Quote:
Originally Posted by shore things
I would agree that the within the State we refer to riparian or littoral "rights." However I feel it important to note that the statement "Property owners do have "exclusive" rights to the water in front of their properties..." is not technically correct. The problem is the use of the term "exclusive" when referring to rights on public waters. (I would point out that the word "exclusive" does not appear in the document you previously cited.) To say that a property owner has "exclusive" rights to the water implies that the owner has a right to "exclude" the public from that portion of the public trust which lies adjacent to his property. This would not be true. Someone could anchor off your frontage and swim under your dock to see if you have been dropping loose change and other things and while we would probably all think they were a bit rude and a bit odd, it wouldn't be illegal for them to do so.
The reason shorefront owners have a right to install a dock that non-owners do not have is because they have "exclusive" rights to the land they own and to which the dock is attached. The state can't permit a dock if it requires trespass to get there.
|
Thanks for your input and opinion, Shore Things. I don't disagree that the public can utilize the water in front of a private home. However, in the context of the discussion, I was using the word "exclusive" in terms of the property owner having "rights" that are not available to, or afforded to the public. A property owner has the "right" to install a dock in front of their property as long as they meet the requirements set forth by the State. The public has no right, (and cannot) install a dock in front of a private landowner's property. We may be splitting hairs, but I stand by my position that the word "exclusive" applies in this context.
PS: While I have you on the phone...will the State issue a permit to place rocks along the shoreline to stop substantial erosion?