# Columbus rules vs. residents around reservoirs



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

I wrote this more as a news item than a board post, but I'll copy it here. I don't know much about other municipalities on other reservoirs; maybe some of this will sound familiar to people elsewhere around Ohio.

=====


The Columbus Department of Public Utilities hosted a meeting with residents living around Columbus' drinking-water reservoirs, regarding rules the residents must follow. The October 29 meeting filled the Whetstone Recreation Center auditorium to capacity. Representatives of the city's Department of Recreation and Parks, and the Watershed Management section were on hand to explain and take comments on city policy.

The three drinking-water reservoirs are O'Shaughnessy and Griggs on the Scioto River, and Hoover Reservoir on Big Walnut Creek. The city's Watershed Management program has Division of Water staff working alongside Recreation and Parks staff, to maintain and protect the lands around the reservoirs.

Residents with property along the reservoirs do not own their shorelines. The city owns all of the shoreline around all of the reservoirs, and it enforces city rules. For example, if you live by the reservoir and a tree on the shore is blocking your view, it's illegal for you to cut it down. You can be fined $100 for every inch of caliper.

Columbus has a Land Stewardship program to work with landowners in managing the shores. The City gently describes this as guidance and limited management opportunities to maintain the city property along the reservoirs edge. The city will less gently enforce the rules and use trespassing and other charges against rule breakers. Landowners cannot obtain a permit for a dock, or even a stake to tie on to, without participating in the program.

The program seeks to keep the shores vegetated with native plants. The program also extends back from the shore, into buffer areas of various sizes, depending on how the property lines are drawn. Residents can maintain an existing view of the water up to 50% of the area, but no new views will be considered.

Residents at the Whetstone meeting brought many complaints and questions about this program. There was a microphone set up in the aisle, and a long line of people waiting to speak.

Part of the problem is that the program has been in place for more than 20 years, but has only been enforced in recent years. Many residents were left angry after being ordered to remove whatever shoreline fixtures they had always had before, or at not being allowed to mow to the shore to maintain a view. It's widely seen as an infringement on their property rights.

As was described in the meeting's opening comments, the city does not foresee any situation where you can use city property as if it were your own.

As one resident put it, We're on the lake because we love the lake. There used to be an understanding that you could maintain a view of the lake. Others complained that they had been improving their shorelines for many years, planting what they wanted, absent any guidance from the city. Now their plantings are being rejected - why are good neighbors being shunned?

Others complained of getting threatening letters from the city, instead of an opportunity for dialog. One said some city workers appear to be afraid to tell you that something is OK. A city representative acknowledged some communication problem's on the city's part.

Some have complained of making substantial investments, such as installing riprap to protect eroding dirt banks around Hoover. They have maintained their views because their property values are based in part on their views of the lakes, and now the city is taking that value away. A real estate agent complained of having multiple waterside properties on the market, and he can't use any docks, stairs, etc., as selling points because any new owner would have to start from scratch in a new agreement with the city. That essentially limits his market to new owners who are willing to enter into stewardship agreements.

More than one resident sarcastically thanked the city for lowering their property taxes, by lowering their property values. This drew laughter and applause.

Another point of contention was the growth of tall weeds, whether they're native or not. Many complained of these areas harboring ticks, mosquitoes and animals. Big bushy stands of honeysuckle block views, and many asked about being able to control those. The program does allow for this, but only with permission in advance, and a published permit.

When the line of questioners had all had their turn, the meeting was called to an end. But many lingered to talk one-on-one with officials to detail their complaints and seek ways to move foreward with better understanding.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

Same old story from the residents along the lakes. Bottom line...it's not their property.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

Mushijobah said:


> Same old story from the residents along the lakes. Bottom line...it's not their property.


Where does their property end and the lakeshore begin?


----------



## Mr. A (Apr 23, 2012)

Lewis said:


> Lookin good!


You can look or up on the county auditors web site. Use the map feature and it will show you the right of ways and where all their land ends by the shore.

Mr. A


----------



## flounder (May 15, 2004)

One item you did not mention, and it is the one and only reason for the enforcement of the rules, is that all three reservoirs are drinking water supply. The vegetation is in place to help the water quality by filtering runoff and slowing erosion. Use of these reservoirs is a privilege, the city could, and has the right, to shut down any and all access as they see fit. I believe Meander Reservoir up near Youngstown is no access at all.

