# Navigable water public easement.



## Pooka (Jan 30, 2012)

Some of us have discussed this in a couple different threads. I just ran across this on Youtube and thought a lawyer's opinion might be of interest.


----------



## Wow (May 17, 2010)

This pushes my buttons, Pooka. You're preaching to the choir.
I don't want to pee in anyone's punch bowl, but, as a paddler, the shore is a sanctuary, a lifesaver. If a paddler is in trouble (sick or exhausted), I need to get out immediately.
It's a question of dominion. Throw me in jail, I don't care. It won't matter.
I'm not looking to sunbathe and have a luau.
What's next, "you can swim in it, but above the surface, I own the air".
common sense is great if it were common.--Tim


----------



## Pooka (Jan 30, 2012)

Wow said:


> This pushes my buttons, Pooka. You're preaching to the choir.
> I don't want to pee in anyone's punch bowl, but, as a paddler, the shore is a sanctuary, a lifesaver. If a paddler is in trouble (sick or exhausted), I need to get out immediately.
> It's a question of dominion. Throw me in jail, I don't care. It won't matter.
> I'm not looking to sunbathe and have a luau.
> ...



From a practical aspect, the "ordinary high water mark" is just what makes sense. Any easement has bounds, to have an easement with boundaries that substantially and unpredictably change several times a year would be unworkable.


----------



## BuckeyeFishinNut (Feb 8, 2005)

This is why I have always argued that there is no such thing as a "private" beach along the ocean. There is a public easement there below the high water mark, much like the sidewalk in front of your house.

This is also true for navigable rivers. Landowners own to the high-water mark, not the rivers edge. I believe this was done for the maintenance of the river and public access to natural resources. I have argued this with landowners on the Scioto River before when I was wading the river bed. 

My wife has a family member that owns property on the Ohio River and the deed clearly states their property ends at the high water mark. I could fish right in front of their house, as long as I didn't gain access through their property. Most landowners don't want to hear this, but it is the law.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

BuckeyeFishinNut said:


> This is why I have always argued that there is no such thing as a "private" beach along the ocean. There is a public easement there below the high water mark, much like the sidewalk in front of your house.
> 
> This is also true for navigable rivers. Landowners own to the high-water mark, not the rivers edge. I believe this was done for the maintenance of the river and public access to natural resources. I have argued this with landowners on the Scioto River before when I was wading the river bed.
> 
> My wife has a family member that owns property on the Ohio River and the deed clearly states their property ends at the high water mark. I could fish right in front of their house, as long as I didn't gain access through their property. Most landowners don't want to hear this, but it is the law.


Within Ohio, landowners own the land under the river...…….


----------



## Pooka (Jan 30, 2012)

Snakecharmer said:


> Within Ohio, landowners own the land under the river...…….


Then it is time to bring Ohio law back into line with Federal law. And common sense.


It really is just common sense. There is a public easement on navigable waters, that easement has broad terms and covers the ordinary bed of the water. 
Sometimes a portion of that bed might be dry but the easement boundaries remain the same. 
Anything else would be silly. Imagine a public sidewalk or road easement that fluctuated 5, 10 , 50 or more feet depending on the whims of the weather. It just wouldn't work.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

Pooka said:


> Then it is time to bring Ohio law back into line with Federal law. And common sense.
> 
> 
> It really is just common sense. There is a public easement on navigable waters, that easement has broad terms and covers the ordinary bed of the water.
> ...


So you're in favor of universal Federal Laws and no state laws?


----------



## Carpn (Apr 5, 2004)

Snakecharmer said:


> Within Ohio, landowners own the land under the river...…….


This is correct .


----------



## ducknut141 (Apr 26, 2017)

Ohio laws are idiotic but what do you expect from our governor


----------



## Pooka (Jan 30, 2012)

Snakecharmer said:


> So you're in favor of universal Federal Laws and no state laws?


?? Where did that come from?

In most any conflict, Federal law takes precedence. That predates both of us, it is nothing new. 

Ohio, or any city of, could make a law saying that you cannot stand on a sidewalk and film public buildings but Federal law says you can,, so you can. Federal law most always trumps state law.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

Pooka said:


> ?? Where did that come from?
> 
> In most any conflict, Federal law takes precedence. That predates both of us, it is nothing new.
> 
> Ohio, or any city of, could make a law saying that you cannot stand on a sidewalk and film public buildings but Federal law says you can,, so you can. Federal law most always trumps state law.


In most cases, state law in more restrictive than Federal law and takes precedence provided it isn't in conflict with the Constitution.


----------



## Shad Rap (Nov 10, 2010)

Pooka said:


> ?? Where did that come from?
> 
> In most any conflict, Federal law takes precedence. That predates both of us, it is nothing new.
> 
> Ohio, or any city of, could make a law saying that you cannot stand on a sidewalk and film public buildings but Federal law says you can,, so you can. Federal law most always trumps state law.


