Idaho Forest Industries, Inc. v. Hayden Lake Watershed Imp. Dist.

• Decision Date: 25 February 1987
• Docket Number: Nos. 16163,16180,s. 16163
• Citation: 112 Idaho 512,733 P.2d 733
• Parties: IDAHO FOREST INDUSTRIES, INC., an Idaho corporation, Plaintiff- counterdefendant-respondent, v. HAYDEN LAKE WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, Defendant-counterplaintiff, v. STATE of Idaho, DEPARTMENT OF LANDS, Third party defendant-appellant, and State of Idaho, Department of Water Resources; Hayden Irrigation District; and Dalton Gardens Irrigation District, Third party defendants. IDAHO FOREST INDUSTRIES, INC., an Idaho corporation, Plaintiff- counterdefendant-respondent, v. HAYDEN LAKE WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, Defendant-counterplaintiff- appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, DEPARTMENT OF LANDS, Third party defendant, and State of Idaho, Department of Water Resources; Hayden Irrigation District; and Dalton Gardens Irrigation District, Third party defendants.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 733

733 P.2d 733

112 Idaho 512

IDAHO FOREST INDUSTRIES, INC., an Idaho corporation, Plaintiff- counterdefendant-respondent, v. HAYDEN LAKE WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, Defendant-counterplaintiff, v. STATE of Idaho, DEPARTMENT OF LANDS, Third party defendant-appellant, and State of Idaho, Department of Water Resources; Hayden Irrigation District; and Dalton Gardens Irrigation District, Third party defendants.

IDAHO FOREST INDUSTRIES, INC., an Idaho corporation, Plaintiff- counterdefendant-respondent, v. HAYDEN LAKE WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, Defendant-counterplaintiff- appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, DEPARTMENT OF LANDS, Third party defendant, and State of Idaho, Department of Water Resources; Hayden Irrigation District; and Dalton Gardens Irrigation District, Third party defendants.

Nos. 16163, 16180.

Supreme Court of Idaho Feb. 25, 1987.

Jim Jones, Atty. Gen., and Rinda Ray Just, Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, for third party defendant-appellant Department of Lands.

Stephen B. McCrea, Coeur d'Alene, for defendant-counterplaintiff-appellant Hayden Lake Watershed Imp. Dist.

Scott W. Reed, and James Michael English, Coeur d'Alene, for plaintiff-counterdefendant-respondent Idaho Forest Industries.

BAKES, Justice.

Idaho Forest Industries (IFI) brought suit to permanently enjoin the Hayden Lake Watershed Improvement District (HLWID) from constructing a public beach, docks and parking lot on property allegedly owned by IFI in fee simple. IFI further sought to have title quieted in it as against HLWID and the State of Idaho, which was brought into the suit by HLWID as a third party defendant. Both IFI and the state moved for summary judgment to quiet title to the disputed property in themselves. IFI based its claim to title on both written deeds and the theory of adverse possession. The state claims title based on the equal footing and public trust doctrines. The district court ruled in favor of IFI, granting the injunction against HLWID and quieting title in IFI as against the state. The state appeals, contending that the district court erred in determining that the disputed property was no longer subject to "public trust" uses. HLWID also appeals, raising the public trust issue and additionally contending that issues of fact exist regarding any rights which it may have under a prescriptive easement theory. We affirm the district court's injunction as to HLWID and reverse the summary judgment quieting title.

The property in question is approximately 30 acres of land that in times past was periodically covered by the waters of Hayden Lake. The land was adjacent to the west arm of Hayden Lake known as Honeysuckle Bay. Title to the disputed property can be traced back to Catherine and Anna Hayden, who presumably obtained the property by patent from the United States in 1909. On June 1, 1909, the Haydens conveyed the property to Arthur D. Jones, who in turn, on June 10th of that year, conveyed the property to Hillyard Townsite Company. The deeds in both these conveyances describe the eastern boundary of the property as the meander line of Hayden Lake, but fail to specifically locate the meander line. In 1910, Hillyard Townsite Company constructed a dike across the easterly portion of the property, preventing the periodic flooding of the land. This caused the land to the west of the dike to be dried up much of the time.

