Opinion ID: 600290
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: claim for a right of use or access

Text: 37 We next consider the State's and the private Plaintiffs' right-of-use claims. The Appellants assert a navigational servitude over the water bodies under federal or state law.
38 Appellants argue first that the navigable streams in this case are subject to a federal navigational servitude which gives the public unrestricted access. The navigational servitude arises by virtue of the Commerce Clause in some navigable waters. Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 178, 100 S.Ct. 383, 392, 62 L.Ed.2d 332 (1979), made it clear, however, that the navigational servitude does not extend to all navigable waters. Id. at 172-73, 100 S.Ct. at 388-89. When a navigational servitude exists, it gives rise to the right of the public to use those waterways as continuous highways for the purpose of navigation in interstate commerce. Id. at 178, 100 S.Ct. at 392. 39 In Kaiser Aetna, the Court was concerned with the public's right of access to Kuapa Pond, a large lagoon contiguous to a navigable bay but separated from that bay by a barrier beach. Kuapa Pond was two feet deep and had been considered private property under Hawaiian law. Kaiser Aetna developed a marina around the pond. In developing the marina, Kaiser Aetna dredged Kuapa Pond to a depth of six feet, dredged an eight-foot-deep channel through the barrier beach into the nearby bay, and increased the clearance of an overhead bridge to allow boats to pass from the marina to the bay. Kaiser Aetna then allowed access to the pond only to those who paid a fee. 40 The Army Corps of Engineers, which had earlier consented to the improvement, declared the pond to be navigable water of the United States and demanded that Kaiser Aetna allow the public free access to the pond. The district court concluded that imposition of free public access to Kuapa Pond would be a taking of private property for which just compensation must be paid. United States v. Kaiser Aetna, 408 F.Supp. 42, 54 (D.Haw.1976). The Court of Appeals reversed, United States v. Kaiser Aetna, 584 F.2d 378 (9th Cir.1978), holding that, as a navigable water of the United States, Kuapa Pond was subject to a public right of use. The Supreme Court reversed. 444 U.S. 164, 100 S.Ct. 383, 62 L.Ed.2d 332 (1979). 41 The majority reasoned that not all navigable waters are subject to a navigational servitude, and unless a navigational servitude is imposed on a waterway, the public has no right to use it. A navigational servitude recognizes the important public interest in the flow of interstate waters that in their natural condition are in fact capable of supporting public navigation. Kaiser Aetna, 444 U.S. at 175, 100 S.Ct. at 390. The Court identified several factors that convinced it that no navigational servitude was imposed on Kuapa Pond: 1) Kuapa Pond in its natural state could not have been navigated and was not comparable to the major natural bodies of water to which the servitude had earlier been applied; 2) the pond was private property under Hawaiian law; 3) the pond had been converted to a navigable body of water by the petitioners through the investment of private funds; and 4) the Corps had earlier consented to the conversion. Id. at 178-79; see generally The Supreme Court, 1979 Term, 94 Harv.L.Rev. 75, 105-14 (1980) (discussing Kaiser Aetna's multi-factor approach). 6 42 In a companion case, Vaughn v. Vermilion Corp., 444 U.S. 206, 100 S.Ct. 399, 62 L.Ed.2d 365 (1979), the Court considered whether the public was entitled to access to a canal dredged on private property with private funds. The Supreme Court, relying on Kaiser Aetna, held that to the extent the artificial canal had not displaced natural waterways, the public had no right of access to it. 43 Applying Kaiser Aetna and Vaughn to the facts of today's case, we conclude that Plaintiffs have no right of access to Tidewater Canal. That canal was dredged on private property with private funds. The district court specifically found that the construction of the canal did not interfere with or obstruct preexisting navigable waterways. Plaintiffs have not shown that this finding was clearly erroneous. 44 Unfortunately, the record in this case does not permit us to determine whether the other navigable bodies at issue in this case are subject to a navigational servitude. One of the factors enumerated by the court in Kaiser Aetna is clear: we are satisfied that under Louisiana law the water bodies, all of which were non-navigable or nonexistent in 1812 or even as late as 1902, were private property. The other factors, however, are not so clear. 