What about all the states legalizing marijuana but its still not legal on the federal level?..it still goes by the states laws...could the feds come in and crack down??..I'm sure, but they won't...and thats just a small example...universal laws would be ridiculous...sounds like a dictatorship...to each their own I guess...


----------



## rickerd (Jul 16, 2008)

ducknut141 said:


> Ohio laws are idiotic but what do you expect from our governor


from what I understand, in Ohio, the law has been interpreted by JUDGES that the property owners own the land under the water. Its activist, JUDGES I would love to remove and undo the rights they have stolen from citizens. 

The laws on Navigable Water uses are just one of them, but one of the most important to me. Isn't this the definition of Tyranny. I know how our Founding Fathers feel about this. I'm sure they cannot believe we have allowed the Judiciary to FLuck with us for so long.
Rickerd


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

I DARE YOU to wade thru the Chagrin up in the private section.. I DOUBLE DOG DARE YOU..


----------



## ducknut141 (Apr 26, 2017)

Popspastime said:


> I DARE YOU to wade thru the Chagrin up in the private section.. I DOUBLE DOG DARE YOU..


This is what I mean IDIOTIC


----------



## Saugeye Tom (Oct 6, 2010)

What if you own property and the river runs smack dab thru the middle....i can float thru but ....the river bed belongs to you...the land owner


----------



## Saugeye Tom (Oct 6, 2010)

And you cannot fence the river


----------



## polebender (Oct 29, 2011)

But you can build a wall!


----------



## buckeyebowman (Feb 24, 2012)

Snakecharmer said:


> Within Ohio, landowners own the land under the river...…….


Bingo! We have a winner! 

There was a big to do around here when the Vodrey family of East Liverpool, and the organization they founded to preserve and protect Little Beaver Creek, a wild and scenic river, decided to close access to any and all of the land they owned in the creek valley. A limited number of permits used to be available, but they got tired of the nonsense. The trespassing, littering, vandalism, poaching, you name it. 

Then, some people started saying that you could no longer canoe or kayak the stream through their property, which is the farthest thing from the truth. There was one particular self-righteous dummy who kept saying it was so, and saying stuff like the Vodrey's were commies, they should be strung up, etc. Just a raving idiot. 

There are a couple of private lakes south of Youngstown, Pine Lake and Evans Lake, owned by Aqua Ohio. They own a lot of land around the lake, and all the land under it, but the water belongs to the state of Ohio, as it does in Little Beaver Creek.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

Federal law does supercede state and local laws but its not federal police that will get called on you and not a federal court that would decide your fate if you took it to court. Local police will enforce " common law " in regard to navigable waters and property owners just because they always have. That usually means you can float down the river but if you step foot outside the boat you are trespassing. There is a state out west , Utah I believe , where according to what Ive read a sportsmans organization took this to court and won , but that's a lot of money and time spent to get to that point and no guarantee that local authorities will honor the courts decision.


----------



## Misdirection (Jul 16, 2012)

buckeyebowman said:


> Bingo! We have a winner!
> 
> There was a big to do around here when the Vodrey family of East Liverpool, and the organization they founded to preserve and protect Little Beaver Creek, a wild and scenic river, decided to close access to any and all of the land they owned in the creek valley. A limited number of permits used to be available, but they got tired of the nonsense. The trespassing, littering, vandalism, poaching, you name it.
> 
> ...


My dad had one of those permits to hunt Vodrey's property when I was a kid. We grouse hunted that area and it was awesome hunting. 

I also remember taking an inner tube thru the "tubs" down that stretch of the creek.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk


----------



## s.a.m (Feb 22, 2016)

Saugeye Tom said:


> And you cannot fence the river


You can they seem to get a little bent out of shape, I don't mean the fence!


----------



## texasrig (Apr 11, 2013)

Snakecharmer said:


> Within Ohio, landowners own the land under the river...…….


This is not entirely true. The state owns the river bed in certain places. I have searched many deeds to confirm this. It takes research to know where it happens. An example of this is where the canal systems use to run. The state retains ownership of the river/canal. If you want to hunt an area, you would be wise to go look at the deeds for the specific area you want to hunt.


----------



## H2ofowl (Jun 7, 2010)

Have had this discussion with wildlife officals and even asked one to get in my duck boat and I would anchor in river and put out decoys so he could write me a citation. He refused stating he did not want to be case law. All landowners deeds that I have looked at show property lines on the bank not in middle of river. It is not a state law but an ODNR statue that was put on books by ODNR not by legislature. Muskingum River from Ohio River to Coshocton is a Parkway according to the State of Ohio and the landowners know it. If you are ever cited for criminal trespass on a river file a motion that you want the land surveyed to determine who owns where you were at the time of violation. The prosecutor will dismiss the charges as they do not want to pay for a survey. Had this discussion with judges and other legal minds and all agree it needs to change.


