Botton v. State
69 Wash. 2d 751, 1966 Wash. LEXIS 1005, 420 P.2d 352 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When the state, as a riparian owner on a nonnavigable lake, provides public access, it has a duty to regulate its licensees to prevent their conduct from unreasonably interfering with the rights of other riparian owners.
Facts:
- The State of Washington, through its Department of Game, purchased a waterfront lot on nonnavigable Phantom Lake.
- The State developed this lot into a public access area for fishing.
- The other property owners on the lake (plaintiffs) own their waterfront lots and portions of the lake bed adjacent to their property.
- After the public access area opened, these property owners experienced increased theft, trespassing, littering with trash and broken glass, and public urination on their property.
- The property owners were also subjected to harassment by people using the access area, illegal hunting, and dangerous speed boating.
- This public use interfered with the owners' own ability to use the lake for boating, swimming, and fishing, and caused the fair market value of their properties to decrease.
- Phantom Lake is a small, 63.2-acre lake, located near two much larger navigable lakes that already have numerous public access points.
Procedural Posture:
- A group of waterfront property owners on Phantom Lake sued the State of Washington in a state trial court.
- The plaintiffs sought an injunction to stop the state from maintaining its public access area.
- The trial court found that the state's actions constituted a taking of private property and an unreasonable interference with the plaintiffs' rights.
- The trial court granted a permanent injunction prohibiting the state from maintaining the public access area until such time as it condemned the plaintiffs' property rights.
- The State of Washington (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Washington.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the state's action of providing a public access area to a nonnavigable lake, which results in significant interference with other riparian owners' property and enjoyment rights, constitute an unreasonable use that can be enjoined until the state implements a plan to control the public's conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Hill, J.
Yes. The state's action of providing public access, which leads to conduct that substantially harms other riparian owners, is an unreasonable use that can be enjoined. While a riparian owner (including the state) can permit licensees to use the entire surface of a nonnavigable lake, this right is limited by the duty not to unreasonably interfere with the rights of other riparian owners. The conduct of the public, including theft, indecency, and creating physical dangers, was a clear and unreasonable interference. Therefore, the state has an obligation to regulate the conduct of its licensees. The injunction is proper but should be modified to be temporary, lasting only until the state presents a satisfactory plan to the trial court for the controlled operation of the access area that will safeguard the rights of the other riparian owners.
Concurring - Finley, J.
Yes. The court's decision correctly balances the public's interest in recreation with the private property rights of riparian owners. In a modern society with a growing population, reasonable regulation of natural resources is essential to prevent their abuse and destruction. The state cannot simply create a public access point and then abdicate responsibility for the foreseeable consequences. It has an affirmative obligation to police and regulate the use of the area to prevent 'hooliganism' and ensure that the lake can be reasonably enjoyed by all parties, including the private homeowners.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Ott, J.
No. While the state does not need to condemn the other owners' property, the injunction itself is an improper remedy. The wrongful acts described (theft, littering, etc.) are general misdemeanors and should be addressed by traditional law enforcement, not by enjoining the rights of the entire law-abiding public. Punishing the many for the misconduct of a few is contrary to law and equity. The proper remedy is for the riparian owners to report criminal violations to the county sheriff for enforcement against the specific individuals who violate the law. The Game Department lacks the authority to enforce general criminal statutes, and enjoining public access until it creates a 'plan' is an unworkable solution that effectively privatizes a public resource.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing that when the government acts in a proprietary capacity as a landowner, it assumes the same responsibilities as a private owner. It holds that the right to provide public access to resources is not absolute and is limited by the common law duty not to create a nuisance or unreasonably interfere with the rights of neighboring property owners. The decision creates a novel equitable remedy, requiring a government agency to develop a regulatory plan to control its licensees' behavior as a condition for lifting an injunction. This approach forces state agencies to proactively manage the impacts of their public access programs, rather than leaving injured parties with only the recourse of seeking a permanent injunction or relying on general law enforcement.
