Conatser v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 18 July 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 20060558.,20060558. |
| Citation | 2008 UT 48,194 P.3d 897 |
| Parties | Jodi CONATSER, Kevin Conatser, Lacey Conatser, and Nicole Mann, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Wayne JOHNSON, Duane Johnson, Randy Sessions, Michael McMillan, Lynn Brown, Gerald Stout, John and Jane Does 6-25, Clark Sessions, and Shane E. Matthews, Defendants and Appellees. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Gerald E. Nielson, Elizabeth A. Schulte, Robert H. Hughes, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs.
Ronald G. Russell, Royce B. Covington, Salt Lake City, for defendants.
INTRODUCTION
¶ 1 In this case, we must determine the scope of the public's easement in state waters. More specifically, we must determine whether the easement, which allows the public to engage in recreational activities in state waters, also allows the public the right to touch the privately owned beds below those waters.1
¶ 2 Plaintiffs, the Conatsers, sought a declaration from the district court that the public's easement allows the public to "touch or walk on the bottoms [of state waters] in nonobtrusive ways." The district court denied the Conatsers' motion for partial summary judgment on this issue, holding that the scope of the public's easement limits the Conatsers' rights to (1) being "upon the water" and (2) touching the privately owned bed of the Weber River only as "incidental to the right of floatation upon" the water. We reverse the district court's holding and, for the reasons detailed below, hold that the scope of the public's easement in state waters allows the public to (1) engage in all recreational activities that utilize the water and (2) touch privately owned beds of state waters in ways incidental to all recreational rights provided for in the easement.
¶ 3 The parties do not dispute the underlying facts in this case. On or about June 4, 2000, the Conatsers put a rubber raft in the Weber River at a public access point and began floating down the river. While floating, the Conatsers crossed parcels of private property belonging to the Johnsons and touched the river bed in four ways: (1) the raft occasionally touched the shallow parts of the river bottom, (2) the raft's paddles occasionally touched the river bottom, (3) the fishing tackle used by Kevin Conatser touched the river bottom, and (4) Kevin Conatser intentionally got out of the raft and touched the river bottom by walking along it to fish and move fencing that the Johnsons had strung across the river. As they had done on at least two previous occasions, the Johnsons ordered the Conatsers off the river and told them to pick up their raft and carry it out via a parallel railroad easement. The Conatsers refused and continued floating down the river. When they exited at a public access point, the Morgan County Deputy Sheriff cited them for criminal trespass.
¶ 4 The Morgan County Justice Court found the Conatsers guilty of criminal trespass, and they appealed. The State dismissed the charge, finding that there was "uncertainty regarding the Conatsers' status as trespassers." While the criminal case was pending, and due to the long-running dispute between the Johnsons and the Conatsers, the Conatsers filed a civil action in the Second District Court seeking a judicial determination of their rights to use the Weber River. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of the Conatsers' right to touch the Weber River's bed where the river crosses the Johnsons' property. In their motion for partial summary judgment, the Conatsers argued that, as a matter of law, they were entitled to "recreate in natural public waters ... [which] includes the right to touch or walk upon the bottoms of said waters in non-obtrusive ways."
¶ 5 The district court denied this part of the motion, concluding that the scope of the easement limited the Conatsers to activities that could be performed "upon the water,"— chiefly floating—and that the right to touch the river's bed was incidental only to the right of floatation. Thus, the district court held that the Conatsers "may walk along the banks of the river ... in order to continue floating ... so long as [their] actions are as minimally intrusive as possible of the private owners' land." (Emphasis added.) But "[w]ading or walking along the river, where such conduct is not incidental to the right of floatation upon natural waters, would constitute a trespass of private property rights." (Emphasis added.)
¶ 6 The Conatsers challenge the portion of the court's judgment that limits their right to touch the river's bed only in ways "incidental to the right of floating" and seek a declaration that as "members of the general public," they "have the right to walk on the bed of the Weber River and wade in its waters." We have jurisdiction pursuant to Utah Code section 78A-3-102(3)(j) (2008).
¶ 7 Our analysis begins with a review of public ownership rights in state waters and private ownership rights in the beds that lie beneath those waters. We then review the district court's decision regarding the scope of the public's easement in state waters.
¶ 8 By statute, "[a]ll waters in this state, whether above or under the ground, are hereby declared to be the property of the public, subject to all existing rights to the use thereof."2 Under this "doctrine of public ownership," the public owns state waters and has an "easement over the water regardless of who owns the water bed beneath."3 In granting the public this easement, "state policy recognizes an interest of the public in the use of state waters for recreational purposes."4 This court has enumerated the specific recreational rights that are within the easement's scope. They include the "right to float leisure craft, hunt, fish, and participate in any lawful activity when utilizing that water."5
¶ 9 While the public owns state waters, the beds that lie beneath those waters may be privately owned. And navigability is the "standard used to determine title to" the beds of state waters.6 If a body of water is navigable—that is, if it is useful for commerce and has "practical usefulness to the public as a public highway"—then the state owns the water's bed.7 If it is non-navigable, then its bed may be privately owned. The public's easement to use the water, however, exists "[i]rrespective of the ownership of the bed and navigability of the water."8 In this case, then, navigability is relevant only to establish: (1) that the Johnsons own the river bed at issue, and (2) that the public has an easement to use the Weber River where it crosses the Johnsons' property. The question remaining is this: what is the scope of that easement?
