Court Opinion

ID: 9674134
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:23:40.024514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:25.747915
License: Public Domain

CADY, J.
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s adoption of the common law rule regarding littoral rights in nonnavigable waters in Iowa. The decision of the majority is based largely on its allegiance to “one of the oldest rules of property known to the law that the title of the owner of the soil extends, not only downward to the center of the earth, but upward usque ad coe-lum.” Hannabalson v. Sessions, 116 Iowa 457, 461, 90 N.W. 93, 95 (1902). The “logical extension” of this rule leads one to conclude “[a]n owner ‘is entitled to exclusive dominion over his land, including the areas above and below its surface.’ ” Andrea B. Carroll, Examining a Comparative Law Myth: Two Hundred Years of Riparian Misconception, 80 Tul. L.Rev. 901, 907 (2006) (citation omitted) [hereinafter Carroll]. Indeed, the logical extension of the rule in this case leads the majority to conclude lake bed owners of nonnaviga-ble lakes have absolute ownership in the waters above their lands. But such an extension is not justified because it is based on the anachronistic rule that our property rights ‘“extend from heaven to hell.’ ” Id. (citation omitted). The march of time, the evolution of society, and the inherent differences between land, water, and air clearly demonstrate they do not. The majority’s adoption of what is called the “common law rule” only furthers this antiquated abstraction. See id. at 940 (suggesting the common law rule should be called “the Roman rule,” “traditional rule” or “exclusive dominion” rule instead).
Moreover, the application of such a rule to Iowa today is unreasonable. As the *619majority recognizes, the rule presents difficulties in “attempt[ing] to establish and obey definite property lines,” and leads to “impractical consequences,” such as the “erection of booms, fences, or barriers.” Beacham v. Lake Zurich Prop. Owners Ass’n., 123 Ill.2d 227, 122 Ill.Dec. 14, 526 N.E.2d 154, 157 (1988). The Scots recognized and solved this problem long ago. See Carroh, 80 Tul. L.Rev. at 927 (“[T]he rule of free access to the surface of non-navigable lakes has its genesis nowhere but in the Scottish legal system, and that it was born out of the Scots’ desire to simplify the problems of boundary demarcation and enforcement on those water bodies.”). Their solution was embodied in what could be called the “free access” rule, or what the majority caUs the “civil law rule.” See id. at 940 (suggesting the civil law rule should be called the “Scottish rule,” the “modern rule,” or the “free access” rule). The reasonableness of the free access rule is readüy apparent — even to the majority. The majority correctly recognizes it “promotes rather than hinders the recreational use and enjoyment of lakes.” Beacham, 526 N.E.2d at 157. In addition, vis a vis the exclusive dominion rule, it has several recognized advantages:
(1) the [exclusive dominion] rule is too difficult to follow with regard to lakes; (2) there can be no private ownership in the waters or in the fish of a nonnaviga-ble lake and, thus, use of the surface should be open to all riparian landowners, (3) common use of the surface of nonnavigable lakes is customary; [and] (4) economic policy requires the adoption of the [free access rule].
Carroll, 80 Tul. L.Rev. at 910 (footnotes omitted).
Nevertheless, the majority adopts the exclusive dominion rule. It reasons that the principle is the “majority” rule, that owners could modify the rule by private agreement, and that it comports with the property norms in this state. In my view, these arguments are unpersuasive. First, the traditional rule is definitely not, when put into context, the “majority” rule. See Nicholas Harling, Nom-Navigable Lakes & the Right to Exclude: The Common Misunderstanding of the Common Law Rule, 1 Charleston L.Rev. 157, 170 <& n. 88, 183 (recognizing most courts have adopted the common law rule, but that because “many other[] [courts] have been unduly influenced by the common law rule’s historic mislabeling and a mistaken belief that their decision places the state’s law squarely within the common law tradition ... no true majority rule exists in America”). Second, the parties in this case clearly demonstrate that a private agreement between them is nearly impossible so that when cases like this arise there really is no other choice.
