## Facts

- Arizona holds title at statehood to the beds of navigable watercourses (to the ordinary high-water mark) under the equal footing doctrine, subject to public trust duties protecting public uses.
- After prior litigation invalidated a legislative attempt to broadly relinquish riverbed title, the Legislature created the Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Commission (NSAC) to determine navigability of watercourses as of 1912 for purposes of disclaiming state title.
- In 1998, relying on NSAC determinations, the Legislature enacted S.B. 1126, which disclaimed state title to substantial riverbed lands along multiple watercourses.
- Environmental and public-interest plaintiffs sued, challenging the NSAC statutory framework and S.B. 1126 as violating Arizona’s public trust doctrine; the State ultimately agreed with plaintiffs and also raised separation-of-powers concerns.
- The superior court granted summary judgment for the Governor (in her official capacity), upholding the statutory scheme and S.B. 1126.
- Plaintiffs and the State appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the NSAC statutory framework and S.B. 1126’s broad disclaimers of state title to riverbeds violated the public trust doctrine by enabling relinquishment of trust lands without adequate protection of public rights.
2. Whether the Legislature unconstitutionally intruded on the judiciary’s role by prescribing restrictive standards and presumptions for navigability and limiting meaningful judicial review (separation of powers).
3. Whether statutory navigability criteria and presumptions were inconsistent with governing navigability law applicable to statehood title under the equal footing doctrine.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment for the Governor.
- The court held that key parts of the legislative scheme, including S.B. 1126’s broad title disclaimers and statutory constraints affecting navigability determinations, violated the public trust doctrine.
- The court further held the framework impermissibly limited the courts’ ability to determine navigability and enforce public trust obligations, raising separation-of-powers concerns.
- The court invalidated the offending provisions and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Under the equal footing doctrine, a state acquires title at statehood to the beds of navigable watercourses, held in trust for the public, and the state has fiduciary obligations to protect public uses.
- The public trust doctrine limits legislative authority to divest or substantially impair public trust interests; wholesale or blanket relinquishment of trust lands without a meaningful, lawful inquiry into public interests is impermissible.
- Navigability at statehood is assessed by whether the watercourse was used or usable, in its ordinary condition, as a highway for commerce; continuous, year-round commercial use is not required.
- Statutory presumptions and criteria that systematically bias navigability determinations toward non-navigability, contrary to governing law, are inconsistent with the state’s trustee obligations and cannot support broad disclaimers of title.
- The Legislature may not structure administrative decision-making or evidentiary rules in a manner that effectively dictates outcomes on core title/trust questions or prevents effective judicial review.

## Conclusion

The court rejected a statutory attempt to disclaim state title to riverbeds through a framework that both skewed navigability determinations away from governing standards and enabled broad relinquishment of public trust lands, holding that such measures violate the public trust doctrine and improperly constrain the judiciary’s role.


Defenders of Wildlife v. Hull, 199 Ariz. 411, 18 P.3d 722 (Ct. App. 2001)