Summary
The Utah Supreme Court reviewed a challenge to the Public Waters Access Act, which limited the public’s right to touch privately owned streambeds. The court held that the easement recognized in Conatser v. Johnson was based on common-law easement principles and was therefore subject to legislative revision, rejecting the district court’s threshold treatment of the easement as constitutionally protected state land. The court reversed and remanded for consideration of whether the easement had a historical basis as a public easement at the time the Utah Constitution was framed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the appeal was justiciable even though USAC had not litigated whether the relevant stretch of the Provo River was navigable.
- Whether the district court erred by treating the common-law easement recognized in Conatser v. Johnson as an interest in land acquired and accepted by the State under article XX, section 1 of the Utah Constitution.
- Whether the Public Waters Access Act violated article XX, section 1 of the Utah Constitution.
- Whether the district court applied the correct public-trust standard in assessing the constitutionality of the Public Waters Access Act.
Holdings
- The case was justiciable even though USAC chose not to assert or litigate a navigability theory. A plaintiff may elect to proceed on an alternative easement theory, and the court was not required to compel litigation of an unpleaded navigability claim.
- The district court erred by treating the easement recognized in Conatser as an interest that was necessarily acquired and accepted by the State under article XX, section 1. Conatser was based on common-law easement principles, and the legislature has authority to adapt or abrogate common-law rules.
- On remand, the district court must determine whether the scope of the public easement asserted by USAC was supported by the understanding of public easements in the late nineteenth century and therefore was an easement acquired or accepted by the State under article XX, section 1.
- The court did not conclusively decide whether the Conatser easement was a land of the State, whether the Public Waters Access Act disposed of such land, or what standard governs the article XX challenge. Those questions were left open because the historical-basis determination could moot them.
Key quotations
“We clarify that our analysis in Conatser was based only on common-law easement principles. And because this court’s common-law decisions are subject to adaptation or reversal by the legislature, we hold that it was error for the district court to have treated the Conatser easement as a matter beyond the legislature’s power to revise or revisit.” (¶ 4)
“This approach is consistent with a core component of our adversary system—the notion that the plaintiff is the master of the complaint.” (¶ 36)
“The mere fact that Conatser represents this court’s assessment of the proper scope of a common law public easement does not mean that that easement was “acquired” and “accepted” by the State.” (¶ 88)
Factual background
VR Acquisitions owns property along approximately four miles of the Provo River and operates Victory Ranch, where fishing is limited to invited guests. After at least one USAC member was removed from the property and cited for criminal trespass, VR posted no-trespassing signs and relied on the Public Waters Access Act to exclude public wading and fishing in the streambed. USAC challenged the Act as an unconstitutional restriction of the public easement recognized in Conatser v. Johnson.
Procedural history
USAC challenged the constitutionality of the Public Waters Access Act after VR Acquisitions asserted a right to exclude the public from wading in the Provo River over VR's property. The district court rejected USAC's article XVII and federal common-law public-trust claims, but after a bench trial held that the Act violated the Utah Constitution's public-trust provision because it substantially impaired public recreational access. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded because the district court had not determined whether the Conatser easement had a historical basis as a public easement accepted or acquired by the State at the time of the Utah Constitution's framing.
Remand instructions
The district court must determine whether the Conatser easement has a historical basis as a public easement existing at the time of the framing of the Utah Constitution and thus was acquired or accepted by the State under article XX, section 1. The district court may determine the procedure, discovery, briefing, and trial sequence for that inquiry and any remaining issues.