FLOOD05728 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

_ _.. -.J --'--~l"'..~O ugh judicial decision making the "means for ensuring that those do make the decisions do so in a publicly visible manner. ,,207 Sax inued: "The closer a court can come to thrusting decisionmaking 1 a truly representative body such as by requiring a legislature to nnine an issue openly and explicitly-the less a court will involve f in the merits of a controversy."20. Unlike the California Constitution, which recognizes a right of gability in the public,>09 the Colorado Constitution is silent on the 16. Sax, The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention, 68 L. REV. 473, 496 (1970). Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, courts have uti- he public trust doctrine to uphold measures by which states have asserted thejr legislative powers he development and use of trust lands for public navigation, fishing, and recreation. More re- , the public trust doctrine hIlS become the mechanism by which courts have sought to hold the tive branch accountable for decisions that involve the use of public resources for private pur- The doctrine does not prevent the legislature from mlliking disposition of trust property to less II the public, but the property continues to be impressed with a public right of use for navigation, tion, and fishel'Y. In ol'der to exclude or restrict the public, the grant must be accomplished by it legisla.tive authority, and a particularly egregious OO11version of trust property from public to ~ use will not be allowed or is subject to rescission. Where disposition of trust property properly .. the state retains its police power. Id. at 477, 488-89. J7. ld at 502. )8. Id. at 559. )9. CAt. CONST. art. X, 94. ow California has applied. and Colorado has refused to apply, the public trust doctrine for the ie of determining water allocations and recreational access to water over submerged private lands udy in the diversity of approach that is entitled to deference under section 101(g). California ) mixed riparian and appropriative system for its wate~ law, and its constitution provides that the ~ht of access by the public to navigable water shall not be denied. See Stevens, stlpra note 205, at ~s the needs of the public changed in California, so did the judicial view of how the trust should ,lied. As growth in the Los Angeles basin mushroomed during the late nineteenth and _early :th centuries, the courts of that state utilized the publie (rust to allow the city to take as much is was needed from underground and surface sources for municipal growth,.without compensa- riparian landowners. Selvin, The Public Trust Doctrine In American UK' and Economic Policy, 920, 1980 WIS. L. REV. 1403, 1431. However, the diversions that subsequently occurred heavily :I streams and lakes on the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada. As a result, the California ie Court in National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County, 33 Car.3d 419, 658 )9, 189 Cal. Rptr. 346, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 977 (1983), counterbalanced the courts' previous ~he public trust, which had justified extensive municipal water appropriation, with a ruling that st also permits the state to reallocate such appropriative water rights years later, in order to the riparian values of Mono Lake, a highly prized nalural wonder. The court reasoned tbat, ~e original appropriative allocations were made, state authorities erroneously believed that they at take fish, wildlife, recreation, and aesthetic values into account when determining how much ~ould be allocated for diversion out of the natural basin streams feeding Mono Lake. In view of oneons assumption, the state thereFore could reexami~e its prior determination. Id. at 439, 6:58 726-27, 189 Oil. Rptr. at 365. ,us, as the United States Supreme Court observed in 1950, California continues to set itself apan effort to -reconcile the system of riparian rights with the system of appropriation, while other