----------



## Pooka (Jan 30, 2012)

Shad Rap said:


> What about all the states legalizing marijuana but its still not legal on the federal level?..it still goes by the states laws...could the feds come in and crack down??..I'm sure, but they won't...and thats just a small example...universal laws would be ridiculous...sounds like a dictatorship...to each their own I guess...


Have you noticed how banks are very reluctant to take Marijuana money? They are not at all comfortable with the conflicting laws and right now they are not betting on the states.


----------



## Pooka (Jan 30, 2012)

H2ofowl said:


> Have had this discussion with wildlife officals and even asked one to get in my duck boat and I would anchor in river and put out decoys so he could write me a citation. He refused stating he did not want to be case law. All landowners deeds that I have looked at show property lines on the bank not in middle of river. It is not a state law but an ODNR statue that was put on books by ODNR not by legislature. Muskingum River from Ohio River to Coshocton is a Parkway according to the State of Ohio and the landowners know it. If you are ever cited for criminal trespass on a river file a motion that you want the land surveyed to determine who owns where you were at the time of violation. The prosecutor will dismiss the charges as they do not want to pay for a survey. Had this discussion with judges and other legal minds and all agree it needs to change.


That is an interesting legal tack, they do have to prove that you are in violation. Innocent until proven... and all that. 
Of course some courts are shady, but if nothing else it would give you solid grounds to appeal to a higher, and hopefully less shady, court.

However, it should never get that far, SCOTUS ruling have been pretty clear. If the SCOTUS takes this case it should be even more clear. Even if they do not take the case and allow the lower court ruling to stand, that also says much.


----------



## BuckeyeFishinNut (Feb 8, 2005)

A guy I graduated with is a wildlife officer in Ohio and I have asked him about this specifically before. This doesn't mean he know what he is talking about but this is what he told me. Creeks and rivers are very different things in regards to the law and the designation is very important. 

If a creek runs through your property, even if its navigable, the property owner owns the land under the water, but not the water itself. So you can float it, but you cannot wade it, anchor, or get our of your boat without trespassing.

A river on the other hand, has an easement that is owned by the state or federal government, depending on the river. The land under the river is also owned by the state. A basic example is the Ohio River. In eastern Ohio, the river belongs to West Virginia. So how can you own a house on the Ohio bank and own the land under the water that belongs to WV. The simple answer is, the landowner doesn't. if they did, they would be paying property tax to 2 different states.

I was told the purpose of this is for maintenance of the river. Things such as dredging, maintenance of navigation channels, placement of navigation buoys and land based markers, and shoreline maintenance. Could you imagine the headache if every time they needed to dredge, they had to get landowner permission?

He told me, for years, landowners have claimed property they did not own, particularly around waterways. Local law enforcement typically sides with the landowner because its the path of least resistance. Most LEOs don't know any different than the landowner. I guarantee the majority of people have never seen what their surveyed plot actually looks like and what they actually own, they just assume.


----------



## scioto_alex (Dec 30, 2015)

I'll toss this in - what about islands?

I ask because along the Wisconsin River I saw islands in the middle of the stream and they looked like some sweet camping territory. Sort of a Huck Finn thing. But I was told they are private property.

But, they are not permanent features; they come and go. So, if you own property along the bank and an island forms out in the stream, can you claim it?


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

So your saying if this spring the river takes out 30 ft of your property, you don't own that property under the river that widened? Like I said.. I've waded and fished all these rivers up north here and you WON"T fish thru the properties you think you can.


----------



## crittergitter (Jun 9, 2005)

Private land has a deed. The deed outlines what the property consists of. Some private property goes to the high water mark of a creek or river, some it will state the property line goes to the midway point of the creek/river and some will say that the property owns the entire stream bed especially if that property extends beyond the scope of the creek/river. 

So, technically, one property owner on the Scioto river could own to the high water mark, a guy a mile upstream could own to the halfway point, and a guy 10 miles upstream could own the entire stream bed and both sides. It is stated in the deed. 

Even in Ohio if the water is deemed "navigable" then you can float on and through any land area. You just can't wade, anchor or touch bottom. Now, if a creek or small river you are floating has never been classified through a court ruling as navigable, that's where you can really get into a problem.


----------



## Pooka (Jan 30, 2012)

BuckeyeFishinNut said:


> A guy I graduated with is a wildlife officer in Ohio and I have asked him about this specifically before. This doesn't mean he know what he is talking about but this is what he told me. Creeks and rivers are very different things in regards to the law and the designation is very important.
> 
> If a creek runs through your property, even if its navigable, the property owner owns the land under the water, but not the water itself. So you can float it, but you cannot wade it, anchor, or get our of your boat without trespassing.
> 
> ...


