Determination of Ordinary High Water Mark and Outlet Elevation for Beaver Lake, Matter of, s. 17088
| Decision Date | 20 February 1991 |
| Docket Number | 17125,Nos. 17088,s. 17088 |
| Citation | 466 N.W.2d 163 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the DETERMINATION OF THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK AND THE OUTLET ELEVATION FOR BEAVER LAKE. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Harold H. Deering, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Sioux Falls, Roger A. Tellinghuisen, Atty. Gen. (on brief), Pierre, for appellee Division of Water Rights.
David R. Gienapp, Arneson, Issenhuth & Gienapp, Madison, for appellant Steve Becker.
Gary L. Richter, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for appellee South Dakota Dept. of Game, Fish & Parks.
A Petition was filed on April 16, 1987, by the Town of Humboldt and others, requesting that the Water Management Board (WMB) clarify Water Right No. 865-3 held by the Department of Game, Fish & Parks (GFP). The Petition also requested that an outlet elevation and ordinary high water mark (OHWM) be established for Beaver Lake.
After a hearing on this matter WMB issued a decision on March 22, 1989, setting the OHWM at 1651.6 mean sea level (msl) and the outlet elevation at 1651.7 msl. WMB also determined that the slough north of the boundary of Beaver Lake was not part of the Lake. GFP appealed this decision to the Circuit Court for Hughes County, on April 5, 1989. Steve Becker (Becker), owner of the slough, intervened in the appeal on December 18, 1989. After argument was heard, the circuit court affirmed WMB's OHWM and outlet elevation determinations, but reversed the issue of the slough.
Becker filed a Notice of Appeal alleging:
(1) the circuit court erred in ruling that the WMB's decision, excluding the slough as part of Beaver Lake, was erroneous and remanding the matter to WMB; and
(2) the circuit court erred in determining that the issue on appeal to the circuit court relating to whether or not a body of water was part of Beaver Lake was wholly a question of law.
Notice of Review was filed by GFP on April 30, 1990. It inquires: Should WMB be required to make a finding or determination that the water is capable of use by the public for public purposes? The circuit court held it was necessary.
In all matters, we affirm the circuit court's reversal of WMB, addressing both issues as one.
Beaver Lake is located roughly one mile southeast of Humboldt, South Dakota in Minnehaha County. Beaver Lake, a kettle lake, was formed during the Ice Age by the melting of a large block of ice buried beneath a glacial drift. Essentially, Beaver Lake is a closed basin, outflowing through an outlet during times of very high water.
The area in dispute is the northern portion of Beaver Lake, commonly referred to as a slough, approximately 40 acres in size. The slough begins at the northern boundary of the drainage basin for Beaver Lake. Surface water drains from the north through the slough in a southerly direction.
It is undisputed that the OHWM of Beaver Lake, established by WMB, is 1651.6 feet msl. It is also undisputed that the outlet level elevation of Beaver Lake, established by WMB, is 1651.7 feet msl, which is .1 feet above the ordinary high mark. Thus, these determinations are not at issue in this appeal.
Prior to 1934, a road was constructed on top and over the bed of Beaver Lake at an elevation lower than the OHWM of Beaver Lake by adjacent landowners. This road was used to move small equipment back and forth. The main portion of Beaver Lake and the slough to the north, dissected by the road, have one continuous connected OHWM of 1651.6 feet msl. At any time the water level of Beaver Lake attains an elevation of 1650 feet msl, the water flows within culverts. These culverts were constructed under the road to allow the free flow of water within the area bounded by the OHWM of Beaver Lake.
WMB concluded that, based on historical records and the existence of the road constructed across the lake, the northern portion thereof consisting of approximately 40 acres (the slough) was not part of Beaver Lake. WMB amended GFP's water right to that amount of water consistent with the newly established OHWM of 1651.6 feet msl and outlet elevation of 1651.7 feet msl, excluding therefrom the area to the north consisting of approximately 40 acres which is the subject on appeal. WMB also concluded that although the body of water (lake and slough) were joined at times of extraordinary high water, such a finding did not require a conclusion that the slough was part of the lake.
On appeal, the circuit court affirmed WMB's decision concerning the OHWM and the outlet elevation, but reversed as to the slough. The circuit court concluded that WMB erred in relying on SDCL 43-17-23 1 in establishing the boundary of the lake because the road did not impact the OHWM. It also stated that WMB further erred by not establishing a low water mark and by not making a determination if the water is capable of use by the public for public purposes. The circuit court remanded the slough issue to WMB for further action consistent with the circuit court decision.
The circuit court did not err in ruling that WMB's decision, excluding the slough as part of Beaver Lake, was erroneous and remanding the matter back to WMB.
