I understand that it is against maritime law to restrict or prohibit
waterway access. Anyone know if this is true and/or what the law
actually says, and where it may be found?

Larry Weiss
"...Ever After!"
"a little after..."

Matrimony ... yeah yer waters cut off all right ... oops ... maritime ...
hmm ... I dunno. But ... there's lots of private property on rivers, lakes
etc up here ... and there are also access roads that are not to be blocked
.... helps the rural fire trucks to fill up for one thing.

"Larry Weiss" wrote in message
...
I understand that it is against maritime law to restrict or prohibit
waterway access. Anyone know if this is true and/or what the law
actually says, and where it may be found?

Larry Weiss
"...Ever After!"
"a little after..."

And there are laws against extending property out into a waterways by land
filling if that's what you mean.
"bowgus" wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...
Matrimony ... yeah yer waters cut off all right ... oops ... maritime ...
hmm ... I dunno. But ... there's lots of private property on rivers, lakes
etc up here ... and there are also access roads that are not to be blocked
... helps the rural fire trucks to fill up for one thing.

"Larry Weiss" wrote in message
...
I understand that it is against maritime law to restrict or prohibit
waterway access. Anyone know if this is true and/or what the law
actually says, and where it may be found?

Larry Weiss
"...Ever After!"
"a little after..."

x-no-archive:yes


Larry Weiss wrote:

I understand that it is against maritime law to restrict or prohibit
waterway access. Anyone know if this is true and/or what the law
actually says, and where it may be found?

Larry Weiss
"...Ever After!"
"a little after..."

I think this depends a lot on where it is you are talking about. For
one thing, what country? And why would you think maritime law had
jurisdiction? I would have thought that ordinary laws applied in most
inland or near coastal waters.

I don't think maritime law applies to an ordinary creek or lake or
something like that. No one has to allow someone else to cross their
property to launch a boat for instance, or to allow people to come
ashore by dinghy and party on the beach that they own. But there is
some law in Annapolis (Maryland) that says something to the effect
that any street that ends in the water has to allow dinghies to land.
I think that is far from usual though.

I think in many cases, beaches are public from the high tide mark
seaward. And in some cases, all of the beach part is public.

In some cases, the Coast Guard has jurisdiction, like in the ICW. I
walked up on the Boot Key Harbor bridge today, and the bridge tender
came out and talked a bit. He said the Coast Guard had jurisdiction -
that the channel was part of the ICW (I'm not sure that he's right
about that) and that they said the bridge had to be manned 24 hours a
day 7 days a week so that access could be maintained. I asked him why
not leave the bridge open at night, and he said that if they did that
the emergency people couldn't get to the radio tower on Boot Key.






grandma Rosalie

"Rosalie B." wrote in message
...
x-no-archive:yes


I think in many cases, beaches are public from the high tide mark
seaward. And in some cases, all of the beach part is public.


I've lived in Rhode Is (beach property), Calif. and Washington state. The
laws of beach rights vary according to state laws.. In RI and Calif. the
public has rights to the beach up to the high water line (or something like
that) but can't cross private property.. In Washington state, a lot of the
beaches property owners own or have lease rights to the beach out to low
water (or something like that).

It has never been made clear to me how these leases work but I think it has
something to do with the the shell fish beds. The property owner will have
jurisdiction over the sea bottom but not the water..

I have heard some lease holder complain about boat anchoring near shore
because of their oyster beds.. I could understand that, especially if they
are paying for the lease rights.

I think it is all very complicated and verys from region to region..

Steve
s/v Good Intentions

In South Carolina, the public has rights to the beach 100 ft inland of
the high water mark, letting us use the beach at high tide without
stepping on some rich guys domain.

To counter this right, the "cities", gated waterfront communities like
Kiawah Island, Seabrook Island, Hilton Head Island, bought their way
into another state law letting the municipalities have domain over the
public's water out ONE MILE from that beach. So, they simply write an
ordinance preventing the public from getting to the beach in their
boats or some such nonsense.

I haven't seen any city gunboats protecting the billionaires from the
commoners, yet, but that is just a matter of time.

State law says if I want to take the jetboat into the beach at Kiawah,
I must do so in a no-wake condition. So, we went. Someone from the
beach houses came out screaming and yelling at us, threatening to call
the Kiawah Kops. I told him I'd be glad to explain to a cooler head
South Carolina law. The cops came, in force! I had violated their
"space". The cops threatened to arrest me if I didn't get in my boat
and get off "their beach". I pressed for an arrest, but seeing the
threat tactic wasn't going anywhere and not wanting to test state law,
they got back in their pickup truck and drove away. We stayed on OUR
beach for a couple of hours with the jetboat anchored off the sand
before going elsewhere.

Property owners think just because their property BORDERS on the
public's beach, the beach becomes their property. It's not true in
SC....(c;

I'm still here......



On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:57:46 -0800, "Steve" wrote:


"Rosalie B." wrote in message
.. .
x-no-archive:yes


I think in many cases, beaches are public from the high tide mark
seaward. And in some cases, all of the beach part is public.


I've lived in Rhode Is (beach property), Calif. and Washington state. The
laws of beach rights vary according to state laws.. In RI and Calif. the
public has rights to the beach up to the high water line (or something like
that) but can't cross private property.. In Washington state, a lot of the
beaches property owners own or have lease rights to the beach out to low
water (or something like that).

It has never been made clear to me how these leases work but I think it has
something to do with the the shell fish beds. The property owner will have
jurisdiction over the sea bottom but not the water..

I have heard some lease holder complain about boat anchoring near shore
because of their oyster beds.. I could understand that, especially if they
are paying for the lease rights.

