Opinion ID: 901273
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Extent of Public's Right to Use Water.

Text: [¶ 47.] Having determined that the waters in question are public waters held in trust for the people, the more narrow inquiry is whether the public has a right to use these waters for recreation. As previously mentioned, some states have recognized that the public trust extends to recreational use of public waters independent of bed or adjacent land ownership. Picabo Livestock, Inc ., 528 P2d 1295 (navigable creek); Sorensen , 436 NW2d 358 (land adjacent to Missouri River); Hildreth , 684 P2d 1088 (navigable stream flowing over possibly private land); Curran , 682 P2d 163 (navigable stream flowing over private land); Armstrong , 362 P2d 137 (regardless of whether it was navigable or nonnavigable river channel open for recreational use); Orion Corp. v. State, 747 P2d 1062 (Wash 1987) cert. denied 486 US 1022 (owner purchased tidelands subject to requirements of public trust doctrine). [¶ 48.] In interpreting statutes similar to our Water Resources Act, the Utah Supreme Court held in J.J.N.P. Co. v. State, 655 P2d 1133, 1136, 1137 (Utah 1982): Although navigability is a standard used to determine title to waterbeds . . . it does not establish the extent of the State's interest in the waters of the State. . . . Section 73-1-1 states: All waters in this state, whether above or under the ground are hereby declared to be the property of the public, subject to all existing rights to the use thereof.    Private ownership of the land underlying natural lakes and streams does not defeat the State's power to regulate the use of the water or defeat whatever right the public has to be on the water. Irrespective of the ownership of the bed and navigability of the water, the public, if it can obtain lawful access to a body of water, has the right to float leisure craft, hunt, fish, and participate in any lawful activity when utilizing that water . (Internal citations omitted.) (Emphasis added.) Yet, it must be noted, the lake in J.J.N.P. Co . and the waters considered in the cases cited in the previous paragraph do not compare with the lakes at issue here. In J.J.N.P. Co. , the lake was natural and permanent. In the cases cited in the previous paragraph, the waters were permanent in nature, being flowing streams, rivers, or tidewaters. Here, the trial court found that during the past 125 years the land on which the lakes now exist had been completely dry, marshy, or covered by shallow, seasonal waters. This land in the past seventy years had been used to pasture cattle and raise crops. It has only been in the last five or six years that the land has been continuously covered by water far deeper than previously experienced. [¶ 49.] Furthermore, although state law in both South and North Dakota makes all water public property, neither state has gone so far as to hold that non-meandered lakes navigable under the state test are open for public recreational uses. Flisrand , 152 NW 796 (meandered lake); Hillebrand , 274 NW 821 (meandered lake); Roberts v. Taylor, 47 ND 146, 181 NW 622 (ND 1921) (meandered lake). It is true, as the State contends, that our standard for determining public use is whether the water is capable of use by the public for public purposes. Flisrand , 152 NW at 800 (meandered lake) (emphasis added). SDCL 43-17-2. [20] Public purposes are defined in SDCL 43-17-21 as including, but not limited to boating, fishing, swimming, hunting, skating, picnicking and similar recreational pursuits. [21] This test is derived from the pleasure boat test for navigability in Flisrand , Hillebrand , and Lamprey . [22] Nonetheless, this test has only been applied to areas where the State owns both the lake and the bed. We face a more unique question here. [¶ 50.] In abolishing private ownership of standing water, the Legislature did not necessarily intend that such waters would become open for recreation. On the contrary, in the very Act that abolished this provision, our Legislature appears to have provided reasonable limits respecting vested rights. Thus in eliminating ownership of standing water by private parties, the intent was to preserve water for specific beneficial uses. The Water Resources Act states that Beneficial use is the basis, the measure and the limit of the right to the use of waters described in this title. SDCL 46-1-8. And beneficial use is defined as any use of water within or outside the state, that is reasonable and useful and beneficial to the appropriator, and at the same time is consistent with the interests of the public of this state in the best utilization of water supplies[.] SDCL 46-1-6(3). Indeed, the highest use for public water in South Dakota has been declared to be domestic use. SDCL 46-1-5. [¶ 51.] The Water Resources Act does not explicitly grant to the Water Management Board the responsibility to determine recreational use of public waters. Nonetheless, because the Water Resources Act (SDCL 46) and the Water Resources Management Act (SDCL 46A) are the provisions governing public water lying on or under private property, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources is the agency at present given oversight of these lakes. It is the clear intent of our Legislature to provide for the general health, welfare and safety of the people through the conservation, development, management, and optimum use of all this state's water resources. [23] To balance these multiple uses, the Legislature and Governor formulate policies in the public interest to be carried out through a coordination of all state agencies and resources. Id ; SDCL 46A-1-10. Therefore, it is not for us now to proclaim the highest and best use of these public waters in the interest of the general health, welfare and safety of the people. Id . Decisions on beneficial use belong ultimately to the Legislature. SDCL 46-2-11. Deciding how these waters and immediate shorelines should be managed and what constitutes a proper use goes beyond the scope of this opinion. The trial court erred in declaring these waters to be private and in granting an injunction on that basis. In the meantime, in the interest of maintaining the status quo, we leave the injunction intact until such time as, on remand, the trial court has the opportunity to consider the positions of the parties, the state agencies, and the public and grant such relief as it deems appropriate, in light of this opinion. [¶ 52.] We recognize that it is likely that these lakes will diminish over time. At the time of the trial in this case, the waters had increased. As the circuit court noted, however, the evidence indicates that this increase is temporary, the result of cyclic meteorological changes. In the future, the waters will probably recede and the surface area subject to the public trust will be reduced in proportion, and during that period the landowners will be able to use more of their property. The Legislature may conclude that the public expenditure of money for services and infrastructure to support recreational uses may not be wisely spent, in view of the inevitable reality that these waters will diminish, and perhaps disappear, in the near future. Other, more useful public purposes may be assigned to these lakes, such as wildlife habitat. It remains finally for the Legislature to decide these questions. [¶ 53.] In conclusion, the public trust doctrine imposes an obligation on the State to preserve water for public use. It provides that the people of the State own the waters themselves, and that the State, not as a proprietor, but as a trustee, controls the water for the benefit of the public. In keeping with its responsibility, the Legislature has designated the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to manage our public water resources. However, it is ultimately up to the Legislature to decide how these waters are to be beneficially used in the public interest. [¶ 54.] Reversed and remanded. [¶ 55.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and SABERS, ZINTER and MEIERHENRY, Justices, concur.