Lyon

Many years ago the State of California granted title to a patent applicant of about 500 acres of land, between the high water mark and low water mark at the southern end of Clear Lake in Lake County. At the time, as it does now, Civil Code section 830 provided that such a grantee “takes to the edge of the lake ... at low water mark.” And it was judicially determined law that the land between the high and low water mark of the lake was “irrevocably conveyed into absolute private ownership” (City of Long Beach v. Mansell (1970) 3 Cal.3d 462, 482 [ 91 Cal.Rptr. 23 , 476 P.2d 423 ]) with “unrestricted title to the grantee” (Alameda Conservation Assn. v. City of Alameda (1968) 264 Cal.App.2d 284, 287 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 264 ], overruled on other grounds in City of Berkeley v. Superior Court (1980) 26 Cal.3d 515, 532 [ 162 Cal.Rptr. 327 , 606 P.2d 362 ]), “to the low-water mark” (United States v. Gossett (C.D.Cal. 1967) 277 F.Supp. 11, 13 ), and “to the edge of the lake ... at low-water mark” ( 23 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 306 , 307 (1954)).

And when such grants by the states are made, the states may not constitutionally “impair the efficacy of the grants, or the use and enjoyment of the…

I agree with the result reached in light of the controlling holding in State of California v. Superior Court (Lyon) (1981) 29 Cal.3d 210 [ 172 Cal.Rptr. 696 , 625 P.2d 239 ], under the doctrine of stare decisis. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 321 , 369 P.2d 937 ].) But I cannot endorse the lengthy dicta, sought to be justified in the guise of publishable criticism of an existing [Supreme Court] rule, which merely amounts in substance to no more than a reargument of the minority opinion. (See State of California v. Superior Court (Lyon), supra, 29 Cal.3d at pp. 233-239 (conc. and dis. opn. of Clark, J.).)

I believe that whatever heuristic value lies in the contrary position can be adequately resurrected by a footnote reference to the Lyon dissent appended to the dispositive portion (three to four pages at most) of the lead opinion.

A petition for a rehearing was denied April 17, 1986. Racanelli, P. J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted. Appellants’ petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied June 25, 1986.

Many years ago the State of California granted title to a patent applicant of about 500 acres of land, between the high water mark and low water mark at the southern end of Clear Lake in Lake County. At the time, as it does now, Civil Code section 830 provided that such a grantee "takes to the edge of the lake ... at low water mark." And it was judicially determined law that the land between the high and low water mark of the lake was "irrevocably conveyed into absolute private ownership" ( City of Long Beach v. Mansell (1970) 3 Cal.3d 462, 482 [ 91 Cal. Rptr. 23 , 476 P.2d 423 ]) with "unrestricted title to the grantee" ( Alameda Conservation Assn. v. City of Alameda (1968) 264 Cal. App.2d 284, 287 [ 70 Cal. Rptr. 264 ], overruled on other grounds in City of Berkeley v. Superior Court (1980) 26 Cal.3d 515, 532 [ 162 Cal. Rptr. 327 , 606 P.2d 362 ]), "to the low-water mark" ( United States v. Gossett (C.D.Cal. 1967) 277 F. Supp. 11, 13 ), and "to the edge of the lake ... at low-water mark" ( 23 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 306 , 307 (1954)).

And when such grants by the states are made, the states may not constitutionally "impair the efficacy of the grants, or the use…