Given that there have been an average of over 750,000 fishing licenses sold in the state of WA every year since 1971....
and let's say 33% of these license holders would have used this access 10 times/year, and a reasonable fee for use of $5.00...... That would be 250,000 people that need to be paid $ 50.00 .......... $ 10,250,000 times 43 years...... let's see.....carry the one.... that would be a TOTAL AMOUNT OWED TO WDFW of ...... $ 530,750,000.00 (before interest and late fees). That sounds reasonable, right? We take cash, cashier's check, or PayPal..... How would you like to pay for that today?

I would agree with 2Many on that Audball. Just get the access reopened, figure it out, and move on.

Has anyone considered the value of the rock that Wallaces removed over the years in the process while they removed the access? Sure legally they probably own the land under the access. BUT willfully removing & overlooking the access to add $$ to their pockets is another thing.

The State only bought the easement, not the rock. Don't get greedy. The State shouldn't either, especially when re-routing the easement is so easy.

Dogfish you keep talking sense. I don't think that majority here knows how to react to that.

Not sure if I am in the majority here but I will say again that based upon my understanding of the bought and paid for easement the citizens of the State deserve more out of this than simply regaining the access its easement entitles them.

Did WDFW pay for a specific easement in perpetuity? Yes.

Did that easement require specific site improvements (access road with crushed rock surfacing, etc)? Yes.

Were the citizens of the State denied their legal access rights for years by the owner? Yes.

Did the owner deny that access knowingly and for his own benefit? Yes.

Did the owner destroy the improvements for which he was paid by WDFW as part of the easement? Yes.

It has been documented here that the amount paid for that easement and improvements was $40K in the early 70s worth approximately $230K in today's dollars.

I agree that the primary focus should be on reaffirming the easement and making the site accessible. That should include replacement improvements including (but not limited to) road, parking lot, and surfacing.

It should also include damages for the "stolen" access over an extended time especially given the value of access during the Cowlitz haydays.

I simply do not understand the purported "sense" in not seeking at least actual damages for the "stolen" access.

I also firmly believe that this case is ripe for punitive damages given the egregious nature of the owner's actions over an extended period of time and for his own financial benefit.

For those of you who suggest simply reopening the site is adequate would your position be the same if this had been your personal paid for easement that had been trampled upon for years? Maybe an only easement to your personal recreational property with no other access?

If you can answer "yes" to that scenario then we simply have far different perspectives on this issue and apparently life in general.

I have my own easement issues for beach rights on Whidbey Island. I have had the door slammed in my face when I tried to discuss it with the owner. Plantings have been installed that prevent the full, safe use of said easement. I possibly could sue but I understand it is an expensive process. Isn't the end game, just to restore the easement and allow its use as intended? The rest of that fight will just delay the game. If there was a financial settlement where do you think that money would go anyway?

If sportsmen and the state just go for reopening access and no punitive measures, what happens in the future on this site, just close it to the public for another twenty years because nothing is going to happen to them anyway. What will happen to other access's? I'm not trying to pick on the property owners here but feel strongly that something should be returned to the state and sportsmen for their patience in this matter.

You have an issue that apparently affects to some degree your easement but does not totally eliminate your use. Tough call. Maybe a letter from your attorney might get their attention and avoid a possible law suit. Clearly your decision.

Is restoring access to an existing easement the end game? No. It is clearly the No. 1 priority followed by actual damages and then possible punitive damages for the reasons I have already set forth.

Where would any money go? Well, that has also been discussed with ideas ranging from a fund to maintain the site and/or others on the Cowlitz, upgraded services at this location and fishing pond(s) at this site to cite a few. The Court could stipulate how any monetary damages might be utilized.

Solve it, move on. I am being realistic.

There is a difference between resolving an easement issue and causing undue financial harm.

I, too, am as much a realist as anyone and do not expect that "we" would receive everything "we" might realistically expect in the way of damages.

