Thread: About Scotty
View Single Post
  #64   Report Post  
Frederick Burroughs
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Melissa wrote:

Hi Wilf,

On 11 Mar 2005 09:01:10 -0800, you wrote:

Is the concept of "public property up to the 'high water mark'",
which is true in BC, also prevalent in the USA?

I'm not a legal expert in this area, so please take my comments as
only the casual observations of an oceanfront dweller who has some of
her own ideas, and also encounters reports of legal disputes over
ownership versus public access rights now and again.

Yes, the high water mark seems to be a *general* guideline in some
states, but it seems to be a state issue rather than a federal issue
in most cases, and so different states - and their courts - may draw
the lines differently than others.

Except for "National Park" and other such federally "owned/controlled"
land/water rights (military properties, wildlife preserves, etc.), it
seems to be mostly a state issue, governed by state courts.
Oceanfront private property owners will, often enough, challenge
certain boundary and access issues in the state courts (most often in
an attempt to limit public access/usage to as much of the "beach" in
front of their property as possible).

Incorrect. The determination of what is a navigable waterway is a federal
one, and once a waterway has been adjudicated as navigable under the
requisite federal tests, the bed of that waterway belongs to the state, held
in trust for the use and enjoyment of the people, and the state may not
alienate that title if it thereby prevents navigation by the public.

Some states did, however, reserve specific rights in navigable waters under
their constitutions that provide broader navigability right to the public.
However, a state may not *diminish* the federally-protected right of
navigation on navigable waters.


Virginia is a possible exception to your above statements; see:
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/ac...reports/VA.htm




--
"This president has destroyed the country, the economy,
the relationship with the rest of the world.
He's a monster in the White House. He should resign."

- Hunter S. Thompson, speaking to an antiwar audience in 2003.