Court Opinion

ID: 9579929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:59:58.09214+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:53.947840
License: Public Domain

SHEPARD, Chief Justice,
specially concurring.
I concur with the majority opinion, but write only to point out the difficulty in the majority’s use of “land below the natural high water mark.” I believe it is necessary to enlarge upon that definition since, as pointed out in the majority, the water level prior to the construction of the dike fluctuated substantially. Even after the construction of the dike, there is evidently still remaining a considerable fluctuation of the water level. Hence, I believe that the refinement of the term “natural high water mark,” set forth in State ex rel. Hamon v. Fox, 100 Idaho 140, 594 P.2d 1093 (1979), is significant, wherein the Court indicated that the “mean” high water mark is the delineation of the State’s ownership as of *522the time of statehood. Although the Court in Heckman Ranches, Inc. v. State et. al., 99 Idaho 793, 589 P.2d 540 (1979), had for consideration the ownership of the State in the bed of a river in which the water level fluctuated, no refinement was used beyond the term “natural or ordinary high water mark.” However, the Court there held, “[T]he term ‘natural or ordinary high water mark’ of a stream or river is defined by I.C. § 58-104(9) as ‘the line which the water impresses on the soil by covering it for sufficient periods to deprive the soil of its vegetation and destroy its value for agricultural purposes."'
In Heckman, the Court noted that the Chief of the Bureau of Navigatable Waters for the State of Idaho Department of Lands, defined the natural or ordinary high water mark as “the line which the water impresses on the soil so as to deprive it of vegetation and its value for agricultural use.” He indicated that his determination was based upon a visible line of escarpment caused by the action of the water and upon an examination of vegetation. His definition of agricultural purposes for the determination of the boundary was, “land that could be cultivated for crops or at least at the minimum used as hay ground or relatively high quality pasture land.” He further indicated that the land below the line he considered the natural or ordinary high water mark, contained large boulders, gravel and sand deposits and was unsuitable for agricultural purposes. He further indicated that “periodic inundation of land would not alter the location of the natural or ordinary high water mark of a river unless the inundation was severe enough to destroy the land for agricultural purposes.”
The extensive discussion of the determination of the natural and ordinary high water mark in Heckman is worthy of note and consideration by the trial court upon remand.