Downing, James E.

English

University of Denver

Water Law Review Volume 9 Issue 2 Article 59 1-1-2006 Schoeffler v. Drake Hunting Club, 919 So.2d 822 (La. Ct. App. 2006) James E. Downing Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/wlr Custom Citation James E. Downing, Court Report, Schoeffler v. Drake Hunting Club, 919 So.2d 822 (La. Ct. App. 2006), 9 U. Denv. Water L. Rev. 661 (2006). This Court Report is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Water Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact jennifer.cox@du.edu,dig-commons@du.edu. COURT REPORTSThe court found that the hearing officer took extensive evidenceregarding K&W's proposed odor control measures and held two hear-ings exclusively on the odor issue before concluding that the proposedodor control measures met the local public interest standard whenbalanced with other factors. The hearing officer recognized that thisdetermination was subjective and considered the effect of the dairy onthe economy of the area, recreation, fish and wildlife resources, andcompliance with applicable air, water and hazardous substance stan-dards, and complied with planning and zoning ordinances of local andstate jurisdictions in addition to odor. The court also stated that whenparties present conflicting evidence, the agency's findings are bindingon the court if they are supported by substantial and competent evi-dence, regardless of whether the court might have reached a differentconclusion.The court also found that the property owners misunderstood the"contours of the local public interest standard." The court found thatHalper's interpretation of the narrow issue of odor and its relatednegative effects, as the local public interest was too narrow a definition,stating that, "the local public interest has many elements and the de-termination of which local public interests are impacted and balancingthose impacts is left to the sound discretion of IDWR." Similarly, thecourt found Chisholm's argument that there was no evidence in therecord that the dairy will not add to the existing problem, to be toostrict a standard. The court stated that, "there must only be evidencethat the odors emitted will be reasonable and at such a level as to sat-isfy the local public interest when balanced with other factors." Thecourt found that the hearing officer did consider other factors, andrejected the property owners' request for the court to reweigh the evi-dence. The court concluded that its standard of review was limited toasking whether the hearing officer's findings and conclusions weresupported by substantial and competent evidence. The court affirmedthe IDWR's Final Order, finding that it was supported by substantialand competent evidence, and that the hearing officer properly consid-ered the local public interest.Keely DownsLOUISIANASchoeffler v. Drake Hunting Club, 919 So.2d 822 (La. Ct. App. 2006)(holding that a plaintiffs petition must be specific enough to establisha cause of action and a right of action against riparian landowners orthe state, before the plaintiff may bring suit requesting the fix ofboundaries at the high water mark along privately owned lands).Issue 2WATER LAW REVIEWHarold Schoeffler and four other individuals ("Schoeffler") usedthe waters of the Atchafalaya Basin for commercial and recreationalpurposes. Schoeffler sought a declaratory judgment and boundaryaction against private landowners and lessees in the Atchafalaya Basinincluding private individuals, estates, corporations, hunting clubs, andcrawfishing associations. Schoeffler also requested a mandamus actionthat would compel the State of Louisiana ("State") to fix the landown-ers' and lessees' boundaries within the Atchafalaya Basin. Additionally,Schoeffler sought a declaratory judgment that would declare the watersof the Atchafalaya Basin navigable and subject to public use, and a dec-laration that entitled Schoeffler to fishing access and other uses belowthe ordinary high water line of Lake Chetimaches.The District Court for St. Martin Parish, Louisiana granted thelandowners' and lessees' exceptions of no cause of action and no rightof action to survey and fix boundaries at the high water mark along theprivately owned lands. The trial court also granted the State's excep-tions of no cause of action and no right of action for the mandamusaction, and dismissed the State from all of Schoeffler's demands.However, the trial court permitted Schoeffler to amend the petitionrequesting a mandamus action. Schoeffler appealed the trial court'sdecision.The Louisiana Court of Appeals first conducted a de novo review ofwhether Schoeffler had a right of action to fix boundaries between theinundated lands in the Atchafalaya Basin and the State's navigable wa-ters. In determining whether a cause of action existed, the court fo-cused on whether the law provided for a remedy against the landown-ers, lessees, or the State. In determining whether a right of action ex-isted, the court focused on whether Schoeffler had the right to bringthe case.Schoeffler argued they used the present and former bed of LakeChetimaches for commercial and recreational purposes, and that thelandowners and lessees prohibited the use of the water by erecting bar-rier gates and threatening prosecution for trespass. The landownersand lessees asserted that public use servitudes on the banks of naviga-ble rivers were only for navigational purposes, and did not include theright to hunt or fish without the riparian owner's permission. TheState asserted that Atchafalaya Basin had never been legally defined asone large body of water, and that various rivers, uplands, swamps, bay-ous, streams, and lakes now occupied Lake Chetimaches due to geo-morphologic changes. Since the high water marks constantly changein Atchafalaya Basin, the State, landowners, and lessees asserted that afixed boundary line such as the one Schoeffler requested was impossi-ble to create. In addition, the State argued that since Schoeffler didnot have a possessory or proprietary right to access the private lands,Schoeffler could not have a real and actual interest in an action