Case Name: John C. Botton et al., Respondents, v. The State of Washington, Appellant
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1966-11-17
Citations: 69 Wash. 2d 751
Docket Number: No. 37916
Parties: John C. Botton et al., Respondents, v. The State of Washington, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 69
Pages: 751–768

Head Matter:
[No. 37916.
En Banc.
November 17, 1966.]
John C. Botton et al., Respondents, v. The State of Washington, Appellant.
The Attorney General, Mike Johnston and Joseph L. Con-iff, Assistants, for appellant.
Clinton, Moats, Andersen & Fleck, by James A. Andersen, for respondents.
Ralph W. Johnson and Russell A. Austin, Jr., amici curiae.
Reported in 420 P.2d 352.

Opinion:
Hill, J.
The State of Washington, through its Department of Game, acquired by purchase a waterfront lot on Phantom Lake (nonnavigable) which it has developed to be used as a public fishing access area. Its use or abuse, for that purpose, has resulted in the present action by other owners of waterfront property on the lake, asking that the state be enjoined from maintaining its public access area. The trial court made very comprehensive findings of fact:
Since the defendant, through its Game Department, put in the public access area, the plaintiffs have suffered the following as a result of it:
1. The fair market value of plaintiffs' property has been decreased.
2. Thievery on the lake has greatly increased, particularly the stealing of boats, oars, outdoor furniture, tools and miscellaneous items of personal property of all kinds. In many of the cases it was definitely ascertained that the thieves gained access to the lake from the public access area.
3. Persons relieving themselves in the lake as well as on the property and front yards of various of the plaintiffs, to the considerable embarrassment and annoyance of the plaintiffs, their families and guests.
4. Beer cans, worm cans, sandwich bags, pop bottles, rafts, and other assorted trash has been deposited in the lake and on the plaintiffs' beaches in considerable quantity.
5. Repeated and frequent trespasses on the plaintiffs' front yards, docks, beaches and property. In addition to the trespasses by persons coming in by the access area, numerous other trespassers have crossed the plaintiffs' yards, docks, beaches and property from other adjoining residential areas, and which trespassers, when confronted by the plaintiffs, have justified their actions by saying to the effect that, "Well, now, it's a public lake, isn't it."
6. Numerous of the plaintiffs, their children and grandchildren, have severely and frequently been cut by broken beer bottles left on the beaches.
7. Fishermen using plaintiffs' docks, and fishing immediately adjacent to their beaches and front yards, would refuse to leave when requested and would stare and make remarks when plaintiffs, their wives and daughters would try to use their beaches for sun bathing, swimming or the entertaining of guests. The plaintiffs, as a result of this, cut down very considerably in their use of their front yards and beaches.
8. Although hunting and shooting on the lake are illegal, hunters come in and hunt and shoot on the lake. Persons also come in and shoot at ducks with air rifles.
9. Speed boating on the lake has greatly increased. In some cases it has increased to the extent that it has become a danger to the plaintiffs' children.
10. The public use of the lake has interfered with the plaintiffs' use of the lake for boating, swimming, fishing and recreational purposes.
11. The noise on the lake has substantially increased.
From these findings, the trial court drew the legal conclusions that the state's opening up of the lake to public use through its access area, without resorting to eminent domain, constituted a taking and damaging of private property without compensation to the owners thereof; and that the state's opening up of the lake to public use constituted an unreasonable interference with the rights of the plaintiffs.
Based on these conclusions, the trial court entered an injunction enjoining the state
from maintaining its public access area on Phantom Lake as a public access area and from admitting the public to Phantom Lake and across the access area until such time as it condemns the plaintiffs' property and property rights in the manner provided by law.
The state appeals, urging that as a riparian owner on a nonnavigable lake it can permit the public to enjoy the right to fish from boats over every portion of the lake so long as this does not constitute an unreasonable interference with the rights of the other riparian owners. This implies an obligation to police and control the use of the nonnavi-gable lake by the public to prevent such use becoming an unreasonable interference with the rights of the other riparian owners thereon.
