Defenders of Wildlife v. Hull
341 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 3, 18 P.3d 722, 199 Ariz. 411 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state cannot relinquish its potential title to navigable watercourse bedlands, which are held in the public trust, by using a state-created navigability test that imposes a higher burden of proof and contains evidentiary presumptions that conflict with the controlling federal standard.
Facts:
- Upon statehood in 1912, Arizona acquired title to the beds of its navigable watercourses under the federal 'equal footing' doctrine.
- For decades, the state did not assert these claims, and private entities and political subdivisions exercised control over, improved, and paid taxes on these riverbed lands.
- In 1985, state officials began to assert Arizona's ownership claims, creating clouds on the titles held by private parties.
- After a prior attempt to relinquish state claims (H.B. 2017) was found unconstitutional, the Arizona Legislature in 1992 created the Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Commission (Commission) to investigate the state's claims.
- In 1994, the Legislature significantly amended the Commission's governing statutes (the 1994 Act), establishing a restrictive, state-specific test for navigability with a 'clear and convincing' evidence standard and numerous presumptions against a finding of navigability.
- Based on the Commission's reports applying this restrictive state test, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 1126 in 1998, disclaiming the state's 'right, title or interest' in the bedlands of several rivers, including the Salt, Verde, and Agua Fria.
- The effect of S.B. 1126 was to transfer potential state-owned public trust assets to private landowners like Phelps Dodge Corporation and Salt River Valley Users Association.
Procedural Posture:
- Defenders of Wildlife (Wildlife) filed a complaint in the state trial court against the Governor and the State of Arizona.
- The State of Arizona, through its attorney general, admitted the allegations of the complaint.
- Phelps Dodge Corporation and Salt River Valley Users Association (Salt River) intervened to defend the constitutionality of S.B. 1126.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Phelps Dodge and Salt River, upholding the statute.
- Wildlife and the State of Arizona (Appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Arizona Senate Bill 1126, which disclaims state ownership of certain riverbeds based on a state-created navigability test, violate the Arizona Constitution's gift clause and the public trust doctrine?
Opinions:
Majority - Patterson, Judge.
Yes. Senate Bill 1126 violates the Arizona Constitution's gift clause and the public trust doctrine because it fails to conduct the required 'particularized assessment' of the state's claims under the correct federal law. The determination of which lands the state acquired at statehood is governed by the federal test for navigability established in The Daniel Ball, which asks whether a river was used or susceptible to being used as a highway for commerce. The 1994 Act, on which S.B. 1126 relied, created a state test that directly conflicts with this federal standard by imposing a 'clear and convincing' burden of proof, adopting a narrower definition of a river 'bed,' and establishing numerous evidentiary presumptions that make a finding of navigability nearly impossible. Because federal law on this issue is supreme, these conflicting state statutory provisions are preempted and invalid. Therefore, the legislative disclaimer of state property based on this invalid assessment constitutes an unconstitutional gift of public assets.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Thompson, Judge,
Yes. The author concurs with the majority's holding that S.B. 1126 is invalid because the navigability standards it employed are inconsistent with controlling federal standards, as required by the precedent in Hassell. However, the author dissents from the award of attorneys' fees under the private attorney general doctrine. The dissent argues that because the litigation has only restored the 'status quo of uncertainty' and has not yet vindicated any specific public right or determined title to any riverbeds, an award of fees is premature.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that state property rights acquired from the federal government at statehood must be defined by federal law, not subsequent state legislation. The court's preemption analysis prevents states from creating legislative schemes designed to circumvent constitutional obligations, such as the public trust doctrine and prohibitions against gifting public assets. The ruling invalidated the state's statutory framework for determining riverbed ownership, forcing any future resolutions to adhere to the broader, fact-intensive federal navigability test. This has significant implications for land titles along Arizona's watercourses, ensuring that potential public rights are not extinguished without a constitutionally and legally proper assessment.
