Who Owns The Beach? Supreme Court May Decide..

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?
According to the Corp of Engineers in Pa on rivers I get a permit to erect my docks and pilings they are my property and I control assess and who is allowed on them. The permit is just permission to erect on federal right a way and water. I'm thinking the rules are going to be similar for the lakes with just some minor changes as the corp of engineers is the same group across the country. You used to be able to get a copy of the rules from the government printing house, my copy is so old probably outdated.
 
I do not believe that can be true since anytime water covers it it is lake.

What state would you reference this from?

MM

My point about the water level was designed to be illustrative, but here is the reference on the current water level: http://lre-wm.usace.army.mil/reports/GreatLakes/GLWL-CurrentMonth-Feet.pdf
Statute is 579.8 feet above sea level. Army Core of Engineers shows Lake Michigan currently at 580.1 ft. If the homeowner's property begins at 579.8 feet above sea level, then (theoretically) some of their property may be underwater.
 
My point about the water level was designed to be illustrative, but here is the reference on the current water level: http://lre-wm.usace.army.mil/reports/GreatLakes/GLWL-CurrentMonth-Feet.pdf
Statute is 579.8 feet above sea level. Army Core of Engineers shows Lake Michigan currently at 580.1 ft. If the homeowner's property begins at 579.8 feet above sea level, then (theoretically) some of their property may be underwater.

By what law or court ruling was 579.8 feet above sea level determined to be the "lake"? I have reviewed several court cases on the lake and have never seen a reference to the lake being that narrow definition. If that was the case the, just as you suggest, then the landowner would own part of the water, and that has never been so.

MM
 
Sounds to me like there is a lot of ambiguous interpretations and urban myth in the US re property ownership on the great lakes. I can't readily find that court ruling that I mentioned in Canada, but I will eventually.

I think many of the issues are paralleled in the US. One aspect was that there was old Canadian law that said something like "the right of access to the shoreline shall not be impeded" that was being used to claim that most property below the high water mark was the owned by the crown (public). The supreme court overturned that notion and said that that is a maritime law rule that would allow sailors and fisherman to land their boats on shore if needed without being considered trespassing. But not that they had any other rights. The "right of passage" is a similar concept.
 
tiara in the snow 01.JPG
This issue of access/ownership is but one of many to consider when purchasing a home on a lake. There are good sides and bad sides. Dredging required or not required. Bugs or no bugs. Weeds or no weeds. Wakes or no wakes. Sea walls or no sea walls. Types of sea walls. Docks are fixed or floating. How does the ice go out. Sunrises or sun sets. Septic or public utilities. Noisy or quiet. The list goes on. Best to know what you are buying before you write the check.
 
By what law or court ruling was 579.8 feet above sea level determined to be the "lake"? I have reviewed several court cases on the lake and have never seen a reference to the lake being that narrow definition. If that was the case the, just as you suggest, then the landowner would own part of the water, and that has never been so.

MM
My understanding is that the regulations had always been based on a water level. My use of 579.8 ft above sea level seems like it is out of date, in that the regulations now reference the statue at 581.5 ft above sea level, although I see both referenced. The original number goes back to when i first researched this in the 80's. Anyhow, here are some references:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-451-1994-III-1-THE-GREAT-LAKES-325.pdf

https://www.michbar.org/file/opinions/appeals/2011/051211/48798.pdf

https://www.lre.usace.army.mil/Miss...Ordinary-High-Water-Mark-and-Low-Water-Datum/

https://books.google.com/books?id=h-I0AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=Ordinary+high+water+mark+579.8&source=bl&ots=KTo4HTqcs_&sig=ACfU3U2eq1moBNnn8Beyw5iVNXZyrLJ6cw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiqn_ryl_PfAhXFHDQIHXjIADYQ6AEwDXoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=Ordinary high water mark 579.8&f=false

Also, with regard to my earlier illustration about some of the property owner's land being under water, I came across this reference which better reflects the point I was trying to make:
https://www.in.gov/dnr/water/3658.htm
 
Last edited:
My understanding is that the regulations had always been based on a water level. My use of 579.8 ft above sea level seems like it is out of date, in that the regulations now reference the statue at 581.5 ft above sea level, although I see both referenced. The original number goes back to when i first researched this in the 80's. Anyhow, here are some references:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-451-1994-III-1-THE-GREAT-LAKES-325.pdf

https://www.michbar.org/file/opinions/appeals/2011/051211/48798.pdf

https://www.lre.usace.army.mil/Miss...Ordinary-High-Water-Mark-and-Low-Water-Datum/

https://books.google.com/books?id=h-I0AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=Ordinary+high+water+mark+579.8&source=bl&ots=KTo4HTqcs_&sig=ACfU3U2eq1moBNnn8Beyw5iVNXZyrLJ6cw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiqn_ryl_PfAhXFHDQIHXjIADYQ6AEwDXoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=Ordinary high water mark 579.8&f=false

Also, with regard to my earlier illustration about some of the property owner's land being under water, I came across this reference which better reflects the point I was trying to make:
https://www.in.gov/dnr/water/3658.htm

All of this seems to be related to permitted activities and modifications in the land between the OHWM and the water's edge, not who owns that land.

