Opinion ID: 880082
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: d.a.p.a. 20.03.04.025.01.

Text: The IDL explained that it considered the line of navigability to be fifty-five feet waterward of the AHWM. The IDL therefore returned Kaseburg’s second application for lack of the proper processing fee of $1,075. Instead, Kaseburg had paid only the $250 processing fee for navigational encroachments within the line of navigability. Kaseburg subsequently paid the higher fee under protest. In October of 2009, the IDL mailed a notice Application 219-C to various governmental agencies and Kaseburg’s adjacent neighbors. Again, there were many objections. Fish and Game observed that there appeared to be an inconsistency between Kaseburg’s two applications. The first requested the removal of the existing wooden pilings because they were decaying. The second, however, relied on one of those same pilings as a structural component of the movable dock system. Fish and Game also stated that, in its opinion, the proposed encroachment would fall beyond the line of navigability. Finally, the three-foot piling stub and underwater cables “would pose an unseen hazard to boaters, anglers, and other recreationalists.” Kaseburg’s neighbors objected on the grounds that the dock would lead to increased congestion in the Bay and would disrupt views across the Bay. One of the objecting neighbors 7 noted that, with the buoy anchored 190 feet into the Bay and attached to a 30-foot tether holding a 30-foot sailboat, Kaseburg’s proposed encroachment could extend up to 250 feet into the Bay. Furthermore, the neighbors noted that, if Kaseburg’s application were granted, it would encourage other littoral owners to demand permission to construct similar encroachments, thus leading to even greater congestion on the Bay. Because Kaseburg uses his lake house as a vacation home, one objector worried that no one might be around to move the dock as the water level in the lake changed. Yet another neighbor opined that the water on the northern end of Kaseburg’s property, outside of the Bay, would be a more appropriate location for a mooring buoy. He pointed out that the water became deeper much more rapidly in that area, that there was no navigation lane there, and that any congestion would be much greater in the Bay than in the water to the north. In January of 2010, the IDL hearing coordinator issued a memorandum recommending the affirmation of the earlier denial of Application 219-B. The hearing coordinator noted that there was no evidence that the pilings had ever been used for navigational purposes. The hearing coordinator further noted that the application did not specify any navigational use for the proposed replacement pilings. Although Kaseburg had later attempted to amend Application 219-B, this was done after notice had already been circulated and public comments responding to the initial version of the application had already been received; therefore, Kaseburg should have filed a new application rather than attempting to modify his existing application. The Director of the IDL then issued a Final Order adopting the recommendations in the hearing coordinator’s memorandum. Also during January of 2010, the IDL denied Application 219-C, noting that “the line of navigability for single family docks in this area has been established at fifty five feet (55’) waterward of the AHWM.” Because the proposed dock would extend between 95 and 300 feet waterward of the AHWM, depending on the time of year and corresponding lake level, the IDL believed that it properly processed Kaseburg’s application as a request for a permit for a navigational encroachment extending beyond the line of navigability. The IDL held that the proposed encroachment provided no public benefit and therefore denied it. The IDL subsequently denied Kaseburg’s request for reconsideration, stating that no reconsideration was necessary under I.C. § 58-1306(d) because there were objections to the application. The IDL stated that reconsideration of Application 219-B had been granted erroneously. 8 In February of 2010, Kaseburg filed a petition for judicial review with the First District Court for Bonner County in which he alleged that the IDL improperly denied his applications. The district court ruled in favor of Kaseburg and set aside both denials. The court reasoned that I.C. § 58-1302(h) defines “pilings” as navigational encroachments as a matter of law. It found the statutory definition unambiguous and therefore held that the IDL lacked the power to find any particular piling nonnavigational under any factual circumstances. The court further reasoned that, once a navigational encroachment is installed, it can never become nonnavigational by mere nonuse. It remanded the matter to the IDL “to determine the line of navigability and to consider [Kaseburg’s] littoral rights in conjunction with the legislature’s definition that the pilings at issue are ‘encroachments in aid of navigation.’ ” The district court initially awarded Kaseburg attorney’s fees pursuant to I.C. § 12-117. After Kaseburg submitted his Memorandum of Costs and Attorney Fees, the IDL filed its Objection to Memorandum of Costs. Citing Smith v. Washington Cnty., 150 Idaho 388, 391, 247 P.3d 615, 618 (2010) and Laughy v. Dep’t of Transp., 149 Idaho 867, 877, 243 P.3d 1055, 1065 (2010), the IDL argued that I.C. § 12-117 did not allow a court to award attorney’s fees in a judicial review proceeding. The district court agreed and vacated its earlier award of attorney’s fees. The IDL timely appealed the district court’s order setting aside the IDL’s denial of Applications 219-B and -C.