Finally, if the exclusive dominion rule is consistent with our prevailing norms regarding real estate ownership, it is only because it is based on an antiquated concept that fails to consider the nature of the property in this case. The rule finds no support from those perhaps most familiar with littoral rights. See Carroll, 80 Tul. L.Rev. at 919-27 (explaining the Scots’ adoption of a free access rule regarding Scottish lochs); Johnson v. Seifert, 257 Minn. 159, 100 N.W.2d 689, 696-97 (1960) (adopting the free access rule for the “land of a thousand lakes,” but also noting that it would not apply to “[a] minor body of water which by its nature and character reasonably has no overall utility common to two or more abutting owners”). It also fails to recognize the distinction between water and land. See Carroll, 80 Tul. L.Rev. at 910 & n. 50 (explaining why the “common law rule is too difficult to follow with regard to lakes”).
*620Perhaps most importantly, the free access rule is not detrimental to prevailing norms. See Eric T. Freyfogle, The Particulars of Owning, 25 Ecology L.Q. 574, 585 (1999) (“This trend of tailoring rights to the land poses little real threat to the core values of property. Once people see what is going on, once they realize that property rights now depend in part on the land itself, expectations can be adjusted and life can go on, with as much economic growth, personal privacy, and civic harmony as ever before.”) [hereinafter Freyfogle]. In fact, I do not believe a free access rule would necessarily limit the existing property rights of lake bed owners, such as the Orrs in this case. The free access rule simply “permits a riparian landowner ‘to use the surface of the entire lake for fishing, boating, and bathing as long as he does not unduly interfere with the rights of the other [riparian landowner] proprietors.’ ” Carroll, 80 Tul. L.Rev. at 909-10 (quoting James W. Cullis, Note, Extent of Private Rights in Nonnavigable Lakes, 5 U. Fla. L.Rev. 166, 176 (1952)).
Property law is not set in stone, but depends “entirely on the law of the nation” where the property is located. Johnson & Graham’s Lessee v. M’Intosh, 21 U.S. 543, 572, 5 L.Ed. 681, 688 (1823). It is perhaps noteworthy that Illinois and Minnesota, apparently Iowa’s only two border states that have considered the issue, have adopted the free access rule. See Beacham, 526 N.E.2d at 157; Johnson, 100 N.W.2d at 696-97. Moreover, in light of the benefits of the free access rule, it is not too much for our law to require lake bed owners to permit the reasonable use of surface water by other lake bed owners. This approach best reflects our modern values of free use and enjoyment of lakes and streams in Iowa and still protects the rights and ownership of lake bed owners by only permitting others to use the surface water in a reasonable manner, and not terminating any rights a lake bed owner has in the land.
I do not know how many Iowans share the shores of nonnavigable lakes around the state so as to be affected by the holding in this case, but I suspect there are many. In each instance, the inflexible rule adopted by the majority could leave unwanted consequences. For example, it will permit lake bed owners to build fences into the lake to mark boundary lines. It will also give rise to claims of trespass for operating boats in waters over land owned by another or for merely “casting a fishing line into water” over land owned by another. Carroll, 80 Tul. L.Rev. at 908. We, of course, know of the uncivilized conduct exhibited by the property owners in this case. This is not the Iowa our laws should create.
While the majority rule toasts the rugged and proud American spirit of individualism and self-determination commonly tied to land ownership, see Freyfogle, 25 Ecology L.Q. at 574 (“Among the peculiar traits of the United States is its pronounced preoccupation with individual rights and its tendency to discuss social problems in individual terms.”), these notions are largely illusory when applied to lakes. The same self-control given to one landowner is also enjoyed by the other landowners around the lake. Without a shared, community approach and understanding, any single lake bed owner can disrupt or destroy the common aspirations of living on a lake for everyone else by exercising their individualism over the portion of the lake they control. When individual control over a portion of the lake is the desired goal, no person can share in the common attributes of life on the lake. The better rule is a community approach to littoral rights, which the free access rule accomplishes without diminishing our individual property rights. See id. at 588 *621(“From water law there is the sensible [free access] rule governing the surface use of nonnavigable lakes; in that case, too, individual property rights are mingled and shared, without diminishing their value.”)- When we deal with our world’s resources, that is the best, if not the only, policy to follow.
The policy behind the free access rule best reflects life in Iowa in the twenty-first century. Rigid property rights of the past centuries should give way to the simple and fair solution of boundary disputes offered by the better reasoned free access rule. Our laws pertaining to land, air, and water must begin to reflect that we coexist on Earth as one.