This all started way before the USA was even a gleam in someone's eye. Streams were once the only major highway system for all countries and free travel on was very important to commerce. As was the ability to beach now and then.

"..So you can float it, but you cannot wade it, anchor, or get our of your boat without trespassing..." ---This is just plain silly and I have no idea how it every got started. There is an easement or there is not. And there is. 

"...Local law enforcement typically sides with the landowner because its the path of least resistance. Most LEOs don't know any different than the landowner..." ---There you go. education is the key here. There are a lot of misconceptions about the law running around out there and some of them are held by LEOs.


----------



## buckeyebowman (Feb 24, 2012)

Misdirection said:


> My dad had one of those permits to hunt Vodrey's property when I was a kid. We grouse hunted that area and it was awesome hunting.
> 
> I also remember taking an inner tube thru the "tubs" down that stretch of the creek.
> 
> Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk


Yeah, that whole place is amazing, and so beautiful. We used to walk out to the old RR trestle too.

Quite a few years ago, I read about a situation that happened either in Minnesota or Montana. The state legislature passed a law that allowed fishermen access to stream banks as long as they stayed below the high water mark. As I recall the Federation of Fly Fishers and Trout Unlimited were behind the effort. This makes me think it might have been Montana, since there's some incredible fly fishing there.

Naturally, property owners along these streams were up in arms! They filed suit, and I believe the case went all the way to the state supreme court, where the law was upheld. 

And someone mentioned taxes. If the property owners referred to in the video are claiming property that they do not own, a simple tactic would be to ask if they had paid taxes on that land since they took ownership of the property. As BuckeyeFishinNut said, property owners often claim more than what they really own. It's happened to me and a friend of mine. He actually caught the neighbor out in the middle of the night trying to move the pins that marked the boundary! 



scioto_alex said:


> I'll toss this in - what about islands?
> 
> I ask because along the Wisconsin River I saw islands in the middle of the stream and they looked like some sweet camping territory. Sort of a Huck Finn thing. But I was told they are private property.
> 
> But, they are not permanent features; they come and go. So, if you own property along the bank and an island forms out in the stream, can you claim it?


All I know is, the state of Texas allows camping on islands in any navigable stream.



Popspastime said:


> So your saying if this spring the river takes out 30 ft of your property, you don't own that property under the river that widened? Like I said.. I've waded and fished all these rivers up north here and you WON"T fish thru the properties you think you can.


You still own where your deed says you own. The flooding is a temporary condition. At least that's what I would think.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

Pooka said:


> "..So you can float it, but you cannot wade it, anchor, or get our of your boat without trespassing..." ---This is just plain silly and I have no idea how it every got started. There is an easement or there is not. And there is.
> 
> .


Silly or not, that's the Ohio law!


----------



## Bassbme (Mar 11, 2012)

http://soilandwater.ohiodnr.gov/portals/soilwater/pdf/stream/stfs02.pdf


It's an interesting read, and one that may help keep some people out of court ...... especially those people that think it isn't trespassing if they are wading in a creek or river that passes through private property.

I for one don't get why so many people get up in arms about it. If I owned land that had a river or creek running through it, I wouldn't want anyone wading in it without my permission. There are certain benefits to property ownership that need to be respected by others.

Whether or not you would have a problem with it if the shoe were on the other foot, is irrelevant. It's not your property.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

Bassbme said:


> http://soilandwater.ohiodnr.gov/portals/soilwater/pdf/stream/stfs02.pdf
> 
> 
> It's an interesting read, and one that may help keep some people out of court ...... especially those people that think it isn't trespassing if they are wading in a creek or river that passes through private property.
> ...


Thanks!!!!!


----------



## Pooka (Jan 30, 2012)

Snakecharmer said:


> Silly of not, that's the Ohio law!


Ohio law that appears to be in conflict with Federal law.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

Pooka said:


> Ohio law that appears to be in conflict with Federal law.



Its not just Ohio........


----------



## Pooka (Jan 30, 2012)

Bassbme said:


> ....I for one don't get why so many people get up in arms about it. If I owned land that had a river or creek running through it, I wouldn't want anyone wading in it without my permission. There are certain benefits to property ownership that need to be respected by others...
> .


You don't understand why people would be upset about the attempted theft of their rights?

"...The ancient laws of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian held that the sea, the shores of the sea, the air and running water was common to everyone.[2] The seashore, later defined as waters affected by the ebb and flow of the tides could not be appropriated for private use and was open to all. This principle became the law in England as well. Centuries later, the Magna Carta further strengthened public rights. At the insistence of English nobles, fishing weirs which obstructed free navigation were to be removed from rivers.

