## Facts

- A 1.1-mile strip of filled land along Burlington’s Lake Champlain waterfront was created over time by filling formerly submerged lakebed areas and was historically used for rail and wharf functions.
- A 1827 statute authorized littoral owners to build wharves by filling submerged lands and granted an “exclusive privilege” to use and control the resulting wharves to increase commerce without public expenditure.
- Beginning in 1849, the railroad’s predecessor condemned shoreline land and extended filling lakeward; rail operations reached the waterfront by 1851, and filling continued (by the railroad and others) until 1972; the railroad also acquired adjacent filled parcels.
- A 1874 statute confirmed that railroads constructing structures out into the lake held legal title to those structures.
- The railroad paid taxes on portions of the filled lands and conveyed some parcels to the City and the federal government over time.
- By the late 1970s, railroad activity on the waterfront sharply declined, and the railroad sought to sell or lease the property for private, non-rail commercial development.
- The State and City sued, asserting that the public trust doctrine limited title and permissible uses of filled lands originating from the bed of navigable waters.
- The trial court ruled the railroad held fee simple title but that the property was impressed with the public trust and must always be used for a public purpose; it suggested uses like retail and hotels could qualify.
- The railroad appealed seeking recognition of a fee simple absolute free of trust limits; the State and City cross-appealed, arguing the trial court defined permissible public uses too broadly.

## Issues

1. Whether the public trust doctrine applies to filled lands that were formerly submerged beneath a navigable lake.
2. Whether the 1827 and 1874 statutes conveyed a fee simple absolute free of public trust limits or instead conveyed a fee subject to conditions requiring specified public-oriented uses.
3. Whether legislative enactments can be read to abandon public trust interests absent a clear expression of intent.
4. Whether the fee holder may unilaterally select and implement “public” uses of trust-burdened filled lands.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court modified the trial court’s order and, as modified, affirmed.
- The court held the filled lands remained subject to the public trust; the statutes did not extinguish the trust.
- The railroad’s interest was a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent limiting use to railroad, wharf, or storage purposes, with the State retaining a right of reentry upon breach.
- The railroad could not convert the land to purely private uses free of public control and could not unilaterally decide what constitutes an acceptable public use under the trust.
- The trial court’s broad statements suggesting certain private commercial developments automatically qualified as “public” uses were narrowed to require trust-consistent use under state supervision.

## Legal Principles

- Lands beneath navigable waters are held by the sovereign in trust for public uses for which the lands are adapted.
- Legislative grants affecting public trust resources are strictly construed; abandonment of trust interests must be clearly expressed or necessarily implied.
- General statutory language will not be read to impair sovereign public trust rights absent clear legislative intent.
- Parties acquiring interests in trust property take subject to the trust and lack a vested right to use the property in a manner harmful to trust purposes.
- A statutory grant for waterfront construction and commerce may convey private title while still imposing trust-based limits; here, the grant created a conditional fee, enforceable by a state right of reentry.
- The State’s ongoing authority to supervise trust property carries an ongoing duty to exercise that authority; private holders cannot assume the trustee’s role by choosing acceptable trust uses.

## Conclusion

The court held that filled lands created from the bed of a navigable lake remained burdened by the public trust, and that the railroad’s title was a conditional fee limited to railroad-, wharf-, or storage-related purposes, enforceable through state supervision and a right of reentry upon breach.


Vt. v. Cent. Vt. Ry., Inc., 153 Vt. 337, 571 A.2d 1128 (Vt. 1989)