The Supreme Court recently refused to hear the argument that beach walkers can be restricted from traveling to the waters edge. This opens an interesting local scenario.

Who owns title to this land? Is the land below the high water mark now public land? 

Michigan law states that property owners have no right to keep beach walkers off the strip of property.

Would the landowner be responsible for removing any impediment they have installed in this public right of way? Seawalls? Rock groins? Jetty's?

A majority of the seawalls at Epworth are at the waters edge.

Since the Epworth Association owns the land but not the houses will they be responsible for removing these barriers?

Can the land owners claim this property by adverse procession?

Will the owners have to install handicap accessible access over or around any to any impediment in this right of way?

Anyone interested in taking a walk in the Spring and then calling the DNR or the Sheriff's Office and filing a complaint?

Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

https://www.mlive.com/news/2019/02/beach-walkers-win-us-supreme-cou...

Views: 174

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Seawalls installed prior to these rulings will no doubt be considered grandfathered. Any new construction inside the high water line after the legal battles will be considered an infringement on public property. What landowners will have to do is have the high water line established in order to determine where their boundaries are located. I wonder how property lines will actually be determined. More work for surveyors. There can be no adverse possession because the land claimed was at times under water and was not continuously occupied or used by the adjoining land owners.

Common Law from many years ago describes the private ownership of land that adjoins by deed a water barrier has and is entitled to "riparian water rights". People that are beach walkers passing by is one thing, it's quite another to stop and make a bonfire, sleep in tents, stopping to rest, and so forth. So, when walking on private beaches, you must keep walking by, and not interfere with private landowner rights, without their prior verbal or written permission.

I wondered about that also Aquaman.  If people have a right to walk on the beach area that's in the high water line area then where does private property rights become a factor? Can a person rest if tired, swim if hot? Can they be removed if they stop and eat lunch? Who will be enforcing the law. Is the property within the high water zone public or private? Since the Supreme Court ruling I would say that private property laws must be redefined. I can understand both sides of the issue. I want to walk on the beach but not at the expense of eliminating private property rights which is one of the basic reasons for the founding of the United States. Is it possible that Great Lakes water front property lines end at the high water line and if so what if water rises to a point where buildings on the property are affected? What about setback ordinances? A lot of questions that need to be answered because of the Supreme Court ruling.

A few years back the SCOTUS determined that some exceptions exist in California: the local townships of some private beaches publicly funded repair/replacement of tons of sand to beaches that got wiped out with high water conditions. When public taxpayer funds replaces tons of sand to repair, unless the homeowners take the blunt of costs, then the public is allowed to access them without restrictions. It's a strange exception to common laws in place so long, but I guess it also happened somewhere in Fl. too. Enforcement of law is always Law Enforcement officers. Many young people visiting our local beaches have mis-interpreted the exceptions to also apply anywhere, and everywhere, regardless of private property rights. They usually stay at Cartier Park, from big cities, then wonder down to Lk. Mich. beaches where most in that area are private landowner beaches. If I remember correctly, I think we had a long hard thread on this same exact subject matter about 2-3 years ago too, got pretty testy at times too.

Thanks for that information Aquaman. Some of my concerns are in an article on the Indiana Supreme Court ruling. They apply to Indiana only but I'm sure other States will adopt similar regualtions.

"As a result, the Feb. 14, 2018, Indiana Supreme Court decision in Gunderson v. State is the final word on Lake Michigan property line boundaries in the Hoosier State. 

The 4-0 ruling by the state's high court definitively sets the ordinary high water mark as the boundary between the state-owned land under and adjacent to Lake Michigan, and the interests of nearby private property owners.

The high water mark, essentially the edge of the beach, is defined as the line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics, such as a clear and natural line on the bank, shelving or changes in the soil's character.

 

"The court also said, at a minimum, walking on the beach is a protected public use. But it left decisions about specifying other permissible recreational uses of the beach to the Indiana General Assembly.

Senate Bill 553, sponsored by state Sen. Karen Tallian, D-Ogden Dunes, would guarantee that Lake Michigan beach visitors are permitted to fish, boat, swim, walk, run, sit, recline, picnic, sunbathe, bird watch, toss a ball or disc, play sports or engage in any similar or related shore activities."

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service