|
APPLICATION OF BALDNVNI
<br />15 N.W.sd lk
<br />* * * 'the final r. st is whether the
<br />public interests will or will not be best
<br />served by discontinuing the way."' In re
<br />Petition of Schaller, 193 Minn. 614, 259 N.
<br />W. 534.
<br />The situation is not unlike that which
<br />existed in Erickschcn v. County of Sibley,
<br />supra, involving the drainage of Washing-
<br />ton Lake in Sibley county. There the pe-
<br />titioners stressed the benefits to their land
<br />which might result from the drainage of
<br />the lake, while the objectors in turn dwelt
<br />mainly upon the damage to their own
<br />lands. But the court (142 Minn. 41, 42,
<br />170 N.W. 884, 885), referring to the "set-
<br />tled policy designed to preserve inland
<br />waters which afford recreation to the pub-
<br />lic," said:
<br />to * * * We have observed that in
<br />contested drainage proceedings the petition-
<br />ers are chiefly interested in adding to their
<br />holdings of arable land, while their oppon-
<br />ents are concerned over possible damage to
<br />their lands as a result of the drainage of
<br />those of their neighbors. Its the clash of
<br />conflicting private interests, those of the
<br />public are apt to drop out of sight. Yet
<br />the state, thorsgls not a party to nor repre-
<br />sented in the proceedings, has real and sub-
<br />stantial rights to protect. * * * It
<br />should be the concern of the county board
<br />and of the courts to guard the rights of the
<br />public, and to preserve for the enjoyment
<br />of this and future generations all bodies of
<br />%%atcr which have present or potential pub.
<br />Gc value." (Italics supplied.)
<br />[3) 3. This court requires no proof that
<br />Lake Minnetonka is a priceless heritage of
<br />the people of Minnesota, to be preserved
<br />and passed on to posterity. Judicial notice
<br />wiil be taken of the fact that it is one of the
<br />most precious pearls in the string of Ten
<br />Thousand Lakes of which Minnesota is so
<br />justly proud. Its natural beauty has be-
<br />come the theme of both legend and song.
<br />Because of its wide expanse and proximity
<br />to our metropolitan areas, it is much fi-e-
<br />livented and used for boating, fishing,
<br />picnicking, and bathing— -perhaps more
<br />than any other lake in the state. Its
<br />shore line of nearly 100 miles is dotted with
<br />permanent homes and summer cottages, not
<br />only at its water's edge, but extending far
<br />back from the shore. But the use of the
<br />lake is not confined to dwtllers on its shore
<br />or nearby. During the summer season es-
<br />pecially, it is she mecca fo, thousands upon
<br />thousands of urbanites, not so fortunate as
<br />Minn. 187
<br />to possess a lake home, who —young and old
<br />alike —seek its shores and waters for div-
<br />ers recreational purposes. To those who
<br />do not indulge in active recreation, it af-
<br />fords the opportunity of communing with
<br />nature at its best. With the increase in the
<br />permanent lake population, however, the
<br />extent nf lake shore available to the public
<br />generally and the means of public access to
<br />the lake have diminished and, therefore,
<br />become increasingly valuable from yerr to
<br />year. All these facts are so commonly
<br />known that this court must take them into
<br />consideration in dis} rig of the appeal.
<br />" * * * we must plot forget that the
<br />public includes persons other than those in A"
<br />the immediate vicinity. The general pub-
<br />lic has a true concern in the recreational
<br />facilities offered by the lakes which nature
<br />has so freely given us in this state. Their
<br />generous sharing by all will make for a
<br />healthier and happier people. The many
<br />not fortunate enough to be able to acquire
<br />the advantages of ownership of lake shore
<br />properties should not be deprived of these
<br />benefits. This we would do if we permitted
<br />streets leading to the lake shore to be va-
<br />cated as here proposed." In re Petition of
<br />Krebs, 213 Minn. 344, 347, 6 N.W.2d 803,
<br />805.
<br />[4] 4. Keeping in mind the value to the
<br />public of free access to and use of the lake
<br />shore, we are at a loss to know how any
<br />part of Lake Street has become "useless"
<br />within the meaning of that term as com-
<br />monly defined. The word "useless," which
<br />appears in Minn.St.1941, ¢ 505.14, Mason
<br />St.1927, § 8244, permitting vacation of a
<br />street when it is "useless for the purpose
<br />for which it was laid out," should not be
<br />given any restricted meaning. Court
<br />should ascribe to it the well -accepted con-
<br />notation - "not ser, ;ng or not capable of
<br />serving any valuahi- purpose; being of no
<br />use; having or being of no use; un-
<br />serviceable; producing no good end; an-
<br />swering no desired purpose." Funk dt
<br />Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary, 1932;
<br />Webster's New Twernational Dictionary
<br />(2d Ed.) 1938.
<br />[ ,] 5. The loss to the public of 150
<br />feet of shore line out of a total of approxi-
<br />maiely 100 miles may to the Baldwins
<br />seem inconsequential or even infinitesimal
<br />and nothing to be disturbed s,bout. F,;t, of
<br />this 100 miles of precious shore line, only a
<br />small fraction has been reserved for the
<br />public; and if the courts should create a
<br />
|