Opinion ID: 1426747
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Public Trust Doctrine and Constitution Itself Mandate State Waters are State Resource for All People of the State

Text: Discussing the public trust doctrine (Majority at 283-284), the majority correctly acknowledges the legal status of these waters as held in trust for all the people of the State, although it fails to draw the necessary legal conclusion that use of these waters, therefore, is of truly general, not merely local, concern. In this regard the majority itself recognizes the broad public interest and ownership associated with these waters by observing `[t]he state can no more convey or give away this jus publicum interest than it can abdicate its police powers in the administration of government and the preservation of the peace.' Majority at 283 (quoting Caminiti v. Boyle, 107 Wash.2d 662, 669, 732 P.2d 989 (1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1008, 108 S.Ct. 703, 98 L.Ed.2d 654 (1988) (citations omitted) (emphasis added)). And the majority even quotes approvingly from precedent to the effect that the public trust doctrine `prohibits the State from disposing of its interest in the waters of the state in such a way that the public's right of access is substantially impaired.... Majority at 283 (quoting Rettkowski v. Department of Ecology, 122 Wash.2d 219, 232, 858 P.2d 232 (1993)) (emphasis added) (citations omitted). Elsewhere it acknowledges the jus publicum [4] interest encompasses the `rights of fishing, boating, swimming, water skiing, and other related recreational purposes generally regarded as corollary to the right of navigation and the use of public waters.' Majority at 283 (quoting Caminiti, 107 Wash.2d at 669, 732 P.2d 989). The jus publicum interest in these waters and their use is of state-wide interest to all the people of this State, not just a purely local interest to island residents. Such considerations of generalized importance are entitled to yet added emphasis, if not prescriptive importance, according to provisions of the constitution, including article XV, which specifically require the Legislature to appoint a harbor commission and specifically enjoin the State from relinquishing any of its rights to control marine waters outside of harbors; and article XVI, section 1, which specifically provides, All the public lands granted to the state are held in trust for all the people ....; not to mention article XVII, section 1, which flatly mandates, The state of Washington asserts its ownership to the beds and shores of all navigable waters in the state up to and including the line of ordinary high tide, in waters where the tide ebbs and flows.... One would be hard pressed to imagine a more definitive and explicit declaration of public trust and generalized constitutional concern than that these marine waters are of general, not purely local, concern that represented by the public trust doctrine coupled with express provisions in the Constitution itself. Perhaps the point would be illustrated if San Juan county were to ban all boating from its waters. The difference then between that scenario and this ordinance would be mere degree, not kind, with respect to issues of locality. Similarly, what if Pierce County closed the Narrows to pleasure boatingwould the majority opine that to be a purely local interest as welleven though the county would have cut the Sound in half politically? This court has no prerogative to ignore the public trust doctrine or these constitutional provisions because the constitution itself plainly provides, The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise. Const. art. I, § 29. I posit the constitution itself tells us we are dealing with anything but a purely local subject.