I think the biggest problem has been the lack of communication between the two city departments and the residents. Also in the last few years the federal EPA has tightened the water quality guidelines and I think this has contributed the "new" enforcement.

Snakecharmer, the property lines are draw at a certain high water elevation around each reservoir if I understand correctly. I also understand that each property's legal description should contain locations of the city's property at the high water mark, or elevation. This obviously varies from property to property. Buyers and property owners need to look closely at their legal descriptions.


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

Yep, you're right. Columbus has to answer to the Corps of Engineers and the EPA. And, officials admit that various departments don't always communicate with each other, or the public, as well as they should. Part of the problem is that they're short-staffed these days, so each individual employee has a big workload. I have trouble organizing volunteer events when I don't hear back from the people who grant permissions.

BTW that's why they love volunteer efforts, it's free labor. They just want to keep tight control.

I didn't give much of the city's side because this event was a chance for the residents to vent and ask questions. This is the Watershed Management page

http://publicutilities.columbus.gov/content.aspx?id=36978

This is the Land Stewardship page

http://publicutilities.columbus.gov/content.aspx?id=38160



...and while I'm at it, these are the lists of allowed native plants - I'm constrained to these species if I want to plant anything.

Griggs: http://publicutilities.columbus.gov/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=54485

Oshay: http://publicutilities.columbus.gov/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=54487

One thing bothers me about those lists - they do not include a lot of plants whose native range includes Ohio. For example, some kinds of oaks. They're based on some botanical inventories taken a few years ago, and if a plant wasn't found then, it can't be established. But after one of our honeysuckle removals, they discovered some spring wildflowers that were missed in the inventories.


----------



## Bimmer (Aug 12, 2011)

My wife and I were out on Hoover a couple of weeks ago by a house that was for sale. As we were fishing a Ranger came up to us. I thought he was going to stop and talk to us or check us, instead he said "don't mine me I am just writing down the house for sale". He said they keep track of the ones for sale so they can track the new owners and make sure they don't cut trees and etc down.


----------



## flounder (May 15, 2004)

I did hear also that the city will be looking at and most likely updating the 20+ year-old plan for the reservoirs, so they should be looking at amending their lists of native plants and how they are maintained. Hopefully they will update a communication plan between the residents and departments too.

For example, I don't think the current plan would allow a rain garden but that could be one way for a resident to meet some of the stewardship guidelines, and that is the kind of thing they need to look at.


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

Roof runoff was raised as a question by a resident, but I don't have an answer in my scribbled notes.

(I don't know if anyone has video or audio of the meeting. I didn't see any media presence. Searching the Dispatch site for "reservoir" doesn't bring up anything about the meeting.)

I think a big part of the problem with eroding banks is the fact that Hoover and Oshay cut through moraines, so there are high banks of loose fill, and they're washing in as fast as they can. Same thing at Delaware. You can see the same thing in many ravines, but they don't have the wind-driven mechanical action of waves.


----------



## flounder (May 15, 2004)

Bimmer said:


> My wife and I were out on Hoover a couple of weeks ago by a house that was for sale. As we were fishing a Ranger came up to us. I thought he was going to stop and talk to us or check us, instead he said "don't mine me I am just writing down the house for sale". He said they keep track of the ones for sale so they can track the new owners and make sure they don't cut trees and etc down.


LOL...See, that's part of the attitude adjustment some of the watershed folks need...He should've said "just need the house for sale info so we can inform the new owners of the stewardship program..."


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

Another piece of the story: This was a provision put into House Bill 59, the 2014 - 2015 state budget, introduced by Senator Kris Jordan of the 19th District:



