Montana Coalition for Stream Access, Inc. v. Hildreth
211 Mont. 29, 1984 Mont. LEXIS 951, 684 P.2d 1088 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The public has a right to use state-owned surface waters for recreational purposes, and the ownership of the streambed is immaterial to this right, extending up to the ordinary high water mark, with limited rights to portage around barriers, but explicitly excluding the right to enter or cross private property to reach the waters.
Facts:
- Lowell S. Hildreth owns land that abuts the Beaverhead River, and the river flows for approximately one and one-half miles through his property.
- The Montana Coalition for Stream Access, Inc. is a non-profit corporation dedicated to promoting public access to Montana's rivers.
- The Beaverhead River originates at the confluence of the Red Rock River and Horse Prairie Creek in Beaverhead County and flows in a northeasterly direction.
- Hildreth installed a fence across the Beaverhead River on the downstream side of a bridge he had built and was preparing to install a cable across the river.
Procedural Posture:
- On April 8, 1981, the Montana Coalition for Stream Access, Inc. (Coalition) filed a complaint in the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, Beaverhead County, alleging that the public was entitled to float the Beaverhead River through Hildreth’s property.
- On May 8, 1981, the Coalition filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.
- On May 15, 1981, the District Court entered an order for a preliminary injunction, enjoining Lowell S. Hildreth from interfering with members of the public.
- Hildreth filed an answer, a demand for a jury trial, a third-party complaint against the State and various departments, and a counterclaim against the Coalition based on inverse condemnation.
- On March 21, 1982, the District Court granted the Coalition’s motion to amend the complaint, struck Hildreth’s jury demand, and severed the trial on the Coalition’s complaint from Hildreth’s third-party claim.
- On June 23, 1982, the District Court dismissed Hildreth’s counterclaim against the Coalition.
- A trial on the Coalition’s complaint took place from June 23 to 25, 1982, with additional expert testimony on August 9 and September 7, 1982.
- On December 7, 1982, the District Court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of the Coalition, granting a permanent injunction that declared the Beaverhead River subject to public access up to the high water mark and restrained Hildreth from interfering with floaters.
- Hildreth appealed this Rule 54(b) certified partial judgment to the Montana Supreme Court.
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 public have a right to use the Beaverhead River for recreational purposes, and is the ownership of the streambed relevant to determining this right?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Haswell
Yes, the public has a right to use the Beaverhead River for recreational purposes, and the ownership of the streambed is not relevant to this determination. The court held that under Article IX, Section 3(3) of the 1972 Montana Constitution, all surface waters are the property of the state for the use of its people, and the capability of the waters for recreational purposes determines their use. There is no need for a specific, restrictive 'navigability test' for recreational use, and the concept of navigability for title is separate and irrelevant to recreational access. The public's right extends to the waters and the bed and banks up to the ordinary high water mark, with the ability to portage around barriers in the least intrusive manner, but without the right to trespass on private property to access the waters. The District Court's denial of Hildreth's request for a jury trial was proper because the action was fundamentally injunctive and equitable. The dismissal of Hildreth’s inverse condemnation counterclaim was also affirmed because the Coalition lacks the power of eminent domain, and the court's ruling determined public use, not private property title, therefore no taking occurred.
Dissenting - Justice Gulbrandson
No, the court’s affirmation of the recreational use test in this case, following Curran, represents a radical departure from Montana's well-established public policy regarding water rights, which has been acknowledged by the court and legislature since statehood. Justice Gulbrandson argued that the legislature, not the court, should have priority in fixing public policy on water use conflicts. He also believed that Lowell S. Hildreth should have been entitled to a trial by jury under previously established law, and therefore, the case should be reversed for that purpose.
Dissenting - Justice Harrison
No, this case should have been heard before a jury. While concurring in Curran, Justice Harrison believed that the specific facts of this case warranted a jury trial. He concurred with Justice Gulbrandson's dissent regarding the departure from established public policy and the right to a jury trial for Hildreth, advocating for a reversal and remand for trial.
Analysis:
This case, building upon Montana Coalition for Stream Access v. Curran, solidified the broad public right to recreational use of Montana's surface waters under the state's 1972 Constitution and the Public Trust Doctrine. It firmly established that streambed ownership is irrelevant to determining public recreational access, thus preventing riparian landowners from controlling access based on title. While expanding public access, the ruling also balanced property rights by explicitly denying the public the right to trespass private land to reach state-owned waters, and by affirming that determining use, not title, does not constitute a compensable taking.