to fixboundary lines in Atchafalaya Basin.Volume 9COURT REPORTSThe court found that Schoeffler did not state a cause of action inthe petition submitted to the court. The court held that a cause ofaction did not exist since the boundary Schoeffler sought to fix was nota traditional boundary between contiguous lands. The court also heldthat Schoeffler did not have a right of action to fix the boundary linesbecause Schoeffler was not an owner, lessor, lessee, legal or conven-tional usufructuaries, or adverse possessors of the properties at issue.Second, the court considered whether Schoeffler had a cause andright of action to bring a writ of mandamus against the State, whichwould compel the State to fix boundaries between its navigable waters,and the owners' and lessees' inundated lands in the Atchafalaya Basin.The State asserted that Schoeffler did not have a cause or right of ac-tion to survey a high water boundary throughout the Atchafalaya Basinbecause no true boundaries existed. The State noted that the Atchafa-laya Basin's high water line constantly changed, and that it would beextraordinarily expensive to administer the boundaries. Additionally,the State argued that a ministerial duty that required the State to sueits own citizens in an action that was not clearly provided for under lawdid not exist. Absent a ministerial duty, the State noted that it had nointerest in bringing a boundary action against the landowners or les-sees. The State asserted that it did not restrict or abridge Schoeffler'srights to use state lands and navigate over state water bottoms and thus,the State had no duty to act.The court noted that a mandamus is an extraordinary remedy thatcourts use sparingly to compel something that is clearly provided for bylaw, and only where it is the sole remedy available, or where delay inusing another remedy would cause injustice. Further, the court statedthat mandamus lies only to compel purely ministerial duties, and thatmandamus is not appropriate when there is an element of discretionleft to a public officer. The court found no ministerial duty, law, orordinance required the State to fix numerous high water boundariesagainst the owners and lessees of the inundated lands in the Atchafa-laya Basin. Thus, the court held Schoeffler's petition did not providefor a cause of action. The court also found no right of action. For aright of action to exist, Schoeffler must have stated ajusticiable contro-versy. Since Schoeffler did not possess any real rights of ownership orpossession in Atchafalaya Basin lands, no right of action could lieagainst the State to fix such boundaries.Finally, the court considered whether Schoeffler had an action fordeclaratory judgment against the State, which would declare the watersof the Atchafalaya Basin navigable and subject to public use, and enti-tle Schoeffler to fishing access and other uses below the ordinary highwater mark in the beds of Lake Chetimaches. The State arguedSchoeffler's action against the State was speculative and theoretical,and that no justiciable controversy existed involving the State. TheState noted that Schoeffler's petition for declaratory judgment wouldIssue 2WATER LA W RE VIEWinvolve over 400,000 acres in the Atchafalaya Basin. The State assertedthat numerous trials would be necessary to determine which bodies ofwater were navigable lakes with banks and bank servitudes, and whichbodies of water were non-navigable.The court found that Schoeffler did not state a cause of actionagainst the State, and did not have standing to compel the State tomake such broad declarations. The court noted that ajusticiable con-troversy must involve the legal relations of the parties having adverseinterests, which can be determined in a conclusive manner at thatstage of the proceedings. The court held that the request for declara-tory judgment asked the State to declare rights not yet adjudicated,and since Schoeffler did not have standing to compel such broad dec-larations, the action against the State must fail.The court affirmed the trial court's decision that granted the land-owners' and lessees' exceptions of no right of action to fix numerousboundaries in the Atchafalaya Basin, granted the State's exceptions tothe mandamus action, and dismissed the State from all related de-mands.James E. DowningLake Bistineau Pres. Soc'y, Inc. v. Seales, 922 So.2d 768 (La. Ct. App.2006) (affirming the denial of a preliminary injunction to prevent thedrawdown and aquatic herbicide spraying of Lake Bistineau becausethe spraying had already occurred while the appeal was pending).The Lake Bistineau Preservation Society, Inc. ("Society") and H. F.Anderson brought an action against the Department of Wildlife andFisheries of the State of Louisiana and three of its officials ("DWF")seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the second round of her-bicide spraying of DWF's Habitat Management Plan ("Plan") for LakeBistineau. Finding that the herbicide spraying activities, which werethe subject of the requested preliminary injunction, already ended, theCourt of Appeals of Louisiana for the Second Circuit dismissed theaction as moot.DWF's Plan originally called for three annual drawdowns and her-bicide sprayings to kill the excessive aquatic vegetation that hadchoked Lake Bistineau. The first spraying occurred in 2004. Thatsame year, the court denied the Society's action for a preliminary in-junction. In that suit, the Society argued that the drawdown was tooeconomically burdensome on the lake's users.The present litigation followed in 2005. The Society again askedfor a preliminary injunction, this time alleging that the DWF's plan forLake Bistineau violated the Louisiana Environment Quality Act("LEQA") and the Louisiana Water Control Laws ("LWCL"). The So-ciety argued that the herbicides the DWF was spraying into the lake,Volume 9

Schoeffler v. Drake Hunting Club, 919 So.2d 822 (La. Ct. App. 2006)

https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2020&context=wlr

Schoeffler v. Drake Hunting Club, 919 So.2d 822 (La. Ct. App. 2006)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Denver