Briefs here (still waiting on OSG brief and reply briefs):
Lower court materials are here.
1. As a matter of federal law, when owners of real property abutting navigable waters lawfully erect a shore defense structure on their own uplands, does the shore defense structure constitute a trespass *iiagainst the tideland owner if subsequent erosion causes the mean high water line to contact the seaward face of that shore defense structure?
2. As a matter of federal law, does an owner of tidelands underlying navigable waters have a vested right to the unabated erosion of abutting uplands as they would exist in their natural state – a right that is superior to the upland owner’s right to erect shore defense structures?
3. Is an owner of upland property strictly liable under Section 10 of the RHA for erecting a shore defense structure without a federal permit when, at the time of its original construction, the shore defense structure was erected entirely out of navigable waters of the United States?
4. Is injunctive relief under the RHA exempt from the general requirement that courts balance competing equitable interests before issuing an injunction?
5. Is the general disclaimer in the Washington Enabling Act that disclaims title to “all lands lying within [the state] owned or held by an Indian or Indian tribes” sufficient to demonstrate the requisite Congressional intent to overcome the presumption that tidelands are held in trust for the State of Washington?