Court Opinion

ID: 9547988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:55:42.753021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:19.623844
License: Public Domain

SPIESS, Chief Judge (dissenting). The reversal directed by the majority has as its basis a determination that Navajo Lake constitutes navigable waters of the United States and consequently that the rights of the litigants in this action are to be determined by maritime law. This conclusion is based upon a finding of fact made here by the majority. The trial court refused a proposed finding that in effect would declare that the lake constituted navigable waters of the United States, and made a contrary finding. In my opinion the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. It is horn-book law that an appellate court should give effect to findings of fact by the trial court which have substantial support in the evidence. It is fundamental that navigability is a fact question. Those waters which are navigable in fact are navigable in law. United States v. Utah, 283 U.S. 64, 51 S.Ct. 438, 75 L.Ed. 844 (1931); The Daniel Ball, 77 U.S. (10 Wall.) 557, 19 L.Ed. 999 (1870). The burden of proof rests upon the party asserting navigability. The test frequently applied by the Supreme Court of the United States and quoted by the majority is stated in The Daniel Ball, supra. “ * * * Those rivers must be regarded as public navigable rivers in law which are navigable in fact. And they are navigable in fact when they are used, or are susceptible of being used, in their ordinary condition, as highways for commerce, over which trade and travel are or may be conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water. And they constitute navigable waters of the United States within the meaning of the Acts of Congress, in contradistinction from the navigable waters of the States, when they form in their ordinary condition by themselves, or by uniting with other waters, a continued highway over which commerce is or may be carried on with other States or foreign countries in the customary modes in which such commerce is conducted by water.” The Daniel Ball, although involving a river, has been considered applicable in principle to other bodies of water, including inland lakes. See Marine Office of America v. Manion, D.C., 241 F.Supp. 621 (1965). In the trial court, appellants sought to prove that Navajo Lake constitutes navigable waters of the United States and requested findings to that effect. Clearly, to meet the established tests, appellants were required to prove that the lake in its ordinary condition forms a continued highway over which commerce is, or may be, carried on between the states of Colorado and New Mexico. To my mind there is no question that the evidence upon this issue was conflicting, and, as disclosed by the record, the trial court resolved the issue by finding: “4. Navajo Lake is not used or susceptible of use as a body of water in its ordinary condition over which trade and travel may be conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water.” I believe that it is important to set forth the testimony which was presented to the trial court in order to demonstrate the conflict in such testimony upon the material issue and, further, to show that the trial court’s finding against navigability has substantial support. The only testimony related to traveling by boat upon the lake from New Mexico to Colorado consisted of that given by the plaintiff-appellant, Wreyford, and witnesses presented by him. Wreyford testified: “Q I think you stated that prior to the date of the accident, you had boated on Navajo Lake, is that correct? A Yes. Q Had you gone into' Colorado? A Yes, I had been into Colorado earlier that year. Q Do you know any particular location, or what county you were in in Colorado ? A Well, we went up the San Juan River and crossed into the State of Colorado where the old fenceline and state line is, and also the summer prior to that we had been up into Colorado water skiing on a small ski boat. Q On this — the first trip that you mentioned, what boat were you operating at that time? A The large houseboat that I have. Q Describe the dimensions of that boat for the' court? A It’s a fifty-two foot houseboat, twelve foot wide. Q Were you able to navigate • this without difficulty on the confines of the lake within Colorado? A Yes. 'Q Do you know how far you went into Colorado ? A OH, I would say probable three to four' miles, something like that. Q Do you know if there were any docking facilities available? A There’s a ramp there. They do not have a marina. You can — at Arboles, you can buy gas, and in about any quantity you want, but they do not have their pumping facilities down to the lake, it has to be brought down in cans. Q And any boats docked or stationed in Colorado travel to New Mexico, particularly to the marina at Navajo Dam? A Yes, I have seen boats out there from up there, but to be able to identify a specific one, no sir, I couldn’t. Q How were you able to establish that they were boats from Colorado ? A Well, on one occasion, I had talked with an individual that had come down from ’ Colorado. Q Is there any special marking that Colorado boats have in the way of number of licencing [sic] or what not that you know of? A Yes, they have a different numbering system, but I couldn’t tell you exactly what it