Illinois River Access and River Rights, Holm v. Kodat – The Mazon River Fossil Case

When the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in Holm v. Kodat was filed on June 16, 2022, both Supreme Court Justice Neville and advocates of recreational access lamented the decision as archaic and anachronistic. While a case about riparian rights and fossils may seem relatively unimportant to the daily lives of Illinoisians, the story of this case is more interesting than the legal topic might suggest.

The Mazon River is a tributary of the Illinois River. It is approximately 86 miles and drains an area of approximately 802 square miles. The river starts in Grundy County and flows through Will County and into the Illinois River near Morris. The Mazon River is a popular destination for recreational activities such as fishing, canoeing, and kayaking. The river is home to a variety of fish species including bass, catfish, and panfish. The Mazon River is also known for its high-quality water and diverse fish and wildlife populations, which are protected by the Illinois River Valley Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program.[1]

What most people may not know, is that the Mazon River is known for its rich fossil deposits, which have been studied by paleontologists for over a century. The Mazon Creek fossils are preserved in ironstone concretions, which are formed when iron minerals precipitate out of the water and bind sediment together. The fossils found in these concretions are some of the best-preserved in the world and have provided scientists with a wealth of information about the plants and animals that lived in the area over 300 million years ago during the Pennsylvanian Period.[2]

The fight over public access to the Mazon River had been working its way through the Circuit and Appellate Courts in Illinois for years. The rich fossil beds, limited accessibility to fossils on public land, and the red-hot market for the quality fossils like those found in the Mazon River are at the heart of an otherwise mundane riparian property rights case. The Plaintiffs purchased two properties along the Mazon River. The first property consists of 33 acres of landlocked, unimproved real estate with no road access. The second Property consisted of 9 acres with road access. The Plaintiffs operated a seasonal fossil hunting business on both properties where they collect fossils to sell to paleontologists and collectors.

The Plaintiff’s used kayaks on the Mazon River to travel from the road access property to the landlocked property, loaded their kayaks with fossils for transport on the Mazon River further downstream to Pine Bluff Road Bridge. During the course of their travel, the Plaintiff’s ride their kayaks on the Mazon River through properties owned by Defendants.

The outcome of this case is surprising. The Courts decision was based on hundreds of years of common law. In Illinois, when the landowner’s property is adjacent to a river or waterway, he or she owns to the center of the waterway. Schulte v. Warren, 218 Ill. 108, 117 (1905). Thus, if a riparian owner owns both sides of the river, they own “the whole of the bed of the stream to the extent of the length of his lands upon it.”  However, be very cautious in restricting anyone because this rule only applies in some situations.  See the last paragraph of this article for more information.   People ex rel. Deneen v. Economy Light & Power Co., 241 Ill. 290, 318 (1909). The Court was unwilling to consider this basic premise of common law riparian rights.

Instead, what the Court did was present their preferred legal path to changing how navigable waterways are categorized. The path the Court laid out maintains centuries of common law doctrine but changes on the definition of navigable waterways. The court has a long-standing recognition that “riparian rights apply to all flowing streams whether navigable or non-navigable, but with respect to navigable streams, the right of the riparian owner is subject to a public easement to use the river for navigation purposes.” Leitch, 369 Ill. at 475. A waterway is navigable and subject to a public easement if it naturally, by customary modes of transportation, is “of sufficient depth to afford a channel for use for commerce.” DuPont v. Miller, 310 Ill. 140, 145 (1923). If, however, the waterway is non-navigable, the riparian owner owns “the bed of the stream…absolutely, free from any burdens in favor of the public.” Economy Light & Power, 241 Ill. at 318 (citing Washington Ice Co. v. Shortall, 101 Ill. 46 (1881)).

The issue the Court decided to address, was whether there is a public right to use a non-navigable river. When the issue is framed in this light, the hundred of years of common law clearly preclude public access. Not all hope is lost. The key to challenging the outcome of this case is centered solely on what constitutes a navigable waterway. If the Mazon river can be considered a navigable waterway, then the Plaintiff’s would have a public easement and the right to use the river when it flowed across the Defendants property. The Court simply refused to address this glaring issue and instead turned to the legislature claiming that the Courts hands were tied by common law.

Justice Neville, in his concurring opinion, lays out the suggested doctrine and legal basis for the legislature to enact a change in the in what constitutes navigable waterways.  Relying on the recreational navigation doctrine, Justice Neville explains that each state has full jurisdiction over how they categorize waterways. Justice Neville laments that the increase in public recreational use of rivers and streams has not occurred in Illinois due to the archaic and anachronistic common-law rules that restrict public access to state waterways.

Justice Neville advocates for what is known as the “recreational navigation doctrine”. This doctrine is a legal principle that allows the public to navigate on certain bodies of water, such as rivers, lakes, and coastal waters, for recreational purposes without obtaining permission or paying fees. This doctrine is based on the idea that these bodies of water are resources that should be accessible to all members of the public for recreational use. However, the doctrine does not give the public the right to interfere with the rights of private property owners or to engage in activities that are harmful to the environment or to other users of the waterway.

