## Facts

- A man-made lake formed when a Hamilton County rock quarry ceased operations and filled with groundwater and runoff.
- The original owners conveyed separate tracts that included both upland property and defined portions of the lake bed to multiple grantees, including the Sevdes (1994), the Mortvedts (1996), the Orrs (1998), and later Cameron (by conveyance from the Orrs).
- A boundary dispute arose after the Mortvedts claimed their property extended to the water’s edge on the west side of the lake, while the Orrs relied on a recorded survey showing the Mortvedts’ east boundary lay west of the shoreline, leaving the Orrs a narrow strip on the lake’s west side.
- Neighbor relations worsened following changes made by the Orrs on the disputed strip and disagreements over boating and fishing beyond the Mortvedts’ deeded portion of the lake bed.
- The plaintiffs sought declarations resolving the boundary and determining lake-use rights, including whether they could fence within the lake and drain water over their property and reopen the quarry; the Mortvedts sought reformation of their deed.

## Issues

1. Whether the quarry lake is navigable such that public access rights limit private owners’ ability to exclude others.
2. For a nonnavigable, landlocked lake, whether an owner of part of the lake bed may use the entire surface waters or only the waters overlying the owner’s deeded lake-bed tract.
3. Whether owners may erect a fence (or similar structure) in the lake along property lines and drain water above their tracts to reopen the quarry.
4. Whether the Mortvedts proved grounds for equitable reformation of their deed to extend their boundary to the water’s edge.

## Decision

- The court held the lake was nonnavigable because it was landlocked, quarry-created, and used primarily for recreation rather than commerce or travel.
- The court adopted the common-law exclusive-dominion rule for privately owned, nonnavigable lakes: each owner’s lawful use is limited to the waters over the portion of the lake bed described in the owner’s deed.
- The court affirmed declarations permitting the plaintiffs to construct a fence, berm, or similar structure in the lake marking property boundaries and to drain water above their tracts and reopen the quarry, subject to applicable regulation.
- The court affirmed denial of deed reformation because the recorded survey at the time of purchase supported the deeded boundary and the Mortvedts failed to establish a basis for equitable reformation.
- The judgment was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Public access principles applicable to navigable waters do not apply to a landlocked, nonnavigable, man-made lake.
- In Iowa, rights to use a privately owned, nonnavigable lake depend on ownership of the lake bed; surface-water use tracks the deeded lake-bed boundaries.
- Under the exclusive-dominion rule, an owner of part of a nonnavigable lake bed has no right to boat, fish, or otherwise use waters above another owner’s portion of the bed.
- Owners may physically demarcate their lake-bed boundaries within the lake and may remove water above their property, so long as they do not invade others’ property rights and comply with governmental requirements.
- Deed reformation requires sufficient equitable grounds (commonly clear and convincing proof of mistake); a recorded survey and deed description control absent such proof.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed that a landlocked, quarry-created lake was nonnavigable and held that each lake-bed owner’s recreational and possessory rights extend only to the water over the owner’s deeded portion of the bed, allowing boundary fencing and drainage over one’s tract while rejecting deed reformation absent adequate equitable proof.


Orr v. Mortvedt, 735 N.W.2d 610 (Iowa 2007)