Who Owns The Beach? Supreme Court May Decide..

MonacoMike

Well-Known Member
Sep 15, 2009
14,721
Indiana lakes and Lake Michigan
Boat Info
2000 Cruisers 3870
8.2 Mercs
Engines
85 Sea Ray Monaco 197
260hp Alpha 1
I find this issue fascinating since we frequently are on beaches adjoining private property in Michigan and Indiana. Where is the property line? The water line? The normal high water mark? The wet sand today? The high water line? This decision will affect the entire country if SCOTUS chooses to take it up.

A little side note, Chief Justice John Roberts grew up in the area the case originates from.


https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local...cle_2cfc1bda-6878-532c-861b-ac509fd42c80.html

MM
 
tiara in the snow 01.JPG
In Michigan, property owners along waterways that are navigable, own the land to the normal high water level. To my knowledge, that is settled law. Not sure what Indiana says, but the Great Lakes are regulated by the Feds as are their connected navigable water ways. We needed a Federal permit for our seawall and dock and these are routinely approved as long as they do not impede navigation.
 
What will make this issue even more concerning to property owners with properties that are waterfront is that the HWL is changing. As climates change so do the water levels...

I honestly have no sympathy for waterfront owners that are losing their properties. Yes, it's pretty to live on the coast. But, if you've purchased property that was built too close to the water, then the burden is on you to deal with it. These are usually overvalued properties that have never should have been allowed in the first place.

I agree with the states' opinion, but I would like SCOTUS to rule and make it clear.... All beaches in Hawaii are public. People that own oceanfront property should understand they can't block people.

This is coming to a head in Kauai with Zuc..... In fact I might just spend time over there and make it clear... I understand his bodyguards are causing problems.

I'm focusing on oceanfront property not lakefront....
 
View attachment 64134 In Michigan, property owners along waterways that are navigable, own the land to the normal high water level. To my knowledge, that is settled law. Not sure what Indiana says, but the Great Lakes are regulated by the Feds as are their connected navigable water ways. We needed a Federal permit for our seawall and dock and these are routinely approved as long as they do not impede navigation.

This is the settled Michigan law:

"The Michigan Supreme Court determined that the public has a right to walk along the shores of the Great Lakes, even on privately-owned land. Lakefront property owners may own the land down to the water’s edge, but the public trust doctrine nevertheless allows the public to walk on the land between the water’s edge and the “ordinary high water mark,” the place on the shore up to which the presence and action of the water is so continuous as to leave a distinct mark."

https://michiganlcv.org/cases/beach-walking-great-lakes-shoreline/

What has yet to be decided in Indiana and Michigan is, can you sit and watch a sunset? Lay in the sun?

As for structures they are governed differently, with Michigan having authority over all lakes and streams and USACE asserting authority for any tied to the Great Lakes.

"There are a number of lakes in Michigan that are directly tied, via an inlet or outlet, into one of the Great Lakes. Examples of such lakes include Lake Macatawa, Spring Lake, Muskegon Lake, White Lake, Lake Charlevoix, Burt Lake, Mullet Lake, Mona Lake, and Pigeon - 2 - Lake. With regard to these and other similarly situated lakes, the state MDEQ has jurisdiction over docks and piers as mentioned above. In addition, however, the federal government, through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, has concurrent jurisdiction with the State of Michigan. And, absent one of the statutory or regulatory exceptions, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers takes the position that every dock and pier on an inland lake in Michigan directly tied into the Great Lakes is subject to approval by the United States government."

http://www.bsmlawpc.com/municipal_l... Michigan Lakes Tied Into the Great Lakes.pdf

MM
 
There was a MAJOR lawsuit a few years ago in Canada on that same issue. In order to appease a lot of “back lot” property owners, the province of Ontario tried to assert ownership of the beach front. A land owners group sued them and after a long process including an initial loss, then a win on appeal, that specific case was won on behalf of the land owners.

We have our place on Georgian bay that is in the same county as this case. The “myth” that developed after the initial win but the province is still there, despite their loss on appeal. About once a year I have to have a discussion with someone on our beach where I bring a copy of the court ruling and tell them to read it as they leave my property. Not often though. One of my neighbours has a Hatfield and McCoy going on with a back lot guy that refuses (or is too stupid) to read the ruling. the police have taken him away a few times.

In response to this ruling the Province passed a “right of passage” bill that clarifies that you cannot prevent passage along the beaches (people are allowed to walk across your beach between the high water line and the waters edge) but does not allow them to use private land, to stop etc. You also cannot set up a fence that prevents people from passage along the beach. Seems a lot like what is being proposed in the us. That was not protested. Most of us that live on the beach bought there because we also like to take long walks on the beach.

The ruling is Canadian law, but it is a really interesting read. If you have property on the Great Lakes, you will want to gather your resources and get ready to fight.

