## Facts

- Phantom Lake is a nonnavigable lake bordered by privately owned waterfront parcels.
- The State of Washington, through its Department of Game, bought one waterfront lot and opened it as a public fishing access area.
- After the access opened, adjacent riparian owners experienced serious disturbances attributed to public users entering from the access area.
- Trial court findings included decreased property values; increased theft of personal property; public urination and indecency; litter and pollution; repeated trespasses onto yards, docks, and beaches; injuries from broken glass on beaches; and interference with privacy and use of beaches and docks.
- Many users asserted the lake was “public,” and refused to leave private docks and shore areas when asked.
- The State made little effective effort to regulate either the number of users or their conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether the State, as a riparian owner on a nonnavigable lake, may allow public licensees to use the lake without first condemning the riparian rights of other shoreline owners.
2. Whether the State’s operation of the public access area constituted unreasonable interference with other owners’ correlative riparian rights, justifying injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court held that a riparian owner on a nonnavigable lake may permit licensees to use the lake’s surface without first condemning other owners’ rights, so long as the use does not unreasonably interfere with others’ correlative rights.
- The court agreed the existing operation of the access site caused unreasonable interference with plaintiffs’ riparian rights.
- The court affirmed injunctive relief but modified it: the State was not required to condemn affected properties as a prerequisite to public access.
- The case was remanded to allow continued operation only if the State presented and implemented a satisfactory plan to regulate use and protect other riparian owners’ rights.

## Legal Principles

- On nonnavigable lakes, riparian rights are correlative and shared among shoreline owners rather than exclusive to any one owner.
- A riparian owner may extend its riparian use to licensees (including members of the public), subject to the limitation that the use must be reasonable and must not unreasonably interfere with other riparian owners’ similar rights.
- Uncontrolled or inadequately regulated licensee activity that substantially impairs neighboring owners’ use and enjoyment can constitute unreasonable interference and may be restrained by injunction.
- Public access from a riparian parcel is not a per se taking of other owners’ riparian rights; the controlling question is whether the resulting use, as conducted, unreasonably interferes with correlative rights.

## Conclusion

The court held that the State could invite public licensees onto a nonnavigable lake as a riparian owner, but it could not operate a public access site in a way that unreasonably interfered with neighboring owners’ shared riparian rights; injunctive relief was affirmed as modified to require a protective regulatory plan rather than automatic condemnation.


Botton v. State, 69 Wash. 2d 751, 420 P.2d 352 (Wash. 1966)