## Facts

- The district attorney of Shasta County, on behalf of the People, sued riparian landowners along the Fall River to abate a public nuisance and protect public access.
- Defendants erected and maintained wires, cables, booms, fences, and low bridges across the river, and placed fencing to prevent public access to the river.
- The trial court found the obstructions prevented public pleasure boating and fishing.
- After a nonjury trial and a site inspection by boat and from the air, the trial court found the Fall River navigable in fact in the relevant stretch and issued an injunction ordering removal of obstructions and prohibiting interference with the public’s use.
- Defendants appealed, arguing the river was not navigable because it was not usable for commercial navigation and asserting estoppel based on prior governmental conduct suggesting non-navigability.

## Issues

1. Whether a California stream may be deemed navigable for public boating and fishing rights based on recreational navigability, or whether commercial use is the sole test.
2. Whether the People were estopped from asserting navigability and enforcing public rights due to prior conduct of public officials or agencies.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the injunction.
- The court held commercial use is not the exclusive test of navigability for public-rights purposes; a stream navigable in fact for recreational boating may be navigable.
- The court held defendants’ obstructions of a navigable stream constituted a public nuisance subject to abatement and injunctive relief.
- The court rejected estoppel, concluding prior governmental conduct did not bar the People from asserting the public’s rights in navigable waters.

## Legal Principles

- For public navigation and fishing rights, navigability may be established by navigability in fact for recreational boating; commercial navigability is not required.
- If a waterway is navigable, the public has a right of navigation, and unlawful obstructions of that navigable water constitute a public nuisance.
- An abatement action and injunction are proper remedies to remove obstructions and prevent interference with public use of a navigable waterway.
- Public rights in navigable waters are not defeated by estoppel based on unauthorized acts, omissions, or prior assumptions of public officials.
- Standards used to decide state title to a riverbed do not control the existence of a public navigational right in waters navigable in fact.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed an injunction requiring riparian owners to remove barriers from the Fall River, holding that recreational navigability can establish public rights to boat and fish and that the People may enforce those rights through nuisance abatement without being barred by estoppel.


People ex rel. Baker v. Mack, 19 Cal. App. 3d 1040, 97 Cal. Rptr. 448 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971)