I understand that in the US virtually all ocean beaches are public and all property lines stop before the beach. But Great Lakes are different rules.

In any event, this ruling in Ontario is interesting reading. I will try to find a link to it.
 
I'm curious as to how the law applies to islands that are attached to the mainland by causeway or bridge.
 
IMG_20180724_135421573.jpg
tiara in the snow 01.JPG
This is the settled Michigan law:

"The Michigan Supreme Court determined that the public has a right to walk along the shores of the Great Lakes, even on privately-owned land. Lakefront property owners may own the land down to the water’s edge, but the public trust doctrine nevertheless allows the public to walk on the land between the water’s edge and the “ordinary high water mark,” the place on the shore up to which the presence and action of the water is so continuous as to leave a distinct mark."

https://michiganlcv.org/cases/beach-walking-great-lakes-shoreline/

What has yet to be decided in Indiana and Michigan is, can you sit and watch a sunset? Lay in the sun?

As for structures they are governed differently, with Michigan having authority over all lakes and streams and USACE asserting authority for any tied to the Great Lakes.

"There are a number of lakes in Michigan that are directly tied, via an inlet or outlet, into one of the Great Lakes. Examples of such lakes include Lake Macatawa, Spring Lake, Muskegon Lake, White Lake, Lake Charlevoix, Burt Lake, Mullet Lake, Mona Lake, and Pigeon - 2 - Lake. With regard to these and other similarly situated lakes, the state MDEQ has jurisdiction over docks and piers as mentioned above. In addition, however, the federal government, through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, has concurrent jurisdiction with the State of Michigan. And, absent one of the statutory or regulatory exceptions, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers takes the position that every dock and pier on an inland lake in Michigan directly tied into the Great Lakes is subject to approval by the United States government."

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

Where is the public access in this photo?
 
I'll be the contrarian here.

If someone has purchased water-front property through legal means and his property line extends to the water, what right does someone else have to trespass? In the absence of a properly recorded public easement, this boils down to the classic, "you have it, I want it" argument. Why would not the same rules apply to "forest-front", or "prairie-front" property?

I enjoy the forest, so I should be able to sit in your adjoining back yard and enjoy it.
 
tiara in the snow 01.JPG
I'll be the contrarian here.

If someone has purchased water-front property through legal means and his property line extends to the water, what right does someone else have to trespass? In the absence of a properly recorded public easement, this boils down to the classic, "you have it, I want it" argument. Why would not the same rules apply to "forest-front", or "prairie-front" property?
Rule of law. Old fashion concept.
 
I'll be the contrarian here.

If someone has purchased water-front property through legal means and his property line extends to the water, what right does someone else have to trespass? In the absence of a properly recorded public easement, this boils down to the classic, "you have it, I want it" argument. Why would not the same rules apply to "forest-front", or "prairie-front" property?

I enjoy the forest, so I should be able to sit in your adjoining back yard and enjoy it.

If someone purchased waterfront property that is what they own. The lake is owned by the public trust. The courts are deciding what constitutes the lake from the waterfront property, no different than any boundary dispute. Is it the current water line? The average water line? The high water line?

So, an owner owns beachfront property, the public owns the lake.

MM
 
In PA on the rivers, lakes and etc there is a 50' federal right of way from normal water level that we don't own as the corp of engineers controls. Need a permit from them to sink poles, build docks or cut ramps or launches in. But the right of way only exists if a motorized boat can navagate from there to the ocean. So if a lake has a dam with no locks rule doesn't apply. People can walk thru, fish, camp out, sit or what ever and I can't stop them but they can't enter thru my property nor treaspass on my docks or ramps. The exceptions are commercial plants, power plants and etc. Bad news is everyone who owns river frontage thinks its all theirs and they can stop you!!
 
In PA on the rivers, lakes and etc there is a 50' federal right of way from normal water level that we don't own as the corp of engineers controls. Need a permit from them to sink poles, build docks or cut ramps or launches in. But the right of way only exists if a motorized boat can navagate from there to the ocean. So if a lake has a dam with no locks rule doesn't apply. People can walk thru, fish, camp out, sit or what ever and I can't stop them but they can't enter thru my property nor treaspass on my docks or ramps. The exceptions are commercial plants, power plants and etc. Bad news is everyone who owns river frontage thinks its all theirs and they can stop you!!

Lots of land owners think they own more than they do. LOL

MM
 
Here in WV on the river you own to the waters edge but technically the Army Corp. Of Engineers can make any modifications they deem necessary to aid navigation. So you may own your river lot to the waters edge the Corp can do what they damn well please. We own the property our boat club sits on but our docks out in the river are at the pleasure of the Army Corp.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
112,945
Messages
1,422,739
Members
60,928
Latest member
rkaleda
Back
Top