These rights were further strengthened by later laws in England and subsequently became part of the common law of the United States. The Supreme Court first accepted the public trust doctrine in Martin v. Waddell’s Lessee in 1842, confirming it several decades later in _Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois_, 146 U.S. 387 (1892). In the latter case the Illinois Legislature had granted an enormous portion of the Chicago harbor to the Illinois Central Railroad. A subsequent legislature sought to revoke the grant, claiming that original grant should not have been permitted in the first place. The court held that common law public trust doctrine prevented the government from alienating the public right to the lands under navigable waters (except in the case of very small portions of land which would have no effect on free access or navigation).

The public trust applies to both waters influenced by the tides and waters that are navigable in fact. The public trust also applies to the natural resources (mineral or animal) contained in the soil and water over those public trust lands...."


----------



## Pooka (Jan 30, 2012)

yonderfishin said:


> Its not just Ohio........


Indeed, this is a National concern. 
State laws are all over the map on this issue however there have been several important legal and legislative victories in recent years. In general, things are moving in the correct direction.


----------



## BuckeyeFishinNut (Feb 8, 2005)

Popspastime said:


> So your saying if this spring the river takes out 30 ft of your property, you don't own that property under the river that widened? Like I said.. I've waded and fished all these rivers up north here and you WON"T fish thru the properties you think you can.


Where your property is surveyed to is what you own. If you lose 30' due to flooding, you still own out to your property marker, there just may not be much physical land left.

This happened to my buddy this spring. He has a small creek that runs through his property and owns land on both sides of the creek. After all this flooding, it took out a portion of his property(probably 10-15 feet) and destroyed a fence near the edge of the creek (it washed away part of the high bank and part of the fence fell in the creek). The creek runs next to a county road so he called the county. The county told him he was S.O.L and they wouldn't do anything until it endangered the road. On top of that, all he could do was fortify the bank because he wasn't allowed to change the flow of the creek.

I would love to see the property surveys on the rivers you fish. Maybe they go to the middle of the river. If so, then they have a legitimate claim to keep the public off their land. Maybe they go to the high water mark and they have been infringing on the public's rights for years. Hard to say without seeing property surveys though. Even if they go to the high water mark, good luck convincing anybody of it if they have been writing trespassing tickets for years. Often, the standard operating procedure takes precedence over the facts, its just easier because its "the way it has always been."


----------



## Bassbme (Mar 11, 2012)

Pooka said:


> You don't understand why people would be upset about the attempted theft of their rights?
> 
> "...The ancient laws of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian held that the sea, the shores of the sea, the air and running water was common to everyone.[2] The seashore, later defined as waters affected by the ebb and flow of the tides could not be appropriated for private use and was open to all. This principle became the law in England as well. Centuries later, the Magna Carta further strengthened public rights. At the insistence of English nobles, fishing weirs which obstructed free navigation were to be removed from rivers.
> 
> ...


Did you even read my post? Well ..... clearly you did, but you certainly didn't get the gist of it. Your reply to my post has to do with the use of navigable waters, not the land underneath them. If I owned the type of property I described in my initial post, you would be within your legal rights to float through my property. That is IF said water meets the legal definition of navigable waters.

But you'd better lawyer up if you're caught wading in it.

Some may think that makes me an (fill in the blank) but when I as a property owner can be held liable for injuries a person suffers on my property, even if that person doesn't have permission to be on my property, then I have a big problem with that.

BTW, the definition of navigable waters isn't set by you or I. It's set by the courts.


----------



## ShaneMC (Nov 27, 2012)

This topic has been beaten to death since 2006 on this forum. Fact is state owns water and the river and lake shoreline and whats underneath.

If I am ever in a situation where I am cited or threatened legal action for wading by a property owner in the middle of the river, did not use their property to get to the spot... I will contest it in court and ask for a survey to be done. Prosecutor will dismiss probably due to costs. But, When the survey shows home owner does not own land under the water, than the property owner will have a big problem. I would tie up the homeowner in probate court for years.


----------



## Pooka (Jan 30, 2012)

BuckeyeFishinNut said:


> ... The county told him he was S.O.L and they wouldn't do anything until it endangered the road. On top of that, all he could do was fortify the bank because he wasn't allowed to change the flow of the creek.
> ."


Here in WV the people to call would be the DEP I think. You can get permits to do some work and unless it is very minor work, legally, you need a permit. --"fortify the bank" might well fall under that. A lot of what is traditional bank work actually ends up causing more problems.

There are some good youtube videos on stream restoration that also cover bank work such as that.


----------



## Pooka (Jan 30, 2012)

Bassbme said:


> Did you even read my post? Well ..... clearly you did, but you certainly didn't get the gist of it. Your reply to my post has to do with the use of navigable waters, not the land underneath them. If I owned the type of property I described in my initial post, you would be within your legal rights to float through my property. That is IF said water meets the legal definition of navigable waters.
> 
> But you'd better lawyer up if you're caught wading in it.
> 
> ...


