The Utah Supreme Court recently issued its decision in Utah Stream Access Coalition v. VR Acquisitions LLC. This case focused on one question: “whether there was a 19th-century basis for an easement providing the public with the right to touch privately owned streambeds underlying state waters.”
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 2010, Utah Stream Access Coalition (USAC) filed a lawsuit challenging the
constitutionality of the Act under several different arguments. The district
court originally ruled against USAC on the majority of its claims, but did rule
that the Act violated the public trust doctrine found in Article XX, Section 1
of the Utah Constitution. That decision was previously appealed to the Utah
Supreme Court, who reversed the district court’s decision and sent the case
back to the district court to determine if the Conatser easement was “in line
with the sort of public access right that our law would have dictated at the
time of the framing of the Utah Constitution.”
After hearing additional evidence and argument from the parties, the district court determined that USAC was unable to show that there was a “historical basis as a public easement at the time of the framing of the Utah Constitution” and therefore held that the Act was not unconstitutional. USAC then appealed to the Utah Supreme Court for a second time.
The Court first looked at the modern caselaw that USAC cited in support of the public easement. The Court determined that these cases were the product of common-law developments in the 20th and 21st centuries, and were therefore inapplicable to the status of the law in 1896 when the Utah Constitution was adopted. The Court then examined the customs and practices of early Utahns that USAC asserted in support of an “easement by custom.” The Court concluded that USAC did not carry its burden in establishing a legal basis for a Conatser easement based on the 19th century customs and practices of Utahns. Finally, the Court examined USAC’s argument that 19th century federal laws suggested the existence of a Conatser easement. The Court determined that the federal laws were irrelevant because they related to the appropriative use of water, and not the public’s use of easements for accessing the bed of waterways.
In sum, the Utah Supreme Court upheld the district court’s
determination that there is not a historical basis for the type of public
easement established by the Conatser case. This therefore means that the Public
Water Access Act is constitutional in its current form.
To read the full opinion, click here.
Posts
