Opinion ID: 1249304
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: General Principles of Law Governing Ownership of Navigable Rivers.

Text: Before addressing the issues in this case, we think it is helpful to have a frame of reference provided by a review of the general legal principles that govern title disputes involving navigable rivers. Upon admission to the Union, a state holds title in its sovereign capacity to the bed of any navigable river or stream within its borders. Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273, 277, 103 S.Ct. 1811, 1814, 75 L.Ed.2d 840, 847 (1983); Robert's River Rides, Inc. v. Steamboat Dev. Corp., 520 N.W.2d 294, 299 (Iowa 1994); State v. Sorensen, 436 N.W.2d 358, 361 (Iowa 1989). In Iowa, [t]he state owns the bed of the river from the ordinary high-water mark to the center of the stream and the riparian owner owns to the ordinary high-water mark. Sorensen, 436 N.W.2d at 361 (citations omitted). In contrast, in Illinois, a riparian landowner's ownership extends to the center of the navigable stream. Buttenuth v. St. Louis Bridge Co., 123 Ill. 535, 17 N.E. 439, 445 (1888). Where a navigable river or stream forms the border of a state, the boundary between the bordering states is not the geographic midpoint between the banks of the river. United States v. Louisiana, 470 U.S. 93, 108, 105 S.Ct. 1074, 1083, 84 L.Ed.2d 73, 84 (1985). Rather, the boundary is the thalwegthe middle of the main downstream navigable channel of the river. Louisiana v. Mississippi, 516 U.S. 22, 25, 116 S.Ct. 290, 292, 133 L.Ed.2d 265, 268 (1995); Iowa v. Illinois, 147 U.S. 1, 7-8, 13 S.Ct. 239, 241, 37 L.Ed. 55, 57 (1893). The United States Supreme Court has given the following explanation of this rule: When a navigable river constitutes the boundary between two independent states, the line defining the point at which the jurisdiction of the two separates is well established to be the middle of the main channel of the stream. The interest of each state in the navigation of the river admits of no other line. The preservation by each of its equal rights in the navigation of the stream is the subject of paramount interest. Iowa v. Illinois, 147 U.S. at 7, 13 S.Ct. at 241, 37 L.Ed. at 57. Where several channels exist, the main channel of the river is the middle of the principal one, or, rather, the one usually followed by boats. Id. at 13, 13 S.Ct. at 241, 37 L.Ed. at 59; accord Holman v. Hodges, 112 Iowa 714, 717, 84 N.W. 950, 951 (1901). The principal navigable channel is not necessarily where the water is the deepest. Minnesota v. Wisconsin, 252 U.S. 273, 282, 40 S.Ct. 313, 319, 64 L.Ed. 558, 564 (1920). As the Court noted in the Minnesota v. Wisconsin case, vessels do not follow a narrow crooked channel, close to shore, however deep, when they can proceed on a safer and more direct one with sufficient water. Id. Of course rivers change over time and several rules have evolved to address such developments. One change that occurs is caused by accretiona gradual and imperceptible addition of soil to the shore line by the action of the water to which the land is contiguous. Meeker v. Kautz, 213 Iowa 370, 372, 239 N.W. 27, 28 (1931). As between states bordering a navigable stream, the boundary line remains the center of the channel even though the banks may change through the process of accretion or erosion. Nebraska v. Iowa, 143 U.S. 359, 360, 12 S.Ct. 396, 397, 36 L.Ed. 186, 187 (1892). Thus, in Iowa, land that accretes at or above the ordinary high water mark on the Iowa shore line becomes the property of the landowner on whose shore it attaches. Mather v. State, 200 N.W.2d 498, 500 (Iowa 1972). On the other hand, accretions to the bed of a navigable stream in the form of islands occurring on the Iowa side of the thalweg belong to the State of Iowa. Sorensen, 436 N.W.2d at 361; Dartmouth College v. Rose, 257 Iowa 533, 536, 133 N.W.2d 687, 690 (1965); accord 72 Am.Jur.2d States, Territories, and Dependencies § 37, at 430 (2001) (A newly formed island is part of the state on whose side of the main channel it forms.). Another rule that is implicated in the present case is known as the island exception to the thalweg rule. The island exception provides: [I]f there is a divided river flow around an island, a boundary once established on one side of the island remains there, even though the main downstream navigation channel shifts to the island's other side. Louisiana v. Mississippi, 516 U.S. at 25, 116 S.Ct. at 292-93, 133 L.Ed.2d at 269. Thus, for example, if an island formed by accretion on the Illinois side of the thalweg, it would belong to the riparian owner in Illinois and this ownership would continue even though the main navigational channel later shifts. A related rule concerns sudden and abrupt changes in a river channel known as avulsions. See Dartmouth College, 257 Iowa at 535, 133 N.W.2d at 689 (defining avulsion). An avulsion has no effect on the boundary line in a navigable stream even though it causes the main navigational channel to change: It is equally well settled that where a stream, which is a boundary, from any cause suddenly abandons its old and seeks a new bed, such change of channel works no change of boundary; and that the boundary remains as it was, in the center of the old channel, although no water may be flowing therein. Nebraska, 143 U.S. at 361, 12 S.Ct. at 397, 36 L.Ed. at 188. With this background we now frame the issues presented in this appeal.