45 First, it is not plain to us whether the remaining navigable water bodies at issue are navigable in their natural state. The district court found that some of the other water bodies became navigable from the increased water flow of Tidewater Canal. In 1948, the Tidewater Canal was dug from near Bayou Lafourche northeasterly. The trial court found that 46 when dug, its path intersected no identifiable continuous waterway, whether navigable or otherwise. Thereafter, the canal was further extended, drill slips and further canals were dug, and preexisting waterways were deepened and widened--all with the approval of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and all on private property. Together, these interconnecting waterways made it possible for large oil rigs and barges to be brought into the area from Bayou Lafourche to the west or from Caminada Bay (and ultimately the Gulf of Mexico) to the southeast. 47 The wide interconnections have increased the channelized water flow, which has promoted scouring of the waterways. Further, these interconnections have allowed salt water from the bays to the south and east to permeate all the waterways in the area. The salt water in turn has caused the fresh water vegetation, which had helped prevent erosion, to die and thus has led to further accelerated loss of land surface. Wave wash from passing vessels has contributed significantly to this erosion as well. 48 9 R.2319. The court thus found that their banks and beds were gradually eroded and scoured from the effects of increased water flow, salt water intrusion, and wave wash. 7 The district court did not consider whether waterways that become navigable through such a process are considered interstate navigable waters in their natural condition. We are persuaded that waterways made navigable through erosion are naturally navigable even though the erosion is caused by increased water flow from a connecting dredged canal. See O'Brien v. State Mineral Bd., 209 La. 266, 24 So.2d 470, 473 (1945) (considering erosion or subsidence from wind, wave, and current natural forces). 49 The district court found that the landowner dredged other canals and deepened and widened some preexisting water bodies. The court made no findings on the timing or extent of that dredging, except that Bayou Ferblanc was dredged in the 1950s to make a pirogue trail. 50 On remand, if the district court finds that the landowner's dredging activity on any of these waterways initially rendered that body navigable, then we would reach the same conclusion with respect to that water body as we do with Tidewater Canal. However, if such dredging activity did not initially render the water body navigable, the court should make additional findings and conclusions. As to each of the waterways at issue, the district court should make findings on the factors the Court considered important in Kaiser Aetna and determine whether a navigational servitude is imposed. 51 In sum, a navigational servitude is ordinarily imposed on a naturally navigable waterway. To negate the existence of a navigable servitude on a naturally navigable waterway, the landowner must demonstrate through the factors discussed in Kaiser Aetna that its interests outweigh those of the public.
52 Appellants claim entitlement under Louisiana law to use the waterways on the Lafourche Realty property as public things either because they are navigable now or because they contain running waters. Appellants argue that Chaney v. State Mineral Board, 444 So.2d 105 (La.1983), identifies a public right of use of non-tidal, non-navigable bodies of water. We think the district court correctly distinguished Chaney, a possessory action in which riparian landowners along a non-navigable stream were trying to establish the extent of their possession. Such arguments have failed to carry the day in Louisiana courts. E.g., Amigo Enters., Inc. v. Gonzales, 581 So.2d 1082, 1084 (La.Ct.App.1991); Brown v. Rougon, 552 So.2d 1052, 1058-60 (La.Ct.App.1989), writ denied, 559 So.2d 121 (La.1990). 53 Finally, Appellants rely on the Civil Code articles pertaining to alluvion, dereliction, and abandoned river beds as providing a servitude. Article 499 grants to the riparian owner any accretion formed on a river bank or dereliction formed by water receding from a bank; article 504 provides for ownership of an abandoned river bed upon a change in the river's course. None of the circumstances contemplated by these articles occurred here, so these articles have no application.