credit, subscribe to or be, interested in the Stock of any company, association, or corporation, except corporations formed for educational or charitable purposes. Similar provisions in other state constitutions are referred to as gift clauses, as they generally prohibit gifts of taxpayer funds. In considering Nevada's gift clause, we have stated that transactions disbursing public funds must be struck down if not made for a public purpose. State ex rel. Brennan v. Bowman, 89 Nev. 330, 332-34, 512 P.2d 1321, 1322-23 (1973). We have also closely examined such transactions to ensure that the state actually receives valuable benefit. See Clark County v. Lewis, 88 Nev. 354, 357, 498 P.2d 363, 365 (1972). Our caselaw stresses the importance of the dispensing state entity reviewing [a]ll facts, figures and necessary information when making a dispensation; when the entity has done so, it will not be second-guessed by the courts. Id. Thus, the Legislature's ability to dispose of the public's resources is expressly limited by the gift clause, at the core of which lays the principle that the state acts only as a fiduciary for the public when disposing of the public's valuable property. See Brennan, 89 Nev. at 332-34, 512 P.2d at 1322-23; Lewis, 88 Nev. at 357, 498 P.2d at 365. The public trust doctrine is based on that same principle upheld by the gift clause: the state must carefully safeguard public trust lands by dispensing them only when in the public's interest. Stated differently, the public trust doctrine, like the gift clause, requires the state to serve as trustee for public resources. We see no reason for treating public trust waterways any differently than public money and credit, insofar as the state must act as trustee to preserve the public's interest in that property. Therefore, we conclude that the constitutional policy contained in the gift clause infers the people's intent to constrain the Legislature's ability to alienate public trust lands as well as public funds.
Another source of Nevada law that evinces the public trust doctrine is our statutory law, specifically, NRS 321.0005 and NRS 533.025. NRS 321.0005 provides, in pertinent part: The Legislature declares the policy of this State regarding the use of state lands to be that state lands must be used in the best interest of the residents of this State, and to that end the lands may be used for recreational activities, the production of revenue and other public purposes. (Emphasis added.) Thus, by its express language, NRS 321.0005 contemplates fiduciary-type duties with regard to the state's administration of state lands. NRS 533.025 provides that [t]he water of all sources of water supply within the boundaries of the State whether above or beneath the surface of the ground, belongs to the public. Notably, NRS 533.025 does not provide that Nevada's water belongs to the state; rather, it belongs to the public. Thus, as Justice Rose proposed, NRS 533.025 provides grounding for the Nevada public trust doctrine. See Mineral County v. State, Dep't of Conserv., 117 Nev. 235, 247, 20 P.3d 800, 808 (2001) (Rose, J., concurring). So too does NRS 321.0005. Both provisions recognize that the public land and water of this state do not belong to the state to use for any purpose, but only for those purposes that comport with the public's interest in the particular property, exemplifying the fiduciary principles at the heart of the public trust doctrine. In sum, NRS 321.0005 and NRS 533.025 effectively statutorily codify the principles behind the public trust doctrine in Nevada.
The final underpinning of our formal adoption of the public trust doctrine arises from the inherent limitations on the state's sovereign power, as recognized in Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387, 13 S.Ct. 110, 36 L.Ed. 1018 (1892). In Illinois Central, the United States Supreme Court established the principle that [t]he State can no more abdicate its trust over property in which the whole people are interested, like navigable waters and soils under them, ... than it can abdicate its police powers in the administration of government and the preservation of the peace. Id. at 453, 13 S.Ct. 110. In other words, because the state holds such property in trust for the public's use, the state is simply without power to dispose of public trust property when it is not in the public's interest. See id. (A grant of all the lands under the navigable waters of a State has never been adjudged to be within the legislative power; and any attempted grant of the kind would be held, if not absolutely void on its face, as subject to revocation.); Kootenai Environ. Alliance v. Panhandle Yacht, 105 Idaho 622, 671 P.2d 1085, 1088 (1983) ([A] state, as administrator of the trust in navigable waters on behalf of the public, does not have the power to abdicate its role as trustee in favor of private parties.); Coxe v. State, 144 N.Y. 396, 39 N.E. 400, 402 (1895) (The title of the state to the seacoast and the shores of tidal rivers is different from the fee simple which an individual holds to an estate in lands. It is not a proprietary, but a sovereign, right; and it has been frequently said that a trust is ingrafted upon this title for the benefit of the public, of which the state is powerless to divest itself.). Under the public trust doctrine, the Legislature has the power only to act as a fiduciary of the public in its administration of trust property. The public trust doctrine is thus not simply common law easily abrogated by legislation; instead, the doctrine constitutes an inseverable restraint on the state's sovereign power. In sum, although the public trust doctrine has roots in the common law, it is distinct from other common law principles because it is based on a policy reflected in the Nevada Constitution, Nevada statutes, and the inherent limitations on the state's sovereign power, as recognized by Illinois Central. Accordingly, in the words of Justice Rose, it is appropriate, if not our constitutional duty, to expressly adopt the doctrine to ensure that the state does not breach its duties as a sovereign trustee, and we do so here. Mineral County, 117 Nev. at 248, 20 P.3d at 808 (Rose, J., concurring). Thus, contrary to the County's position, any legislation that purports to convey public trust lands is subject to judicial review. See San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court, 193 Ariz. 195, 972 P.2d 179, 199 (1999) (It is for the courts to decide whether the public trust doctrine is applicable to the facts. The Legislature cannot by legislation destroy the constitutional limits on its authority.).