Hey John, was wondering if you got a chance to measure up that original box/ice sled in the basement? I'm not rushing you, I was just wondering. Thanks.
The City of Akron, Water Supply Division posted signs there along with the Norfolk & Western Railroad Company. (The Railroad spent months refurbishing the tressel). Both prohibit trespassing in the immediate area. One certainly takes the chance of getting a citation if you venture upstream, towards the dam).
Contact the City of Akron, Water Supply Division, Plant Manager for further clarification.
Hey Ice. I've been trying to fing out everywhere but I haven't come up with any answers to my question. Can you park under the r.r. bridge on Ravenna rd, by the treatment plant? I want to fish the bridge there but I don't want to get in any trouble. I noticed there are no, no tresspassing, or no parking signs there. I talked to a portage county sheriff, and he said he wasn't sure.
{¶ 125} The trial court found that non-motorized boating did not create a
credible threat to Akron’s water supply. State Route 14, which, according to the
trial court, is a major truck route and heavily traveled roadway, runs across Lake
Rockwell, destroying any characterization of Lake Rockwell as an Endemic pool
untouched by the unclean hand of modern man. The court also found that public
recreational boating is allowed on many other publicly controlled lakes that
provide drinking water for Ohioans. The court concluded as a factual matter that
“public non-motorized boating access to Lake Rockwell will not increase the likely hood of harm to the public water supply or Lake Rockwell.” I believe that
the trial court got it right.
RESNICK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur in the foregoing opinion.
{¶ 124} The public has the right to use navigable watercourses. Pursuant
to R.C. 743.17 and 743.25, a municipal corporation has the power to prevent or
punish the pollution of its water supply. The record demonstrates that Akron’s
prohibition of all navigation on Lake Rockwell is unreasonable. The prohibition
on all boating does not bear a substantial relationship to public health, safety, and
general welfare and is an improper use of Akron’s police power. Hudson v.
Albrecht, Inc. (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 69, 72, 9 OBR 273, 458 N.E.2d 852.
S{¶ 122} This court has not considered a navigability case like this before,
in which a navigable watercourse has been dammed. Here, the trial court made
the factual determination that the Cuyahoga River has a capacity for recreational
boating both above and below Lake Rockwell. The majority’s citation of
Lembeck v. Nye (1890), 47 Ohio St. 336, 24 N.E. 686, is inapposite. Like Ohio
Water Serv., Lembeck is a case concerning an inland lake connected to no other
navigable bodies of water.
{¶ 123} Lake Rockwell is the impoundment of the upper Cuyahoga, a
navigable river. I would hold that the impoundment of a navigable watercourse is
also navigable.
I have been researching the "unfishable" lake rockwell while i have been at my dads and it sounds like its fishable from the 14 causeway. Is that true? and i found a post from a while back that sounded interesting idk if its the real thing or not so tell me what you think,
This is the Ruling from the Supreme Court. There has to be a judge or attorney on OGF that can provide a factual and reliable interpretation. After reading this Ohio Supreme Court ruling it looks like NON-Motorized watercraft navigated into Lake Rockwell cannot be restricted.
{¶ 35} Regarding Portage County’s claim of the public’s right of access to
Lake Rockwell, the trial court ordered Akron to permit non-motorized recreational
boating on the lake because the river has the capacity for recreational boating and
Akron lacked a reasonable basis for excluding the public.
OHIO SUPREME COURT
[Cite as Portage City. Bd. of Comers. v. Akron, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2006-Ohio-954.]
Feedback
Positive
Neutral
Negative