Justice Neville invites the legislature to enact the doctrine, going out of his way to provide the legislature with what is essentially a judicial blessing of the statutory change stating “There is no question that the adoption of the recreational navigation doctrine is supported by Illinois public policy favoring the use of waterways for recreational purposes.”

An issue likely to cause concern to the general public, unconstitutional taking claims, is addressed by Judge Neville’s anticipated Court response;

“Illinois would benefit if the recreational navigation doctrine was codified in a public domain declaration. This would avoid, or at least minimize, litigation by avoiding takings claims related to federal and state constitutional limitations on government condemnation. When declarations fall under the public domain assertions, any deprivation of property rights claimed by riparian landowners will be a deprivation of a right they never truly possessed, as the right remained with the state.”

But all the legal handwringing belies a glaring error in the opinion. The question the Court should have addressed is whether the Mazon River is a waterway which “affords a channel for useful commerce and practical utility to the public.”[3]  The Court, in one swift hammer of the gavel states, “it is undisputed that the Mazon River is a non-navigable river and, therefore, has no public easement for access.”  How could the court so quickly erase the most pressing legal concern without so much as an explanation? This case was never about recreational access to a river. This case was always about how we define commercial use of a river and practical utility to the public. The focus of the case and the opinion should have been on the ability of the waterway to be used for commercial use. The court punted on the real legal issue.

In the State of Illinois, the State publishes a list of navigable waterways.  If a waterway is listed, public access is allowed including all areas of the waterway such as channels, backwaters, cannels, streams, tributaries, and creeks.  See Section 3704, Appendix A of the ILL. ADM. CODE CH. I. An example is the Fox Chain-O-Lakes and the Fox River.  If a waterway is listed on the state list, a property owner cannot restrict anyone from using the waterway.  This means that any person in a boat, kayak, or even floating on an inner tube can go anywhere they want on the listed waterway even right up to the shore.

[1] https://www2.illinois.gov/dnr/conservation/CREP/Pages/default.aspx

[2] https://naturalhistory.si.edu/research/paleobiology/collections-overview/mazon-creek-fossil-flora#:~:text=The%20Mazon%20Creek%20fossil%20deposit,plant%20or%20animal%20fossil%20within.

[3] Schulte v. Warren, 75 N.E. 783, 785 (Ill. 1905).

Intellectual Property Basics

Intellectual property (IP) refers to creations of the mind, such as inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, and images used in commerce. IP is protected by law, which allows creators and owners to benefit from their work and creations. There are several types of intellectual property, including:

• Copyright: This covers literary, artistic, and musical works, as well as films, broadcasts, and other performances. It gives the creator of a work the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, and make derivatives of the work.
• Trademarks: This covers symbols, names, and images used in commerce to distinguish a company’s goods or services from those of others.

 

• Patents: This covers inventions, such as new products, processes, or machines. A patent gives the owner the exclusive right to make, use, and sell the invention for a certain period of time.

 

• Trade secrets: This covers confidential business information, such as a company’s recipes, formulas, or customer lists.

 

IP law aims to strike a balance between protecting the rights of creators and owners, and promoting the public interest by allowing others to use and build upon IP. For example, copyright law allows for the fair use of copyrighted material for certain purposes, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.

Copyright Fundamentals

Copyright is a type of intellectual property that covers literary, artistic, and musical works, as well as films, broadcasts, and other performances. It gives the creator of a work the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, and make derivatives of the work. This allows the creator to control how their work is used and to profit from their creativity.

Copyright law applies automatically to any original work as soon as it is fixed in a tangible form, such as being written down or recorded. This means that the creator does not need to register the work or include a copyright notice in order for it to be protected. However, registering the work with the appropriate national or regional copyright office can provide additional legal benefits, such as the ability to sue for infringement and to obtain statutory damages.

Copyright law typically lasts for the life of the creator plus a certain number of years after their death. The length of time varies depending on the country and the type of work. For example, in the United States, copyright protection for literary, musical, and artistic works lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years.

 

One of the key features of copyright law is the doctrine of fair use, which allows for the limited use of copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright owner. This is intended to promote the public interest by allowing others to use copyrighted works for certain purposes, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. However, fair use is a complex area of law and can vary depending on the specific circumstances.

Trademark Overview

A trademark is a type of intellectual property that covers symbols, names, and images used in commerce to distinguish a company’s goods or services from those of others. Trademarks are often referred to as brands, and they can include words, phrases, logos, colors, or even sounds and smells.

 

The main purpose of trademarks is to prevent confusion among consumers and to protect the reputation and goodwill of the trademark owner. For example, if a company uses the trademark “Coca-Cola” on its soda bottles, consumers can be confident that they are getting the genuine, high-quality product they expect.