Any consideration of the rights of riparian owners and the owners of the beds of lakes must be in the light of the applicable statutes, particularly RCW 90.03.010, enacted in 1917, which declares that "Subject to existing rights all waters within the state belong to the public."
Our decisions relating to nonnavigable lakes fall into two classes, i.e., where we have been concerned with the right to appropriate water from nonnavigable lakes for use on the land of nonriparian owners or for public use, such as municipal water supply; and where we have been concerned with rights relative to the use of the surface of the water by the riparian owners.
The first class of cases have significance here only because they indicate the existence of and the importance placed on the riparian rights of bathing, boating, swimming, and fishing (at least in the nonarid portions of the state).
In the present case, we have no conflicting interest between the owners of the land abutting the lake and the owners of the lake bottom, as the upland owners also each own a definitely surveyed portion of the lake bottom and pay taxes levied thereon just as they do on their upland property.
The lake is small and shallow, covering 63.2 acres, and with depths running from extremely shallow to a maximum of 47 feet near the middle. The shore of the lake is partly surrounded with nice homes (most of the homeowners reside on the lake the year-round) and partly by as yet undeveloped properties. It lies between Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish (within only a few hundred feet of the latter), both of which are large, navigable lakes with many public access areas, parks, and beaches. There are no commercial establishments, resorts or public beaches on Phantom Lake. Nor were there any public streets, roads, or street ends which would give the public an access to the lake, until the state, acting through its Department of Game, acquired approximately a hundred feet of lake frontage, extending back some 800 feet to a public thoroughfare, and developed it to provide an access for fishermen and their boats.
There has been no serious attempt by the state to limit access to the lake to fishermen; and the trial court found that this access area had been open to any member of the public. We do not question the right of the state, as a riparian owner, to ignore the county's zoning regulations and to permit the public, as its licensees, access to the lake over its property. There is, however, a limitation, and that is that it cannot permit such use of its property as constitutes an unreasonable interference with the rights of the other riparian owners.
We have stated the law applicable in the present case quite succinctly in Snively v. Jaber, 48 Wn.2d 815, 821, 296 P.2d 1015, 57 A.L.R.2d 560 (1956) :
We hold that, with respect to the boating, swimming, fishing, and other similar rights of riparian proprietors upon a nonnavigable lake, these rights or privileges are owned in common, and that any proprietor or his licensee may use the entire surface of a lake so long as he does not unreasonably interfere with the exercise of similar rights by the other owners. This rule does not have the effect of making the nonnavigable lake public, since a stranger has no right to enter upon the lake without the permission of an abutting owner. The rule we have announced affords equal protection to the interest of all riparian owners in the use of the water and seeks to promote the greatest beneficial use by each with a minimum of harm to other owners.
In that case, the defendant Jaber had a dance hall, picnic grounds, and a swimming area on Angle Lake (non-navigable) and rented some 30 rowboats to the public. The conduct of the licensees in rented rowboats was such that the trial court found it necessary to enjoin that operation for a 2-year period, and this we affirmed.
The depredations and conduct of Jaber's licensees, which warranted an injunction in that case, could be characterized as a Sunday-school picnic as compared with the indecencies and obscenities to which the other riparian owners on Phantom Lake have been subjected. Added to this is the physical danger to other riparian owners, their children and grandchildren from broken beer bottles left on the beaches and from the operation of speedboats dangerously close to bathers and swimmers near the shore. While the trial court's injunction was justified at the time of trial, it was too extensive in time and was not properly conditioned as to termination.
The dedicated people who make up the great fishing fra ternity in this state should not be deprived of the opportunity and pleasure of fishing for perch, crappie, and the like (the water is too warm for trout) because of the conduct of a relatively few hooligans.
The state, as a riparian owner, does not have to acquire by condemnation the rights of the other riparian owners before it permits fishermen in reasonable numbers access to the waters of Phantom Lake; but it does have the obligation, and counsel for the state so concede, to so regulate the number and conduct of its licensees as to prevent any undue interference with the rights of other riparian owners.