> Sec. 743.50. *(A) A municipal corporation that has established and implemented a watershed management program with regard to reservoirs for drinking water shall not include in the program any prohibition against maintenance of property that constitutes a buffer around a body of water that is part of such a reservoir by an owner of property that is contiguous to the buffer._ _(B) A municipal corporation that has established and implemented a watershed management program with regard to reservoirs for drinking water shall not include in the program any prohibition against mowing grass, weeds, or other vegetation on municipal property that constitutes a buffer around a body of water that is part of such a reservoir by owners of property contiguous to the buffer._ _(C) No peace officer or other official with authority to cite trespassers on municipal property described in this section may issue a civil or criminal citation to any individual who enters municipal property buffering a reservoir for the sole purpose of mowing grass, weeds, or other vegetation in an effort to beautify the municipal property that is contiguous to property owned by the individual. _ Sec. 743.50. *(A) A municipal corporation that has established and implemented a watershed management program with regard to reservoirs for drinking water shall not include in the program any prohibition against maintenance of property that constitutes a buffer around a body of water that is part of such a reservoir by an owner of property that is contiguous to the buffer._ _(B) A municipal corporation that has established and implemented a watershed management program with regard to reservoirs for drinking water shall not include in the program any prohibition against mowing grass, weeds, or other vegetation on municipal property that constitutes a buffer around a body of water that is part of such a reservoir by owners of property contiguous to the buffer._ _(C) No peace officer or other official with authority to cite trespassers on municipal property described in this section may issue a civil or criminal citation to any individual who enters municipal property buffering a reservoir for the sole purpose of mowing grass, weeds, or other vegetation in an effort to beautify the municipal property that is contiguous to property owned by the individual.


Here's part of a letter I sent to the House conference committee, on behalf of the Central Ohio Watershed Council:



> The provisions of Sec. 743.50 are unacceptable because they allow broadly-defined "maintenance" to landowners contiguous to publicly-owned buffer land around drinking-water reservoirs. Granting permission for mowing "grass, weeds, or other vegetation" grants a free hand to any landowners to cut or remove any vegetation, with no stated limits. They could mow, clear brush, even clear-cut trees on city land, on any whim, and remain in compliance with these terms, leaving the municipalities powerless to protect something as essential as a drinking-water supply for their citizens.
> 
> Further, according to the Section as it is written, the clause "an owner of property that is contiguous to the buffer" in (A) and (B) establishes no constraint that the municipal land must be contiguous to that particular landowner's property, nor does (C) if the buffer land is not divided into parcels corresponding to the contiguous parcels of particular landowners. It could be argued that a landowner could clear vegetation anywhere in the entire buffer, at will. I know that sounds silly and unreasonable, but there is nothing in the Section to prohibit this.


Kasich vetoed that provision:



> He removed a provision restricting cities' ability to create buffer zones along the edges of reservoirs, saying the areas are needed to protect drinking water sources from pollution.
> 
> "Striking the proper balance between the concerns of property owners bordering waterways affected by this item and the public health, environmental and taxpayer cost issues addressed by buffer zones requires a more thorough process than this item allows," Kasich wrote.


Senator Kris Jordan's site: http://www.ohiosenate.gov/jordan

19th District: http://urban.csuohio.edu/nodis/maps/senateDistrict/sd19.jpg


----------



## boatnut (Nov 22, 2006)

Mushijobah said:


> Same old story from the residents along the lakes. Bottom line...it's not their property.


do you know if the city will allow recreational use of their new upground reservior in Delaware County???


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

boatnut said:


> do you know if the city will allow recreational use of their new upground reservior in Delaware County???


They will not. The main reason is they don't want anchors damaging the plastic liner. And they said the locals didn't want the traffic. They will remotely monitor it on security cameras.

(If you can find the site on the Google satellite view, southwest of Prospect, you can zoom in and actually see the guys rolling out sheets of liner.)


----------



## Talonman (Sep 12, 2013)

"Residents with property along the reservoirs do not own their shorelines. The city owns all of the shoreline around all of the reservoirs, and it enforces city rules. For example, if you live by the reservoir and a tree on the shore is blocking your view, it's illegal for you to cut it down. You can be fined $100 for every inch of caliper."

*Am I the only one here that thinks this is a crime??*

I grew up in Traverse City Mich. East bay... West bay... Grand Traverse bay...
and every other lake in the state all had docks running into the water.

They also had the 'winding wheel' type boat lifts installed next to their docks.

Everybody loved having their own dock, and it added much value to their house, and to the entire state in general.

But then again, Michigan advertises the fishing there, drawing money into the state.





Where is the Ohio one? Non-existant, and reflects the problem of the states attitude toward sportsman.

Such beautiful docks... 

You should be allowed to build docks into the water at your house.

Big Brother should not get a vote. 

And the ranger engaged in 'spying on the house for sale' to see if they cut down trees should be ashamed.