I know I am Canadian, so things are different in the US so I am quite interested in how this goes. I was VERY engrossed in the Ontario Supreme court case that could have impacted our property ownership on Georgian Bay, so I did a lot of reading. Huge sigh of relief when the Courts found in favor of the property owners and also clarified other more general interpretation issues that may affect other potential claims of ownership by virtue of the "rights to access the shoreline" sorts of other legislation. The key issue here remains whether the property patent, title and/or survey from the original subdivision documents ownership to the waters edge. And there is a lot of ambiguous documentation on current surveys since owners may need to research title issues back to the 1800's or early 1900's and some of that is hard to find or lost in time. But at least in Ontario, the broad assertion that the government owns all land between the high water mark and the waters edge is now dead in Ontario.

So I can legitimately kick someone off my beach unless they can provide me documentation that THEY own the beach in front of my place. And our police can finally take action if someone is trespassing. Luckily we don't have major issues in front of our place. People leave when we tell them its private property. If they say "we thought that all beaches were government owned" we set them straight. Had one short argument in the last 5 years.
 
View attachment 64155 This issue of access/ownership is but one of many to consider when purchasing a home on a lake. There are good sides and bad sides. Dredging required or not required. Bugs or no bugs. Weeds or no weeds. Wakes or no wakes. Sea walls or no sea walls. Types of sea walls. Docks are fixed or floating. How does the ice go out. Sunrises or sun sets. Septic or public utilities. Noisy or quiet. The list goes on. Best to know what you are buying before you write the check.
and you can still have a crappy neighbor :)..... If I am going to be "on" the water I am going to do it in a boat. I have never had a desire to have a house on the water or a boat in the back yard or a beach or cliff. I guess that's good because there is not enough room for all of us. But I do appreciate what you all go thru to be there. Carry on
 
Last edited:
My understanding is that the regulations had always been based on a water level. My use of 579.8 ft above sea level seems like it is out of date, in that the regulations now reference the statue at 581.5 ft above sea level, although I see both referenced. The original number goes back to when i first researched this in the 80's. Anyhow, here are some references:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-451-1994-III-1-THE-GREAT-LAKES-325.pdf

https://www.michbar.org/file/opinions/appeals/2011/051211/48798.pdf

https://www.lre.usace.army.mil/Miss...Ordinary-High-Water-Mark-and-Low-Water-Datum/

https://books.google.com/books?id=h-I0AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=Ordinary+high+water+mark+579.8&source=bl&ots=KTo4HTqcs_&sig=ACfU3U2eq1moBNnn8Beyw5iVNXZyrLJ6cw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiqn_ryl_PfAhXFHDQIHXjIADYQ6AEwDXoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=Ordinary high water mark 579.8&f=false

Also, with regard to my earlier illustration about some of the property owner's land being under water, I came across this reference which better reflects the point I was trying to make:
https://www.in.gov/dnr/water/3658.htm


Michigan decision: "In Glass v. Goeckel, the Michigan Supreme Court held that Michiganders have a right to walk along privately owned beaches so long as they do not cross the “high-water mark.”

Indiana Decision: The Indiana Supreme Court ruled, in a 4-0 decision, that the state acquired the property under its portion of Lake Michigan and up to the ordinary high water mark on the shoreline when it achieved statehood in 1816.

Some use OHWM and some use HWM as noted the OHM may move as erosion moves the sand.

These are the decisions that currently create the precedent in Indiana and Michigan.

MM
 
Your first sta
and you can still have a crappy neighbor :)..... If I am going to be "on" the water I am going to do it in a boat. I have never had a desire to have a house on the water or a boat in the back yard or a beach or cliff. I guess that's good because there is not enough room for all of us. But I do appreciate what you all go thru to be there. Carry on

I like having the best of both. Place on the lake an a boat in the marina. Short boating season up here and on inclement weather weekends I can still get away and be on the water.
 
