Opinion ID: 901273
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Schiley Slough

Text: [¶ 17.] The area known as Schiley Slough is located directly north of Lily, South Dakota. [7] In 1876, the United States Surveyor General sketched this area as a drain, although part of it is referred to as a hay marsh in the survey notes. In 1889, a railroad line was built in this area. [8] In the early 1900s, the area was reputedly used for harvesting ice. Historically, this area has been grassland used for pasture and hay, although parts of the area have been farmed. In the 1950s and 1960s the water at Schiley Slough was used for waterfowl hunting and trapping. [¶ 18.] In recorded history, Schiley Slough was never a solid body of water until the late 1990s. In dry times, it was grassland; in pluvial times, it was wetland. The aerial photographic evidence revealed that in 1939 there were only two very small bodies of open water on the property and that each was waist deep or less. In 1958, no standing water was visible on the property. Between the late 1950s and 1970s, four dugouts were constructed to water livestock. In 1991, there were three small bodies of standing water, all less than waist deep. By 1997, Schiley Slough had grown to 625 surface acres and is now perhaps as much as thirteen feet deep in places. [¶ 19.] The trial court concluded that the three bodies of water were not meandered, i.e. not plotted out as lakes, when the federal government surveyed the land before statehood, thus the waters were not navigable and the State did not receive title to the beds in question under the equal footing doctrine. Further, the court reasoned that in South Dakota some bodies of water may be deemed navigable under the State legal test for navigability, but still remain private. Ultimately, the trial court declared Long Lake, Parks Slough, and Schiley Slough to be private bodies of water and enjoined the State from providing public access to them. Of course, South Dakota was free to open any state owned land to the public if it was adequately marked so that the existing property boundaries under the water could be determined with specificity. On appeal, the State raises the following issues: (1) Whether the public trust doctrine recognizes water as a unique natural resource held in trust by the public for use by the public. (2) Whether the recreational use of water bodies controls public access. (3) Whether the federal navigability for title test is applicable to this case.