Initially, we should note our standard of review for administrative appeals. Recently, this Court succinctly stated the analysis which must be employed when examining an administrative appeal in Beville v. Univ. of S.D./Bd. of Regents, 420 N.W.2d 9 (S.D.1988):
The standard of review for administrative appeals (SDCL 1-26) has recently been clarified in Permann v. S.D. Dept. of Labor, 411 N.W.2d 113 (S.D.1987). Initially, we must determine whether the holding involves a finding of fact or conclusion of law. Schramm v. State Board of Dentistry, 414 N.W.2d 31 (S.D.1987). This distinction must be made to determine "the proper standard of review; that is, clearly erroneous as opposed to mistake of law." Schramm, supra; Permann, supra. Questions of law such as statutory interpretation of SDCL 1-26 are reviewed by this court de novo. Schramm, supra. No deference is given to the conclusions of law by the trial court or the agency. However, as to questions of fact, SDCL 1-26-36 provides that great deference shall be given to agency findings. Thus, the decision of the administrative agency must be upheld unless, in light of the entire record, this decision is clearly erroneous or unless the court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Schramm, supra; Barkdull v. Homestake Mining Co., 411 N.W.2d 408 (S.D.1987); Permann, supra. State Division of Human Rights ex rel. Miller v. Miller, 349 N.W.2d 42 (S.D.1984); Dakota Harvestore v. S.D. Department of Revenue, 331 N.W.2d 828 (S.D.1983).
As discussed above, the proper scope of review in a case such as this, when the issue is a question of law, is that the decisions of the administrative agency and the circuit court are fully reviewable.
The purpose of determining the OHWM of Beaver Lake is to define the boundaries of the lake for public use. As was stated in S.D. Wildlife Federation v. Water Management Board, 382 N.W.2d 26 (S.D.1986), wherein we drew upon settled law in this state:
The adjacent, riparian or upland owner takes to the edge of public lakes at the ordinary low water mark. See SDCL 43-17-2; Anderson v. Ray, 37 S.D. 17, 24, 156 N.W. 591, 593 (1916); Flisrand v. Madson, 35 S.D. 457, 470, 152 N.W. 796, 801 (1915). The riparian owner's title, however, is absolute only to the extent of the OHWM. As to the intervening shore between the ordinary high and ordinary low water marks, the riparian owner's title is qualified or limited by and subject to the public's right of access and use for navigating, boating, fishing, fowling and like public purposes. Flisrand, 152 N.W. at 801. See also, State ex rel. Clark v. Deisch, 38 S.D. 560, 564, 162 N.W. 365, 366 (1917). Thus, the riparian owner may not interfere with or prevent the public's use or lawful access. The State of South Dakota, on the other hand, owns the bed of the lake or that portion below the low water mark. Hillebrand v. Knapp, 65 S.D. 414, 418, 274 N.W. 821, 822 (1937).
As mentioned previously, WMB based their decision, that the slough was not part of the lake, on the fact that the two bodies of water were connected only at times of extraordinary high water and that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andreson v. Brink Elec. Const. Co.
... ... , 489 N.W.2d 353, 357 (S.D.1992)); In re Beaver Lake, 466 N.W.2d 163, 166 (S.D.1991). Statutory ... Brink's argument, however, and our determination that a judgment from a legal proceeding is indeed ... legislature are presumed to convey their ordinary, popular meaning, unless the context or the ... The obvious disposition of the matter is to give the employer so much of the negligence ... ...
-
Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. S.D. Dept. of Rev. & Reg.
... ... TracFone's appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. TracFone appealed to the circuit ... 2d 238, 241 (S.D.1991); Matter of Determination of Ordinary High Water Mark and Outlet Elevation for Beaver Lake, 466 N.W.2d 163, 166 (S.D.1991); Beville ... ...
-
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Telephone Authority v. Public Utilities Com'n of S.D.
... ... Mark Barnett, Attorney General, Lawrence E. Long, ... Steven Aberle, Timber Lake, South Dakota, Attorney for appellee Doug Scott ... , PUC's staff moved for PUC to consider the matter on the record. CRSTTA and US WEST requested a ... the statutory factors in making its determination whether to approve the proposed sale of the ... that the sale of each exchange be held to a high degree of scrutiny. Any sale of a ... whether it abused its discretion." In re Beaver Lake, 466 N.W.2d 163, 167 (S.D.1991) (citing ... ...
-
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT GRANTED TO VAN ZANTEN
...598 N.W.2d 8611999 SD 79In the Matter of the CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT GRANTED TO Greg VAN ... In section 36, Township 105, Range 52, Lake County, South Dakota ... Nos. 20596, 20632 ... June 30, 1999. 598 N.W.2d 862 Mark V. Meierhenry of Danforth, Meierhenry & ... whether it abused that discretion." In re Beaver Lake, 466 N.W.2d 163, 167 (S.D.1991) (citing ... 1988) (where the decision to remand a water rights case on one narrow question did not reopen ... [¶ 21.] Due to our determination on the above issues, the other issues raised in ... ...