Who Owns The Beach? Supreme Court May Decide..

I only wish I were fortunate enough to have a horse in this race. And by horse I mean some beautiful waterfront property here in West Michigan. :)

I've never had the pleasure of dealing with an unhappy lakefront property owner. I have, however, had occasion to be approached by a Park Ranger who indicated I needed to stand in the water, not on the beach, if I was going to drink a beer. That was an eye opener. Your feet need to be wet in order to enjoy a beer adjacent to the beaches of a state park. He was pretty funny about it as I took exactly one step west into compliance.
 
tiara in the snow 01.JPG
We routinely see fisherman in our guest slip fishing because it's a good fishing hole. Don't mind that but resent the lures and hooks they leave behind on our dock lines and in our aft curtain. Sometimes, they do not realize when I'm on the boat and I then say something to them when they start bouncing their lures off the side of the boat when I'm on it. Cuts both ways.
 
tiara in the snow 01.JPG
Maky said:
High water mark only pertains to the Great Lakes, not inland lakes or rivers.
Click to expand...
Yes unless the inland lake or river is attached to a Great Lake directly or indirectly and is "navigable". The accepted definition of that used to be that it is deep enough to float a log to market.
 
Stee6043 said:
I only wish I were fortunate enough to have a horse in this race. And by horse I mean some beautiful waterfront property here in West Michigan. :)

I've never had the pleasure of dealing with an unhappy lakefront property owner. I have, however, had occasion to be approached by a Park Ranger who indicated I needed to stand in the water, not on the beach, if I was going to drink a beer. That was an eye opener. Your feet need to be wet in order to enjoy a beer adjacent to the beaches of a state park. He was pretty funny about it as I took exactly one step west into compliance.
Click to expand...

Many neighborhoods hire security to kick others, mainly boaters from "their beach". There are homeowners that yell at us, watch us with binoculars and call the Sherrif when we leave telling them we were drinking. In our area we do not raft up, as in tie up together. We search for sandbars we can stand on and anchor there.

We have experienced the State Park ranger making us get back in the water, and some friends were asked to leave.

MM
 
sbw1 said:
View attachment 64146 We routinely see fisherman in our guest slip fishing because it's a good fishing hole. Don't mind that but resent the lures and hooks they leave behind on our dock lines and in our aft curtain. Sometimes, they do not realize when I'm on the boat and I then say something to them when they start bouncing their lures off the side of the boat when I'm on it. Cuts both ways.
Click to expand...


In boats? Or they trespassed to get there?

In the spring and fall, fisherman in little fishing boats troll around casting between our boats in slips. I don't like that.

MM
 
tiara in the snow 01.JPG
MonacoMike said:
In boats? Or they trespassed to get there?

In the spring and fall, fisherman in little fishing boats troll around casting between our boats in slips. I don't like that.

MM
Click to expand...
In boats. I've seen people tie a line on our spring piles to hold position. Some people are really gutsie.
 
I looked into this in detail probably 25 years ago. I can't find my research, but my recollection is similar to what other have said - that the Great Lakes are public property up to the statutory high water mark, which was defined (for Lake Michigan) as 579 feet above sea level. I thought this was originally outlined in something called the Federal Open Waterways act, but I can't find reference to it so the name probably isn't correct.

You are allowed to walk the shoreline up to the statutory high water mark, but if you stopped on the property it was considered trespassing. The law also allows for full navigational access, so examples of private property owners complaining about boats anchoring off of their beaches had no merit. In my area we occasionally have lakefront owners put their own "no boats" buoys off their beaches, but they are meaningless. I've been boating in my area on Lake Michigan for more than 40 years, and have never once heard of any type of restriction on boat access being enforced, and we have some very high end property with some protective (and politically connected) homeowners on our shoreline.
 
yobub said:
You are allowed to walk the shoreline up to the statutory high water mark, but if you stopped on the property it was considered trespassing.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what the courts are deciding the details of now. So many people, both owners and boaters think they know what the laws are and the laws in many cases they have never been actually adjudicated to determine if they are right. They are now, and this potential ruling would be for the entire country. A BFD.

yobub said:
The law also allows for full navigational access, so examples of private property owners complaining about boats anchoring off of their beaches had no merit. In my area we occasionally have lakefront owners put their own "no boats" buoys off their beaches, but they are meaningless. I've been boating in my area on Lake Michigan for more than 40 years, and have never once heard of any type of restriction on boat access being enforced, and we have some very high end property with some protective (and politically connected) homeowners on our shoreline.
Click to expand...

None of this is about navigation restrictions, I know of only few of those, mainly a owner puts up a roped off swimming area. Many of those "high end" own on our side of the lake too.