The injunction should be continued only until the state, through its Department of Game, presents a plan for the controlled operation of its property that satisfies the trial court that the rights of other riparian owners will be adequately safeguarded. The state is entitled to all the rights of a riparian owner, but it should also accept the responsibility of a riparian owner for the conduct of its licensees.
We are in accord with the trial court's conclusion, from the facts in this case, that there has been an unreasonable interference by the state's licensees with the rights of other riparian owners and that an injunction was properly granted, but it should be modified and limited as indicated herein; and the cause is remanded for that purpose.
Each party will bear his own costs on this appeal.
Donworth, Weaver, and Hamilton, JJ., concur.
Addendum
3This addendum is not intended to be definitive or authoritative, but simply to indicate the limitations which have been placed on the broad and sweeping statements in Proctor v. Sim, 134 Wash. 606, 236 Pac. 114 (1925), and to indicate the recognition of the extent and value of the riparian rights of bathing, boating, swimming, and fishing in the non-arid portions of the state.
In Proctor v. Sim, supra, the plaintiffs owned the bed and the banks of Duck Lake, located entirely within their land. It was about 1,300 feet in length and 1,000 feet in width and covered about 25 acres. Its maximum depth was 50 feet; it dropped off sharply on all sides, except the north where there was a sandy beach. It lies within an arid district in the eastern part of the state.
The defendants had established a pumping plant on the shore of the lake and ran their pumpline across the plaintiffs' land for a distance of 45 or 50 feet to an irrigation ditch, and had, for 3 years, pumped water into that ditch for the purpose of watering 250 acres of non-riparian orchard land. (There was no showing that this permanently lowered the water level of the lake, or that the plaintiffs' property was damaged thereby.)
The plaintiffs asked damages for the trespass upon their lands, and the value of the water taken. The trial court granted $100 damages for the trespass, but refused any relief on account of the water taken. The Supreme Court affirmed, stating:
Our conclusions are:
(1) That Duck lake is non-navigable.
(2) That the appellants own the shores and bed thereof.
(3) That they do not own or have a right to control its surplus waters.
(4) That their only existing or vested right is the beneficial use of the waters for irrigation and domestic purposes to the extent here-inabove mentioned by us, and that any surplus waters are subject to appropriation for irrigating non-riparian lands, (p. 619)
The court gave its interpretation of "the existing rights" of any riparian owner, which are specifically reserved by RCW 90.03.010, by asking a question and then answering it:
What, then, are "the existing rights" of the appellants as riparian owners which are to be considered as vested rights and may not be interfered with? Our answer is that it is the right to the beneficial use of such portions of the waters of the lake as are either directly or prospectively, within a reasonable time, proper and necessary for the irrigation of their lands and for the usual domestic purposes. In Brown v. Chase, supra, [125 Wash. 542, 217 Pac. 23] we expressly so held with reference to the waters of a non-navigable stream. It is true that the common law would give the appellants other existing rights, as, for example, the right to have the waters lap their shores as they were by nature wont to do and undisturbed and undiminished except by the exercise of similar rights in other riparian owners, if any there were. . . . But much of the English common law of riparian rights is inapplicable to the arid portions of this state and is incompatible with our institutions and conditions. For years past, the trend of our decisions and the tenor of our legislation have been to restrict and narrow the common law of riparian rights, and in the case of Brown v. Chase, supra, we completely abandoned the idea that the riparian owner is entitled "to the uninterrupted flow of the waters on and past his premises," and that none but riparian owners could make use of such water. All the right they now have by virtue of their riparian ownership is the beneficial use of the water, whether of a non-navigable stream or of a non-navigable lake. (pp. 615-616)
It must be noted that this very broad statement may be limited to the arid portions of this state; and that, in subsequent cases in the western part of the state, a lowering of a lake or an interference with its riparian uses creates liabilities and, on occasion, a necessity for condemnation.
It must be noted, too, that the court affirmed the judgment insofar as it related to trespass; and it casts no light on how a nonriparian owner, desiring to use surplus waters in a nonnavigable lake, can do so without a trespass.