is. It’s basically the same type of numbering. Q Have you ever purchased any gasoline or any supplies while traveling from New Mexico to Colorado? A Not myself, no sir.” One witness, Arnold, testified that he had boated upon the lake for several years. Upon ■ being asked whether he had ever traveled to Colorado on the lake he answered: “Yes, sir, several times.” He testified that he had traveled to Colorado on various types of boats at different times of the year. Another witness,' John Agee, testified that he had traveled by boat upon the lake into Colorado. ■ Upon being asked how often he traveled into Colorado he said, “Oh, I have been going out there for several years, but I would say maybe once or twice a year at the most I was in Colorado.” Each of these witnesses testified that he had traveled by boat from New Mexico into Colorada upon the lake at different times. None of them, however, testified that the lake in its ordinary condition would support travel between the states, nor did he give any testimony from which such inference could properly be drawn by the court. A Richard Dempsey, likewise called by the plaintiff, gave the following testimony: “Q Mr. Dempsey, do you know, as a matter of fact, that Navajo Lake extends into the State of Colorado? A Yes, it does. Q Do you know that it is possible to navigate a vessel or a water craft from New Mexico into the State of Colorado on Navajo Lake? A During high water, yes. Q All right; have you observed boats from Colorado coming into the State of New Mexico ? A Yes, I have.” From this testimony the trial court could have inferred that the lake would not support travel between the states in its ordinary condition, but would support such travel during periods of high water. A witness, Stanley Wells, testified that he had been boating on Navajo Lake since 1963 and further gave the following testimony: “Q How often have you traveled into Colorado ? A Oh, we’d go anywhere from two or three to a dozen times a year. Q During 1967, do you know what the water level was on Lake Navajo? A I don’t know the elevation. It was about it’s highest point that it had been since its been there. Q At any time since you have been boating on Lake Navajo, or what was formerly Lake Navajo, is there any time that you couldn’t take a boat into Colorado ? A There was one time, it went into Colorado for a short period of time and the lake was dropped, and I believe that was in either 1964 or 1965, I am not sure. Q But has the water level always since that time extended into Colorado ? A Yes, sir. Q What was the water level in 1967, on July 3rd of that year? A Well, it was at the highest — if I recall right, it was the highest point that it had ever been in its history. Q During some periods of the month— of the year, does the water level on the lake go down ? A Yes, it does. I think, in fact, it was just recently going up, I think it’s coming back up now. Q And even in the low periods, are you able to take a boat and go into Colorado? A Oh, yes.” From the Wells testimony the court could have found that the lake in its ordinary condition would support travel between the states of New Mexico and Colorado. The trial court, however, accepted the testimony given by Richard Dempsey, rejected Wells’ testimony, and made Finding No. 4, which we have quoted. The majority say that the evidence adduced at the trial relating to the question of navigability is undisputed. They quote the trial court’s Finding No. 3 as follows: “On the date of the accident, Navajo Lake was a body of water lying within two states, New Mexico and Colorado, and capable bf being traveled upon by-small boats between the two states.” This finding appears to be limited to the date of the accident. Navigability involves the ordinai-y condition of the lake, and not its condition on a single day. This finding does not purport to be a determination that the lake in its ordinary condition will support commerce between New Mexico and Colorado, and does not support the theory advanced by appellants. The majority likewise say that Navajo Reservoir has been determined by the Commandant, United States Coast Guard, to be a part of navigable waters of the United States.- The opinion of the Commandant was not submitted to the trial court, nor did it appear in this case until the filing of appellant’s reply brief. The majority say of the determination of the Commandant, “Although [it] is not conclusive of the issue of navigability, it is relevant evidence thereon.” They then adopt the determination of the Commandant and reject the finding of the trial court. A novel appellate procedure has resulted. The Court of Appeals not only has become the fact finder, but also accepts evidence which was not submitted during the trial, and of which counsel were not accorded the right to question. Upon this evidence it determines the rights of the parties. This holding of the majority that Navajo Lake is part of the navigable waters of the United States might well have far-reaching effect in that admiralty jurisdiction would be imposed not only upon actions sounding in tort but upon many types of contractual obligations, upon liens, various types of services, crimes committed upon vessels and the waters of the lake, and workmen’s compensation matters involving employment at or in connection with boating upon the lake. I, accordingly, register my dissent.