Opinion ID: 2597341
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: What is meant by NRS 268.668's adverse-effect language

Text: In determining what constitutes a claim of adverse effect, we first look at the plain language of NRS 268.668. The statute offers no definition or guidance. Accordingly, we conclude that NRS 268.668 is ambiguous as to what constitutes adverse effect. Therefore, we turn to principles of statutory construction to determine its meaning. To clarify a statute's ambiguity, we look at the context and spirit in which it was enacted to effect a construction that best represents the legislative intent in enacting the statute. Boucher v. Shaw, 124 Nev. 96, ___, 196 P.3d 959, 961 (2008). Our goal is to read statutes within a statutory scheme harmoniously with one another to avoid an unreasonable or absurd result. Allstate Insurance Co. v. Fackett, 125 Nev. ___, ___, 206 P.3d 572, 576 (2009). The primary purpose of NRS 268.668 is to allow citizens a means of challenging a land annexation. As such, it is `a statute promulgated for ... public benefit [and] ... should be liberally construed and broadly interpreted.' Dewey v. Redevelopment Agency of Reno, 119 Nev. 87, 94, 64 P.3d 1070, 1075 (2003) (quoting 85-19 Op. Att'y Gen. 90, 93 (1985)). In construing NRS 268.668, we determine that the statute requires that the claim of adverse effect be adequately pleaded for a citizen to have standing to challenge a land annexation. Further, we conclude that the language of NRS 268.668 contemplates both current and reasonably ascertainable future adverse effects. Our holding that an adverse effect can be a reasonably ascertainable future harm is reflective of the statute's primary purpose of providing citizens with a way to challenge an annexation. To hold otherwise would result in an unreasonable result by requiring citizens to wait for an annexation to be completed before bringing an actionand that is expressly counter to NRS 268.668's opening language: At any stage of an annexation or detachment proceeding, or within 90 days from the date of its completion.... (Emphasis added.) The statute does not limit the time frame of claiming an adverse effect, and as such, we hold that the adverse effect should not be strictly limited to current harm. We note similar holdings in other jurisdictions. See Construction Ind. Ass'n, Sonoma Co. v. City of Petaluma, 522 F.2d 897, 903 (9th Cir.1975) (holding that two landowners challenging a housing and zoning plan have standing to sue on their own behalf because they had already suffered or are threatened with a direct injury); Cowan v. Board of Com'rs of Fremont County, 143 Idaho 501, 148 P.3d 1247, 1255 (2006) (holding that adjoining landowner had standing to challenge a proposed subdivision because when one alleges that his property might be adversely affected by a land-use decision, the nature of the harm, be it real or potential, is sufficient for standing purposes); Benton County v. Friends of Benton County, 294 Or. 79, 653 P.2d 1249, 1257 (1982) (affirming a land-use agency's decision granting standing to a landowner and explaining that the inquiry as to adverse effect and the likelihood of injury is a factual determination, while noting that in that specific instance, the likelihood of damage was remote but was not too remote for consideration); Jenkins v. Swan, 675 P.2d 1145, 1150 (Utah 1983) (holding that an allegation of adverse effect requires some causal relationship alleged between the injury to the plaintiff, the governmental actions and the relief requested). After reviewing the complaint in the present case, it is clear that Cold Springs sufficiently claimed an adverse effect to meet the standing requirement under NRS 268.668. Therefore, we conclude that Cold Springs has standing to challenge the land annexation at issue in this case, even if it did not own property subject to the annexation, because NRS 268.668 confers standing upon any citizen to make such a challenge and because Cold Springs adequately claimed an adverse effect in its complaint. In reaching our decision, we extend our holding in Hantges and hold that citizens may challenge land-annexation decisions, so long as the claim of adverse effect is adequately pleaded. We determine that Nevada's long-standing history of recognizing statutory rights that are broader than those afforded to citizens by constitutional standing supports this decision. Our holding today adds upon this court's jurisprudence of granting standing to citizens to challenge land-use, redevelopment, and now, annexation decisions. We further hold that NRS 268.668 contemplates current and reasonably ascertainable future adverse effects, the nature of which is a factual determination for the district court. We reiterate that our holding today only addresses the issue of standing under NRS 268.668. While we hold that Cold Springs has standing to bring its challenge to the annexation, we do not determine whether Cold Springs' challenge has merit or will be successful. We remand this matter to the district court for it to make this determination. In addressing the merits of the challenge, the district court must determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion by the governing body involved in the land annexation. The last sentence of NRS 268.668 gives the district court clear direction: If the court finds that any of the steps required by NRS 268.610 to 268.670, inclusive, have not been duly taken or that any officer or body has abused its discretion in taking any action, the court shall make such temporary or final order in the premises as the ends of justice may require. In determining whether there was an abuse of discretion in the annexation decision, the district court shall take into account whether Cold Springs actually establishes the adverse effect it claims in its complaint. Although only a claim of adverse effect is necessary for standing purposes, a successful challenge will require an actual showing of adverse effect, as defined above. Thus, Cold Springs must establish that they have, or reasonably will, suffer an adverse effect based on the annexation decision. This is a factual determination that the district court must make as part of its evaluation of the merits of Cold Springs' challenge under NRS 268.668. We conclude that such a requirement is intended as part of the statutorily mandated showing of an abuse of discretion. Such an interpretation of the statute is necessary in order to avoid an absurd result, Allstate Insurance Co. v. Fackett, 125 Nev. ___, ___, 206 P.3d 572, 576 (2009), because it would be unreasonable to require a claim of adverse effect for standing purposes without requiring the party to actually establish what it claims. Thus, in order to establish an abuse of discretion, it is necessary to demonstrate an adverse effect; if the party does not suffer an adverse effect, it could not establish an abuse of discretion in the decision as it applies to the party.