Two years following the construction of the dike, a lawsuit was brought by the Hayden-Coeur d'Alene Irrigation Company, contending that the dike illegally interfered with the irrigation company's water rights. The irrigation company had constructed a pumping station at the west end of Honeysuckle Bay, and construction of the dike had cut off flow of lake waters to that pumping plant. As a result of that litigation, Hillyard Townsite Company was required to maintain a flow of water to the pumping station so as not to interfere with the irrigation company's water rights. A spillway was constructed in the south end of the dike to allow water from the lake to reach the pumping station of the irrigation company via a canal constructed from the spillway to the pumping station. However, Hillyard was not required to remove the dike. The spillway is currently under the control of HLWID. The spillway and approximately 5 acres of land to the west and adjacent to the dike and spillway were conveyed by IFI to HLWID's predecessor in interest. This 5-acre parcel is used as a sump area to drain the overflow waters of Hayden Lake. HLWID is charged with maintaining the level of the lake at a high water mark judicially determined in 1962 to be a level of 2,239 feet above sea level. When the water exceeds this level, the gates on the spillway are opened and the overflow waters are discharged into the 5-acre parcel of land and the old canal that connected to the irrigation pumping station. If sufficient quantities are released through the spillway, waters overflow the canal and the 5-acre parcel and enter onto IFI's property.

In 1920, the Hillyard Townsite Company conveyed the disputed property to Atlas Tie Company, a business entity which ultimately became Idaho Forest Industries (IFI). IFI has claimed title to the property under the 1920 deed to the present. The 1920 deed describes the eastern boundary of the property as the shore line of the lake, which in 1920 would have constituted the east side of the dike. IFI does not dispute that some portion of its property at one time constituted lakebed of Hayden Lake, i.e., was submerged land. However, IFI claims that since the construction of the dike the disputed property has not been under water except in years of extra high runoff when the lake floods.

The state contends that the land in question is partly submerged 4 to 5 months of the year during spring runoff, and that a portion of the disputed property serves as a natural sump area to drain the overflow waters of the lake. The state further contends that the sump area serves as a recharge zone for the Rathdrum aquifer.

IFI currently leases the property to Tom and Shiela Richards. The Richards use the property as dry grazing land and at times have cultivated crops of barley and alfalfa on the property. In 1979 the land was appraised by the Kootenai County assessor and classified as "other rural land" valued at $5,000 per acre. IFI appealed, contending that, because of the intermittent flooding, the land was not suitable to development other than agricultural use and that the maximum value of the land was $500 per acre. The Idaho Board of Tax Appeals found that all but 20% of the approximately 30 acres was subject to flooding and could not be developed for housing. Thus, since 1979 the land continues to be classified as agricultural land.

The State of Idaho raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred in holding as a matter of law that the disputed property is no longer impressed with the public trust and thus subject to a claim of adverse possession; and (2) whether the district court erred in holding that IFI met its burden as to each of the elements of adverse possession by clear and satisfactory evidence. HLWID raises as an additional issue on appeal whether, even if IFI has title quieted to it, HLWID, which is charged with maintaining the level of the lake at 2239 feet above sea level, has obtained a prescriptive easement against IFI for use of the spillway and the 30 acres to drain the runoff waters of Hayden Lake.

I

The district court's order enjoined HLWID "from planning or constructing a roadway, beach area, swimming area or docks upon or adjoining" IFI's property which includes the dike. HLWID clearly has no claim to the disputed property based upon the equal footing or public trust doctrines. Those doctrines would grant title solely to the state, subject to the public trust. The state has not, as far as the record discloses, granted any interest in the property to HLWID for purposes of constructing the proposed beach, docks, and parking lot. ¹ Furthermore, we find appellant HLWID's arguments regarding a prescriptive easement theory to be without merit. It is the long established rule in this jurisdiction that any right gained by prescription is confined to the right as exercised during the prescriptive period. "It is limited by the purpose for which it is acquired and the use to which it is put." Azteck Limited, Inc. v. Creekside Inv. Co., 100 Idaho 566, 568, 602 P.2d 64, 66 (1979). Appellant HLWID has continuously used the easement for roadway purposes, and respondent IFI concedes that a public easement exists for the road on top of the dike. However, the proposed expansion of the easement by HLWID to include public beaches, docks and parking area is clearly outside the scope of the existing public easement for the road along the top of the dike. There is no disputed issue of fact regarding the fact that HLWID's proposed expansion exceeds their rights under the existing roadway easement along the top of the dike. Accordingly, the decision of the district court enjoining HLWID is affirmed.

II

The issues surrounding rights in the disputed property as between the state and IFI are somewhat more involved than those as between IFI and HLWID. The state claims title to the property under the correlative doctrines of equal footing and public trust. IFI claims title by deed and adverse possession. The parties and the district court in essence assumed that the state at one time held title to the property under the equal footing and public trust doctrines, but the district court held that the public trust character of the disputed property ceased to exist with the building of the dike, thereby exposing the disputed property to a claim of adverse possession by IFI. The district court held that IFI had adversely possessed the disputed property as against the state and quieted title to IFI on those grounds. As explained below, we find that material issues of fact exist...