State Board of Land v. Philip Hudson, 407 P.3d 202

Priest Lake is a navigable lake; since ~1951 a dam has stabilized a summer pool at ~2437.64 ft elevation. In 2014 the State investigated fill placed waterward of that elevation adjacent to Philip Hudson’s property.
Hudson placed fill (extending ~19 feet waterward of the 2437.64 ft summer pool) without a permit and refused to remove it at the State’s request. The State sued under the Idaho Lake Protection Act (LPA) and for trespass. Hudson counterclaimed for declaratory relief and quiet title, asserting the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) at statehood was ~2435.64 ft, making the fill on his land.
The State moved for partial summary judgment, arguing the LPA authorizes regulation of lakebeds up to the artificial high water mark (AHWM) as well as the OHWM, so the State had jurisdiction regardless of whether 2437.64 ft is OHWM or AHWM.
Hudson produced expert declarations asserting the OHWM at statehood was ~2 ft lower, creating a factual dispute about whether the fill lay on State-owned bed or Hudson’s riparian/littoral land.
The district court granted partial summary judgment for the State, enjoined removal/stabilization and future encroachments without State approval, and the court refused to treat the OHWM/AHWM dispute as material because the LPA covers lands between the OHWM and AHWM. Hudson appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the location of the OHWM is a material fact for LPA liability	State: immaterial — LPA regulates beds lying below OHWM and, for the Act, also lands between OHWM and AHWM, so State jurisdiction exists regardless	Hudson: material — if OHWM at statehood was ~2435.64 ft, the fill lies upland of OHWM and on his property, raising a triable issue	Held: Not material — under the LPA the State may regulate encroachments below OHWM or between OHWM and AHWM; Hudson’s fill was an encroachment and required a permit, so summary judgment proper
Entitlement to appellate costs and attorney fees	State: Hudson’s appeal lacked reasonable basis in fact or law; fees under I.C. §12-117 are proper	Hudson: his position had factual and legal support and fees are inappropriate	Held: State entitled to costs and attorney fees on appeal under I.C. §12-117; Hudson raised substantially the same unsuccessful arguments on appeal

In re Sanders Beach, 143 Idaho 443 (2006) (riparian/littoral ownership extends to the natural high water mark)
West v. Smith, 95 Idaho 550 (1973) (riparian/littoral title principles)
Erickson v. State, 132 Idaho 208 (1998) (state holds title to navigable-bed below OHWM at statehood in trust for the public)
City of Blackfoot v. Spackman, 162 Idaho 302 (2017) (awarding fees when unsuccessful party repeats unpersuasive arguments on appeal)
Rangen, Inc. v. Idaho Dep’t of Water Res., 159 Idaho 798 (2015) (discussing attorney-fee awards under I.C. §12-117)