I would like to see in the Ranger job description where it stated that 'You will have to spy on your fellow citizens that sell there house, and make every effort to find a way to document a violation of 'Our Law' ...'
We want the money, and firmly believe the people have no rights.
It is out mission statement after all... Go Ohio

My stance: *It should be their land, and the law is wrong, and a bad one.*

If I lived on any body of water in Ohio, I would want a dock for my boat, and think it's the main reason most buy a house on the lake.

And if you want to retire and fish, best move out of Ohio.
Old men want to launch from their own dock, located on their own property.
(My dream some day is to have my own dock, on a body of water with decent fish, and retire.)
This plan can't be rare among those who have a love for fishing...

The state of Ohio apparently fails to realize that, or are willing to have the people just leave. Sad.

Why don't they just put out a proposition that gives all authority to the land owner, and removes all authority from the state, and let the people vote on it??? 

*No way will they let that happen.* They already know they would lose bad!
They currently have the stick in their hand to beat you, and don't want to put it down. There simply having too much fun to stop, and allows for their Rangers to play James Bond against fellow Ohio citizens.

Kind-a turns your stomach a little, and I don't even live on the water in this state.
We need more protect and serve, and less fear and intimidation by the State.


----------



## bdawg (Apr 14, 2009)

There is a difference between the lakes in Michigan and the ones in Ohio. Many of the ones in Michigan are natural lakes created by glaciers. Most of the ones in Ohio were created for flood control or water supply. When the government bought the land for these lakes, they bought all the land up to the maximum flood level. Either by buying the actual land or paying for an easement which gives them a right to put restrictions on the land which are written in the easement. 

The people that bought property next to these lakes were made aware of the restrictions prior to buying. The trees around the border of the lake need to be preserved to preserve the quality of the water that we are drinking. If someone doesn't watch out for the trees, they will be cut down and we will face increased costs to treat the water. 

I do agree however that these agencies go overboard in placing restrictions on the lakes sometimes such as allowing no fishing at all. If you want property on a lake or pond that you can build your own dock on, you'll have to build your own lake!


----------



## Talonman (Sep 12, 2013)

Then that deal with the State never should have been made, and they were correct to not enforce it for so long, as the article states. My guess is we have some new rangers, with poor attitudes at the helm.

And who may I ask approved the power hungry deal for the State? The State??
That needs to be corrected.

I'd rater catch wild fish, than build a feeding pond.

And Hoover! Why have ALL lakes allowed you to run bigger engines at no wake speed, except hoover. I want my 16' boat with it's 40HP engine in that water, running slow.

They need to get with the program, like everybody else.

You should have heard the Lund dealer talking about Hoover, and it's rules. 

Like I said, we need to get it on the ballot and let the people decide, not the State.

Take all the money the State spends on the people that make these laws, fire them all, then use it to stock up Alum, to make it the best fishery in the United States.

Then see if the money was better spent on the lawmakers or the fish, and more of a benefit for the State of Ohio, and it's community.

The Bass Master Classic should be held in Alum in 2016. :B
(With dock skipping opportunities, just like the other world class lakes)


----------



## M.Magis (Apr 5, 2004)

Talonman, can I ask how you can make a comparison between a recreational lake and a city reservoir? Did you realize there lakes in Ohio where people have private docks? As far as I can tell the discussion here is just regarding city reservoirs, where they obtain their drinking water. It should be obvious why these reservoirs have tighter restrictions than recreational waterways. You seem to have the attitude that anything you don&#8217;t agree with must be wrong. I get that way some times, then I take a second to think why someone would have a different point of view. There&#8217;s usually a reason, I&#8217;m not the smartest person out there. No offense, but I doubt you are either.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Maybe they should take it to the next level to protect the drinking water watershed and eliminate all boating, all types, sail, gas, electric, on these reservoirs.

One would think if restrictions are implemented against landowners, that have a large financial investment in property that borders the reservoir, to maintain and protect the reservoir that equal protections would be put in place to protect the reservoir from those with no financial investment. 

I would believe that those living on the reservoir would have a much larger motivation to protect the reservoir than those that just visit it to go boating or fishing. 

Erosion reduction and control would be effectively addressed through boating elimination just as readily, maybe more so, as plant growth control well above the water line.

Just a few thoughts


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

> Erosion reduction and control would be effectively addressed through boating elimination just as readily, maybe more so, as plant growth control well above the water line.


True, but even if they remove all boats, there are still wind-driven waves that are like constant wakes lasting for hours or days.

