Idaho Forest Industries, Inc. v. Hayden Lake Watershed Improvement District

While concurring in the majority opinion, I write separately to further clarify the import of Rutledge v. State, 94 Idaho 121, 482 P.2d 515 (1971), and to more specifically address the issue on appeal.

As the district court, in its memorandum decision, explained: “For the purposes of this [summary judgment] motion, the Plaintiff [Idaho Forest Industries] does not dis*520pute the fact that at least some portion of the twenty-nine acres in dispute was lake-bed prior to the building of the dike in 1909.” The district court further observed: “Since it is not disputed that, prior to the construction of…