The Court Decision Is Clear

WA State appeals court ruling, July 20, 2005:

A dedicated right-of-way laid out to navigable waters is presumed to provide access to the water's edge, and the record owners were on notice of the public nature of the Tidelands when they purchased their properties. We hold that there was no boundary change by acquiescence and reject the record owners' asserted affirmative defenses. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering that a fence encroaching on the right-of-way be removed. ...

'where a road extends to navigable water, it is presumed that the person dedicating the road intended to extend that road across the Tidelands to the water. The evidence is insufficient to rebut this presumption.' We [the appeals court] affirm.