Have you seen these - dolosse? An ugly solution used on many seacoasts around the world


----------



## Talonman (Sep 12, 2013)

M.Magis said:


> Talonman, can I ask how you can make a comparison between a recreational lake and a city reservoir? Did you realize there lakes in Ohio where people have private docks? As far as I can tell the discussion here is just regarding city reservoirs, where they obtain their drinking water. It should be obvious why these reservoirs have tighter restrictions than recreational waterways. You seem to have the attitude that anything you don&#8217;t agree with must be wrong. I get that way some times, then I take a second to think why someone would have a different point of view. There&#8217;s usually a reason, I&#8217;m not the smartest person out there. No offense, but I doubt you are either.


I am not sure that alum is not thought of as both a recreational lake, and a city reservoir...

Yes, there are some needed restrictions for drinking water lakes and reservoirs, I 100% agree.

But as of yet I am still unconvinced that some spiffy floating docks, and well kept shore banks = the end of the lake.

I could be wrong.


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

Alum is not considered a drinking water source for Columbus, so it's under different rules.


----------



## flounder (May 15, 2004)

Talonman said:


> "Residents with property along the reservoirs do not own their shorelines. The city owns all of the shoreline around all of the reservoirs, and it enforces city rules. For example, if you live by the reservoir and a tree on the shore is blocking your view, it's illegal for you to cut it down. You can be fined $100 for every inch of caliper."
> 
> *Am I the only one here that thinks this is a crime??*
> 
> ...


There are a few misconceptions about land ownership on the three City of Columbus Reservoirs here.

1. The city does permit docks on all three drinking water reservoirs. And, as long as you enter into the land stewardship program, you are permitted to maintain some form of water access like a path down to the dock.

2. The State of Ohio has nothing or at least very little to do with how the City of Columbus manages their property (Columbus actually owns all of the land under the water if the lakes were drained).

3. There was an effort to turn property maintenance over to the private landowners. The one and only reason that there was a blurb in the state budget bill about granting the right of maintenance to the owner was because the governor lives in the area of Hoover and some of the residents had his ear along with the state legislator that lives in the area, purely political, not the correct way to analyze all the concerns. This provision was yanked at the last minute. The City actually brought up the idea and, has the right, of building a massive chain link fence around the entire perimeter of the reservoirs. That does no one any good.

4. IIRC ALL of the Muskingum watershed lakes are setup with a similar type of property ownership. We used to have a cabin at Leesville that sat on leased property. The property was owned by the Army Corp of Engineers that have very specific rules and was managed by the watershed district. They told us what we could and could not do. In my mind this is no different than the city's ownership of property to a high water or specific elevation.


----------



## rustyfish (Apr 27, 2004)

It sucks to have a situation where it has always been viewed as ok and then it suddenly changes but.... If its not your property then you have no claim to it. Shoreline vegetation is one of the biggest factors in erosion and filtration. It is even worse with rivers along farm land and the gov has done a good job of establishing mandatory vegetation buffers along farm land. These decisions are made for the right reason and are for the greater good. Property value and opinions of nearby land owners are not really factored in to decisions of health and safety.


----------



## flounder (May 15, 2004)

rustyfish said:


> It sucks to have a situation where it has always been viewed as ok and then it suddenly changes but.... If its not your property then you have no claim to it.


Some of the folks I talked with say that some of the issues the city has been cracking down on are ongoing issues over years, not really something new. It wasn't really okay before, it's that a select few of the adjacent property owners chose to ignore the regulations, requests or citations issued by the city, and now the city is simply forced to make them comply.


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

If I had shoreline property, I wouldn't want a big wide view of the lake, because that works two ways - people all over the lake have a view of your property, too. And not everyone is honest, so I wouldn't want to advertise my property and whatever stuff I have on it. I'd rather have a screen of vegetation, and a path or some sort of access to the water, where I could get my lake views from the shore.


----------



## Talonman (Sep 12, 2013)

The crime is that it should be their land, all the way to the water.

My friend is looking at a cabin on Indian lake, and was about to buy it for a fishing shack. 
It did not have a dock, and a rough walk in the woods to get to the water.

He had great plans of putting a big dock in for his boat, when the info came out from the current owner that 'The state wont let you build a dock here'...

The entire deal fell through based on that one peace of info.

