People Ex Rel. Baker v. MacK

Citations: 19 Cal. App. 3d 1040; 97 Cal. Rptr. 448; 1972 A.M.C. 1076; 3 ERC (BNA) 1391; 1971 Cal. App. LEXIS 1351Docket: Civ. 12936

Court: California Court of Appeal; September 15, 1971; California; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Defendants Ray W. Mack and others appeal an injunction from the Shasta County Superior Court that prohibits them from obstructing public access to Fall River. The court found that defendants, who own riparian lands, had impeded navigation and fishing by erecting barriers such as booms and fences. The case centers on the navigability of Fall River, which determines whether public navigation rights exist. The court ruled that the navigability test is not limited to commercial utility; rather, it includes the river's capacity for recreational boating. Evidence presented showed that Fall River can support pleasure boating, confirming its navigability despite historical use for logging. Consequently, the court ordered the defendants to remove obstructions, affirming that their actions constituted a public nuisance under California Civil Code section 3479. The area of concern stretches from the confluence with Tule River upstream to Thousand Springs.

Fall River is largely surrounded by private property, with the exception of a right of way granted by Shasta County for access to the river. The river is crossed by three county bridges. A historical lawsuit (Callison v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp.) established that Pacific Gas and Electric Company must maintain a nearly constant water level in Fall River, with minimal annual variation. Since 1932, the State Department of Fish and Game has stocked fish in the river. Evidence shows the river's width ranges from 107 to 292 feet and its depth from 2.7 to 17 feet, supporting the court's findings that the river is navigable. Under common law, navigability was traditionally determined by tidal flow, but this standard was not adopted in the U.S. Instead, navigability in law is based on a stream’s actual capacity for commercial use. However, definitions have evolved, emphasizing suitability for public recreational use, as society's needs for leisure activities have grown. Modern interpretations support that navigable waters should be accessible for boating, fishing, and other recreational activities, regardless of commercial potential. Courts in various states have reinforced that streams capable of recreational use should be considered public waters, arguing against the narrow interpretation of navigability that excludes non-commercial activities.

Cases from various states affirm the navigability test established in Lamprey v. State, including Coleman v. Schaeffer, Hillebrand v. Knapp, and Roberts v. Taylor. Notably, a Wisconsin statute defines navigability based on a stream's capacity to float any recreational boat. Courts have ruled streams navigable for recreational use, as seen in Diana Shooting Club v. Husting and Rushton ex rel. Hoffmaster v. Taggart, where streams were deemed navigable despite shallow conditions or lack of commercial boat use. In Willow River Club v. Wade, a stream was ruled navigable even with seasonal depth fluctuations. Ne-Bo-Shone Association, Inc. v. Hogarth recognized navigability for non-commercial purposes, while Collins v. Gerhardt confirmed a fisherman's non-trespass for fishing in a river used for seasonal log floating. Other cases, including Nekoosa-Edwards Paper Co. v. Railroad Com. and Wilbour v. Gallagher, reiterated that fluctuating water levels do not negate public rights to navigable waters. In California, aside from a few historical cases, courts uphold that navigability can exist without commercial use, as stated in Churchill Co. v. Kingsbury, which asserts that all genuinely navigable waters are deemed so in the state.

The public has an absolute right to navigate navigable waters using various types of craft, including pleasure yachts and fishing boats, as established in several court cases. In *Miramar Co. v. City of Santa Barbara*, the court affirmed this right, while *Forestier v. Johnson* confirmed that public navigation and hunting in small boats on Fly's Bay, despite its private ownership and shallow conditions, is permissible. The *Bohn v. Albertson* decision emphasized that pleasure boating suffices as a test for navigability, stating that navigability should be determined by actual use for boating and fishing rather than other factors like tide conditions or proximity to navigable waters.

California courts, including *City of Los Angeles v. Aitkin*, have ruled that navigability does not depend on tidal flow, and this principle has been widely accepted across jurisdictions. The legislature's failure to list specific waterways as navigable does not negate their navigability, as seen in cases like *Newcomb v. City of Newport Beach* and *People v. California Fish Co.*, which upheld state sovereignty over navigable waters established in 1850. Additionally, taxation of riverbeds by local entities does not impact the navigability status of the rivers. The defendants’ argument for estoppel based on prior findings in *Fall River Valley Irrigation Dist. v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp.* was countered by the trial judge, who reviewed relevant documents to support the claim of navigability for Fall River.

The holding in the Fall River Valley District case established that the defendant possessed vested riparian rights to the full natural flow of water, rendering the plaintiffs' permit, which was limited by these vested rights, ineffective. For collateral estoppel to apply, the finding must be necessary to the judgment; since the navigability determination was irrelevant to riparian rights, it was deemed unnecessary, negating collateral estoppel. The parties involved in this case were not the same as those in the prior action, and the irrigation district does not share privity with the State of California. The district's function involves managing water resources, not navigating waterways. The current action is focused on addressing a public nuisance related to obstruction of navigation and fishing rights, rather than title to the riverbed. California's jurisdiction ensures that the federal government's land patents do not need to reserve state rights over navigable waters. The state allows public navigation below the high water mark, irrespective of federal navigability standards, which are more restrictive and focused on commerce. The judgment was affirmed, with concurrence from Pierce, P.J. and Friedman, J.

Retired Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal is serving under the Judicial Council's assignment. An amici curiae brief from the Sierra Club, along with two San Francisco Bay area businessmen, supports the trial court's decision, citing their prosecution and harassment by defendants for recreational use of Fall River. Defendants in the complaint include Harold and Adah Ritter, who conveyed their property to Robert V. and Sunny Read during the litigation, which excluded the Reads from the injunction since they were not parties to the action. The trial court did not determine Fall River's navigability based on its historical use for floating logs, although it had precedent from other states supporting such a classification. Notable cases referenced include Curry v. Hill (Okla. 1969) and others from Michigan and Wisconsin. The judge of the Superior Court of Humboldt County is assigned to the Shasta County Superior Court.