Title: Idaho Board of Land v. Hudson

State: idaho

Issuer: Idaho Supreme Court (civil)

Document:

1 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO 
Docket No. 44418 
 
 
STATE OF IDAHO, IDAHO STATE 
BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS,  
and IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF LANDS, 
 
            Plaintiffs-Counterdefendants- 
            Respondents, 
 
v. 
 
PHILIP HUDSON, 
 
           Defendant-Counterclaimant- 
          Appellant. 
_____________________________________ 
 
 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
)
)
)
) 
 
 
 
 
Boise, September 2017 Term 
 
2017 Opinion No. 121 
 
Filed: December 4, 2017 
 
Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk 
 
 
 
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District of the  
 
 
State of Idaho, Bonner County.  Hon. Barbara Buchanan, District  
Judge. 
 
The district court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of  
respondent is affirmed.   Costs and attorney fees on appeal are  
awarded to respondent. This case is remanded to the district  
court for further action on any remaining issues. 
 
 
 
John F. Magnuson, Coeur d’Alene, attorney for appellant. 
 
 
 
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, attorney 
 
 
for respondent. Angela S. Kaufmann argued. 
______________________________ 
JONES, Justice. 
I.  NATURE OF THE CASE 
In a case arising out of Bonner County, Philip Hudson (“Hudson”) appeals a district 
court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of the State of Idaho, the Idaho State Board 
of Land Commissioners and the Idaho Department of Lands (collectively, the “State”). The 
district court found that Hudson violated the Idaho Lake Protection Act (the “LPA”) when he 
placed fill in the bed of Priest Lake without a permit. Specifically, the district court held that the 
State had jurisdiction of Priest Lake up to an elevation of approximately 2437.64 feet, and 
2 
 
Hudson’s fill was placed within that elevation. Hudson disputes the location of the Ordinary 
High Water Mark (the “OHWM”) and argues that the fill was placed on his own property to 
protect it from erosion. Hudson argues that there was an issue of material fact regarding the 
location of the OHWM, which made summary judgment improper. 
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
 
Priest Lake has been a navigable lake since Idaho became a state in 1890. In 
approximately 1950, the State of Idaho constructed a dam on Priest Lake, which has stabilized 
the lake elevation at approximately 2437.64 feet from July to September since 1951. In 2014, the 
State investigated a complaint which alleged that Hudson encroached on Priest Lake by placing 
fill in an area adjacent to his property. The fill extends approximately nineteen feet waterward of 
the 2437.64 foot elevation. Hudson did not apply for a permit prior to placing the fill, and 
refused the State’s request that he remove it.  
On July 13, 2015, the State filed a verified complaint alleging two causes of action 
against Hudson: (1) that he violated that LPA by placing unauthorized fill in Priest Lake, and (2) 
a trespass action. Hudson answered the complaint and asserted counterclaims for declaratory 
relief and quiet title to the land in dispute. Hudson argued that the area in question was his 
property because it was located upland of the OHWM of Priest Lake at the time Idaho became a 
state.  
In April 2016, the State moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that the LPA 
grants the State regulatory authority over the fill that is the subject of this litigation, regardless of 
the location of the natural or ordinary high water mark of Priest Lake, because such fill is located 
on the bed of a navigable lake as defined by Idaho Code section 58-1302(b). In support of its 
motion, the State filed a memorandum which asserted that the State’s regulatory authority under 
the LPA extends to any lands lying below the Artificial High Water Mark (the “AHWM”) and 
above the OHWM, which would give it jurisdiction over the land beneath Hudson’s fill.1 The 
State argued that Priest Lake has been maintained at an approximate elevation of 2437.64 feet 
during the summer months since 1951, and considers that to be the high water mark, whether 
artificial or natural. The State asserted that the 2437.64 foot line represents the point at which the 
bed of the lake is regulated by the State. The State supported this argument with affidavits of 
                                                 
1 The State disputed the presence of an AHWM on Priest Lake. However, the State maintained that the distinction 
between the OHWM and the AHWM was not germane to its argument because the State controlled the area in 
dispute under either.  
3 
 
