Masto v. Gypsum Resources, LLC

Summary

The Nevada Supreme Court answered four certified questions from the Ninth Circuit concerning the constitutionality of Nevada Senate Bill No. 358, which restricted Clark County’s zoning authority over lands adjacent to Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area. The court held that the legislation violated Nevada Constitution Article 4, Sections 20, 21, and 25 because it was a local law regulating county business and established a nonuniform system of county government. The court rejected asserted emergency and natural-resource exceptions.

Holdings

1. S.B. 358 is a local law because it operates over only a particular portion of Nevada, namely specified adjacent lands in Clark County, notwithstanding any statewide benefit from preserving the area.
2. S.B. 358 regulates county business because it permanently divests Clark County of zoning authority over the adjacent lands rather than merely affecting a single, isolated, temporary county project.
3. S.B. 358 violates Article 4, Section 20 because it is a local law regulating county business, an enumerated subject for which local or special legislation is prohibited.
4. S.B. 358 violates Article 4, Section 21 because it is a local law falling within an enumerated category of Article 4, Section 20.
5. S.B. 358 violates Article 4, Section 25 because it establishes a nonuniform system of county government by divesting Clark County of zoning authority over the adjacent lands.
6. The emergency justification does not validate S.B. 358 because emergency exceptions recognized in prior cases concerned local legislation outside the enumerated categories of Article 4, Section 20, whereas S.B. 358 regulates county business within an enumerated category.
7. No natural-resource exception validates S.B. 358 because the statute affects only one county in one state and lacks the interstate compact and regional character present in State ex rel. List v. County of Douglas.

Questions Presented

1. Whether S.B. 358 violates Article 4, Section 20 of the Nevada Constitution because it is a local or special law regulating county business.
2. Whether S.B. 358 violates Article 4, Section 21 of the Nevada Constitution because a general law could have been made applicable.
3. Whether S.B. 358 violates Article 4, Section 25 of the Nevada Constitution by establishing a nonuniform system of county government.
4. Whether an emergency or natural-resource exception validates S.B. 358 despite its violation of Articles 4, Sections 20, 21, or 25.

Disposition

other