I like having the best of both. Place on the lake an a boat in the marina. Short boating season up here and on inclement weather weekends I can still get away and be on the water.
We kept a boat at Driftwood cove for a couple years a long time ago... We have been back a few times and rented the cottages for family reunions... You boat in one of the most beautiful places in North america... One of my favorite places is Beckwith for a day and the inland run up to Parry Sound...with a stop at Henry's..One of these summers we are going to go up there.
When we had the boat up there we lived in Bronte...and I used to commute for work to Downtown Toronto right beside the Farmers market... I miss that town a lot
 
Last edited:
We kept a boat at Driftwood cove for a couple years a long time ago... We have been back a few times and rented the cottages for family reunions... You boat in one of the most beautiful places in North america... One of my favorite places is Beckwith for a day and the inland run up to Peterborough...with a stop at Henry's..One of these summers we are going to go up there.
When we had the boat up there we lived in Bronte...and I used to commute for work to Downtown Toronto right beside the Farmers market... I miss that town a lot

I have lived in Oakville since the 1980s. I kept my first boat in the water at the Bronte harbor and moved it up to Georgian Bay (Hindson Marina in Penetanquishene) when we bought our place up there. I don't miss Lake Ontario. Pretty boring boating (great salmon fishing though). Three boats later we are still at Hindson. Lots of trips up north too with the boat. Areas around Henry's are great. Port Rawson Bay, Three Finger Bay, 12 mile bay, Parry Sound. No shortage of places to go up here.

When my kids were young my favorite days were early morning salmon/trout fishing trips. Leave the dock at about 6:00AM. The kids would sleep on the way out. We would fish 7:00 till 10 or 10:30am or so, then bomb over to Beckwith or Giant's Tomb island for some swimming, then back to the marina and to the cottage for a late lunch of fresh fish. They kids slept well those nights and my wife and I would have some time to ourselves at the cottage. Like I said, best of both worlds. Sunrise on the water, and sunset at the beach.
 
I have lived in Oakville since the 1980s. I kept my first boat in the water at the Bronte harbor and moved it up to Georgian Bay (Hindson Marina in Penetanquishene) when we bought our place up there. I don't miss Lake Ontario. Pretty boring boating (great salmon fishing though). Three boats later we are still at Hindson. Lots of trips up north too with the boat. Areas around Henry's are great. Port Rawson Bay, Three Finger Bay, 12 mile bay, Parry Sound. No shortage of places to go up here.

When my kids were young my favorite days were early morning salmon/trout fishing trips. Leave the dock at about 6:00AM. The kids would sleep on the way out. We would fish 7:00 till 10 or 10:30am or so, then bomb over to Beckwith or Giant's Tomb island for some swimming, then back to the marina and to the cottage for a late lunch of fresh fish. They kids slept well those nights and my wife and I would have some time to ourselves at the cottage. Like I said, best of both worlds. Sunrise on the water, and sunset at the beach.
We kept a boat on 16 mile creek around the bend from the Oakville Power Boat Club for 3 years. We went to Toronto Island every weekend we could and got back in behind Boy Scout Island or the wall. We have some great memories from those times on Lake Ontario. My mother in law moved their boat from Bronte harbor up to Driftwood cove...that's when we moved up there for something different... all good times
 
We kept a boat on 16 mile creek around the bend from the Oakville Power Boat Club for 3 years. We went to Toronto Island every weekend we could and got back in behind Boy Scout Island or the wall. We have some great memories from those times on Lake Ontario. My mother in law moved their boat from Bronte harbor up to Driftwood cove...that's when we moved up there for something different... all good times

Love that part of the town. Was better when "Sharky's" was still there. There aren't very many boat access bars or restaurants around. Port Credit has one. But wind/waves kick up too much on Lake Ontario to be sure of an enjoyable trip back to home port.
 
tiara in the snow 01.JPG
DSC00013.jpeg

A little off topic but these guys and two of their buddies were fighting over a big fish just off the beach that it turns out we don't own. These are immature birds. A huge mature female Eagel swooped down and stole it, and flew away with it before they knew what happened. Sometimes old and cunning trumps young and quick. Eagles fish here everyday once the lake freezes which happened yesterday.
 
It looks like the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case, which allows the lower court ruling to stand and allows public access up to the ordinary high water mark.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/news/ct-ptb-lake-beach-access-st-0220-story.html

"In a unanimous decision, the state supreme court held in Gunderson that the boundary separating state-owned public trust land from privately owned along the shores of Lake Michigan is the natural ordinary high water mark, according to a release from the law center."

"The state holds this portion of the shoreline in “public trust” for the benefits of its citizens, and private landowners along the lake cannot erect walls or other barriers that prevent people from walking along the shoreline."

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...reme-court-wont-hear-lake-michigan-beach-case

"The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that the state owns the shoreline and holds it in trust for all residents."
 
I like the decision. As I understand it, this is not an endorsement of the decision by SCOTUS so as other decisions come along by other states they may take a look and decide then. Until then this mainly applies to Indiana.

MM
 
Last edited:

Forum statistics

Threads
112,950
Messages
1,422,864
Members
60,932
Latest member
juliediane
Back
Top