Opinion ID: 2632481
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Did the district court err in refusing to quiet title to the property in the Wilsons as against Lucerne?

Text: [¶ 29] In the case of a trial to the court, rather than to a jury, and where the trial court has made specific findings of fact and reached specific conclusions of law, we apply the following standard of review: When a trial court has made express findings of fact and conclusions of law in a bench trial, we review the factual determinations under the clearly erroneous standard and the legal conclusions de novo. State v. Campbell County School District, 2001 WY 19, ¶ 41, 19 P.3d 518, ¶ 41 (Wyo.2001) ( quoting Rennard v. Vollmar, 977 P.2d 1277, 1279 (Wyo.1999)). A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Campbell County School District, ¶ 41 ( citing Hopper v. All Pet Animal Clinic, Inc., 861 P.2d 531, 538 (Wyo.1993)). In the alternative: [A] determination that a finding is against the great weight of the evidence means a finding will be set aside even if supported by substantial evidence. Id. Davis v. Chadwick, 2002 WY 157, ¶ 8, 55 P.3d 1267, 1270 (Wyo.2002). See also Parkhurst v. Boykin, 2004 WY 90, ¶ 25, 94 P.3d 450, 461 (Wyo.2004); and Stansbury v. Heiduck, 961 P.2d 977, 978 (Wyo.1998). A party seeking to quiet title based upon the doctrines of accretion or reliction has the burden of proving the same by a preponderance of the evidence. Madson v. TBT Ltd., 12 Neb.App. 773, 686 N.W.2d 85, 94-95 (2004). [¶ 30] The Wilsons seek to quiet title to the lands underlying the old eastern channel of the river and the lands lying between that channel and the western channel. The district court found and concluded that the eastern channel continues to be a river channel in other words, that it has not simply become an irrigation canaland that the Wilsons failed to prove that accretion has occurred. The doctrine of accretion, or more accurately, the related doctrine of reliction, is the central legal issue in this dispute. The two terms have been defined as follows: Accretion is the increase of riparian land by the gradual and imperceptible deposit, by water, of solid material, whether mud, sand, or sediment, called alluvion, so as to cause that to become dry land which was before covered by water. It is a slow change in the river's boundaries that constitutes accretion. Accretion occurs when the line between water and land bordering thereon is changed by the gradual deposit of alluvial soil upon the margin of the water. The term alluvion is applied to the deposit itself, while accretion denotes the process, although the terms are sometimes used synonymously. Reliction (or, as it is sometimes called, dereliction) differs from accretion in that the term reliction is applied to land made by the withdrawal of the waters by which it was previously covered, from any cause, instead of the building up of the bottom by deposits displacing the waters. Reliction connotes the uncovering of land by a permanent recession of a body of water, rather than a mere temporary or seasonal exposure of the land. 78 Am.Jur.2d Waters § 311 (2002) (internal footnotes omitted). Reliction has also been defined as the process by which a river or stream shifts its location, causing the recession of water from its bank. Black's Law Dictionary 1317 (8th ed.2004). The facts presented in the record in this case clearly reveal that the Wilsons' claims are based upon the doctrine of reliction, rather than accretion. [¶ 31] We will preface this discussion with a recitation of certain basic principles: 1. Where a non-navigable river or stream is the boundary between two parcels of land, the boundary lies along the thread of the main channel. Jourdan v. Abbott Constr. Co., 464 P.2d 311, 314 (Wyo.1970); and 78 Am.Jur.2d Waters §§ 289, 302 (2002). 2. Where lands are conveyed with a non-navigable watercourse as a boundary, there is a rebuttable presumption that the grantor intends the boundary to be the thread of the river or stream, rather than its meander line. Jourdan, 464 P.2d at 314; Denison v. Hodge, 196 Or.App. 248, 100 P.3d 1144, 1145 (2004), reh'g denied, 338 Or. 584, 114 P.3d 505 (2005); and 78 Am.Jur.2d Waters § 289. The thread, or center, of a channel is the line which would give the landowners on either side access to the water, whatever its stage might be and particularly at its lowest flow. The thread of the stream is that portion of a waterway which would be the last to dry up. Where the thread of a stream is the boundary between estates and that stream has two channels, the thread of the main channel is the boundary between the estates. Edlund v. 4-S, LLC, 13 Neb.App. 800, 702 N.W.2d 812, 820 (2005) (citations omitted). 3. Where the bed of a watercourse changes through accretion or reliction, the boundary of the riparian lands changes to follow the thread thereof, and the upland riparian owner then owns the newly formed lands. Jourdan, 464 P.2d at 314; Krumwiede v. Rose, 177 Neb. 570, 129 N.W.2d 491, 494 (1964); and 78 Am.Jur.2d Waters § 315. 4. Where the United States has owned the bed of a non-navigable watercourse, and has disposed of the riparian uplands, the question of whether it has retained or conveyed the bed of the stream is a question of intent. 78 Am.Jur.2d Waters § 309. 5. Riparian owners are entitled to possession and ownership of an island formerly under waters of the stream as far as the thread of the stream. Monument Farms v. Daggett, 2 Neb.App. 988, 520 N.W.2d 556, 562 (1994). 6. Generally, it is immaterial, with respect to the effects of accretion, reliction, or erosion, whether it results from natural or from artificial causes. This rule has been applied in cases where the accretion, reliction, or erosion is indirectly induced by artificial conditions created by third persons. 78 Am.Jur.2d. Waters § 314 (internal footnotes omitted). 