I think it is all very complicated and verys from region to region..

Steve
s/v Good Intentions




Larry W4CSC

No, no, Scotty! I said, "Beam me a wrench.", not a WENCH!
Kirk Out.....

Larry,

Do you remember the case on Bay Point last year where a man was
assaulted on the beach? It might have been provoked, but it ended
up with the Sheriff, DNR, and the Port Royal cops out there and
no one wanted to claim jurisdiction. This happened supposedly
below the high water mark which the owner's rep claimed was
theirs too. The problem then came up that 'IF' this property was
originally a 'KING'S' Grant from the 18th century, and if it was
still conveyed to them, then they did have the right to claim all
land to the water. One man went to the hospital and then it was
all sort of hushed up. I wonder just how many King's Grants that
are actually still valid within South Carolina. This new owner
developer has ruined a beautiful place to go surf fishing and
spend a weekend on the beach. For years people have gone out
there which is only reachable by boat.

Leanne


"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
...
In South Carolina, the public has rights to the beach 100 ft
inland of
the high water mark, letting us use the beach at high tide
without
stepping on some rich guys domain.

To counter this right, the "cities", gated waterfront
communities like
Kiawah Island, Seabrook Island, Hilton Head Island, bought
their way
into another state law letting the municipalities have domain
over the
public's water out ONE MILE from that beach. So, they simply
write an
ordinance preventing the public from getting to the beach in
their
boats or some such nonsense.

I haven't seen any city gunboats protecting the billionaires
from the
commoners, yet, but that is just a matter of time.

State law says if I want to take the jetboat into the beach at
Kiawah,
I must do so in a no-wake condition. So, we went. Someone
from the
beach houses came out screaming and yelling at us, threatening
to call
the Kiawah Kops. I told him I'd be glad to explain to a cooler
head
South Carolina law. The cops came, in force! I had violated
their
"space". The cops threatened to arrest me if I didn't get in
my boat
and get off "their beach". I pressed for an arrest, but seeing
the
threat tactic wasn't going anywhere and not wanting to test
state law,
they got back in their pickup truck and drove away. We stayed
on OUR
beach for a couple of hours with the jetboat anchored off the
sand
before going elsewhere.

Property owners think just because their property BORDERS on
the
public's beach, the beach becomes their property. It's not
true in
SC....(c;

I'm still here......



On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:57:46 -0800, "Steve"
wrote:


"Rosalie B." wrote in message
.. .
x-no-archive:yes


I think in many cases, beaches are public from the high tide
mark
seaward. And in some cases, all of the beach part is
public.


I've lived in Rhode Is (beach property), Calif. and Washington
state. The
laws of beach rights vary according to state laws.. In RI and
Calif. the
public has rights to the beach up to the high water line (or
something like
that) but can't cross private property.. In Washington state,
a lot of the
beaches property owners own or have lease rights to the beach
out to low
water (or something like that).

It has never been made clear to me how these leases work but I
think it has
something to do with the the shell fish beds. The property
owner will have
jurisdiction over the sea bottom but not the water..

I have heard some lease holder complain about boat anchoring
near shore
because of their oyster beds.. I could understand that,
especially if they
are paying for the lease rights.

I think it is all very complicated and verys from region to
region..

Steve
s/v Good Intentions




Larry W4CSC

No, no, Scotty! I said, "Beam me a wrench.", not a WENCH!
Kirk Out.....

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:07:21 -0500, "Leanne" wrote:

Larry,

Do you remember the case on Bay Point last year where a man was
assaulted on the beach? It might have been provoked, but it ended
up with the Sheriff, DNR, and the Port Royal cops out there and
no one wanted to claim jurisdiction. This happened supposedly
below the high water mark which the owner's rep claimed was
theirs too. The problem then came up that 'IF' this property was
originally a 'KING'S' Grant from the 18th century, and if it was
still conveyed to them, then they did have the right to claim all
land to the water. One man went to the hospital and then it was
all sort of hushed up. I wonder just how many King's Grants that
are actually still valid within South Carolina. This new owner
developer has ruined a beautiful place to go surf fishing and
spend a weekend on the beach. For years people have gone out
there which is only reachable by boat.

Leanne

Don't remember it. Interesting, though.

What's REALLY scary is this nonsense where each little waterfront
fiefdom has domain over the water 1 mile from shore.



Larry W4CSC

No, no, Scotty! I said, "Beam me a wrench.", not a WENCH!
Kirk Out.....

I just remembered what one lady down in Beaufort, SC, said to the
newspaper when they were discussing a new marina going into a creek
near her home. She was opposed to them installing "a floating trailer
park" in the creek to spoil her view. That's what property owners
think of your boats......"floating trailer parks".



Larry W4CSC

No, no, Scotty! I said, "Beam me a wrench.", not a WENCH!
Kirk Out.....

"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
...
I just remembered what one lady down in Beaufort, SC, said to
the
newspaper when they were discussing a new marina going into a
creek
near her home. She was opposed to them installing "a floating
trailer
park" in the creek to spoil her view. That's what property
owners
think of your boats......"floating trailer parks".

There was also a case on Hilton Head where someone was fishing in
a creek off someone's land and the lady disliked them spoiling
the view that her state rep. daughter tried to get a law passed
about restricting the waters to a distance (I can't remember the
exact amount, something like 300 yards)of private property. Then
we have the problem that there are very few creeks that are wider
than that. It didn't pass because it ended up being a federal
jurisdiction. Btw, the daughter is no longer in public office.

Leanne
s/v Fundy