If the water was navigable when Ohio became a state there is a strong argument that you never held legal title in the first place. The state was obligated to hold the stream and the bed of in trust for the public. "Bed of" including to the ordinary high water mark.

"....The first federal court decision affirming the PTD occurred in 1842 when the U.S. Supreme Court in Martin v. Waddell found that the public held a common right to fish in navigable and tidal waters of New Jersey because they and their underlying lands were owned by the state for the common use by the people. Subsequent court findings reaffirmed such public ownership including cases addressing the Equal Footings Doctrine (Shively v. Bowlby 1894), which described rights of states newly admitted into the Union (Henquinet and Dobson 2006)...."

Personally, I am more concerned with the public easement but whatever works best to protect the public's rights works for me.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

Pooka said:


> If the water was navigable when Ohio became a state there is a strong argument that you never held legal title in the first place. The state was obligated to hold the stream and the bed of in trust for the public. "Bed of" including to the ordinary high water mark.
> 
> "....The first federal court decision affirming the PTD occurred in 1842 when the U.S. Supreme Court in Martin v. Waddell found that the public held a common right to fish in navigable and tidal waters of New Jersey because they and their underlying lands were owned by the state for the common use by the people. Subsequent court findings reaffirmed such public ownership including cases addressing the Equal Footings Doctrine (Shively v. Bowlby 1894), which described rights of states newly admitted into the Union (Henquinet and Dobson 2006)...."
> 
> Personally, I am more concerned with the public easement but whatever works best to protect the public's rights works for me.


I bet you argue that Federal Income Tax is illegal and you don't have to pay... Sheesh...


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

ShaneMC said:


> This topic has been beaten to death since 2006 on this forum. Fact is state owns water and the river and lake shoreline and whats underneath.
> 
> If I am ever in a situation where I am cited or threatened legal action for wading by a property owner in the middle of the river, did not use their property to get to the spot... I will contest it in court and ask for a survey to be done. Prosecutor will dismiss probably due to costs. But, When the survey shows home owner does not own land under the water, than the property owner will have a big problem. I would tie up the homeowner in probate court for years.


So are you going to kill the owner? Probate court has to do with the distribution of assets from a dead person?


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

What it all boils down to is this......the state ultimately owns the water. What that means is regardless of federal law or court interpretation , how the state traditionally sees and handles this situation is the law of the land , and the only way to challenge it is to take the state to federal court , not the adjacent property owner.


----------



## Pooka (Jan 30, 2012)

Snakecharmer said:


> I bet you argue that Federal Income Tax is illegal and you don't have to pay... Sheesh...


You lose that bet. What did I win? Beer? Bait? LOL


----------



## ShaneMC (Nov 27, 2012)

Snakecharmer said:


> So are you going to kill the owner? Probate court has to do with the distribution of assets from a dead person?


Well excuse me your excellence..... Common pleas Court. Apparently you've never done a typo. Anyways. Good talk


----------



## Shad Rap (Nov 10, 2010)

Pooka said:


> You lose that bet. What did I win? Beer? Bait? LOL


You win a trespassing violation...congrats.


----------



## Shad Rap (Nov 10, 2010)

ShaneMC said:


> Well excuse me your excellence..... Common pleas Court. Apparently you've never done a typo. Anyways. Good talk


That's not a typo...that just a mistake.


----------



## ShaneMC (Nov 27, 2012)

Yes a mistake thanks for bringing that to my attention. I applaud your willingness to point out others faults and voice your criticisms of people throughout your many posts on this forum. From the safety of behind your phone or computer screen.

Cant we all just get along !! Lol 




Shad Rap said:


> That's not a typo...that just a mistake.[/QU


----------



## Bassbme (Mar 11, 2012)

As to who owns the land beneath a stream,
under Ohio common law the owner of the land beside
the stream also owns the land beneath it. If the land
on each side is owned by two different owners, then
each owns to the center of the stream unless otherwise
specified by the landowners’ deeds. On navigable
streams there is a public right of navigation, spelled
out originally in the Northwest Ordinance, which states
that navigable waters shall be common highways,
forever free to the people of the United States. On
such streams, boaters have the right to navigate on
the stream, regardless of who owns the land beside
it. Because of this, some have claimed that the own
-ers of land beside a navigable stream do not own the
land beneath it. But Ohio courts have long held that
the owners of the land on the banks of a navigable
stream are also owners of the beds to the middle of
the stream, as in the common law. One exception is
the submerged land beneath the Ohio portion of Lake
Erie, which is owned and held in trust for the public by
the State of Ohio.