Mick Schanilec and Matthew Anders. Mr. Schanilec, the area manager for the Priest Lake 
Supervisory Area, testified that the State administers the LPA at Priest Lake to the elevation of 
2437.64 feet, which is where the State considers the natural or ordinary high water mark to be.  
Ultimately, the State argued that the material Hudson placed encroached upon State 
controlled land, and that the district court should issue an injunction requiring Hudson to: 
(a) remove all unauthorized fill below elevation 2437.64 feet msl during the low 
water period of Priest Lake, between about November 1 and March 1; (b) stabilize 
any unstable bank or lake bed remaining landward of elevation 2437.64 feet msl 
of Priest Lake; and (c) perform any other measures recommended by [the State] 
designed to contain sediment and erosion and to restore Priest Lake to as near its 
condition immediately prior to the unauthorized encroachment as possible. 
The State additionally requested a permanent injunction preventing Hudson from encroaching 
upon, in, or above the waters of Priest Lake unless approved by the State, and that he be required 
to pay a $10,000 fine for his violation of the LPA.  
Hudson filed a memorandum opposing the State’s motion for partial summary judgment, 
disputing the location of the OHWM and arguing that a material issue of fact existed as 
to whether or not the encroachments at issue were located on his property or the property of the 
State. Hudson argued that he placed the natural improvements on his own property, which was 
located between 2435 and 2437.64 feet. In support of his opposition to the State’s motion, 
Hudson provided declarations of Ernest Warner, himself, and Drew C. Dittman. Mr. Warner, a 
licensed surveyor, testified that he believed and concluded that the OHWM of Priest Lake, as of 
July 3, 1890, was at least two vertical feet lower than the 2437.64 foot elevation, the artificial 
level now maintained during the summer months. Further, Mr. Dittman, a professional engineer, 
testified that if the boundary line between the Hudson parcel and the State-owned bed of Priest 
Lake was extended nineteen feet waterward of the summer pool level maintained on Priest Lake, 
then most, if not all, of Hudson’s improvements would be located on his property as opposed to 
the State of Idaho. Hudson argued that the State bears the burden of proving that his 
encroachments are located waterward of the OHWM of Priest Lake. Ultimately, Hudson 
concluded that the:  
State has failed to show that Hudson’s encroachments were located below the 
OHWM of Priest Lake. Defendant Hudson further submits that the State is 
estopped to seek relief on the basis that his encroachments are located below an 
AHWM of Priest Lake, having specifically and emphatically denied, under oath, 
that there is an AHWM on Priest Lake. Hudson requests that all relief sought by 
the State on summary judgment be denied and that the matter be set for trial 
4 
 
wherein the State will be required to prove that Hudson’s encroachments are in 
fact below the OHWM of Priest Lake as it existed on July 3, 1890. 
On June 15, 2016, the State responded with a Second Affidavit of Mr. Schanilec 
(“Second Schanilec Affidavit”). On June 17, 2016, Hudson moved to strike the Second Schanilec 
Affidavit because it did not comply with the timeframe set forth in I.R.C.P. 56(c). The State 
responded, arguing that a party is permitted to file a reply brief seven days before a summary 
judgment hearing, and that the brief may be accompanied by an affidavit in support.  
On June 22, 2016, the district court heard arguments from the parties regarding the 
State’s motion for partial summary judgment. At the outset, the district court recognized the 
arguments made regarding the OHWM and the AHWM of Priest Lake, and advised the parties as 
follows:  
I looked at the statute that requires the lake to be kept up the additional three feet 
during the summer months. But I guess what I’m most struck by is Idaho Code 
58-1302 and the issue of navigability and encroachments. And I’m not sure 
whether it matters whether we’re talking about the [OHWM] or the [AHWM] 
when you look at 58-1302(b) and (h) and (i). 
During oral argument the State reiterated what it set forth in its briefing, and reasoned 
that for the purposes of its motion, it was irrelevant whether they were talking about the OHWM 
or the AHWM, because under the LPA, parties are required to obtain a permit before 
encroaching on a navigable lake. The State argued that because Hudson failed to obtain a permit 
prior to placing fill in the lake bed, he violated the LPA. Hudson argued that the OHWM at 
statehood was two and one half feet lower than the summer level, which would result in his 
property extending approximately nineteen feet further into Priest Lake, and nearly all of his 
encroachments fall within those nineteen feet. Hudson argued that the State was in a unique 
procedural posture because it had specifically denied the existence of an AHWM, and had 
testified that the OHWM is 2437.64 feet. Hudson contended that he had offered evidence to 
contradict the State’s location of the OHWM and that if the State was going to allege that 
Hudson’s encroachments were waterward of the OHWM, the dispute regarding the location 
creates an issue of material fact.  
On June 30, 2016, the district court issued its memorandum decision and order granting 
the State’s motion for partial summary judgment. The district court first determined that the fill 
placed by Hudson was an encroachment not in aid of navigation. The district court next found 
that the State has the power to regulate and control navigational and non-navigational 
5 
 
