Utah Stream Access Coalition v. Orange Street Development

The Utah Supreme Court recently issued its decision in Utah Stream Access Coalition v. Orange Street Development. This case focuses on the interpretation of navigability under the Public Water Access Act.

In the 2008 decision in Conatser v. Johnson, the Utah Supreme Court established a broad public easement to utilize the beds of Utah's waterways for recreational purposes. In response to this decision, the Utah legislature adopted the Public Water Access Act in 2010. The Act placed restrictions on the broad easement recognized under Conatser. Specifically, the Act restricted recreational access to water on public property and to waterways that are navigable.

In 2011, Utah Stream Access Coalition ("USAC") filed a lawsuit against Orange Street and other landowners along a one-mile stretch of the Weber River. USAC asserted that the stretch of river was navigable under the Act, and therefore open to recreational access. Following a four-day trial, the district court issued a decision agreeing with USAC's position. The district court concluded that the section of the river was navigable, and the court issued an injunction preventing the landowners and the State from interfering with the public's recreational access to the one-mile section of the river. The district court also determined that the State owned the bed of the river section. Orange Street Development appealed the decision to the Utah Supreme Court.

Orange Street first argued that the district court applied the wrong test for navigability. The district court had applied the test commonly referred to as the "navigability-for-title" test, which is whether waterways were, at the time of statehood, "used or ... susceptible of being used in [its] ordinary condition, as highways of commerce, over which trade and travel are or may be conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water." The Supreme Court concluded that this test had been adopted into the Act, as shown by the language of the Act that a waterway is navigable if it "is useful for commerce and has a useful capacity as a public highway of transportation." The Supreme Court therefore held that the district court had employed the correct standard for navigability.

Orange Street also argued that the district court had incorrectly applied the facts of the case to the navigability test. The Supreme Court disagreed, and noted the testimony and evidence that had been presented to the district court showing that the Weber River had been used for regular log drives to supply wood for railroad construction, mining timbers, and sawmills. The Supreme Court determined that this evidence was sufficient to support the district court's determination that the Weber River was used as a highway of commerce, and is therefore navigable.

The Supreme Court did disagree with the district court's decision in one regard. The Supreme Court held that because the parties had specifically agreed that the question of title to the bed of the river was not at issue in the case, the district court erred when it made the determination that the State owned the bed of the river. The Supreme Court therefore reversed on this point, but affirmed the remainder of the district court's decision that the one-mile stretch of the Weber River was navigable, as defined by the Act, and therefore open to public recreational access.

To read the full opinion, click here.