No, Marks cannot just fill in his land and block public access, and yes, his neighbor Whitney can stand up in court for the public's rights. The court explained that when the state sold the land, it only sold the dirt. It kept the public's right to use the area for important activities, which is called the 'public trust.' The court said this trust isn't just about old-timey uses like fishing and shipping; it also protects modern values, like preserving the environment, keeping open spaces, and saving homes for birds and fish. So, while Marks owns the land, it comes with permanent public rights attached that he can't destroy. Since Marks's plan would harm these public rights, Whitney was allowed to defend them in court.

Yes, this beach land is for the public to use, including keeping it natural for plants and animals. The public trust rules can change over time to include new ways the public needs to use the beach. Whitney is allowed to ask the court to protect the public's rights because what happens could affect him and everyone else. The earlier court decision is overturned, and they have to follow this new ruling now.

These justices agreed with Justice McComb's opinion.

As explained by the California Supreme Court:[O] ne of the most important public uses of the tidelands—a use encompassed within the tidelands trust—is the preservation of those lands in their natural state, so that they may serve as ecological units for scientific study, as open space, and as environments which provide food and habitat for birds and marine life, and …

—the 1971 court observed: "The public uses to which tidelands are subject are sufficiently flexible to encompass changing public needs. In administering the trust the state is not burdened with an outmoded classification favoring one mode of utilization over another.(Colberg, Inc.

—the California Supreme Court had added ecological and recreational purposes to the traditional triad of public trust uses of commerce, fishing, and navigation.

—the California Supreme Court held that the environmental preservation of tidelands in their natural state was encompassed by the public trust.

Although the public trust easements are traditionally defined in terms of navigation, commerce, and fisheries, the California Supreme Court has noted that "[t] he public uses to which tidelands are subject are sufficiently flexible to encompass changing public needs."

"Public trust easements are traditionally defined in terms of navigation, commerce and fisheries. They have been held to include the right to fish, hunt, bathe, swim, to use for boating and general recreation purposes the navigable waters of the state, and to use the bottom of the navigable waters for anchoring, standing, or other purposes.[Citations.

In Marks, the Supreme Court found it improper to enjoin a property owner from exercising public trust rights to tidelands

And, as recently as 1971, the state's high court, referring to the public trust of this case has held (the italics are ours): "It is a political question, within the wisdom and power of the Legislature, acting within the scope of its duties as trustee, to determine whether public trust uses should be modified or extinguished

The California Supreme Court has interpreted the range of public interest values in these waterways to include general recreation activities such as swimming and boating; and preservation of lands in their natural state as open space, as wildlife habitat and for scientific study

Yes, privately patented tidelands remain subject to the public trust easement, and a private citizen has standing to assert those public rights when they are threatened. When the state conveys tidelands into private ownership, it conveys the title to the soil (the jus privatum) but reserves the public's rights for trust purposes (the jus publicum) as an easement. The court reasoned that the public trust is an attribute of sovereignty that the state holds for the people and cannot easily alienate. Critically, the purposes of the trust are not static; they are sufficiently flexible to encompass changing public needs. While traditionally defined by navigation, commerce, and fisheries, the court found the trust has expanded to include the preservation of lands in their natural state for scientific study, open space, wildlife habitat, and general recreation. Therefore, Marks owns the soil but cannot use it in a manner that is harmful to the trust, and a court may not extinguish public trust rights without a specific legislative determination. The court also held that Whitney, as a member of the public whose rights would be harmed by an injunction and as an affected littoral landowner, had standing to raise the public trust issue as a defense.

Yes, the tidelands at issue are subject to the public trust easement, which includes the right to preserve the tidelands in their natural state for ecological and recreational purposes. The public trust doctrine is flexible enough to encompass changing public needs beyond the traditional uses of navigation, commerce, and fisheries. As a member of the public and a littoral owner whose rights are affected, Whitney has standing to have the court declare the existence of the public trust easement. The judgment is reversed and remanded.

The justices concurred in the majority opinion.

Marks v. Whitney

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot