State v. Bunkowski
Decision Date | 29 November 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 6799,6799 |
Citation | 88 Nev. 623,503 P.2d 1231 |
Parties | STATE of Nevada, Appellant, v. Julius BUNKOWSKI et al., Respondents, Trout Unlimited, Amicus Curiae, Carson Water Subconservancy District, Amicus Curiae. |
Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Robert List, Atty. Gen., Michael L. Melner, and Arthur J. Bayer, Jr., Deputy Attys. Gen., Carson City, for appellant.
Laxalt, Berry & Allison, Stockes & Eck, Carson City, for respondents.
Breen, Young, Whitehead & Hoy, Reno, and Reno & Judd, Denver, Colo., for amicus curiae.
Guild, Hagen & Clark, Reno, for amicus curiae.
This is a land title action brought to remove the State's claim of ownership from certain described property owned by respondents.
Julius Bunkowski and David Lantry are the owners of 946 acres of land in Carson City and Lyon County, of which, in 40 acre parcels, 840 acres are traversed by the Carson River. Seven hundred seventy-seven acres were sold to the Brunswick Development Corporation for development and retrieval of mineralization existing in and about the river bed. The land owned by respondents devolve from ten federal and state patents. Three federal patents were issued prior to Nevada's statehood, the remaining five federal and two state patents were issued subsequent to statehood.
The Carson River is a natural water course having two branches or forks through which water flows every month of the year. The East Fork of the Carson and the tributaries thereof rise from rains, melting snows and springs in the Sierra Nevada Mountains near the town of Markleeville, Alpine County, California, whence they flow in a generally northerly direction into Douglas County, Nevada, through Carson Valley to a point in Carson Valley near Walley's Hot Springs where they join with the waters of the West Fork of the Carson River forming the main stream known as the Carson River. The West Fork and its tributaries similarly originate in Alpine County, California, in the vicinity of Hope Valley, whence the flow in a general northerly direction through Woodfords, California, into Douglas County and join with the East Fork of the Carson River. From Walley's Hot Springs the Carson flows in a general northeasterly direction through Douglas, Carson City, Storey and Churchill Counties, Nevada, in which latter county in the natural state the waters of the Carson flow into the Carson Sink and disappear. The entire water course exceeds 100 miles in length.
The lands in question owned by the respondents and traversed by the Carson lie within the Brunswick Canyon area northeast of Carson City and are adjacent to a three to four mile stretch of the river.
The Attorney General of Nevada, on January 6, 1970, and the Nevada Legislative Counsel, on January 13, 1970, issued opinions that the Carson River is a navigable stream and that the State owns the river bottom thereof. Shortly thereafter the respondents commenced this declaratory relief action in the lower court seeking to clear the alleged cloud from their title. After that the parties stipulated, 'That as an historical fact, the Carson River was at one time used for the floating of logs and timber,' and, 'That the said Carson River is not now nor has it ever been used by cargo or passenger carrying vessels.'
All the evidence was heard before a Special Master. Pertinent to the issue before us the evidence showed that the patents from which respondents' title originates made no exception, reservation or exclusion for the portion of the channel lying within the bed of the Carson River. The lands in question have been carried on the tax rolls of Carson City 1 and Lyon County without exclusion of the river bed and taxes have been paid on the total land within the patent calls.
As to the physical condition of the river and its uses the evidence in the main was confined to the early history of the Carson near the time when Nevada became a state (October 31, 1864). Although considerable impediments to commercial use of the river existed, such as willows, sand bars and lack of water, the early history revealed that the river was used by loggers to float logs and timber from the headwaters of the Carson in Alpine County, California, to saw mills near Virginia City. The first log drive occurred in the spring of 1861 and was in the nature of an experiment. Thereafter a group of men procured a franchise from the Legislature of the Territory of Nevada to improve the channel of the Carson River and to float logs down the river. Laws of Nevada Territory 100--01 (1861). Subsequently great quantities of saw logs and cordwood were brought down the Carson to fuel and supply the well-known mining operation and bonanza at Virginia City, Nevada. As described by one witness, the log drives were accomplished in the following manner:
The log drives continued from the early 1860's for thirty-five years when the loggers found it too expensive to bring the large saw logs from the mountain slopes to the streams forcing them to move to other areas. The floating down of cordwood continued on for a number of years.