In re Martha Lake Water Co. No. 1, 152 Wash. 53, 277 Pac. 382 (1929): The state supervisor of hydraulics had entered an order granting a permit to take the quantity of water applied for from the lake for a period of 3 years.
A number of persons owning property bordering on the lake with riparian rights appealed this order to the Supreme Court.
Martha Lake (nonnavigable) was a small, narrow body of water covering approximately 59 acres, with an average depth of 20 feet. It is 12 miles from Everett and 20 miles from Seattle. Sometime earlier, the owner or owners of the property to the north, west, and south of the lake platted the same — much of which had been sold to individual owners. The tracts riparian to the lake sold for $1,000 per acre, the nonriparian land for $300 per acre. The riparian owners purchased their property because of its access to the water for bathing, boating, swimming, fishing, and for summer homes. Summer homes and summer resorts had been constructed by riparian owners. If the permit granted by the supervisor of hydraulics had been sustained, it would have lowered the water in the lake approximately 12 inches below mean low water mark during the dry season. The effect would have been that the water's edge would recede from 8 to 50 feet, which would have been a material and substantial damage to each of the protesting riparian owners.
No indication is made of the use to be made of the water to be removed under the permit, except that it was to be used on nonriparian land.
The trial court reversed the order of the supervisor of hydraulics and enjoined the water company from lowering the water in Martha Lake until it should have acquired the right to do so by eminent domain.
This court affirmed, distinguishing Brown v. Chase, 125 Wash. 542, 217 Pac. 23 (1923), saying:
The question there involved was the ownership of the water, which is a different question from that before us at the present time. (152 Wash, at 55)
And then distinguished Proctor v. Sim, supra, saying:
The case of Proctor v. Sim, 134 Wash. 606, 236 Pac. 114, followed Brown v. Chase, supra, and applied the doctrine of that case to a non-navigable lake. There was not there involved any question of damages to the riparian proprietor by reason of the lowering of the water in the lake.
Litka v. Anacortes, 167 Wash. 259, 9 P.2d 88 (1932): In 1924, the city of Anacortes commenced to pump water from Lake Campbell (non-navigable), some 320 acres in extent; average depth 8 to 10 feet. The city installed dams at the outlet to raise the level of the lake; however, by 1931, the lake was nearly dry, or, as testified, "it was practically a mud flat."
The plaintiffs had acquired real property bordering on Lake Campbell long before the city established its pumping station. They constructed a dwelling house, a bath house, several cabins, and a dock. They operated a small store, served meals, rented boats, conducted a bathing beach, a campground, had cabins for rent to hunters, fishermen and bathers. They used the property almost exclusively as a pleasure resort, and it had no value for agricultural purposes. They brought an action against the city for $23,500, claiming a reduction in value of their property from $25,000 to $1,500 by the draining of the lake.
From a judgment entered on a verdict of $7,000, the city appealed. This court affirmed the judgment, saying that the city's action in draining the lake was a taking or damaging of property without just compensation having been made; and that the filing of a claim is not a condition precedent to an action against a city for the appropriation of property for a public use without having first paid just compensation.
In re Clinton Water Dist., 36 Wn.2d 284, 218 P.2d 309 (1950): Deer Lake (nonnavigable), some 112 acres in extent; maximum depth 50 feet, is in Island County. The land bordering on the lake had been divided into 26 privately owned tracts. Some of them were wholly in their natural and unimproved state. Others had been improved and were being used for residential, agricultural and commercial purposes. The tracts most suitable for country lakeside homes were of sufficient area so that a resident might have a garden and domestic animals and fowls. The owners of three tracts used their properties for commercial purposes, such as renting cabins, camping and picnic facilities, and boats. One property owner operated a 12-acre tract planted to loganberries. This tract sloped toward the lake and required intensive fertilization.
The lake afforded opportunities for boating, bathing, swimming, and fishing by the residents and the patrons of the commercial places. Access to the lake also permitted the use of its water by the livestock and fowl of the property owners. The full use of the land necessarily resulted in surface drainage and seepage into the lake other than that which is natural.
