## Facts

- Bert Strom and his wife owned waterfront property adjoining Dick Sheldon and his wife along a small slough (“Whiskey Slough”) that connected to a harbor.
- Both parties’ deeds described their shared boundary as the “center” or “thread” of the slough.
- In 1954, Sheldon’s father (a predecessor in Sheldon’s chain of title) dredged the slough to widen it so boats could be moored there.
- The dredging shifted a substantial portion of the slough’s course onto the Sheldon side, leaving portions of the former thread on dry land.
- The Stroms bought their property in 1958 without knowing that the original thread described in the deeds no longer matched the slough’s then-existing location.
- For many years, neither couple treated the relocated channel as a serious boundary problem; when asked, the Sheldons would move boats that obstructed the Stroms’ use of what the Stroms regarded as their half of the slough.
- In 1972, the Sheldons obtained a survey, asserted that the slough (in the disputed reach) lay entirely on their property, and refused to move barges that the Stroms claimed were blocking their use.
- The Stroms sued to quiet title to the strip of land between the original thread and the relocated thread and sought an injunction preventing interference with their use of the slough.
- The trial court applied the avulsion rule, placed the boundary at the pre-1954 thread, quieted title in favor of the Sheldons, and denied injunctive relief—effectively depriving the Stroms of about 300 feet of access to the slough.
- The Stroms appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an owner whose land extends to the thread of a nonnavigable stream may, by artificial dredging, shift the stream onto that owner’s property and then rely on the avulsion doctrine to keep the boundary at the former thread, cutting off the neighboring riparian owner’s access.
2. Whether the trial court erred by quieting title and denying injunctive relief in a way that left the Stroms without practical access to the slough along the disputed reach.

## Decision

- The Washington Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment.
- The court held that a riparian owner may not artificially relocate a nonnavigable stream and then invoke avulsion to freeze the boundary at the old channel when that result strips the neighboring owner of water access.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with protecting the Stroms’ riparian rights in relation to the slough as it existed after the dredging.

## Legal Principles

- When deeds use the “center” or “thread” of a nonnavigable watercourse as the boundary, the boundary is tied to the watercourse and commonly tracks the channel as it exists over time under ordinary boundary-change rules.
- The avulsion doctrine generally keeps a boundary at the former thread when a watercourse changes suddenly and perceptibly due to natural forces.
- The avulsion doctrine is not a tool for a landowner to benefit from the landowner’s own artificial rechanneling at a neighbor’s expense.
- Courts may apply equitable boundary and riparian-rights rules to prevent one riparian owner from using unilateral alterations to deprive the other of access to the watercourse.

## Conclusion

Strom v. Sheldon holds that a landowner who dredges and shifts a nonnavigable slough cannot claim avulsion to lock the boundary at the pre-dredging thread when doing so would deny the adjoining owner riparian access; the appellate court reversed the judgment quieting title in the Sheldons and remanded for relief consistent with preserving the Stroms’ use of the slough.


Strom v. Sheldon, 527 P.2d 1382 (1975)