Opinion ID: 445562
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Public Trust Doctrine Theory

Text: 13 The District has attempted to overturn the judgment of the District Court by advancing a new legal theory on appeal. While, as the city acknowledges, the United States holds title to the section of the Potomac at issue, 10 and must therefore be the sovereign trustee, the District contends that Congress has implicitly delegated to it the United States' public trust responsibilities for the river 11 and that, as surrogate trustee, it is obliged to keep the river free from impediments to navigation and from impurities. This responsibility, the District maintains, forms the basis of a duty of care on the part of Air Florida not to interfere with the city's trust obligations, and permits the city to recover cleanup costs which resulted from the breach of that duty--the allegedly negligent crash of Air Florida's plane into the river. 14 The District did not put forward this theory below. Nor did it allege facts in its complaint or memoranda that would have alerted the District Court to the relevance of the public trust doctrine to this action. For example, the city made no allegations that the United States has common-law public trust duties concerning the Potomac River and that Congress delegated these responsibilities to the District. Indeed, the concept of public trust was never even mentioned to the District Court. 12 15 Before a complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim, a court must determine that the allegations do not support relief on any possible theory; 13 nonetheless, in order to survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must set forth sufficient information to suggest that there exists some recognized legal theory upon which relief may be granted. 14 The District Court has no obligation to create, unaided by the plaintiff, new legal theories to support a complaint. 15 As we explain more fully below, the District's use of the public trust doctrine to furnish a basis for Air Florida's liability is novel enough that, even under the requisite liberal reading of the complaint, 16 a court could not, without the plaintiff's direct reference to the doctrine, reasonably be expected to consider its application to this case. 16 At the core of the public trust doctrine is the principle that navigable waters are held by the sovereign in trust for certain public uses. The American version of the doctrine, whose ancient roots meander circuitously back to Rome through England, 17 was shaped by our colonial past. Judicial exegesis on the doctrine teaches that while the English sovereign held title to and had dominion over tidewaters and the soil under them, his use of these waters and lands was circumscribed by the public's paramount interests in navigation, commerce and fishing. 18 Title to American tidewaters 19 and their beds passed from the Crown to the Colonies, and after the Revolution vested in the newly sovereign states, 20 to be held in trust for the citizens of these states for the same public uses. 21 Through the Constitution, the original states granted the federal government the right to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, 22 thereby giving Congress an expansive right to ensure the navigability of waterways, 23 but the states reserved title to the beds of their navigable waters. 24 Under the equal footing doctrine, as a general principle, new states took title to and trusteeship for the lands under the navigable waters within their borders as an incident of sovereignty upon admission to the Union. 25 17 In this country the public trust doctrine has developed almost exclusively as a matter of state law. Traditionally, the doctrine has functioned as a constraint on states' ability to alienate public trust lands 26 and as a limitation on uses that interfere with trust purposes. 27 More recently, courts and commentators have found in the doctrine a dynamic common-law principle flexible enough to meet diverse modern needs. 28 The doctrine has been expanded to protect additional water-related uses such as swimming and similar recreation, 29 aesthetic enjoyment of rivers and lakes, 30 and preservation of flora and fauna indigenous to public trust lands. 31 It has evolved from a primarily negative restraint on states' ability to alienate trust lands into a source of positive state duties. As the California Supreme Court observed, the public trust ... is an affirmation of the duty of the state to protect the people's common heritage of streams, lakes, marshlands and tidelands.... 32 18 There has, however, been no parallel development of the doctrine as it pertains to federally-owned waterbeds, such as the portion of the Potomac at issue here. To our knowledge, neither the Supreme Court nor the federal courts of appeals have expressly decided whether public trust duties apply to the United States. 33 There appear to be only two district court cases which explicitly hold that this common-law rule applies to the federal government as well as to the states. In In Re Steuart Transportation Co., 34 the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia upheld, with virtually no analysis, the rights of both the federal and state governments to sue the owner of an oil transport vessel for injury to migratory wildfowl on the theory that [u]nder the public trust doctrine, the State of Virginia and the United States have the right and duty to protect and preserve the public's interest in natural wildlife resources. 35 The District Court for the District of Massachusetts also has found that at least one aspect of the public trust doctrine applies to the United States. In United States v. 1.58 Acres of Land, 36 the court held that the United States could condemn state public trust property and hold such property in fee simple, but noted in dictum that the federal government is as restricted as are states in its ability to abdicate its sovereign responsibilities for public trust land to private individuals. 37 19 Moreover, no case known to us has held that the public trust doctrine permits a governmental entity, either state or federal, to recover from a negligent tortfeasor the cost of removing a substantial impediment to navigation, such as the Air Florida plane, from navigable waters. 