Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1904-02-04
QUESTION OF
RIPARIAN RIGHTS.
Something to Be Considered by
Locators of Oil Lands Along
Shores Of Great Salt Lake.
LEGAL ADVICE IS OBTAINED.
Two Utah Cases Quotsd--An Under
standing Of Subject May Avoid
Trouble In Future.

Word comes from along the shores
OF the Great Salt Lake that scores OF
oil land locations have been and are
being made along the lake front IRON
this city TO Promlntory Point on the
north, upon ground now laid bare by
the recession Of the waters Of the lake
This has caused the raising OF the
question Of riparian rights and 1t Is
well that matters OF this kind should
be understood thoroughly by persons
interested In the formation OF new com,
panies or IN the investment IN OIL
stocks" said n gentleman. one OF tne
first to enter the Pennington field, TINS
forenoon.
Il believe that II this riparian right
question as well as the ownership OF
such lands Is understood by the gem
eral public It viii save trouble IN tne
future and perLars no end OF Sosuy
litigation. For NJ own Information !
received legal advice on the subject
from Frank r. Gregg, q Wen known
Denver attorney, and II Il VIII oenent
anyone else am willing that IL shouia
20 into print
The letter from the Denver attorney
contains the following
The supreme court Of the united
States has settled beyond controversy
certain questions relating to this mat
ter, and | find on investigation that my
suggestion to you was correct, namely
thaf when a state Is admitted into the
Union. the state 50 admitted becomes
the nroprietor OF the beds OF the naVl-
gable streams and lakes WITHIN the
state. and the United States has no
further title In such lands. The power
or control OF the United States after
the admission OF such state has to DO
only with matters OF commerce and
navigation. a.,
II Is also well settled that the ri
pariaa" owner, or the owner OF tne
lands bordering on such havagaple
lakes. takes title only to the margin OF
the water and becomes the owner on
the accretious and also relicuons by 'he
recision OF the water
II Is also we'll settled that the 'rlparl-
an" owner on streams ana lakes no,
nayigable takes title TO the thread oil
the stream or-to'the' center OF the lake
but as to lakes, some Of the cases only
carry his title to the extent OF legal
subdivision OF the land.
The supreme court OF the United
states has several times decided that
on these questions Il Will follow the
rules laid down by the state where the
question arises
In the case OF Pointer VS., Chapman, 5
Utah, 45O (S2 Pac. Os2), Judge Miner
saws. "rhere Is no tide water In this
territory, and therefore no water Whlcn,
by the technical meaning OF the term
'navigable at common law would come
within II. The general meaning OF the
common law Is apTsicable TO inland
lakes which are not OF such size ana
Importance as to be classed with the
great nayigabe lakes OF the country,
and we do not consider that we should
depart from the rule In this case. The
fact that Utah lake Is navigated or
nuylgahe does not change the rule IN
this case
You will notice that Judge Miner In
the above quotation, says In each IN
stance lin this case and OF course the
only question before the court IN that
case was whether or not the riparian
owner on Utah lake was entitled to the
selections to his land by reason OF the
waters Of the lake receding, or whether
ne was entitled 10 ownership OF the
land 10 the waters edge, and he decid-
ed II In conformity with nearly all the
decisions that whether the water be
navlgable or not, the riparian owner is
entitled TO the accretion and reelection
In the case OF Knudson ct al vs.
Omanson, 10 Utah. lS0 (31 Pac, 250).
Chief Justice Merritt speaks Of Utah
lake as a nayigahle lake, and then, re-
ferring to the case Of Hardin Va Jor-
dan Oi0 ". s. SID he says: I'm the
case Of Hardin VS. Jordan, the doctrine
Is clearly announced by the supreme
court OF the United States, whose decis-
ion is absolutely conclusive upon this
count that whether the body OF water
Is navlgable or not, the practical ra'
suit Is the same, the only dlferenee
being that I'm the case OF non-nayigable
waters the riparian owner takes the fee
TO the centre of the lake or stream,
while in the case Of navigable waters
the ownership In Zee extends only 10 the
waters edge. but In either case all tho
acCretlons and rellctlona belong 10 him
as an incident OF his riparian owner-
ship"
You viii notice that Judge Miner, In
giving his decision, INDUCES In general
language from which Il might be con-
tended that that decision fixes the stat
MS Of both Utah lake and Great salt
Lake as not being navlag'c lakes ana
therefore that the title of the riparlan
owner might extend under the water as
obtains M common law with nopnayi-
gable streams and lakes, hut II Is MT.
iccahle too that he suggests IN each IN
stance that the announcement N the
doctrine he thus suggests Is In connec.
ton with the particular case being con.
slderod namely that OF accretous and
rellotiOns.
| have taken Il Cor granted that the
locations made out IN the lake were not
made In conformity 10 any state utah
law. but only In the United states land
Ha. ID q