Land values suffer, and home owners lose out when the state is allowed to manage the shoreline. (The most valuable peace of land on lake front homes.)

Lets get it on the ballot, and take the State Approved 'Shoreline Heist Act' and give the power back to the people, on all bodies of water in the state of Ohio. :bananapartyhat:

Then get the state to make the 'Fish Ohio' video. 
We want one for OUR State too.

And fix hoovers 9.9 bad law too !!


----------



## M.Magis (Apr 5, 2004)

I'm struggling to figure out why they "deserve" anything beyond what they agreed to when they bought their homes? If the deed states they don't own that land, what makes you say they should own it? I'd like my deed to say I owned my neighbors 350 acres, but that means squat.


----------



## Talonman (Sep 12, 2013)

Because the original 'Shoreline Heist Act' was unjust, power hungry, and designed to hurt Ohio land owners.


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

If you're not bright enough to look at the deed and property line on the survey before you sign the dotted line, then you deserve what you get. Just because you build a house right against a golf course doesn't mean you own the 15th hole. You own exactly what you signed for and paid for. Everthing on the other side of your property is not yours, and you must follow that owner's rules. It's pretty simple.


----------



## rustyfish (Apr 27, 2004)

The laws are to protect the resource, which protects the people. It's a privilege to use it not a right. A section of high weeds is better than a 10 foot fence. 



FOSR said:


> If I had shoreline property, I wouldn't want a big wide view of the lake, because that works two ways - people all over the lake have a view of your property, too. And not everyone is honest, so I wouldn't want to advertise my property and whatever stuff I have on it. I'd rather have a screen of vegetation, and a path or some sort of access to the water, where I could get my lake views from the shore.


I fully agree. I have had people try to chase me off (while in the water) because I would too close to their back deck which hangs over the water. One house on our local lake is 90% glass on the lake side. At night you can see inside the whole house, its just weird. 

Our little lake is almost entirely residential and has houses and boat docks everywhere. When on the water you feel like you are driving through the middle of town. Just not my thing.


----------



## Talonman (Sep 12, 2013)

I would need more proof that well mowed lawns, and docks hurt 'the resource'.


----------



## flounder (May 15, 2004)

Talonman said:


> Because the original 'Shoreline Heist Act' was unjust, power hungry, and designed to hurt Ohio land owners.


Which "act" are you referencing? The only reference to water and property ownership that I could find was the most recent decision in Ohio that defines only Lake Erie shoreline and the adjacent property owners as owning to the average water line, which is what you seem to be advocating. I could not find any reference that gives adjacent property owners the right to access another's property (be it public or private) freely.

2009-1806. State ex rel. Merrill v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4612.
Lake App. Nos. 2008-L-007 and 2008-L-008, 2009-Ohio-4256. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part, and cause remanded.
Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Donnell, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.
O'Connor, C.J., and Lanzinger, J., concur in syllabus and judgment only.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-Ohio-4612.pdf

(Sept. 14, 2011) In a legal dispute between the state and owners of private property bordering Lake Erie, the Supreme Court of Ohio today reaffirmed court decisions dating back to 1878 and legislation enacted in 1917 by holding that the territory of the lake over which the state holds a public trust extends to the natural shoreline, which is the line at which the water usually stands when free from disturbing causes. 

In a 7-0 decision authored by Justice Terrence ODonnell, the Court reversed a ruling by the 11th District Court of Appeals that lakeside owners property rights extend to whatever point on shore is in contact with the waters of the lake on any given day, but also rejected arguments by the state that its public trust over the lake extends to the ordinary high water mark on shore as established by a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers survey in 1985.


----------



## EnonEye (Apr 13, 2011)

If I might draw a parallel to this "predicament" with land ownership that has gas lines going through the property "for the public good" and easment protections on both sides of the lines. Although the restricted areas on both sides of the lines was never enforced in the past the company came out with a campaign a couple of years ago to cut down all trees within the easement areas on both sides. As a result I lost 2 blue spruce and a white pine that were just a few inches over the line. Oh well, I knew the restrictions when I purchased the land. Other landowners in the area lost trees that were very old and some sued for the right to retain their trees... and lost. My final 2centavos is if my drinking water was coming from these reservoirs I'd be the 1st to be there cheering for protection. After all it's the single most important thing you put into your body.:coins:


----------



## Talonman (Sep 12, 2013)

flounder said:


> Which "act" are you referencing?


