## Facts

- Lowell S. Hildreth owned land along the Beaverhead River, which flowed through his property for roughly 1.5 miles.
- Members of the public, including members of Montana Coalition for Stream Access, used the river for floating and other recreation.
- The Coalition alleged Hildreth obstructed use by installing a fence across the river and preparing to install a cable across it.
- The Coalition sued to enjoin interference and asserted a public right to float through Hildreth’s property.
- The district court issued a preliminary injunction barring interference during litigation.
- Hildreth contested the claimed public right, asserted an inverse-condemnation counterclaim against the Coalition, and brought third-party claims against the State and state agencies.
- After trial, the district court found the river navigable for recreational use and entered a permanent injunction recognizing public access and use up to the ordinary high-water mark, while dismissing Hildreth’s inverse-condemnation counterclaim.
- Hildreth appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the public may use the Beaverhead River for recreation across private property and, if so, whether that right extends to the ordinary high-water mark.
2. Whether public recreational-use rights require determining streambed ownership or “navigability for title.”
3. Whether the Montana Constitution’s declaration that state waters are owned by the state for the people authorizes recreational use without regard to streambed ownership.
4. Whether recognizing public recreational use up to the ordinary high-water mark constitutes a compensable taking supporting inverse condemnation.
5. Whether the district court erred in granting permanent injunctive relief and in related procedural rulings (including jury trial denial, severance, and adoption of proposed findings).

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the permanent injunction and the district court’s judgment.
- The Court held the public has a right to use waters capable of recreational use and the banks up to the ordinary high-water mark, without regard to ownership of the streambed.
- The Court held that “navigability for recreational use” turns on capability for recreation, not federal navigability-for-title standards.
- The Court held streambed ownership need not be decided to resolve public recreational-use rights.
- The Court rejected inverse condemnation against the Coalition because it lacked eminent-domain power and because enforcing preexisting public rights in state waters is not a new taking.
- The Court upheld the district court’s procedural rulings, including denial of a jury trial on equitable claims, severance of third-party matters, and adoption of findings supported by the record.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Montana Constitution, state waters are held by the state for the use of the people, which includes recreational use.
- If a waterway is capable of recreational use, the public may use the waterway and may occupy the banks up to the ordinary high-water mark for recreation.
- Public recreational-use rights in state waters exist independent of streambed ownership; courts need not determine title to the bed to enforce those rights.
- “Navigability for recreational use” is a state-law, capability-based standard distinct from federal “navigability for title.”
- Inverse condemnation generally lies only against an entity with eminent-domain authority; enforcing preexisting constitutional public-use rights does not, by itself, create a compensable taking.

## Conclusion

The court confirmed that the public may recreate on the Beaverhead River through private lands and may remain within the ordinary high-water mark, regardless of who owns the streambed, and it sustained injunctive relief preventing a landowner from obstructing that use while rejecting inverse-condemnation liability on these facts.


Mont. Coal. for Stream Access, Inc. v. Hildreth, 684 P.2d 1088 (Mont. 1984)