Facts
Pierre Robyr and Jean-Pierre Fontannaz operated gravel pits on their respective properties in Noville, which resulted in the formation of ponds due to the exposure of the groundwater. The Wildlife Conservator considered that these ponds, named the Mure Pond and the Praille Pond, were part of the public domain and were therefore subject to the fishing rights of the Canton of Vaud. The heirs of Pierre Robyr and Jean-Pierre Fontannaz challenged this decision before the State Council, which rejected their appeals. They then filed an appeal for reform and a public law appeal with the Federal Tribunal.
Considerations
The Federal Tribunal rejected the public law appeal. It considered that the cantonal authority had not acted in an arbitrary manner by assimilating the waters of the Mure and Praille ponds to public domain waters. Indeed, according to case law and doctrine, a source within the meaning of Art. 704 CC is not limited to water naturally emerging from the ground, but may also include groundwater artificially exposed. In the present case, it was the excavation work carried out by Robyr and Fontannaz that caused the water to appear on the surface, so it was not a natural emergence. Consequently, the Federal Tribunal ruled that the cantonal authority was justified in considering that these ponds did not constitute private sources within the meaning of Art. 704 CC, but were part of the public domain as waters from the groundwater table.
The…