encroachments, and that a permit is required before a person may place an encroachment into the 
bed of Priest Lake. In response to Hudson’s argument that the AHWM is higher than the OHWM 
in the summer months, and his property extends to the OHWM as it existed in 1890, the district 
court found: 
[T]hat pursuant to the definition of a lakebed in Idaho Code § 58-1302, it does not 
matter whether the fill is located below the OHWM, or between the OHWM and 
the AHWM, if there is one; because the statute makes clear that the State of Idaho 
has the power to regulate and control encroachments on land lying between the 
OHWM and the AHWM.  
Accordingly, the State of Idaho has the power, as a matter of law, to 
regulate and control encroachments in or above the bed of Priest Lake by 
requiring that a lake encroachment permit be obtained before construction of a 
nonnavigational encroachment such as the fill at issue here. 
Additionally, the district court acknowledged that it did not utilize the Second Schanilec 
Affidavit in rendering its decision, and as a result, considered Hudson’s motion to strike moot.  
The district court issued a mandatory injunction requiring Hudson to: (1) remove all 
unauthorized fill below the high water mark, regardless of whether it is natural or artificial; (2) 
stabilize any unstable bank or lake bed; and (3) perform any other measures recommended by the 
State to restore the lake to as close to its original condition as possible. The district court also 
issued a permanent injunction requiring Hudson to refrain from encroaching upon, in, or above 
the beds or waters of Priest Lake, absent prior approval from the State. 2  
The parties stipulated to a stay of further action on the remaining claims pending an 
appeal, and the district court entered an amended partial judgment certified as final pursuant to 
I.R.C.P. 54(b). Hudson timely appealed. 
III. ISSUES ON APPEAL 
1. 
Whether the district court erred when it granted the State’s motion for partial summary 
judgment despite the dispute regarding the location of the OHWM. 
2. 
Whether the State is entitled to attorney fees and costs on appeal. 
IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW 
This Court reviews a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment under the same 
standard employed by the district court. In re Sanders Beach, 143 Idaho 443, 446, 147 P.3d 75, 
78 (2006) (internal citation omitted). Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions 
on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material 
                                                 
2 The district court did not impose the $10,000 fine requested by the State.  
6 
 
fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” I.R.C.P. 56(c)3. “A 
material issue of fact, for summary judgment purposes, is one that is relevant to an element of 
the claim or defense and whose existence might affect the outcome of the case.” Rife v. Long, 
127 Idaho 841, 849–50, 908 P.2d 143, 151–52 (1995) (citing United States v. Grayson, 879 F.2d 
620 (9th Cir. 1989)). “[T]his Court construes disputed facts, and all reasonable inferences that 
can be drawn from the record, in favor of the non-moving party.” Grabicki v. City of Lewiston, 
154 Idaho 686, 690, 302 P.3d 26, 30 (2013) (internal citation omitted).  
V.  ANALYSIS 
A. 
The district court did not err in granting partial summary judgment because the 
dispute regarding the true location of the OHWM is not a material fact in 
determining whether Hudson violated the LPA.  
Hudson argues that the district court erred in concluding that it did not matter whether 
2437.64 feet was the OHWM or the AHWM of Priest Lake. Hudson argues that his evidence 
proves that the OHWM was at 2435.64 feet at the time Idaho became a state, and that most, if 
not all, of the fill was placed within the nineteen feet between elevations 2435.64 and 2437.64. 4 
Hudson argues that summary judgment is only appropriate when there is no genuine issue of a 
material fact, and that because there was a dispute regarding the actual location of the OHWM, 
and whether or not his encroachment was located upland of the OHWM, the district court erred 
when it granted the State’s motion for partial summary judgment. Further, Hudson reasons that 
because the State denied the existence of the AHWM on Priest Lake, it needed to prove that the 
OHWM of Priest Lake at the time Idaho became a state was located at 2437.64 feet. Hudson 
claims that the district court impermissibly resolved an issue of fact based on the State’s denial 
that Priest Lake has an AHWM. Additionally, Hudson alleges that the Second Schanilec 
Affidavit should not be considered on appeal because it was not timely filed with the district 
court.  
In response, the State reasons that whether 2437.64 feet is the OHWM or the AHWM is 
immaterial because the State has the authority under the LPA to regulate encroachments below 
                                                 
