Opinion ID: 901273
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Water as a Separate Public Trust Asset.

Text: [¶ 37.] The landowners here do not claim a vested interest through prior usage or appropriation of the water in the lakes on their land. Their claim is that because they own the land underlying the lakes, they own the water as well. Yet, notwithstanding private ownership of beds underlying water bodies, a number of state courts have recognized the application of the public trust doctrine to their water resources, holding that where a body of water is suitable for public use according to state law standards, a public right to use that water will be recognized. [¶ 38.] Citing state constitutional and statutory provisions as support for the principle that all water in the state is owned by the people or by the state for the use of the people, several states have approved the public's right to use water independent of bed ownership. S. Idaho Fish & Game Ass'n v. Picabo Livestock, Inc., 528 P2d 1295 (Idaho 1974) (navigable stream); Montana Coalition for Stream Access, Inc. v. Hildreth, 684 P2d 1088 (Mont 1984) overruled on other grounds by Gray v. City of Billings, 689 P2d 268, 272 (Mont 1984); Montana Coalition for Stream Access, Inc. v. Curran, 682 P2d 163 (Mont 1984); State ex rel. State Game Comm'n v. Red River Valley Co., 182 P2d 421 (NM 1945); Armstrong , 362 P2d 137. The State of Wyoming holds title to water in trust for the benefit of the people independent of whether the underlying bed is privately owned. Id . at 145. Public use hinges on whether the water is capable of being used for public purposes. Id . While lawfully floating craft in the state's waters, the public may hunt, fish or do any of those other things not otherwise made unlawful. Id . at 147. [¶ 39.] In Minnesota, the state, as trustee, retains the duty to protect the public's right to enjoy the waters regardless of claims that the underlying lakebed is owned by the riparian owner. State v. Kuluvar, 123 NW2d 699, 706-07 (Minn 1963) (channel to public lake crossing international boundaries). Relying on a state statute, the Minnesota Supreme Court found that the state possesses a proprietary interest in the public waters of the state and that [r]iparian rights are subordinate to the rights of the public and subject to reasonable control and regulation by the state. Id . at 706. The North Dakota Supreme Court has also held that [t]he State does not lose its right to exercise authority over a lake merely because its lake bed is subject to private ownership. North Dakota State Water Comm'n , 332 NW2d at 258 (meandered lake). In Iowa, the public trust doctrine applies broadly to public access of waters, including navigation and recreational activities such as fishing, hiking, camping, biking, and picnicking. State v. Sorensen, 436 NW2d 358, 363 (Iowa 1989) (land adjacent to Missouri River suitable for use in public access to river part of public trust). [¶ 40.] Montana's approach to the public trust doctrine reflects a common direction in some western states. [16] In Curran , the court held that under the public trust doctrine and the 1972 Montana Constitution, any surface waters that are capable of recreational use may be so used by the public without regard to streambed ownership or navigability for nonrecreational purposes. [17] 682 P2d at 171. However, unlike South Dakota, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming have explicit state constitutional provisions to rely on in order to reach their conclusions. [18] [¶ 41.] On the other hand, other western states have rejected this trend despite statutory and constitutional provisions declaring all water to be public. In People v. Emmert, 597 P2d 1025 (Colo 1979), Colorado's constitutional provision, nearly identical to the Montana provision, was interpreted as having the opposite effect. Id . at 1026. The Emmert Court held that the constitutional provision was primarily intended to preserve the historical appropriation system of water rights on which the irrigation community in Colorado was founded. Id. at 1028. The Colorado Supreme Court declined to extend a recreational right to the public in waters on private lands, citing the common law rule that one who owns the surface of the ground has exclusive right to everything above it. Id . at 1030. [¶ 42.] Kansas followed Colorado's lead in Emmert . Kansas ex rel. Meek v. Hays, 785 P2d 1356 (Kan 1990). Despite a statute stating that [a]ll water within the state of Kansas is hereby dedicated to the use of the people of the state, a statute similar to ours, the Meek Court examined several failed bills in the Kansas Legislature to conclude that [o]wners of the bed of a nonnavigable stream have the exclusive right of control of everything above the stream bed. . . . Id. at 1364-65. The Kansas Supreme Court adopted the Colorado view that statutes granting public ownership to state waters only apply to consumptive uses of water and that [s]tatutory provisions concerned with consumptive appropriation cannot be applied to subvert a riparian landowner's right to exclusive surface use of waters bounded by his land. Id. at 1364. [¶ 43.] In contrast, as mentioned above, in 1955, our Legislature reconfirmed that all water is public property and abolished the previous rule that standing water belonged to landowners. The following South Dakota statutes, in the Water Resources Act (SDCL ch 46-1), depart from common law notions