We did hear a funny one at Warren Dunes once, a mid 50's couple were anchored off the park a hundred yards or so, listen to their music on their awesome stereo. Their kids and grand-kids were playing in the park. The Sheriff boat pulled up and said, we know we cannot make you change your music, but we did want to tell you our office has had 3 calls complaining about your music from the people on the beach.

MM
 
sbw1 said:
View attachment 64152
In boats. I've seen people tie a line on our spring piles to hold position. Some people are really gutsie.
Click to expand...

Silly question - if the state owns the water and what lies below it how do they transfer ownership to a homeowner for a dock or a pile driven into state property?

Edit: Does the federal permit somehow assign ownership or some kind of perpetual lease to an individual/property owner?
 
Stee6043 said:
Silly question - if the state owns the water and what lies below it how do they transfer ownership to a homeowner for a dock or a pile driven into state property?

Edit: Does the federal permit somehow assign ownership or some kind of perpetual lease to an individual/property owner?
Click to expand...

They do not "transfer ownership" they issue permits.

"The federal government’s jurisdiction over docks and piers on lakes tied directly into the Great Lakes derives from Section 10 of the federal Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 USC § 403 (the “Act”), which provides: The creation of any obstruction not affirmatively authorized by Congress, to the navigable capacity of any of the waters of the United States is prohibited; and it shall not be lawful to build or commence the building of any wharf, pier, dolphin, boom, weir, breakwater, bulkhead, jetty, or other structures in any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, navigable river, or other water of the United States, outside established harbor lines, or where no harbor lines have been established, except on plans recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of the Army; and it shall not be lawful to excavate or fill, or in any manner to alter or modify the course, location, condition, or capacity of, any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, lake, harbor or refuge, or inclosure within the limits of any breakwater, or of the channel of any navigable water of the United States, unless the work has been recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of the Army prior to beginning the same."

http://www.bsmlawpc.com/municipal_law/PDF/Riparian_Water_Law_Articles/Dock Permits on Michigan Lakes Tied Into the Great Lakes.pdf

Not sure what they could do to revoke a permit once issued.

MM
 
MonacoMike said:
They do not "transfer ownership" they issue permits.

"The federal government’s jurisdiction over docks and piers on lakes tied directly into the Great Lakes derives from Section 10 of the federal Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 USC § 403 (the “Act”), which provides: The creation of any obstruction not affirmatively authorized by Congress, to the navigable capacity of any of the waters of the United States is prohibited; and it shall not be lawful to build or commence the building of any wharf, pier, dolphin, boom, weir, breakwater, bulkhead, jetty, or other structures in any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, navigable river, or other water of the United States, outside established harbor lines, or where no harbor lines have been established, except on plans recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of the Army; and it shall not be lawful to excavate or fill, or in any manner to alter or modify the course, location, condition, or capacity of, any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, lake, harbor or refuge, or inclosure within the limits of any breakwater, or of the channel of any navigable water of the United States, unless the work has been recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of the Army prior to beginning the same."

http://www.bsmlawpc.com/municipal_law/PDF/Riparian_Water_Law_Articles/Dock Permits on Michigan Lakes Tied Into the Great Lakes.pdf

Not sure what they could do to revoke a permit once issued.

MM
Click to expand...

But a permit to build does not address allowable use or ownership. If a transfer of ownership or lease doesn't exist then surely it must be within our rights to occupy any dock erected on public bottomlands? There's gotta be something out there saying that you own or have exclusive right to use a dock you build on state land?
 
yobub said:
I looked into this in detail probably 25 years ago. I can't find my research, but my recollection is similar to what other have said - that the Great Lakes are public property up to the statutory high water mark, which was defined (for Lake Michigan) as 579 feet above sea level. I thought this was originally outlined in something called the Federal Open Waterways act, but I can't find reference to it so the name probably isn't correct.

You are allowed to walk the shoreline up to the statutory high water mark, but if you stopped on the property it was considered trespassing. The law also allows for full navigational access, so examples of private property owners complaining about boats anchoring off of their beaches had no merit. In my area we occasionally have lakefront owners put their own "no boats" buoys off their beaches, but they are meaningless. I've been boating in my area on Lake Michigan for more than 40 years, and have never once heard of any type of restriction on boat access being enforced, and we have some very high end property with some protective (and politically connected) homeowners on our shoreline.
Click to expand...

I really hope that the above is not true, because if it is, all of you that think you own waterfront property on the Great Lakes, actually do not own waterfront property. You own "water view" property. Kind of different. If that is confirmed as being the law all along, you should then sue your local municipal government that collects property tax to have the tax assessment back in time reversed to reduce the property value to reflect the fact that they are not in fact waterfront properties and you were improperly assessed.
 