The Clinton Water District desired to appropriate from Deer Lake 0.155 cubic feet of water per second for domestic uses. The state hydraulic engineer refused to permit the district to appropriate the water from Deer Lake until it had condemned the riparian rights affected by such appropriation.
That action was in harmony with Burrows v. Grays Harbor Boom Co., 44 Wash. 630, 87 Pac. 937, and In re Martha Lake Water Co. No. 1., 152 Wash. 53, 277 Pac. 382. (36 Wn.2d 286)
In the condemnation action, the trial court found that there would be no actual physical damage to the riparian lands by the diversion of the water of the lake due to the lowering of the water level, as in the Martha Lake case, but held that the property owners were entitled to recover compensation for depreciation of $145,473 in the market values of their property.
This court affirmed the judgment for $145,473, commenting that though the total award would make the cost to the water district prohibitive, that such is the situation in which many condemnors have found themselves.
As the majority and dissent pointed out, the depreciation in values was occasioned not by the taking of the water or the lowering of the lake, but by the probability that the water being taken for domestic purposes would result in boating, bathing, swimming, and fishing being prohibited or restricted, as well as other uses relating to agriculture and the keeping of domestic animals.
This case indicated that bathing, boating, fishing, swimming are riparian rights which must be condemned before they can be prohibited or restricted.
The state refers to the plaintiffs as littoral owners, and to their littoral rights. We recognize that there is ample and impeccable authority for the proposition that a riparian owner is one whose land abuts upon a river and a littoral owner is one whose land abuts upon a lake. See 25 A, Words and Phrases 34. However, current usage not only in our statutes but in our decisions has made riparian an acceptable term as to land abutting upon either rivers or lakes.
"The power of the state to regulate and control the waters within the state shall be exercised as hereinafter in this chapter provided. Subject to existing rights all waters within the state belong to the public, and any right thereto, or to the use thereof, shall be hereafter acquired only by appropriation for a beneficial use and in the manner provided and not otherwise; and, as between appropriations, the first in time shall be the first in right. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to lessen, enlarge, or modify the existing rights of any riparian owner, or any existing right acquired by appropriation, or otherwise. They shall, however, be subject to condemnation as provided in RCW 90.03.040, and the amount and priority thereof may be determined by the procedure set out in RCW 90.03.110 through 90.03.240." RCW 90.03.010
Because of its length, this footnote appears at the end of the opinion as an addendum.
Usually in our reference to riparian rights in lake cases, we are discussing the rights of owners whose property abuts on a nonmeandered, nonnavigable lake. Usually, but not necessarily, they have title to some portion of the adjoining lake bed. Such an owner may or may not have title to the center of the lake, or to any portion of the bottom of the lake. As land was patented, the fee to lake beds under nonnavigable waters, included within the land conveyed, passed to the patentee. Thus an 80-acre lake might lie all in one quarter section, or it might be so situated that portions of it would be in two, three or four different quarter sections of the same section, or it could be in two, three, or four different quarter sections in each of two, three, or four different sections. The division of the bed of a lake into four or five different ownerships of varying size is well illustrated by the map which is made a part of the opinion in Duval v. Thomas, 114 So.2d 791 (Fla. 1959). See also Johnson v. Seifert, 257 Minn. 159, 100 N.W.2d 689 (1960).
It is necessary to remember, however, that riparian rights do not stem from the ownership of a portion of the lake bed, but are an incident to the ownership of the shore, whether the lake be navigable or non-navigable. Johnson v. Seifert, supra; Flynn v. Beisel, 257 Minn. 531, 102 N.W.2d 284 (1960). However, there are no riparian rights in the owners of lands bordering on navigable waters of this state, as against the state or persons claiming under it. Hill v. Newell, 86 Wash. 227, 230, 149 Pac. 951 (1915); State v. Sturtevant, 76 Wash. 158, 163, 135 Pac. 10.35 (1913). Const. Art. 17, § 1.