of private water ownership, and, although they regulate the appropriative and consumptive uses of water, they reflect an aspect of the public trust doctrine, requiring the State to preserve water for public use. SDCL 46-1-1: It is hereby declared that the people of the state have a paramount interest in the use of all the water of the state and that the state shall determine what water of the state, surface and underground, can be converted to public use or controlled for public protection. SDCL 46-1-2: It is hereby declared that the protection of the public interest in the development of the water resources of the state is of vital concern to the people of the state and that the state shall determine in what way the water of the state, both surface and underground, should be developed for the greatest public benefit. SDCL 46-1-3: It is hereby declared that all water within the state is the property of the people of the state, but the right to the use of water may be acquired by appropriation as provided by law. [¶ 44.] The landowners acknowledge the limitations imposed on them by the Water Resources Act, but argue that the Act does not deprive them of their ownership of the water. Although we agree that this Act certainly displaces common law rules of water use where effective, it does not override the public trust doctrine or render it superfluous. History and precedent have established the public trust doctrine as an inherent attribute of sovereign authority. See Illinois Cent . R.R. Co. , 146 US at 455, 13 SCt at 119, 36 LEd at 1043 ([S]uch property is held by the State, by virtue of its sovereignty, in trust for the public.). The doctrine exists independent of any statute. See, e.g., Nat'l Audubon Soc'y v. Superior Ct. Of Alpine County , 658 P2d 709, 728 n27 (Cal 1983) (Aside from the possibility that statutory protections can be repealed, the noncodified public trust doctrine remains important both to confirm the state's sovereign supervision and to require consideration of public trust uses in cases filed directly in the courts . . . .), cert. denied, 464 US 977 (1983); Kootenai Envtl. Alliance v. Panhandle Yacht Club, Inc. , 671 P2d 1085, 1095 (Idaho 1983) ([M]ere compliance by [agencies] with their legislative authority is not sufficient to determine if their actions comport with the requirements of the public trust doctrine. The public trust doctrine at all times forms the outer boundaries of permissible government action with respect to public trust resources.). [¶ 45.] Thus, while we regard the public trust doctrine and Water Resources Act as having shared principles, the Act does not supplant the scope of the public trust doctrine. The Water Resources Act evinces a legislative intent both to allocate and regulate water resources. In part, this Act codifies public trust principles. [19] The first three sections of the Act embody the core principles of the public trust doctrine  the people of the state have a paramount interest in the use of all the water of the state, SDCL 46-1-1; the state shall determine in what way the water of the state, both surface and underground, should be developed for the greatest public benefit, SDCL 46-1-2; and all water within the state is the property of the people of the state. SDCL 46-1-3. See Caminiti v. Boyle , 732 P2d 989, 995 (Wash 1987) (stating Shoreline Management Act complied with the requirements of the constitutional public trust), cert. denied, 484 US 1008, 108 SCt 703 (1988). [¶ 46.] From our examination of the statutes and precedent, we conclude that the State of South Dakota retains the right to use, control, and develop the water in these lakes as a separate asset in trust for the public. Accordingly, we align ourselves with the Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, New Mexico, Montana North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming decisions that have recognized the public trust doctrine's applicability to water, independent of bed ownership. As our Court stated in 1964, South Dakota is largely a semi-arid state. The Legislature was fully justified in finding that the public welfare requires the maximum protection and utilization of its water supply. Knight , 80 SD at 523, 127 NW2d at 711. Moreover, we find the pubic trust doctrine manifested in the South Dakota's Environmental Protection Act, authorizing legal action to protect the air, water and other natural resources and the public trust therein from pollution, impairment or destruction. SDCL 34A-10-1; see also Bradley P. Gordon, The Emergence of the Public Trust Doctrine as a Public Right to Environmental Preservation in South Dakota , 29 SD L REV 496 (1984). This Court has previously recognized the public trust doctrine and applied it to navigable waters and their beds. Flisrand , 152 NW at 800 ([S]tate holds the title to such lake bed in trust for the benefit of the public.); Hillebrand , 274 NW at 822-23 ([S]tate holds title to the bed . . . not in a proprietary capacity, but in trust for the people that they may enjoy the use of navigable waters for fishing, boating, and other public purposes freed of interference of private parties[.]); South Dakota Wildlife Fed'n v. Water Mgmt. Bd, 382 NW2d 26 (SD 1986). Today we acknowledge, in accord with the State's sovereign powers and the legislative mandate, that all waters within South Dakota, not just those waters considered navigable under the federal test, are held in trust by the State for the public.