Except for the log drives and some dredging for gravel and various aggregates the evidence showed that there has been no other type of commercial activity in the sense of water trade on the Carson River.
The Master, after reviewing the evidence, proceeded to make his finding, viz: 'That said Carson River is not in fact or in law now a navigable stream, nor was it in fact or in law a navigable stream on the 31st day of October, 1864, such as to vest title to the stream bed or any portion thereof in the State of Nevada.' The lower court adopted the conclusion of the Master and entered its judgment and decree, from which judgment this appeal has been taken.
The principal question in this appeal is whether the State has a valid claim to the bed of the Carson River as it flows across respondents' land. Other subsidiary issues must also be discussed, but first we will set out the appropriate test to resolve the primary issue.
1. In determining the title ownership of lands underlying waters within a state the courts must apply the uniform federal test of navigability, although various state tests of navigability, to be discussed below, exist. The United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Holt Bank, 270 U.S. 49, 54--55, 46 S.Ct. 197, 198, 70 L.Ed. 465 (1926):
See Brewer-Elliott Oil & Gas Co. v. United States, 260 U.S. 77, 43 S.Ct. 60, 67 L.Ed. 140 (1922); United States v. Utah, 283 U.S. 64, 51 S.Ct. 438, 75 L.Ed. 844 (1931); United States v. Oregon, 295 U.S. 1, 55 S.Ct. 610, 79 L.Ed. 1267 (1935); State Engineer v. Cowles Bros., Inc., 86 Nev. 872, 478 P.2d 159 (1970); Utah v. United States, 403 U.S. 9, 91 S.Ct. 1775, 29 L.Ed.2d 279 (1971).
The State of Nevada was admitted into the Union on October 31, 1864 (13 Stat. 30, approved March 21, 1864), and under the constitutional principle of equality among the several states, the title to the bed of the Carson River then passed to the State, if the river was navigable, and if the bed had not already been disposed of by the United States. United States v. Holt Bank, supra, 270 U.S. at 55, 46 S.Ct. 197.
Most importantly and basic to the issue of title to the Carson River bed, the following statement of the court in United States v. Holt Bank, supra, at 55--56, 46 S.Ct. at 199 must be fully appreciated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Arizona Center For Law In Public Interest v. Hassell
...aff'd sub nom. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Mississippi, 484 U.S. 469, 108 S.Ct. 791, 98 L.Ed.2d 877 (1988); State v. Bunkowski, 88 Nev. 623, 503 P.2d 1231 (1972); New Hampshire Water Resources Bd. v. Lebanon Sand & Gravel Co., 108 N.H. 254, 233 A.2d 828 (1967); Lusardi v. Curtis Point Prop. O......
-
Bott v. Commission of Natural Resources of State of Mich. Dept. of Natural Resources
...L.Ed. 820 (1913); Southern Idaho Fish & Game Ass'n v. Picabo Livestock, Inc., 96 Idaho 360, 528 P.2d 1295 (1974); State v. Bunkowski, 88 Nev. 623, 628, 503 P.2d 1231 (1972); 1 Clark, Waters and Water Rights, Sec. 37.4(A), pp. 212-213.19 "The servitude of the public interest depends rather u......
-
Pellegrini v. State
...1390, 1396, 951 P.2d 1040, 1043 (1997). 61. See Foley v. Kennedy, 110 Nev. 1295, 1302, 885 P.2d 583, 587 (1994); State v. Bunkowski, 88 Nev. 623, 634, 503 P.2d 1231, 1238 (1972). 62. See Mello v. Woodhouse, 110 Nev. 366, 373, 872 P.2d 337, 341 (1994). 63. Lonchar v. Thomas, 517 U.S. 314, 32......
-
Hitchings v. Del Rio Woods Recreation & Park Dist.
...55--56, 46 S.Ct. 197, 70 L.Ed. 465), and a uniform federal test is mandatory upon the state and federal courts alike. (State v. Bunkowski, 88 Nev. 623, 503 P.2d 1231, 1233.) The test applied is the basic 'commerce clause' test, with two exceptions: it is applied to the stream in its natural......