(concurring specially).
I agree with the majority that the district court correctly determined that Minn. Stat. § 117.225 does not apply because the state continues to use the disputed area for a proper purpose and the statute does not permit discharge of a portion of an easement. For a number of reasons, I am troubled by the district court’s determination that the easement conveyed riparian rights to the state.
First, appellant’s complaint was limited to seeking a discharge of the easement granted to the state as set forth in Minn. Stat. § 117.225. The relief provided by this statute is limited to discharge or non-discharge of an easement. The district court’s decision goes beyond the limits of the statute.
Second, the easement was the result of an agreement between the state and appellant’s predecessor in ownership of the land. The state concedes in its brief that the claim of riparian rights may be a misuse of the easement agreement, yet it is the county that seeks to litigate the question of riparian rights. The state, not the county, is the proper party to raise the question of riparian rights.
Third, as the state’s concession makes clear, whether riparian rights arose under the agreement presents a fact question that is unsuitable for summary judgment, particularly in the context of a limited statutory action.
Finally, the district court’s decision granting riparian rights based on the condemnation easement is not supported by law. A right-of-way easement does not imply a grant of riparian rights. Farnes v. Lane, 281 Minn. 222, 224, 161 N.W.2d 297, 299 (1968) (“A private easement appurtenant affording access to a lake over land adjacent to the water does not make the grantee of the easement a riparian owner *731entitled to exercise riparian rights. ). Further, “[t]he construction of a public highway ... is not remotely connected with navigation or any other water-connected use. It is a land use and nothing more.” State by Head v. Slotness, 289 Minn. 485, 185 N.W.2d 530, 534 (1971). For an easement to grant riparian rights, the grant must be express, “in terms which clearly and specifically allow or deny this use[.]” Farnes, 281 Minn. at 224, 161 N.W.2d at 299. The district court’s decision is not supported by law.
Appellant failed to appeal the district court’s decision on the question of riparian rights, but this court should make clear that the district court exceeded the scope of the limited action before it when the court determined that the easement conveyed riparian rights.