# Landowner water rights.



## Big Frank 25 (Feb 21, 2002)

Public rights.

Microsoft Word - Water97e.doc (michigan.gov)


----------



## DM90 (Jan 7, 2014)

22 Chuck said:


> Was considered navigable if it would float a log back somewhere in 1800s or so??


Yes, that was and I still believe is the definition, but this is where the legal arguments begin. People are always arguing over what is "navigable".


----------



## gatorman841 (Mar 4, 2010)

toto said:


> The last I knew, there were only 3 rivers/streams/creeks classified as non navigable. Off the top of my head I don't remember which ones, but I'll take a look and post them in a bit. As for how they get classified that way is up to the courts. IF one can prove that said creek/river/stream has indeed ever floated logs in the logging days, it's navigable. There is an attempt by the courts to ascertain what is navigable by the courts by using a depth/width/streamflow rates as well, but I don't recall those numbers either.
> 
> When I say it can float a log, that means that it can float a log at any time of the year, most particularly in the spring during high water. It also has to float a log in it's natural state, in other words in can't be dammed up to create floatage but rather just a period of high water. This same creek may totally dry up during the summer months and have no water whatsoever, but it does during the spring therefore if it can float a log during spring it's navigable regardless of whether it totally dries up in the spring.
> There is some other stuff concerning that that will surprise some, but that's not really pertinent here.
> ...


There is a lot more non navigable rivers then 3 , your way off. Did you know that a good portion of the Kalamazoo is considered non navigable.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

gatorman841 said:


> There is a lot more non navigable rivers then 3 , your way off. Did you know that a good portion of the Kalamazoo is considered non navigable.


Last I knew the only 3 were:

Little Portage River, St. Joseph County, 
Mathewson v Hoffman, 77 Mich 420; 43 NW 879 (1889). 

Sturgeon River, East Branch, Dickinson County, T42, 43, 44N R29, 28W 
Keystone Lumber & Salt Co. v Jenkinson, 69 Mich 220; 37 NW 198 (1886). 

Thread River, Genesee County, 
Burroughs v Whitman, 59 Mich 279; 26 NW 491 (1886)


----------



## gatorman841 (Mar 4, 2010)

pescadero said:


> Last I knew the only 3 were:
> 
> Little Portage River, St. Joseph County,
> Mathewson v Hoffman, 77 Mich 420; 43 NW 879 (1889).
> ...


I wasn’t aware of all of them until I had to contact the dnr regarding some info on it. That’s how I became aware of where I own on the Kzoo river it is considered non navigable, actually a huge portion of that river is considered NON.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

gatorman841 said:


> I wasn’t aware of all of them until I had to contact the dnr regarding some info on it. That’s how I became aware of where I own on the Kzoo river it is considered non navigable, actually a huge portion of that river is considered NON.


Considered non-navigable by the DNR, or actually adjudicated non-navigable by the courts?

Because only the second one really means anything - and as far as I know those three streams (as well as three lakes) are the only ones adjudicated non-navigable by Michigan courts.

The Kalamazoo is not considered "strictly navigable" under federal law above the Allegan dam... but that means nothing under Michigan law.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

gatorman841 said:


> There is a lot more non navigable rivers then 3 , your way off. Did you know that a good portion of the Kalamazoo is considered non navigable.


I'm curious as to why you say that. I'll take a stab at it and say you are assuming that the corps of engineers said it's navigable up to Allegan Dam, which is a true statement; however it should be noted that just because the corps says it's navigable in certain areas isn't all inclusive. In other words the Kalamazoo river above Allegan Dam is certainly navigable. 

The Corps is only interested, or has jurisdication over commercial waters, or that are possible to be such. IF I can find it, I'll find the link to what the Corps says about navigable waters.

Thanks pescadero, that looks correct.

Back to you Gator, out of curiosity, who considers it non navigable. I'll bet you right now you'll find that isn't true.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

BTW, there is such a thing as strictly navigable, and also navigable in fact. If the water is capable of floating a 8" log, or even a small watercraft, it is navigable in fact.


----------



## gatorman841 (Mar 4, 2010)

toto said:


> I'm curious as to why you say that. I'll take a stab at it and say you are assuming that the corps of engineers said it's navigable up to Allegan Dam, which is a true statement; however it should be noted that just because the corps says it's navigable in certain areas isn't all inclusive. In other words the Kalamazoo river above Allegan Dam is certainly navigable.
> 
> The Corps is only interested, or has jurisdication over commercial waters, or that are possible to be such. IF I can find it, I'll find the link to what the Corps says about navigable waters.
> 
> ...


According to the head dnr for SW Michigan it is , I had to almost have to press charges and get dnr and county sheriffs envolved. As also others thought the same as you and used it as a excuse to trespass on mine and others property. This has been beat to death on this site , I know the law on this so please carry on.


----------



## gatorman841 (Mar 4, 2010)

toto said:


> BTW, there is such a thing as strictly navigable, and also navigable in fact. If the water is capable of floating a 8" log, or even a small watercraft, it is navigable in fact.


If you honestly believe this please contact the dnr in Lansing and ask them if what you say about floating a log is still correct? No quotes from other sites get the answer right from the horses mouth if you truly believe this.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

gatorman841 said:


> If you honestly believe this please contact the dnr in Lansing and ask them if what you say about floating a log is still correct? No quotes from other sites get the answer right from the horses mouth if you truly believe this.


The DNR is not the "horse's mouth". The courts are.

The law is still the floating log law. The DNR can't change MCL or court precedent.

The DNR can ticket, but if the courts don't agree it is non-navigable, that ticket will get tossed.


----------



## Big Frank 25 (Feb 21, 2002)

Big Frank 25 said:


> Public rights.
> 
> Microsoft Word - Water97e.doc (michigan.gov)


Start on Pg. 41


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

gatorman841 said:


> According to the head dnr for SW Michigan it is , I had to almost have to press charges and get dnr and county sheriffs envolved. As also others thought the same as you and used it as a excuse to trespass on mine and others property. This has been beat to death on this site , I know the law on this so please carry on.


Obviously, you don't. If someone is walking on your property above the high water mark, then they are trespassing, plain and simple. Don't let the DNR take you down the primrose path, they are not the final word on what is or isn't navigable water. ONLY the courts can do that, and it is still based mostly on log floating. There is also a configuration that gets around the floating log test, can't remember it exactly off hand but it's something about Cubic Feet Per Second, width, and depth. 

Not to get on your case, but I can tell you have no idea of what you are talking about: IF you believe the Corps of Engineers is the determining factor on navigability, that's in error. IF you don't believe in the log floating test, again you are in error. Don't believe that part, just go to your local museum and find pictures of floating logs during the logging days, then see what that does for your navigability case. Lastly, again you are in error IF you believe the DNR is the determining factor, they are not. You CANNOT punish someone legally if they have done nothing illegal, and one can't do something illegal if there has been no determination made before hand. As Pescadero said, those are the ONLY streams/rivers/creeks in Michigan that have been adjudicated as non-navigable. 

The bottom line is this: Please don't come on here and try to convince us that some law has changed because you want it to, it's embarrassing, for you.


----------