 

Obtaining a trademark can be a valuable asset for a company. It allows the owner to prevent others from using the same or a similar trademark, and it can also be licensed or sold to others. In addition, a registered trademark is considered intellectual property and can be used as collateral for loans or investment.

 

To obtain a trademark, a company must file a trademark application with the appropriate national or state trademark office. The application must include the trademark, the goods or services it will be used for, and any supporting documentation. The trademark office will then review the application to ensure that it meets the legal requirements for a trademark. If the application is approved, the trademark will be registered and the owner will have exclusive rights to use it for the specified goods or services.

 

However, it’s important to note that trademarks are not granted automatically. The trademark owner must also use the trademark in commerce and enforce their rights against infringers. If a trademark is not used or is not adequately protected, it can become vulnerable to cancellation.

 

Patents Explained

A patent is a type of intellectual property that gives the owner the exclusive right to make, use, and sell an invention for a certain period of time. This gives the inventor the ability to profit from their invention, and it also provides an incentive for innovation by protecting the inventor’s hard work and investment.

 

To be eligible for a patent, an invention must be new, useful, and non-obvious. This means that the invention must not have been previously known or used, it must have a specific function or purpose, and it must not be something that would be obvious to someone skilled in the field.

 

There are several types of patents, including utility patents, design patents, and plant patents. Utility patents are the most common, and they cover inventions that have a specific function, such as a new product or process. Design patents cover the appearance of a product, such as its shape or ornamentation. Plant patents cover new varieties of plants that are asexually reproduced.

 

Obtaining a patent can be a complex and time-consuming process. In the United States, inventors must file a patent application with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which includes a detailed description of the invention, drawings, and any relevant background information. The application is then reviewed by a patent examiner, who will decide whether the invention meets the criteria for a patent. If the application is approved, the inventor will be granted a patent for a certain number of years, typically 20 years from the date of filing.

 

Once a patent is granted, the owner has the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling the invention without permission. However, the owner must also disclose the details of the invention to the public, which allows others to build upon and improve upon the invention.

 

Overall, patents play a crucial role in promoting innovation and protecting inventors’ rights. If you have an invention that you believe is eligible for a patent, it’s important to seek the advice of a lawyer who specializes in this area.

 

Trade Secrets Demystified

A trade secret is a type of intellectual property that refers to confidential business information, such as a company’s recipes, formulas, or customer lists. Unlike other types of intellectual property, such as patents or trademarks, trade secrets are not registered or publicly disclosed. Instead, they are protected by the owner’s efforts to keep the information secret.

 

The advantages of trade secrets are that they can provide a competitive advantage to the owner and they can last indefinitely, as long as the information remains secret. For example, the recipe for Coca-Cola is a well-known trade secret that has been protected for over 100 years.

 

However, there are also risks associated with trade secrets. If the information is disclosed or stolen, the owner may lose their competitive advantage and may have difficulty protecting the information in the future. Therefore, it’s important for companies to take steps to protect their trade secrets, such as implementing confidentiality agreements with employees and third parties, and securing physical and electronic copies of the information.

 

Trade secret law varies from country to country. In the United States, trade secret protection is governed by state law and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016. This law provides a legal cause of action for trade secret misappropriation, which is the unauthorized use or disclosure of trade secrets.

 

All business’s have trade secrets. Every business owner should consult with an attorney to ensure that adequate steps are taken to protect one of the most valuable yet often overlooked business asset.

 

Challenges in litigating IP disputes

Litigating intellectual property (IP) disputes can be a complex and challenging process, particularly for small businesses and individual creators who may not have the resources or expertise to navigate the legal system. Some of the key challenges in litigating IP disputes include:

1. Determining the scope of the IP rights involved: IP law is complex and can vary depending on the type of IP and the jurisdiction. In some cases, it may be unclear whether the disputed use of the IP constitutes infringement or is protected by an exception, such as fair use.
2. Proving ownership and infringement: In order to succeed in an IP infringement lawsuit, the plaintiff must be able to prove that they are the rightful owner of the IP and that the defendant has infringed on their rights. This can involve providing evidence of the creation and ownership of the IP, as well as demonstrating how the defendant has used the IP without permission.
3. Defending against counterclaims: In many IP disputes, the defendant may assert their own IP rights or raise other legal defenses, such as fair use or invalidity of the plaintiff’s IP. This can complicate the case and may require the plaintiff to defend their own IP rights or prove the validity of their IP.
4. Dealing with potential damages: If the plaintiff is successful in an IP infringement lawsuit, they may be entitled to damages, such as lost profits or royalties. However, determining the appropriate amount of damages can be difficult, particularly in cases where the value of the IP is not easily quantifiable.
5. Managing the costs and time involved: Litigating IP disputes can be costly and time-consuming, especially if the case goes to trial. This can be a significant burden for small businesses or individual creators who may not have the financial resources or legal expertise to handle a complex lawsuit.

If you are involved in an IP dispute, it is important to consult a lawyer who specializes in this area. They can provide legal advice and representation to help you protect your IP rights and achieve a favorable outcome.