On the other hand, I will leave it to the Court to determine what might constitute reasonable damages versus "undue financial harm" based upon all of the facts to be presented. I hope and expect that the AG will pursue such reasonable damages insofar as damages were requested in the complaint.

Dogfish,

Suppose one of your bank customers stopped repaying his loan 30 years ago and has been giving you grief, but no money for 3 decades, and now because of legal action he agrees to resume making payments. Wouldn't you also want the 30 years of interest on that loan as well. Ah come on, be realistic, just accept the resumption of payments and move on. Right?

Sg

What payments were the Wallaces supposed to be making? Did the easement agreement state any penalties for lack of access (payments)? My loan documents state the penalties.

We would have foreclosed on somebody not making payments, but then again we take a much more proactive approach in managing our loans, our collateral, and what will potentially become our property, especially in this case, when compared to WDFW. We have worked through modifications as well, accepting skip payments and resumption of payments in lieu of foreclosing. We settle at times, and I'm guessing WDFW will as well.

The one thing that neither you nor Larry B are addressing is the fact that WDFW essentially ignored the issue for these 20+ years. It is similar to a neighbor encroaching onto your land, and you never saying a thing about it. Adverse possession. The Wallaces excavated the easement, and if that isnt an example of adverse possession tell me what it is.

Why did the WDFW take so long to finally do something about it? Bob Reid has been working on this for many years, to his credit. The WDFW has been ignoring this issue for many more. The state has the ability to wield a pretty damn big hammer at any time, but they haven't in this case until now. Want to tell me why?

The State bears some fault in this for not asserting its claim to the easement earlier and only now is it taking action. There is no need for the WDFW and AG's office to take 10+ years to collect all of this data. That is inexcusable. This effective "abandonment" of the easement through inaction on the part of the WDFW may likely be figured into some sort of settlement, or punitive damages.

The Wallaces will probably have to pay court costs, etc., but I doubt there will be a penalty ranging in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Absent a fine, they are still paying their own attorneys for their actions, which is essentially a stupidity tax. They certainly deserve this tax.

Just get the easement open so folks can fish there again. Move on. We can all argue the case here on the internet, but we aren't in court. You and I will have to wait and see who is right. I'll buy you a beer if their penalty is over $200,000, not including court costs. Deal?

I agree that the state is remiss in its long inaction. That really is inexcusable. However I don't see that as sufficient reason to let Wallace skate. Making crime pay simply makes committing crime a more attractive alternative. Along with re-opening the easement, I think Wallace should incur enough penalty to serve notice to other holders of easements that they ought not to steal back that which they have freely sold. And I'd buy you a beer anyway.

Deal.

What other world problems should we solve?

You make a good point Dogfish, but an easement does not fall under adverse possession laws. If that were the case, Bonneville would be SOL. The property owners in this case should, and more than likely, will be held liable. 200k won't cut it. I drink Coors Lite

You are correct in that I did not address the amount of time WDFW has apparently failed to take action. Why? Because I do not know what lesser actions WDFW may have taken over that period of time leading up to the legal action by the AG.

And not being a lawyer I can only opine that each time a member of the public attempted to utilize that easement (it is a public easement, right??) the public reaffirmed its belief that it held that easement and intended to use it - versus having abandoned it. Clearly the owner was on notice based upon its actions.

I also believe that in order to invoke a claim based upon the concept of adverse possession one also needs to take that claim to court which, to the best of the information provided herein, has not occurred.

By the way, I would opt for Dead Guy Ale since you (hopefully) will be buying.

That was a nice responce for sure 2MANY. If only this was the same reply ALL fisherman got while trying to access the river through the rock pit. I hope it can get resolved soon.

I would say that it's not undue harm. It's actually very overdue. WDFW's actions, while inappropriately delayed and disappointing, have become their norm and as such, should be expected.
This doesn't get the pit owner off the hook for the $530 million though..... and that's just a starting point for the negotiations....

Make you a bet. If it is $500 Million or more, I'll buy you a beer. Less that that, and you buy me a beer.

I even gave you $30 million in slop.