The act that empowers overzealous Park Rangers to spy on the residents of Ohio, taking pictures of their land to see if they chop down a tree, to later be fined.

The act the empowers The State of Ohio to get any kind of a say, on what lake shore homes owners do with the land between their house and the lake.

The act that empowers The State of Ohio to impede home owners to build any fancy dock the wish, on the land accessing the lake in front of their house.

That is why it should properly be entitled 'The Ohio Shoreline Heist Act' 

We need more protect and serve, rather than fear and intimidation.

The Rangers and the State work for us. They would do well to remember that, and to better respect their community, and their communities land values.


----------



## Net (Apr 10, 2004)

Talonman, I'm trying real hard to understand your argument. Are you dismissing the benefits of shoreline erosion control?...or just venting its enforcement?


----------



## Talonman (Sep 12, 2013)

I guess I fail to see that 'shoreline erosion control' means that a well mowed lawn, and a dock means the death of the lake. I simply don't buy it, and truly believe it is just another means of state control.

I also think they use it as a means to generate revenue by fining home owners for cutting down trees on their own land. Is it correct to do so... certainly not!

But they don't want to give up the cash, and believe they should control your shoreline.
I believe the people would handle their own shoreline better than the state, and are just as much, if not more concerned with shoreline erosion.

They have the most to lose, so they wont do anything that causes their back yard to drop into the lake.

I have voiced my stance, I will just bow out of this thread.

I am feeling like I stand alone on this one!


----------



## Net (Apr 10, 2004)

Death of a lake?...probably not. Preserving water quality for uses other than recreation?...absolutely proven.


----------



## imalt (Apr 17, 2008)

I don't see where the landowners have any argument since they purchased property and these laws were already in place. If they failed to understand that than that is their fault. I think this would be a different story had this law been put in place after the fact but it has always been there.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

Talonman, not sure if I missed it, but do you own a property adjacent to Hoover?


----------



## Talonman (Sep 12, 2013)

Nope... I was a big Hoover fisherman when I only had a 9.9.
I usually put in at Twin Bridges.

Now I have a 40, and both me and the Lund dealer have nothing nice to say about Hoovers 9.9 limit rule.

I believe they are the last body of water in Columbus, that does not allow bigger engines to power your boat, to be run at no-wake speed.
I am not 100% sure on that, but I don't know of any other 9.9 limit bodies of water in Columbus.

We both hope that changes soon.

To my apparent minority opinion, it is just another means of state control that needs to be corrected, and a slap at fishermen.


----------



## Playbuoy (Apr 6, 2005)

Talonman said:


> Now I have a 40, and both me and the Lund dealer have nothing nice to say about Hoovers 9.9 limit rule.
> 
> Maybe I missed something, but what does the "Lund dealer" have to do with it? I agree that a speed limit would be better than a hp limit, but you also know that, absent strict enforcement, many would disobey a speed limit - look at the no wake zones at Alum in the summer for example. Then when the speed limit is enforced the watercraft guys will get accused of just trying to make money from fines.
> 
> ...


----------



## flounder (May 15, 2004)

Talonman said:


> Nope... I was a big Hoover fisherman when I only had a 9.9.
> I usually put in at Twin Bridges.
> 
> Now I have a 40, and both me and the Lund dealer have nothing nice to say about Hoovers 9.9 limit rule.


Wow...just plain wow.


----------



## flounder (May 15, 2004)

Talonman said:


> I also think they use it as a means to generate revenue by fining home owners for cutting down trees on their own land. Is it correct to do so... certainly not!
> 
> But they don't want to give up the cash, and believe they should control your shoreline.
> I believe the people would handle their own shoreline better than the state, and are just as much, if not more concerned with shoreline erosion.
> ...


The most important point you are not getting is that some (only a small buffer between the private owners land and the actual water's edge) is owned by the City. They are not fining folks for cutting down trees outside of the city property, only on the property that is owned by the city. This strip is not owned by the private owner. It is not an easement, it is land owned by someone else. The rangers are looking for trespassing on their land, not private property. It is the city's right as owners to protect their land from damage or mis-use the same as it is for a private individual.


