Court Opinion

ID: 9629324
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:40:43.610283+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:17.967113
License: Public Domain

Batjer, J.,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. The majority has found that the common law doctrine of reliction is not repugnant to NRS 537.030, and it is only in this regard that I disagree with the majority’s opinion.
In accordance with the constitutional principle of the equality of states, the title to the beds of lakes and streams located within its boundaries passes to a state when it is admitted to the union, if the rivers and lakes are then navigable, and if they are not then navigable the title to the river and lake beds remains in the United States, and state laws cannot affect titles of the beds of nonnavigable streams which are vested in the United States. United States v. Utah, 283 U.S. 64 (1931).
If Winnemucca Lake was not navigable on October 31, 1864, then all the subsequent acts of the legislature of the State of Nevada could not make it so. The trial court found, and the parties agree, that Winnemucca Lake was navigable when Nevada was admitted to the union. It was unnecessary for the *878legislature of this state to reaffirm the navigability of Winnemueca Lake because of any apprehension relating to its receding shoreline, because once a waterway is determined to be navigable it remains so down to the last drop. United States v. Appalachian Elec. Power Co., 311 U.S. 377 (1940); Economy Light & Power Co. v. United States, 256 U.S. 113 (1920).
If the only purpose of Chapter 51, Statutes of Nevada 1921 (subsequently NCL § 8345, now NRS 537.030) was to declare Winnemucca Lake to be a navigable body of water, that legislation amounted to a nullity. If reiteration of an established status was its only purpose, it became null and void on March 4, 1921, when it was first approved, and it has remained void ever since, notwithstanding one reenactment. Chapter 2, Statutes of Nevada 1957.
It cannot be inferred that the legislatures in 1921 and 1957 were performing a useless act and compounding a nullity. It is implicit in the wording of the statute that those legislatures intended that the title to the bed of Winnemucca Lake was to continue to be held by the State of Nevada.
Just as the common law doctrine of riparian rights, being unsuited to the condition in this state was not adopted by the enactment of NRS 1.0301 and the doctrine of appropriative water rights was adopted (Reno Smelting, Milling and Reductions Works v. Stevenson, 20 Nev. 269, 21 P. 317 (1889)), so a statutory enactment has abrogated the common law doctrine of reliction which is repugnant and in conflict with the declaration in NRS 537.030, that the title to the bed of Winnemucca Lake is held by the State of Nevada. The common law must give way to that statute. NRS 1.030; In re Bailey’s Estate, 31 Nev. 377, 103 P. 232 (1909); Davenport v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 81 Nev. 361, 404 P.2d 10 (1965). Cf. United Ass’n of Journeymen v. Stine, 76 Nev. 189, 351 P.2d 965 (1960).
It is clear that were it not for its abrogation by NRS 537.-030, the doctrine of reliction would have been controlling here. However, under the present law of this state and the posture of this case, that doctrine is inapplicable. I would reverse the order of the trial court and reinstate the order of the state engineer.

NRS 1.030: “The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or in conflict with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or the constitution and laws of this state, shall be the rule of decision in all courts of this state.”