20 We emphasize that we imply no opinion regarding either the applicability of the public trust doctrine to the federal government or the appropriateness of using the doctrine to afford trustees a means for recovering from tortfeasors the cost of restoring public waters to their pre-injury condition. Our point is simply that, given the paucity of relevant precedent and the lack of pleadings referring to the doctrine, the District Court could not have been expected to ponder sua sponte: 1) whether common-law public trust duties apply to the federal government; 2) whether these duties regarding the Potomac have been implicitly delegated by Congress to the District; and 3) whether the public trust doctrine provides a trustee in the District's position with a basis for recovery. Consequently we cannot hold that the District Court erred in dismissing the District's complaint for failure to state a claim. We therefore affirm the District Court's dismissal and treat the District's public trust argument as a new issue raised for the first time on appeal. 21 It is well settled that issues and legal theories not asserted at the District Court level ordinarily will not be heard on appeal. 38 As noted by the Supreme Court, the reasons for this rule are clear: 22 [O]ur procedural scheme contemplates that parties shall come to issue in the trial forum vested with authority to determine questions of fact. This is essential in order that parties may have the opportunity to offer all the evidence they believe relevant to the issues which the trial tribunal is alone competent to decide; it is equally essential in order that litigants may not be surprised on appeal by final decision there of issues upon which they have had no opportunity to introduce evidence. 39 23 Decisions in this Circuit have consistently followed a practice of dismissing appeals brought on grounds not asserted in the trial court: 24 This is not a mere technicality but is of substance in the administration of the business of the courts. Enormous confusion and interminable delay would result if counsel were permitted to appeal upon points not presented to the court below. Almost every case would in effect be tried twice under any such practice. While the rule may work hardship in individual cases, it is necessary that its integrity be preserved. 40 25 Although in exceptional circumstances, where injustice might otherwise result, we have the discretion to consider questions of law that were neither raised below nor passed upon by the District Court, 41 we do not believe that this case warrants departure from the normal rule. 26 Our decision not to consider the District's public trust claim is reinforced by our belief that the argument that public trust duties pertain to federal navigable waters, such as the Potomac River, presents a number of complex issues which should first be developed in the District Court. Although the parties assumed in their briefs and oral arguments that local, i.e., District of Columbia, law governs the public trust responsibilities in question here, we believe that federal law controls. Before a court proceeds to ask whether the District is in fact the delegated trustee for the river, or whether the public trust doctrine provides a basis for the duty of care asserted by the District, it must determine whether the public trust duties that have been recognized under state law as pertaining to state governments also apply to the federal government when it holds title to the shores and bed of a navigable river. The District's interest in the public trust doctrine here does not exist independently of its status as representative of the United States' interests. When the issue is framed in this manner, it is clear that at the outset the court must decide the rights and duties of the United States as sovereign titleholder and trustee. As the Supreme Court noted in Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc., our federal system does not permit ... controvers[ies] to be resolved under state law ... [when] the authority and duties of the United States as sovereign are intimately involved .... 42 27 Essentially, then, the District asks us to create new federal common law regarding the rights and responsibilities of the United States and its delegates. This description of the claim points to three very serious problems with our entertaining this issue on appeal without prior consideration by the trial court. First, the United States is not a party to this action. Because a judicial determination here that the United States has common-law public trust responsibilities for the Potomac could be precedent for future suits involving other federally-owned beds and shores of navigable waters, we think that resolution of this issue should be left for a case in which the District Court has the opportunity to consider whether the United States should be joined. 28 Second, we think that there is an issue whether Congress has preempted some or all of the field which a federal common-law public trust doctrine would occupy. 43 The role of federal common law is very narrow and is  'subject to the paramount authority of Congress.'  44 Where a congressional scheme speaks directly to a question which would otherwise be answered by federal common law, federal legislation preempts federal common law. 45 Congress has legislated extensively with regard to many of the interests which the public trust doctrine protects 46 --such as navigation, see, e.g., Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899, 30 Stat. 1151 et seq., as amended, 33 U.S.C. Secs. 401 et seq. (1982); fishing, see, e.g., Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. Secs. 661-66c (1982), and recreational use of waters, see, e.g., Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. Secs. 1271 et seq. (1982). Whether such broad statutes addressing public trust concerns expand to fill the field, thus preempting any alleged federal common-law duties, is a complex question which deserves to be considered in a case where the parties have had a full opportunity to present testimony and arguments, and the District Court has had occasion to pass on, the question. 29 Finally, the question remains whether Congress intended to delegate to the District the federal government's public trust responsibilities for the Potomac. This is a mixed question of fact and law, which would also be facilitated by preliminary District Court consideration.