Opinion ID: 2621343
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the District Court Err in Granting the City's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction?

Text: On October 19, 2004, the City filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to restrain the property owners from excluding the public from Sanders Beach. On April 15, 2005, the district court entered an order granting the motion, giving the public access to the beach from the toes of the seawalls to the water. The seawalls had been constructed by various landowners, and the toes of the seawalls ranged from 2134.3 to 2130 feet above sea level. In granting the preliminary injunction, the district court did not set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law which constitute[d] the grounds of its action, as required by Rule 52(a) of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure. Since the public has no right to access Sanders Beach above the OHWM and since the OHWM of Lake Coeur d'Alene has been 2128 feet since 1907, Erickson v. State, 132 Idaho 208, 970 P.2d 1 (1998), it is not clear what status quo the district court was preserving by granting the public access up to 2134 feet. The City argues that the toes of the seawalls were an easily identifiable line of demarcation to preserve the peace by designating which part was private property and which part was state property open to the public. That line of demarcation gave the public access to the entire beach even though part of the beach was clearly private property. The ease of identifying a line of demarcation does not justify taking private property for public use without paying just compensation. Nevertheless, the district court has since vacated its preliminary injunction. The issue is therefore moot insofar as this case is concerned. [1] C. Did the District Court Err in Holding that the Littoral Rights of Owners of Property Abutting Navigable Waters Do Not Include the Right to Exclude the Public from Dry Land Lying Below the OHWM? On June 14, 2005, Michael and Jeanette Mackin, Wesley and Margaret Delaney, Wayne and Nancy Nash, Susan Cliff, Gerald and Patricia Frank, Charles and Shirley Wilke, and Beach Brothers, Inc., [2] filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a ruling that they, as owners of lakeshore property, could exclude the public from that portion of the lakebed between the OHWM and the OLWM (ordinary low water mark) when it was not covered by water. They argued that the right to exclude the public from that portion of the lakebed was included in their littoral rights under the common law. The district court denied their motion, holding that their littoral rights did not include the right to exclude the public from the exposed lake bed. The moving parties [3] along with Greg Delavan, Gary Bartoo, John McGruder and the Coeur d'Alene Lakeshore Property Owners Association (herein all collectively called Lakeshore Owners) appeal that order. The Lakeshore Owners argue that the common law of England applies and that under the English common law littoral rights include the right to exclude the public from land between the OHWM and OLWM when it is not covered by water. They rely upon Blundell v. Catterall, 106 Engl. Reprint 1190 (1821) for their argument regarding the scope of littoral rights under the English common law. The Lakeshore Owners misread that case. It had nothing to do with littoral rights. The issue was whether members of the public had a common-law right to trespass upon the land of another in order to access the sea for bathing. [4] Blundell v. Catterall was an action for trespass brought by the lord of the manor of Great Crosby, which was bounded on the west by the River Mersey, an arm of the sea. The defendant was an employee of a hotel that kept bathing machines for use by its guests. Bathing machines were windowless, roofed and walled wooden carts that could be rolled into the sea. They were commonly horse drawn. They provided a place for people to change into their bathing suits and enabled them to then be transported from the land into the sea without being exposed to public view, in keeping with Victorian notions of modesty. Once the bathing machine was stopped in the sea, the bather would exit from a door facing out to sea and enjoy the water. When done, he or she would re-enter the bathing machine to be transported back to shore and to change back into street clothing. For a fee paid by the guests, the defendant drove the bathing machines. The defendant contended that he had a common law right to travel across the lord's property in order to access the sea for the purpose of bathing. The court rejected that argument, with each justice writing separately. Justice Best wrote in favor of the defendant (hotel employee), and Justices Holroyd and Bayley and Chief Justice Abbott wrote in favor of the plaintiff (the lord of the manor). The Blundell court's opinion was not based upon the plaintiff's littoral rights. It was based upon three factors. First, as lord of the manor the plaintiff owned the land down to the low-water mark. Although the land between the high- and low-water marks was typically owned by the sovereign, the law in existence when the manor was created granted title in the lord of the manor down to the low-water mark. The defendant was trespassing both upon the lord's land above the high water mark and upon the lord's land between the high water mark and the low water mark. Second, the English courts had never recognized a common law right in citizens to access the sea for bathing wherever they wished along the seashore. Third, recognizing any such common law right would interfere with the exclusive right of the lord of the manor to erect stake nets on the shore for fishing. The lord's right to erect such nets would be inconsistent with the claimed right of public access anywhere along the beach because there could be no access to the sea where the stake nets had been set up. Idaho Code § 73-116 provides, The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the constitution or laws of the United States, in all cases not provided for in these compiled laws, is the rule of decision in all courts of this state. We need not search English law to see whether there is an English case upholding the Lakeshore Owners' view of littoral rights because [b]y the adoption of that section this state did not adopt the common law of England when such common law was inapplicable to the conditions of the state. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Hirzel, 29 Idaho 438, 453, 161 P. 854, 857 (1916). Under Idaho law, a riparian owner (on a navigable river or stream) or a littoral owner (on a navigable lake) takes title down to the natural high water mark. West v. Smith, 95 Idaho 550, 554, 511 P.2d 1326, 1330 (1973). [T]he State owns in trust for the public title to the bed of navigable water below the OHWM as it existed at the time the State was admitted into the Union. Erickson v. State, 132 Idaho 208, 210, 970 P.2d 1, 3 (1998). The land at issue is that portion of the lake or river bed lying below the OHWM when it is not covered by water. Although it is State land, the Lakeshore Owners contend that they should have the right to exclude others from it. We have held that the owner of property riparian or littoral to navigable water has the right to access such water at all points along the landowner's waterfront, and the owner may enjoin persons obstructing such access. Ritter v. Standal, 98 Idaho 446, 566 P.2d 769 (1977). The claimed right in this case is separate from the Lakeshore Owners' right to access the lake at all points along their respective waterfronts. Someone walking along the lake on dry land below the OHWM would not impact such right any more than someone walking in the water. Granting the Lakeshore Owners the right to exclude the public from this portion of state land would be inconsistent with the public trust doctrine. Under that doctrine, the state holds the title to the beds of navigable lakes and streams below the natural high-water mark for the use and benefit of the whole people. Callahan v. Price, 26 Idaho 745, 754, 146 P. 732, 735 (1915). This trust preserves the public's right of use in such land. Idaho Forest Indus., Inc. v. Hayden Lake Watershed Improvement Dist., 112 Idaho 512, 516, 733 P.2d 733, 737 (1987). Although initially limited to uses incident to navigation, the public trust doctrine has been expanded to include uses other than those strictly incident to navigation. Kootenai Environmental Alliance, Inc. v. Panhandle Yacht Club, Inc., 105 Idaho 622, 671 P.2d 1085 (1983) (public trust uses include those of fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, aesthetic beauty and water quality). Id. In 1927 the legislature expressly provided that lakeshores between the ordinary high- and low-water marks of Coeur d'Alene Lake and two other lakes are hereby declared to be devoted to a public use in connection with the preservation of said lakes in their present condition as a health resort and recreation place for the inhabitants of the State. Ch. 2, § 2, 1927 Idaho Sess. Laws 6, 7 (now codified as I.C. § 67-4305). Creating the littoral right requested by the Lakeshore Owners would give them the exclusive right to occupy this portion of State land, even though the State holds such land in trust to preserve the public's right of use in the land. Such littoral right would be contrary to the central substantive thought in public trust litigation, which we have stated is as follows: [w]hen a state holds a resource which is available for the free use of the general public, a court will look with considerable skepticism upon any governmental conduct which is calculated either to relocate that resource to more restricted uses or to subject public uses to the self-interest of private parties. State ex rel. Haman v. Fox, 100 Idaho 140, 149, 594 P.2d 1093, 1102 (1979) (quoting from J. Sax, The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention, 68 Mich.L.Rev. 473, 490 (1970) (emphasis in text)). We therefore decline to create the littoral right requested by the Lakeshore Owners. Their littoral rights do not include the right to exclude the public from that portion of the exposed lake bed lying below the OHWM. The district court correctly held that the Lakeshore Owners' littoral rights did not include the right to exclude the public from land below the OHWM when it was not covered by water. In paragraph 2 of its judgment, however, the district court stated, The homeowners' littoral rights do not include exclusive control of any exposed lake bed south from said south boundary of Government Lot 5 (elevation of 2130 feet) to the water's edge. Because the OHWM is not above 2128 feet, this paragraph of the judgment is erroneous in part. We therefore also vacate paragraph 2 of the judgment. D. Are either the Crimps or the Sanders Beach Preservation Association, Inc., Entitled to an Award of Attorney Fees Against the State Board of Land Commissioners, the Commissioners Individually, or the State of Idaho? Gregory and Shana Crimp asked the district court to award them attorney fees against the State Board of Land Commissioners, the commissioners individually, and the State of Idaho. They appeal the district court's refusal to do so and also seek attorney fees on appeal. In their brief, they state, Crimps should be awarded their attorney fees if the determination is anything other than adopting the Land Board's position of a 2128' OHWM at Sanders Beach. From their arguments, it is apparent that their claim for attorney fees is based upon an ultimate finding that the OHWM is above, not below, 2128 feet. Because we hold that the OHWM of Lake Coeur d'Alene cannot be above 2128 feet, we need not address their arguments. They were not entitled to an award of attorney fees. We affirm the order of the district court denying their request for attorney fees and deny their request for an award of attorney fees on appeal. The Sanders Beach Preservation Association, Inc., also sought an award of attorney fees in the district court and seeks and award of attorney fees on appeal. It seeks attorney fees against the individual members of the State Board of Land Commissioners and the State of Idaho. The district court denied its request, and so do we. Like the Crimps, the Association's arguments are based upon the assertion that the OHWM of Lake Coeur d'Alene is above 2128 feet.