----------



## bassattacker (Mar 14, 2007)

i dont have a dog in this but what i do know is civil engineering and dealing with city, twp, county, army corp of engineers, 15+ years, unless it is heavily noted on the record plans, tax maps, survey records, covenant & restrictions, HOA, legal description and deeds, then there is nothing that they could do to stop you from trimming and maintaining your property, now if it is noted and so forth then well your out of luck, i would assume that the property lines are meandering lot lines that are adjacent to the water, meaning with erosion the property lines follow the erosion. until someone digs into all the legal information for their specific property no telling what is what.


----------



## flounder (May 15, 2004)

bassattacker said:


> i dont have a dog in this but what i do know is civil engineering and dealing with city, twp, county, army corp of engineers, 15+ years, unless it is heavily noted on the record plans, tax maps, survey records, covenant & restrictions, HOA, legal description and deeds, then there is nothing that they could do to stop you from trimming and maintaining your property, now if it is noted and so forth then well your out of luck, i would assume that the property lines are meandering lot lines that are adjacent to the water, meaning with erosion the property lines follow the erosion. until someone digs into all the legal information for their specific property no telling what is what.


I've worked in the area quite a bit and observed that the property lines are fairly well documented, surveyed and platted. Of course there may be locations where pins end up missing or damaged, but for the most part the property lines are well defined. The reservoir was laid out and property purchased back in the 1950's so overall we are talking about good records being available. 

I am of the opinion that many folks do not look over the plats and legal descriptions for property before they purchase (anywhere) and, like Talonman, just assume they own to the edge of the water as is the case in many locations. The only thing that can combat this is education both from the City's side and the side of the real estate agents.


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

> meaning with erosion the property lines follow the erosion


My meeting notes have this: "Original property lines have eroded"

I'll ask my DPU contact for details.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

There are erosion easements in place along the reservoir. The landowners knew about and signed off on these. Some even built houses on them. 

Let me reiterate this. There are landowners along Hoover Reservoir that built properties on land that will be eroded away in the relatively near future. Not something I'd do.

Another note. 90% of the homes adjacent to Hoover Res. property came to be after Hoover was built. Even at that time, the builders knew the land wasn't theirs.

I'm sorry, but there is just no good argument here. the property is owned by the City. The state has no control. Hands off and enjoy the privilege of fishing a Water Supply Reservoir. There is a nice one up in Akron that is completely fenced off with no boating. See Lake Rockwell.


----------



## flounder (May 15, 2004)

FOSR said:


> My meeting notes have this: "Original property lines have eroded"
> 
> I'll ask my DPU contact for details.


I can think of a few locations offhand where this may be true. It would be interesting info, especially the maintenance issues within that erosion easement. I assume, by using the word easement, that is private property, and may maintained by the land owner. It just means do not build there or your structure will fall into the water (eventually).


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

This from DPU:



> I think what was meant on the comment is that some of the land around the reservoirs is eroding in general, which is an issue particularly in the Hoover area, not property lines, which haven&#8217;t changed. Some of the residents don&#8217;t understand that mowing right up to the edge contributes to that erosion greatly because the shorter grass roots are not enough to hold the land; it takes more than that. That is one of the reasons the city attorney&#8217;s office and our department began using the legal process over the last few years to bring a few long-standing issues into compliance, as a last resort, which created some of the tension you no doubt witnessed at the meeting. Not only is the sedimentation from erosion a water quality concern we&#8217;d like to avoid, but the city also can&#8217;t afford to lose our land buffers either. Once it erodes up into private property, we will have lost that buffer, and public parkland, so we need to try and prevent that.


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

> There are landowners along Hoover Reservoir that built properties on land that will be eroded away in the relatively near future. Not something I'd do.


Almost no one anticipates the future on a geologic time scale.


----------



## PerchGuy (Dec 7, 2011)

Talonman,

As someone who fishes Hoover a lot in waders, I'm glad that you and your 40 hp motor are not allowed on the lake. You sound like the type of person who would also break a speed limit because you perceive it as an infringement on your "rights."

Regarding your position about cutting down vegetation on city-owned property, do you also maintain that property owners of land that abuts Blendon Woods, Sharon Woods, and other Metro Parks have the right to cut down trees in those parks to improve their views or increase their property values? 

The city owns the land around these lakes just like they own the land in Metro Parks. No one is telling these landowners that can't cut vegetation, build structures, or plant what they want on land that THEY own. Plain and simple though, they cannot do these things on land that the CITY owns, anymore than your neighbors can do so on property you own. What don't you understand about that?


----------