Creekwood said:
I really hope that the above is not true, because if it is, all of you that think you own waterfront property on the Great Lakes, actually do not own waterfront property. You own "water view" property. Kind of different. If that is confirmed as being the law all along, you should then sue your local municipal government that collects property tax to have the tax assessment back in time reversed to reduce the property value to reflect the fact that they are not in fact waterfront properties and you were improperly assessed.
Click to expand...

Well, they own the property, but they don't own the lake. The law just defines where the lake ends and where their property starts, and depending on lake level, there is some dry land between where their property ends and where the lake starts, that is considered to be part of the lake. Right now the Lake Michigan water level is slightly above the statutory high water level, so theoretically some of the homeowner's property is under water.

Not that it affects what the law says, but I think of it this way: I don't think any property owner thinks they own the public street that runs in front of their house. They may be frustrated if someone parks in front of their house to go to a neighbor, but they probably know they don't own the street. They also probably understand that they don't really own the sidewalk, and that anyone has a right to walk down the sidewalk, or walk down the street, as long as that person doesn't stop and hang out in their yard. If they live next door to a public park, they probably know that they don't own the park and people are free to use the park as they see fit, subject to some overriding park rules. In the example of the lake and the sidewalk, those are solid borders that are easy to define, and really don't change. The lake isn't like that, so the law defines a border that is consistent for a shoreline that isn't.

The key, in my opinion, is that the lake is not the homeowner's yard, it is public property just like the street or the sidewalk or park. The lake bed is also part of that public property, although the public is generous in some situations and allows homeowners to build structures onto that public property. When the law provides access to the lake and the sand along and underneath it, the law is just providing access to the public property that the homeowner's land happens to adjoin.
 
Creekwood said:
I really hope that the above is not true, because if it is, all of you that think you own waterfront property on the Great Lakes, actually do not own waterfront property. You own "water view" property. Kind of different. If that is confirmed as being the law all along, you should then sue your local municipal government that collects property tax to have the tax assessment back in time reversed to reduce the property value to reflect the fact that they are not in fact waterfront properties and you were improperly assessed.
Click to expand...

They own lakefront, not waterfront.

My take on this is, most tax assessments are based on the square footage of the land, most likely defined by land measured at the time of original platting, assessment or reassessment. Changes in the lake or waterfront may cause this to change fro time to time.

The landowner owns to the "lake", it is the precise definition of "lake" that is being discussed in the court case.

MM
 
MonacoMike said:


Not sure what they could do to revoke a permit once issued.

MM
Click to expand...

I know I'm on a rivers but the way they are getting people to comply with new rules is whenever someone new buys the property they are now required to get a new permit for their existing docks, poles and etc and then have to comply with all new rules and regulations. As long as the property stays in the original permiters name its grandfathered in. So they always got away to make you comply
 
yobub said:
Well, they own the property, but they don't own the lake. The law just defines where the lake ends and where their property starts, and depending on lake level, there is some dry land between where their property ends and where the lake starts, that is considered to be part of the lake.
Click to expand...

This point is just what the case is to decide for the country if they take it up. So the law is not clear currently on this.


yobub said:
Right now the Lake Michigan water level is slightly above the statutory high water level, so theoretically some of the homeowner's property is under water.
Click to expand...

I do not believe that can be true since anytime water covers it it is lake.

What state would you reference this from?

yobub said:
Not that it affects what the law says, but I think of it this way: I don't think any property owner thinks they own the public street that runs in front of their house. They may be frustrated if someone parks in front of their house to go to a neighbor, but they probably know they don't own the street. They also probably understand that they don't really own the sidewalk, and that anyone has a right to walk down the sidewalk, or walk down the street, as long as that person doesn't stop and hang out in their yard. If they live next door to a public park, they probably know that they don't own the park and people are free to use the park as they see fit, subject to some overriding park rules. In the example of the lake and the sidewalk, those are solid borders that are easy to define, and really don't change. The lake isn't like that, so the law defines a border that is consistent for a shoreline that isn't.

The key, in my opinion, is that the lake is not the homeowner's yard, it is public property just like the street or the sidewalk or park. The lake bed is also part of that public property, although the public is generous in some situations and allows homeowners to build structures onto that public property. When the law provides access to the lake and the sand along and underneath it, the law is just providing access to the public property that the homeowner's land happens to adjoin.
Click to expand...

Sidewalk law varies from state to state at a minimum, and often community to community.

MM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,187
Messages
1,428,227
Members
61,099
Latest member
Lorenzo512
Back
Top