Utah Stream Access Coal. v. Orange St. Dev.
2017 UT 82
Utah2017Background
- Utah Stream Access Coalition (USAC) sued Orange Street Development seeking a declaration that a one-mile stretch of the Weber River is “navigable water” under the Public Waters Access Act, entitling the public to recreational use.
- The State (Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands) was substituted as a party and remained largely neutral; USAC disavowed any quiet-title relief and grounded its claim in the Act.
- The district court held a four-day bench trial, credited evidence of regular commercial log drives and other timber transport around the time of Utah statehood, and found the river segment navigable; it enjoined interference with public recreational use.
- The district court also quieted title in the State to the streambed, but the parties conceded quiet-title relief was not pleaded and that quiet-title adjudication was erroneous.
- The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the navigability determination (holding the Act imports the federal navigability-for-title standard and that the evidence supported commercial utility), but vacated the quiet-title judgment as beyond what was litigated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Public Waters Access Act incorporate the federal "navigability-for-title" standard (including the statehood-timeframe)? | USAC: The Act’s definition adopts the federal term-of-art; federal standard governs timing and elements. | Orange Street: Statutory definition differs (present-tense language) and does not import the federal, statehood-focused standard. | The statute adopts the federal terminology and framework; the Act’s test is essentially equivalent and is applied with the statehood timeframe. |
| Was the disputed Weber River segment "navigable" under the Act? | USAC: Historical, regular commercial log drives and timber transport show commercial utility and useful capacity as a public highway. | Orange Street: Uses were seasonal/episodic, not year-round or continuous; evidence insufficient to show commercial utility. | Affirmed: trial court’s factual findings (regular, commercially useful log drives etc.) support navigability; intermittent seasonal navigation can suffice if commercially useful and regular. |
| Was it plain error to apply federal cases (rather than a divergent state-only standard)? | USAC: Federal precedent aligns with the Act; reliance on federal cases appropriate. | Orange Street: Failure to preserve standard; federal focus is different and review should reverse if prejudicial. | No plain error: any reliance on federal law was harmless because the statutory language mirrors federal test. |
| Was quieting title to the streambed appropriate without a pleaded quiet-title claim? | USAC: Disavowed title relief; sought access only. | Orange Street/State: Quiet-title relief was not pleaded; the district court exceeded the requested relief. | Majority: Vacated quiet-title adjudication as erroneous because no quiet-title claim was properly presented; did not decide who holds title. (Justice Durham would have recognized state title as a corollary.) |
Key Cases Cited
- Daniel Ball v. United States, 77 U.S. 557 (1870) (formulation of navigability as waterways "used, or susceptible of being used" as highways for commerce)
- PPL Montana, LLC v. Montana, 565 U.S. 576 (2012) (navigability for state-title under equal-footing doctrine determined as of statehood)
- United States v. Utah, 283 U.S. 64 (1931) (quoting Daniel Ball and discussing navigability-for-title principles)
- United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co., 174 U.S. 690 (1899) (navigability requires general and common usefulness for trade or agriculture)
- Monroe v. State, 175 P.2d 759 (Utah 1946) (state articulation of navigability test focusing on commercial utility)