High Court hears stream access arguments

2013-04-30T03:15:00Z High Court hears stream access argumentsBy Francis Davis of The Montana Standard Montana Standard

BOZEMAN — In the latest maneuver in a complicated lawsuit that stretches back to 2004, a media executive from Atlanta wants the Montana Supreme Court to rule on the legality of Montana’s 1985 Stream Access Law.

The state Supreme Court held a public hearing Monday in the Strand Union building on the campus of Montana State University in Bozeman. The case involved an appeal by the Public Land-Water Access Association, or PLWA, on a ruling made by District Judge Loren Tucker. Tucker’s ruling denied the public access to the Ruby River from a bridge on Seyler Lane near Twin Bridges.

In a cross appeal, Peter Coffman, the attorney for James Cox Kennedy, CEO of Cox Enterprises, brought the legality of the 1985 law into question. Coffman said that law ran counter to earlier Montana court rulings, as well as to established federal law.

The appeal before the Supreme Court on Monday was from a lawsuit originally filed in 2004 by the PLWA against Madison County over access to the Ruby River, from three bridges, two of which adjoined Kennedy’s property. Kennedy had strung fencing that prevented access to the river from the bridges on Seyler Lane and Lewis Lane. Kennedy intervened in the case on behalf of the county.

The other bridge in question, not on Kennedy’s property, was on Duncan District Road.

The court ruled in favor of the PLWA in 2008 for two of the bridges, Duncan District Road and Lewis Lane, saying the public had a right to access the river from the bridges because the bridges were on established county roads. The case prompted the passage of the law by the Montana Legislature that guaranteed bridge access from established county roads.

However, in 2012, Tucker ruled against the PLWA in the Seyler Lane portion of the case. Seyler Lane is a road by prescriptive easement, in other words, through historic public use, and Tucker ruled that access to the river for recreational use from the bridge on that road was not guaranteed.

This led to the appeal by the PLWA, and then the cross-appeal from Kennedy on the Lewis Lane portion of the case.

At the hearing on Monday, PLWA’s attorney Devlin Geddes argued that the public should have access to the Ruby River from Seyler Lane. He argued, counter to Tucker’s ruling, that the public should have right to more than the surface of the bridge, thus allowing it to reach the high-water mark of the river and have access to the river for recreational use.

That access, according to Geddes, should be gained for variety of reasons, including the certificate of survey, the county’s maintenance of the bridge, cattle trails, and through the public’s historic use for recreational purposes.

Coffman, on the other hand, argued that a public easement to use waters above “private streambed” was an invasion of private property. The attorney for Kennedy argued that “Montana cannot retroactively confiscate the private right to control who wades and floats on a privately titled, non-navigable stream.”

Coffman said the right to exclude the public from private property is a right that can’t be taken away. He went on to argue that the “state can’t change the law to retroactively take riparian rights that are already vested.”

Kennedy’s attorney based his argument on federal law, as well as state law prior to 1984, specifically the 1925 Montana case, Herrin versus Sutherland, which ruled that a landowner had the right to the airspace above his land.

Two justices had recused themselves from the case, Justice Brian Morris and Chief Justice Mike McGrath. And one of their replacements, District Judge Kurt Krueger of Butte, questioned Coffman by asking how he expected the court to overturn over 25 years of established law.

Coffman countered by saying that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled “there is no expiration date on the taken clause. If the state acted unconstitutionally in taking the land, then that action is void … the passage of time does not fix it.”

The court specifically addressed the two 1984 cases that are the basis for the 1985 Stream Access Law asking Coffman, “You’re asking us to overturn Curran and Hildreth and also declare the Stream Access Law unconstitutional?”

Coffman responded, “That’s correct.”

Justice Patricia Cotter introduced the water rights written into the state Constitution by asking, “Aren’t you asking us to declare a portion of Montana Constitution unconstitutional, (Article IX, sec III)?”

Coffman said that provision should not extend to the bed and the banks and to do so is “unconstitutional,” referring to the U.S. Constitution.

In his rebuttal, Geddes said it was unfair for Kennedy to bring in the constitutionality of the 1985 law at this stage of the appeal.

Geddes said, “(Kennedy’s) attacks of Hildreth and Curran, and almost 30 years of settled expectations, shouldn’t be considered by this court because it was not raised below.”

