Colorado v. Hill

Colorado fisherman Robert Hill (plaintiff) had a favorite fishing hole on a riverbed along the Arkansas River. The land abutting the river was owned by Mark Warsewa and Linda Joseph (defendant). For several years, when Hill would try to fish at the fishing hole, Warsewa and Joseph chased him off the property, threatening to sue for trespass. Hill eventually sued Warsewa and Joseph in state court. He sought a judgment that (1) the riverbed was public land owned by the State of Colorado (defendant) in trust for the people and (2) Hill had a legal right to fish the riverbed. Hill’s argument was based on the equal-footing doctrine, which held that states newly admitted to the United States had the same rights as the 13 original states, including title to the beds of navigable waters within the state’s borders. The federal government retained title to nonnavigable riverbeds and could convey such title to private landowners. Warsewa and Joseph claimed that the river was not navigable and consequently the federal land grant conveying the relevant property to their predecessors included title to the riverbed. However, Hill argued that the riverbed was navigable when Colorado became a state in 1876, and the riverbed was therefore public land of the state. The suit was removed to federal court but eventually remanded back to state court. During that time, Colorado intervened in the action, arguing that Hill did not have standing to assert his declaratory-judgment and quiet-title claims because only Colorado could bring claims to enforce its own property rights. The state trial court agreed, dismissing Hill’s suit. The state appellate court reversed in part, holding that although Hill did not have standing to assert the quiet-title claim to enforce the state’s property rights, he did have standing to seek a declaratory judgment that he personally had a legal right to fish on the riverbed. Colorado appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court.