----------



## texasrig (Apr 11, 2013)

Bassbme said:


> As to who owns the land beneath a stream,
> under Ohio common law the owner of the land beside
> the stream also owns the land beneath it. If the land
> on each side is owned by two different owners, then
> ...


I would say this is true some of the time, but I know for fact not all of the time. I hunt some areas where the bottom of the lake is owned by a land owner. It is an old deed. In my area many of the rivers and streams are owned to the high water mark by the state. Not sure how many people who hunt, actually go look at the deeds of where they hunt. It will give you the facts of who owns what. I even found a marina where the state stipulated in the lease, that the marina couldn't deny others the use of the marina property. I'm sure they don't advertise this. 

My recommendation is that you go to court house and look at the deed of the property you want to hunt if water is involved.


----------



## spikeg79 (Jun 11, 2012)

Read this interesting article in the latest Field and Stream https://www.fieldandstream.com/public-water-access-crisis-america


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

spikeg79 said:


> Read this interesting article in the latest Field and Stream https://www.fieldandstream.com/public-water-access-crisis-america


Thanks. Looks like many states have many different rules.


----------



## Pooka (Jan 30, 2012)

spikeg79 said:


> Read this interesting article in the latest Field and Stream https://www.fieldandstream.com/public-water-access-crisis-america


Good article.

I am truly dumbfounded when outdoors folk support the taking of their own rights.

I just don't understand it. You would think that this would be an issue we would all be on the same side of.


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

The rules are basically still pretty simple if people abide by the rules. Property lines remain even tho the river boundaries change every year. If a river is navigable (definition) you can legally travel it. Because a UN-navigable river runs thru private property (get it thru your head) your not allowed to wade it, your trespassing. If your traveling up a river (Chagrin example) water is deep until you get up-stream where the water is thin, too thin to float, what do you do now?
State funded lakes are supposed to be public, not private or gated. What is it some don't understand? Nothing but attitudes have changed. Any time you want to test your right to trespass on what you think should be free access to you please contact me and I'll take you on a guided tour of PRIVATE area's of river. Make sure you bring bond money.


----------



## texasrig (Apr 11, 2013)

No matter what the general rules are, if you want to know for sure, go look at the deeds. They are the last word on the issue. Either the area is owned by someone or not.

I actually get pics of the deeds that way if anyone wants to blow smoke, I can pull it out and say, well that's not what the deed states, look.


----------



## buckeyebowman (Feb 24, 2012)

Pooka said:


> Good article.
> 
> I am truly dumbfounded when outdoors folk support the taking of their own rights.
> 
> I just don't understand it. You would think that this would be an issue we would all be on the same side of.


Some outdoors folk own property. Some with streams flowing through or along them. Not too hard to figure, really.



Popspastime said:


> The rules are basically still pretty simple if people abide by the rules. Property lines remain even tho the river boundaries change every year. If a river is navigable (definition) you can legally travel it. Because a UN-navigable river runs thru private property (get it thru your head) your not allowed to wade it, your trespassing. If your traveling up a river (Chagrin example) water is deep until you get up-stream where the water is thin, too thin to float, what do you do now?
> State funded lakes are supposed to be public, not private or gated. What is it some don't understand? Nothing but attitudes have changed. Any time you want to test your right to trespass on what you think should be free access to you please contact me and I'll take you on a guided tour of PRIVATE area's of river. Make sure you bring bond money.


Reminds me of an essay I read by John Gierach, a fly fishing and hunting writer from Colorado. He took a guided float trip on the Roaring Fork of the Frying Pan river. Basically, that's the only way to fish it since it's just about impossible to get to the creek, which is 99.9% private! Getting close to the takeout they floated past a homestead where the owner was sitting by the river bank in a lawn chair with a cocktail in his hand. The author ventured a tentative wave, and the guy flipped him off! That's how they feel about "strangers" on their river!


----------



## Pooka (Jan 30, 2012)

buckeyebowman said:


> Some outdoors folk own property. Some with streams flowing through or along them. Not too hard to figure, really.


Still confuses me as I suspect that most all those folks also do their outdoor thing places other than on their own property.


----------



## Saugeye Tom (Oct 6, 2010)

buckeyebowman said:


> Some outdoors folk own property. Some with streams flowing through or along them. Not too hard to figure, really.
> 
> 
> 
> Reminds me of an essay I read by John Gierach, a fly fishing and hunting writer from Colorado. He took a guided float trip on the Roaring Fork of the Frying Pan river. Basically, that's the only way to fish it since it's just about impossible to get to the creek, which is 99.9% private! Getting close to the takeout they floated past a homestead where the owner was sitting by the river bank in a lawn chair with a cocktail in his hand. The author ventured a tentative wave, and the guy flipped him off! That's how they feel about "strangers" on their river!