¶ 10 Determining the scope of an easement is a question of law.9 And where issues on appeal are purely legal in nature, "we review the district court's decision for correctness, without deference."10 In this case, the district court made two decisions that we will review. The district court interpreted the scope of the public's easement as limiting the Conatsers' rights to (1) being "upon the water" and (2) touching the privately owned bed of the Weber River only in ways "incidental to the right of floatation upon" the water. While the Conatsers challenge only the latter decision, we must address both decisions because the scope of incidental rights is dependent on the scope of actual rights provided for in the easement. We will address each of the district court's decisions in turn.
¶ 11 The first relevant decision of the district court is that the scope of the public's easement to utilize state waters for recreational purposes limits the Conatsers' rights to being "upon the water." In arriving at this holding, the district court relied on a Wyoming case, Day v. Armstrong.11
¶ 12 In Day, a member of the public sought a declaration that he was entitled to fish "either from a boat floating upon the river waters, or while wading the waters, or walking within the well-defined channel of" the North Platte River where it crossed privately owned land.12 The Wyoming Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's request to fish by any means other than floating, reasoning that because waters are not 13 The Day court limited the scope of the public's easement to the "right of floatation" upon the water and allowed only those activities that could be done "while so lawfully floating ... [including the right to] hunt or fish or do any and all other things which are not otherwise made unlawful."14 Thus, the right to hunt, fish, and engage in other lawful activities was modified by the right to float. That is, they could be done only while floating and only because floating occurred "upon" the water.
¶ 13 In this case, the district court adopted the precise language of Day in limiting the Conatsers' rights to being upon the water, but it also ruled that the Conatsers' use of the river is limited to the bounds of the holding of J.J.N.P. Co. v. State.15
¶ 14 In J.J.N.P., we interpreted the scope of the public's easement in Utah waters. While we referenced Day in recognizing that the public has an easement "over the water regardless of who owns the water beds beneath,"16 we did not adopt the language that limits the easement's scope to activities that can be performed upon the water. Instead, we established our own rule that the public has "the right to float leisure craft, hunt, fish, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Wells, s. 16-4006, 16-4007.
...[the Quiet Title Act] shall be tried by a court without a jury."). Utah law follows a somewhat similar approach. See Conatser v. Johnson, 194 P.3d 897, 900 (Utah 2008) ("Determining the scope of an easement is a question of law."); Valcarce v. Fitzgerald, 961 P.2d 305, 311 (Utah 1998) ("The......
-
Utah Stream Access Coal. v. VR Acquisitions, LLC
...20151048Supreme Court of Utah.Filed February 20, 2019On Direct AppealAssociate Chief Justice Lee, opinion of the Court:¶1 In Conatser v. Johnson we recognized a public easement right "to touch privately owned beds of state waters in ways incidental to all recreational rights" to those water......
-
Utah Stream Access Coal. v. Orange St. Dev.
...and Judge Christiansen joined.On Direct AppealAssociate Chief Justice Lee, opinion of the Court:¶ 1 Our decision in Conatser v. Johnson , 2008 UT 48, 194 P.3d 897, established a public easement right to incidentally touch the beds of Utah waterways for recreational or other lawful purposes.......
-
Stern v. Metro. Water Dist. of Salt Lake & Sandy, 20100339.
...with misuse of an easement. The claim for exceeding the scope of an easement is not abandonment, but trespass. Cf. Conatser v. Johnson, 2008 UT 48, 194 P.3d 897 (defendants charged with criminal trespass for exceeding scope of public easement). Abandonment claims require evidence not of mis......
-
Table of Cases
...20.4(3) UTAH_______________________________________________________________________________________ Conatser v. Johnson, 2008 Utah 48, 194 P.3d 897 (2008): 18.7(4) WISCONSIN_________________________________________________________________________________ Just v. Marinette Cnty., 56 Wis. 2d ......
-
§ 18.7 - Points of Discussion on the Public Trust Doctrine
...of shore and bed under nonnavigable river have the exclusive right to everything above such land), with Conatser v. Johnson, 2008 Utah 48, 194 P.3d 897 (2008) (holding the public's right to state waters includes an easement to use waters in nonnavigable rivers, and that the public can also ......
-
Summary of Significant Utah Supreme Court Cases 2008-2009
...future would be wise to clearly state that they are making a Batson challenge and state the basis for the objection. Conatser v. Johnson, 2008 UT 48, 194 P.3d 897 Areas of law: Property, Public Easement In June 2000, the Conatsers floated in their raft down the Weber River. While doing so, ......
-
Chapter 410, HB 141 – Recreational Use of Public Water on Private Property
...property is uncertain after judicial decisions in the cases of J.J.N.P. Co. v. State, 655 P.2d 1133 (Utah 1982) and Conatser v. Johnson, 194 P.3d 897 (Utah 2008), whichdecisions did not address the constitutional prohibition on taking or damaging private property without just compensation; ......