Susan Swimley, the attorney for Madison County, spoke only briefly at the appeal hearing. She said Madison County’s interest in the case only extended to the county’s right to maintain the bridge and the road leading to the bridge, as well as to the right for the public to travel on the paved portion of the road and the bridge.

Swimley said, “(Madison county) has not taken a position on any of the other possible arguments in this case.”

Acting Supreme Court Chief Justice Mike Wheat said the court would take the case under advisement and likely have a decision within the next two months.

— Reporter Francis Davis can be reached at francis.davis@mtstandard.com

Copyright 2015 Montana Standard. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(5) Comments

  1. Hunch
    Report Abuse
    Hunch - April 30, 2013 7:02 pm
    Interesting input since I don't believe any of the comments regarding this article included any "un-american" name calling or Socialistic tenets.

  2. RobertBowling
    Report Abuse
    RobertBowling - April 30, 2013 1:02 pm
    I am troubled by the angry reaction private property owners receive from public access advocates whenever an effort is made to protect their rights to possess, control and manage their own property. These advocates need to look around Montana at all of the conservation easements and contributions made by private property owners to the betterment of all Montanans and Americans and towards the protection of recreation, wildlife and open spaces. Bemoaning private property owners and rights, espoucing Socialistic tenets and name calling are not American or Democratic values. We all can agree on the value and virtues of protecting public access to public property. Whether you are from the South, North, East or West, the 1984 Montana Stream Access law was contrary to longstanding laws protecting private property rights extending under non-navigable waterways and therefore, contrary to the US and State Constitutions. Under neither can you take private property or rights without tremendous public need AND "fair" compensation. This fundamental tenent of American private property ownership and democracy is one of the things that separates our great country from those our forefather's left for new lands of opportunity. Yes, there are other countries where private property rights can be taken without fair compensation and you can share in the fruits of everyone else's labor. And I hear the fishing is great
  3. Redax
    Report Abuse
    Redax - April 30, 2013 11:42 am
    I believe the case is on solid footing. This is private property. The essence of freedom under the founding fathers principles was that freedom was the same as private property rights. The only reason government can contravene this right is for reasons of health or safety. Recreation use is a poor justification for infringement of a Constitutional right.
  4. Hunch
    Report Abuse
    Hunch - April 30, 2013 11:03 am
    Perhaps Mr. Cox and his attorney should stay in the south.
  5. kathleen
    Report Abuse
    kathleen - April 30, 2013 6:16 am
    Sad that Madison County has copped out so blatanly this time around.

Civil Dialogue

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Name-calling, crude language and personal abuse are not welcome. Moderators will monitor comments with an eye toward maintaining a high level of civility in this forum. Our comment policy explains the rules of the road for registered commenters. If you receive an error after submitting a comment, please contact us at editor@mtstandard.com.

If your comment was removed or isn't appearing online, perhaps:

  1. You called someone an idiot, a racist, a dope, a moron, etc. Please, no name-calling or profanity (or veiled profanity -- #$%^&*).
  2. You rambled, failed to stay on topic or exhibited troll-like behavior intended to hijack the discussion at hand.
  3. YOU SHOUTED YOUR COMMENT IN ALL CAPS. This is hard to read and annoys readers.
  4. You have issues with a business. Have a bad meal? Feel you were overcharged at the store? New car is a lemon? Contact the business directly with your customer service concerns.
  5. You included an e-mail address or phone number, pretended to be someone you aren't or offered a comment that makes no sense.
  6. You accused someone of a crime or assigned guilt or punishment to someone suspected of a crime.
  7. Your comment is in really poor taste.
Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick

Follow the Montana Standard

Subscribe to MTStandard.com emails!

Be in the know! Stay plugged in! Sign up for Montana Standard emails in your inbox!

Montana Videos

The 4:06 – trending topics and hot headlines

Missoulian reporter Kate Haake presents the latest news you need to know about today's headlines in about t…

Boy baffled by payphone

Boy baffled by payphone

How technology has changed children. Phones now fit in pockets and purses, so this little bo…

Mojave desert oasis

Mojave desert oasis

Jeff the Nature Guy visits the Mojave Desert, and finds a surprising amount of life in the h…

Clipped from the Newspaper

Local Offers and Deals

Great Butte Businesses

Extras from the paper