OCR Text |
Show USES OF NAVIGABLE WATER 121 of the paramount Federal commerce power or whether title to the beds underlying particular waters passed from the Federal Government to the State upon statehood. If any State criteria of navigability differ from Federal criteria for such purposes the State criteria may be held to be invalid to this extent. But it appears that different State criteria may be validly employed for certain other purposes. For example, unlike Federal criteria, which emphasize commercial navigability, the Oregon Supreme Court has indicated that public rights of boating may exist on waters that are only navigable for pleasure boating purposes.98 The Oklahoma Supreme Court appears to have similarly indicated that such streams may be used for public fishing and other recreational purposes. The court said, "Our precise holding is that Kiamichi River is an open stream, navigable in fact and can be fished on from boats if the fisherman gets on the stream without trespass against the will of the abutting owner, but the fisherman cannot fix or station trot lines on the bottom of that part of the stream owned by the abutting land owner without permission of such owner."99 98Luscher v. Reynolds, 153 Oreg. 625, 56 Pac. (2d) 1158 (1936). The court said, among other things, that "There are hundreds of similar beautiful, small inland lakes in this state well adapted for recreational purposes, but which will never be used as highways of commerce in the ordinary acceptation of such terms... .Regardless of the ownership of the bed, the public has the paramount right to the use of the waters of the lake for the purpose of transportation and commerce." 56 Pac. (2d) at 1162. See also the dicta inDay V.Armstrong, 362 Pac. (2d) 137, 143 (Wyo. 1961), to the effect that to satisfy Federal criteria of navigability for commerce power purposes waters must be capable of use in interstate or international commerce but that the State may employ different criteria for other purposes. The court held, however, that it was unnecessary to determine the navigability of the water in dispute "because by our Constitution and its Congressional approval, the title of all waters of the State is placed in public ownership." (Emphasis supplied). Id. at 144, referring to Wyo. Const., art. VIII, § 1, which declares that all natural streams, springs, lakes, or other collections of still water are the property of the State. The court concluded that: "Irrespective of the ownership of the bed or channel of waters, and irrespective of their navigability, the public has the right to use public waters of this State for floating usable craft and that use may not be interfered with or curtailed by any landowner. It is also the right of the public while so lawfully floating in the State's waters to lawfully hunt or fish or do any and all other things which are not otherwise made unlawful." Id. at 147. For a similar interpretation of a similar type of constitutional provision in New Mexico, see State ex rel. State Game Comm'n. v. Red River Valley Co., 51 N. Mex. 207, 182 Pac. (2d) 421, 430-432, 464 (1945). But the Colorado Supreme Court rejected such an interpretation of a similar constitutional provision in that State. Hartman v. Tresise, 36 Colo. 146, 84 Pac. 685, 686-687 (1905). "Curry v. Hill, 460 Pac. (2d) 933, 936 (Okla. 1969). The court also said that "The question of whether such streams similar to the Kiamichi River were navigable in fact at least so far as fishing and use for pleasure purposes is concerned has been troublesome to the courts in various jurisdictions for many years." Id. at 935. The court indicated the river had been extensively used for boating, fishing, recreation, and |