7. The doctrines of accretion and reliction are based upon several public policy considerations: The courts are not in complete accord as to the reasons for the general rule as to the acquisition of title to additions to land by accretion or reliction. One reason given for this rule is that expressed by the maxim de minimis non curat lex. [7] In a considerable number of cases the rule has been predicated upon the principle of natural justice, that one who sustains the burden of losses and of repairs, imposed by the contiguity of waters, ought to receive whatever benefits they may bring by accretion. The rule is also derived from the principle of public policy that it is in the interest of the community that all land should have an owner, and most convenient that imperceptible additions to the shore should follow the title to the shore itself. Another reason for the rule is based upon the general policy of the law to promote the highest and best use of the land, the riparian owner being in the best position to develop and utilize that land. Moreover, where waterways serve as the boundary between property owners and/or sovereigns, convenience and perhaps necessity mandate that the waterway should continue to serve as the boundary. Perhaps the most practical reason for the rule is the necessity or desirability of preserving the riparian right of access to the water. 78 Am.Jur.2d Waters § 316 (internal footnotes omitted). [¶ 32] The essential finding and conclusion of the district court was that the Wilsons failed to prove that the eastern channel no longer is a river channel, and failed to prove that reliction had occurred. A review of the complete record convinces us that these findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous. In particular, we note the following information contained in a report from the Bureau of Land Management's Chief, Branch of Land Resources, to the Wyoming District Manager on May 24, 1988, concerning the very land at issue: Your February 17, 1988, memorandum requested determination of ownership of an unsurveyed island in the North Platte River, contiguous to the following land: Sixth Principal Meridian, Wyoming T. 26 N., R. 64 W., sec. 16, lots 3, 4, 5, 8, sec. 21, lots 1, 4. This island was apparently created as a result of Bureau of Reclamation reservoir projects and Lucerne Canal construction. We reviewed the surveyor's field notes from the 1891 survey. During the survey of the subdivisional lines of sections 16 and 21 in the spring of 1891, the surveyor made references to large sand bars scattered through the river. The land was described as level and sandy, covered with vegetation and grass. Considering that the survey was done in the spring of the year, the North Platte River bottom may have been flooded or showed evidence of flooding. However, the surveyor did not reference any islands in his official field notes. If the subject island was upland at time of survey, it would or should have been surveyed; overflowed lands were not subject to survey. Bureau of Reclamation reservoir projects have controlled seasonal fluctuations and flooding on the North Platte River. However, these water-control projects do not affect the status of the 1891 survey nor the ownership of lands subsequently submerged or created. The North Platte River in Wyoming is non-navigable. Title to the bed of a non-navigable body of water did not pass to Wyoming upon its admission into the Union, but remained vested in the United States until transferred into private ownership with land adjoining the river. Thus, conveyance of a parcel of land bordering a non-navigable river includes riparian rights to the thread of the river. The lands described in this memorandum were conveyed on June 11, 1908, by Patent No. 2213 (copy attached), and included any land between the surveyed meander line and thread of the river. Our conclusion is that the island in question did not exist at the time of the 1891 survey. It was overflowed and not subject to survey. The island is owned to the thread of the river by respective riparian owners and subject to applicable laws governing accretion, reliction, and avulsion. The United States does not possess any interest in the lands bordering the North Platte River in sections 16 and 21, T. 21 N., R. 64 W., 6th P.M., Wyoming. [¶ 33] As noted earlier herein, we know that Lucerne obtained the State's permission to divert water from the eastern channel in 1893; we know that the 1908 patent mentioned in the BLM letter refers to the purchase of the property by Edwin R. Hisey, the Wilsons' predecessor in interest; and we know that by 1913 insufficient water was flowing down the eastern channel to allow Lucerne to operate its irrigation headgate. In addition, Thomas Wilson testified that the island was fenced to the western channel, and was being used by his predecessors in interest when he purchased the property in 1964. Furthermore, the great weight of the evidence is that water would rarely, if ever, flow down the eastern channel in the absence of Lucerne's upstream diversion dam. Taken together, these facts can lead to no conclusion other than that reliction has occurred and that title to the property should be quieted in the Wilsons. [¶ 34] That conclusion, however, does not answer the entire question, and should not be construed as contradictory to our earlier conclusions herein regarding estoppel and res judicata. The stipulated resolution of the earlier proceedings included the presumption that Lucerne had the right to transport sufficient water down the eastern channel, now operated in fact as an irrigation canal, to operate its lower diversion and headgate at a fully functional level, including the right to release necessary overflow back into the North Platte River. Consequently, the Wilsons' title to the property must be subject to that right.