The trial court held, under a theory of dedication and by deed, that the Town owned title in fee simple to the dam area. We agree that the facts found by the court are sufficient to establish a dedication, but disagree about the nature and scope of what was dedicated. We hold that the Town received by dedication, and continues to hold, an easement over the dam property, which was not extinguished when the dam was breached. The court's conclusion that the dam and swimming hole property had already been dedicated to the public by 1943 is supported by its findings and the record. Both the facts and the analysis here parallel those of Druke.
Dedication is the setting apart of land for public use, either expressly or by implication of law.
It may be shown by the owner's writings, affirmative acts, acquiescence in public use, or some combination thereof, so long as the owner's intent to dedicate clearly appears. The court found that, at least since 1912, the public had actively and continuously made use of the waters both above and below the dam for a variety of activities, including fishing, swimming, skating, ice cutting, washing vehicles, sunbathing, and picnicking. John Williams, during the long period he owned the property, did nothing to discourage and much to encourage the public's enjoyment of it. He continued to repair the dam even after the mill ceased to function and the dam was no longer necessary to generate power. The dedication predated the deed.