## Facts

- Private landowners owned two residential lots north of Lake Shore Drive and two adjoining waterfront parcels south of the road along Lake Coeur d’Alene, forming part of a sandy area commonly known as Sanders Beach.
- The disputed waterfront parcels extended to the ordinary mean high water mark; the area above that mark was private upland subject to seasonal fluctuations and erosion.
- There was no direct public access to the beach from the land immediately adjacent to the parcels; the public could reach the lake through a deeded right-of-way west of the property and a ten-foot pathway to the east, and could also access from the lake.
- Since at least the 1920s, the owners and predecessors maintained seawalls to protect portions of the upland near the road from erosion.
- In 1971, the Foxes obtained city permits and built a concrete seawall extending the full width of the waterfront parcels and enclosing an approximately 20-by-250-foot area that members of the public had used for sunbathing, picnicking, and similar recreation.
- The seawall did not extend to the ordinary high water mark and did not interfere with swimming or boating.
- The State, through the county prosecuting attorney, sued to establish public rights to continue recreational use of the enclosed upland beach area based on prescription, dedication, custom, and the public trust doctrine.

## Issues

1. Whether the public acquired a prescriptive easement for recreational use over the privately owned upland beach area based on long-continued public use.
2. Whether the owners had expressly or impliedly dedicated the upland beach area to public use, and whether any such dedication was accepted.
3. Whether Idaho law recognizes a doctrine of custom granting the public recreational rights in privately owned upland beaches based on long, uniform public use.
4. Whether the public trust doctrine creates public rights in privately owned land above the ordinary high water mark of a navigable lake.
5. Whether the county prosecuting attorney could bring the action in the name of the people rather than requiring action by the attorney general.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the landowners, holding the public had no legally enforceable right to use the disputed upland beach area.
- No prescriptive easement was established because the evidence supported that public use was tolerated and not adverse under a claim of right.
- No dedication was proven because there was insufficient evidence of intent to dedicate and acceptance; non-objection to public use was not an unequivocal dedication.
- The court declined to recognize a general customary right of public recreation on privately owned upland beaches.
- The public trust doctrine was limited to lands at or below the ordinary high water mark and did not create public recreation rights on privately owned uplands.
- The court did not dismiss on the ground that the action was brought by the prosecuting attorney; it reached the merits and affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- A prescriptive easement requires open, notorious, continuous use that is adverse under a claim of right for the statutory period; long-continued public recreational use of private beach property is commonly treated as permissive absent proof of hostility to the owner’s title.
- Dedication requires (1) clear intent by the owner to dedicate land to public use and (2) acceptance by the public or a public entity; mere acquiescence in public use does not establish dedication.
- Idaho courts will not create broad public recreational rights in private upland property through a doctrine of custom absent legislative authorization or established state precedent.
- The public trust doctrine protects public interests in navigable waters and lands at or below the ordinary high water mark, but does not, without more, impose public-use rights on privately owned lands above that boundary.
- The court recognized a distinction between representation of the state in its sovereign capacity and representation of the people, but resolved the dispute on substantive property law rather than on who initiated the suit.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the landowners’ right to exclude the public from privately owned upland beach above the ordinary high water mark, rejecting claims that public recreation had created enforceable rights through prescription, dedication, custom, or the public trust doctrine.


State ex rel. Haman v. Fox, 594 P.2d 1093 (Idaho 1979)