3 The district court granted summary judgment in June 2016. Effective July 1, 2016, Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 
56 was amended. The relevant portion of the rule now provides: “The court must grant summary judgment if the 
movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a 
matter of law.” I.R.C.P. 56(a). 
4 The difference between the 2435.64 and 2437.64 water marks results in approximately nineteen feet of sloping 
land extending waterward from the 2437.64 water mark.   
7 
 
either the OHWM or the AHWM. Accordingly, the State asserts the district court did not err in 
granting the motion for partial summary judgment because, regardless of whether 2437.64 feet is 
an ordinary or an artificial high water mark, the State has authority to regulate Hudson’s 
encroachment, and he was required to obtain an encroachment permit prior to placing fill in the 
bed of Priest Lake. The State continues, arguing that while Hudson’s fill might benefit his own 
property, it does not provide major environmental, economic, or social benefits to the general 
public, and that under the LPA, any person who is found to be wrongfully encroaching on, in or 
above the beds of a navigable lake shall be directed to restore the lake to the condition it was in 
prior to the unauthorized encroachment. Further, the State alleges that Hudson’s concern 
regarding the Second Schanilec Affidavit is not properly before this Court because the district 
court specifically noted that it did not consider it when rendering its decision.  
Idaho law provides that “a riparian owner (on a navigable river or stream) or a 
littoral owner (on a navigable lake) takes title down to the natural high water mark.” In re 
Sanders Beach, 143 Idaho 443, 453, 147 P.3d 75, 85 (2006) (citing West v. Smith, 95 Idaho 
550, 554, 511 P.2d 1326, 1330 (1973)). The State of Idaho then owns, “in trust for the 
public title to the bed of the navigable water below the OHWM as it existed at the time the 
State was admitted into the Union.” Id. (citing Erickson v. State, 132 Idaho 208, 210, 970 
P.2d 1, 3 (1998)). The Idaho legislature enacted the LPA, which is codified as Idaho Code 
58, chapter 13, to regulate encroachments and activities that occur in, on, or above 
navigable lakes in the State of Idaho. See generally I.C. §§ 58-1301 et. seq. 
The LPA provides that: 
[T]he public health, interest, safety and welfare requires that all encroachments 
upon, in or above the beds or waters of navigable lakes of the state be regulated in 
order that the protection of property, navigation, fish and wildlife habitat, aquatic 
life, recreation, aesthetic beauty and water quality be given due consideration and 
weighed against the navigational or economic necessity or justification for, or 
benefit to be derived from the proposed encroachment. No encroachment on, in or 
above the beds or waters of any navigable lake in the state shall hereafter be made 
unless approval therefor has been given as provided in this act. 
I.C. § 58-1301. 
The LPA defines a navigable lake as: “any permanent body of relatively still or slack 
water, including man-made reservoirs, not privately owned and not a mere marsh or stream 
eddy, and capable of accommodating boats or canoes.” I.C. § 58-1302(a).  
8 
 
