439 P.3d 593
Utah2019Background
- USAC sued, challenging the Public Waters Access Act (PWAA) after property owner VR Acquisitions excluded members from wading/fishing in the Provo River running through its land. USAC sought recognition of a public easement to touch streambeds beyond mere flotation.
- In Conatser v. Johnson (2008) this court recognized a common-law public easement allowing incidental touching of privately owned streambeds as reasonably necessary for recreational uses (floating, wading, hunting, fishing, swimming).
- The Utah Legislature enacted the PWAA to limit public access to: floating, incidental touching for safe passage/portage, and expressly to bar broader wading rights recognized in Conatser.
- The Fourth District struck down the PWAA under article XX, §1 of the Utah Constitution (public lands held in trust), treating the Conatser easement as a State-acquired land interest and finding the PWAA substantially impaired public recreational access.
- The Utah Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding the district court erred by treating the Conatser easement as constitutionally "acquired/accepted" State land without historical proof; Conatser was grounded in common-law principles subject to legislative change. The court left open remand to develop whether the easement existed as of the 19th-century framing of the Constitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Conatser easement is "lands of the State" under Utah Const. art. XX, §1 | Conatser easement is an interest in land the State accepted and thus is protected by article XX | Easement is a common-law right to use water/streambeds, not State land; art. XX protects State-owned lands only | Court did not decide; remanded to determine historically whether easement was "accepted/acquired" at constitutional framing |
| Whether the State "acquired/accepted" the easement at Utah's founding | USAC: "otherwise acquired" language covers such public easements; State accepted them in 1896 | VR/State: acquisition implies State participation; modern Conatser was a judicial common-law creation not necessarily "acquired" in 1896 | Court held district court erred assuming acquisition; remand required for historical inquiry |
| Whether the PWAA "disposed of" public lands or violated the public-trust duty in art. XX §1 | USAC: PWAA narrowed Conatser easement and substantially impaired public recreational access (closure of many fishable miles) | Defendants: PWAA regulates easement scope, not a sale/alienation; regulation is within legislative authority | Court did not resolve; suggested "dispose" may connote alienation but left issue for remand if historical acquisition shown |
| Justiciability / necessity of navigability inquiry before constitutional review | USAC (plaintiff) elected easement route and avoided litigating navigability; case is justiciable on alleged easement | Dissent/VR: navigability is an antecedent ownership question that could moot constitutional issues; court should avoid deciding constitutional questions prematurely | Majority: case is justiciable; plaintiff is master of complaint and may litigate easement theory; dissenters urged constitutional avoidance. Court stayed broader resolution and remanded for historical factual development |
Key Cases Cited
- Conatser v. Johnson, 194 P.3d 897 (Utah 2008) (recognized common-law public easement to touch streambeds incident to recreational use)
- J.J.N.P. Co. v. State, 655 P.2d 1133 (Utah 1982) (public easement to use waters exists irrespective of bed ownership)
- Illinois Central R.R. Co. v. State of Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1892) (articulated common-law public-trust limits on disposition of submerged lands)
- PPL Mont., LLC v. Montana, 565 U.S. 576 (U.S. 2012) (states hold title to beds under navigable waters)
- Utah Stream Access Coalition v. Orange St. Dev., 416 P.3d 553 (Utah 2017) (clarified navigability standard in PWAA)
- Big Cottonwood Tanner Ditch Co. v. Moyle, 174 P.2d 148 (Utah 1946) (easement scope principles in Utah common law)
- Adams v. Portage Irrigation, Reservoir & Power Co., 72 P.2d 648 (Utah 1937) (distinguishing public vs. private waters in Utah)