Muhahaha love it


----------



## s.a.m (Feb 22, 2016)

Pooka said:


> Still confuses me as I suspect that most all those folks also do their outdoor thing places other than on their own property.


I do, but I have permission to be there, and don't argue it's my God given right.


----------



## Pooka (Jan 30, 2012)

s.a.m said:


> I do, but I have permission to be there, and don't argue it's my God given right.


That is also a right you have here. The USA a great place!


----------



## Pooka (Jan 30, 2012)

Pooka said:


> Some of us have discussed this in a couple different threads. I just ran across this on Youtube and thought a lawyer's opinion might be of interest.



This is the update to that case.


----------



## Wow (May 17, 2010)

As it should be........--Tim


----------



## steelhead steve (May 5, 2012)

there is a good part of the Cuyahoga river that akron owns the shore and the land under the river go there and you get arrested for trespassing . a good part of that is in Streetsboro I knew 3 families that owned property just up from lake Rockwell and they told me they couldn't stop anyone from wading or paddleing the river even though they owned that property and the land under the river because they said the law says you can be in any river navigatable to either the ohio river or lake erie they were not lawyers and neither am I


----------



## steelhead steve (May 5, 2012)

odnr soil and water right have a lot of answers .as far as the chagrin river I think you can float down anywhere in it now that they took down the dam at daniels park it is a navigatable river


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

Navigate in a boat or raft.. YES.. Wade the river across private property in the river or out on foot..NO. What is it some don't understand about private property?


----------



## Pooka (Jan 30, 2012)

Popspastime said:


> Navigate in a boat or raft.. YES.. Wade the river across private property in the river or out on foot..NO. What is it some don't understand about private property?


The better question is why don't some folks understand the public easement? The one that existed long before they did.


----------



## Popspastime (Apr 1, 2014)

I've never heard of a public easement thru a river, please show me the definition or where to find it. Why do you keep arguing the fact that you just can't travel anywhere you want but you think you can?


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

steelhead steve said:


> odnr soil and water right have a lot of answers .as far as the chagrin river I think you can float down anywhere in it now that they took down the dam at daniels park it is a navigatable river


And the Gates Mills dam broke up..


----------



## bobk (Apr 30, 2004)

Popspastime said:


> I've never heard of a public easement thru a river, please show me the definition or where to find it. Why do you keep arguing the fact that you just can't travel anywhere you want but you think you can?


Entitlement


----------



## Shortdrift (Apr 5, 2004)




----------



## Pooka (Jan 30, 2012)

Popspastime said:


> I've never heard of a public easement thru a river, please show me the definition or where to find it. Why do you keep arguing the fact that you just can't travel anywhere you want but you think you can?


Has been discussed several times, with links. Apparently, you missed it,, every time.


----------



## Pooka (Jan 30, 2012)

bobk said:


> Entitlement


Actually ,, it is. And you are entitled to it also. We all are, it comes with the citizenship.


----------



## matticito (Jul 17, 2012)

I was thinking about this recently. I used to walk the Huron river at the Blue Bridge in Norwalk. There are now no trespassing signs right at the bridge. I'm like really? I cant walk in the river now?

I have to imagine farmers got tired of trespassers in the fields, parking near his farm entrances, leaving trash etc. I can imagine the police got tired of troublemakers etc. But can they honestly stop you from walking the river?


----------



## BuckeyeFishinNut (Feb 8, 2005)

matticito said:


> But can they honestly stop you from walking the river?


Its all about what is privately owned. Many people who live on a river believe they own to the rivers edge, or even the middle of the river, and often times its not true. What they believe they own and what they actually own are 2 different things. Property surveys from the county are the best way to know for sure. You would be surprised how many areas have "No Trespassing" signage put up by a landowner on land they don't own. I have actually seen it on state owned land because a landowner didn't want people fishing a pond "that close" to his property.


----------



## steelhead steve (May 5, 2012)

https://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61690 this should clear up some arguments


----------



## Misdirection (Jul 16, 2012)

steelhead steve said:


> https://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61690 this should clear up some arguments


Thanks for posting. Interesting read.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk


----------



## fastwater (Apr 1, 2014)

Shortdrift said:


>


^^^Worth repeating.



Popspastime said:


> Navigate in a boat or raft.. YES.. Wade the river across private property in the river or out on foot..NO. What is it some don't understand about private property?


^^^This too.



Popspastime said:


> I've never heard of a public easement thru a river, please show me the definition or where to find it. Why do you keep arguing the fact that you just can't travel anywhere you want but you think you can?


The only 'public easement' on private property containing waters deemed 'navigable streams' is floating through. Once your feet hit river/creek bottom(with exception in an emergency situation) you are trespassing. 



steelhead steve said:


> https://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61690 this should clear up some arguments


For sure worth reposting...great read steelhead.


----------