Beds of navigable lakes are defined as: “the lands lying under or below the ‘natural or 
ordinary high water mark’ of a navigable lake and, for purposes of this act only, the lands lying 
between the natural or ordinary high water mark and the artificial high water mark, if there be 
one.” Id. at (b). Encroachments not in aid of navigation include “encroachments on, in or 
above the beds or waters of a navigable lake, including landfills or other structures not 
constructed primarily for use in aid of the navigability of the lake.” I.C. § 58-1302(i).  
An OHWM is defined as: “the high water elevation in a lake over a period of years, 
uninfluenced by man-made dams or works, at which elevation the water impresses a line on the 
soil by covering it for sufficient periods to deprive the soil of its vegetation and destroy its value 
for agricultural purposes.” Id. at (c).  
An AHWM is defined as: “the high water elevation above the natural or ordinary high 
water mark resulting from construction of man-made dams or control works and impressing a 
new and higher vegetation line.” Id. at (d). 
The crux of this appeal is whether the true location of the OHWM on Priest Lake is a 
material fact. If it is a material fact, the district court’s award of partial summary judgment was 
improper. We hold that the location of the OHWM is not a material fact in determining whether 
Hudson violated the LPA. The State alleges that Hudson violated the LPA by placing fill in an 
area waterward of the OHWM of Priest Lake, while Hudson maintains that the OHWM is two 
feet lower and the fill was placed on his own property. Under either argument, it is undisputed 
that Hudson placed fill that extends into the navigable bed of Priest Lake. It is undisputed that 
Hudson’s fill constitutes an encroachment.  
The LPA requires that, in order to protect public health, interest, safety and welfare:  
all encroachments upon, in or above the beds or waters of navigable lakes of the 
state be regulated in order that the protection of property, navigation, fish and 
wildlife habitat, aquatic life, recreation, aesthetic beauty and water quality be 
given due consideration and weighed against the navigational or economic 
necessity or justification for, or benefit to be derived from the proposed 
encroachment.  
I.C. § 58-1301. As a result, the State must provide approval before any encroachment can be 
placed on, in, or above the beds or waters of any navigable lakes. Id. The LPA defines the beds 
of navigable lakes as “the lands lying between the natural or ordinary high water mark and the 
artificial high water mark, if there be one.” I.C. § 58-1302(b). In sum, whether 2437.64 feet was 
the OHWM or the AHWM is not an issue of material fact because the State has the authority to 
9 
 
regulate encroachments under both marks. Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting 
partial summary judgment in favor of the State. Separately, because the district court did not 
consider the Second Schanilec Affidavit in reaching its decision, Hudson’s request that it not be 
considered for purposes of resolving this appeal is moot.   
B. 
The State is entitled to costs and attorney fees on appeal. 
The State requests costs and attorney fees on appeal pursuant to Idaho Code section 12-
117. The State argues that whether 2437.64 feet is the OHWM or the AHWM is irrelevant under 
the LPA, and that Hudson’s appeal was brought without a reasonable basis in fact or law. 
Hudson argues that it would be improper to award the State attorney fees regardless of which 
party prevailed, because his position is supported by facts and law.  
Idaho Appellate Rule 40 provides that “[w]ith the exception of post-conviction appeals 
and appeals from proceedings involving the termination of parental rights or an adoption, costs 
shall be allowed as a matter of course to the prevailing party unless otherwise provided by law or 
order of the Court.” I.A.R. 40. Idaho Code section 12-117 provides that: 
Unless otherwise provided by statute, in any proceeding involving as adverse 
parties a state agency or a political subdivision and a person, the state agency, 
political subdivision or the court hearing the proceeding, including on appeal, 
shall award the prevailing party reasonable attorney’s fees, witness fees and other 
reasonable expenses, if it finds that the nonprevailing party acted without a 
reasonable basis in fact or law. 
I.C. § 12-117(1). This Court has awarded attorney fees pursuant to Idaho Code section 12-117 
when a nonprevailing party “continued to rely on the same arguments used in front of the district 
court, without providing any additional persuasive law or bringing into doubt the existing law on 
which the district court based its decision.” City of Blackfoot v. Spackman, 162 Idaho 302, __, 
396 P.3d 1184, 1192 (2017) (citing Rangen, Inc. v. Idaho Dep’t of Water Res., 159 Idaho 798, 
812, 367 P.3d 193, 207 (2015)). 
The State is the prevailing party on appeal and is awarded costs and attorney fees 
pursuant to Idaho Code section 12-117(1). On appeal, Hudson proffered substantially the same 
argument that previously failed before the district court. Hudson did not present any new 
persuasive law, nor did he significantly challenge the existing law upon which the district court 
relied in granting partial summary judgment in favor of the State. See Blackfoot, 162 Idaho 302, 
396 P.3d at 1192. As a result, we award the State attorney fees on appeal.  
VI. CONCLUSION 
10 
 
We hereby affirm the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of the 
State and award costs and attorney fees on appeal to the State. This case is remanded to the 
district court for further action on any remaining issues. 
Chief Justice BURDICK and Justices HORTON, BRODY and Justice pro tem TROUT, 
concur.