Ohio Rivers and Private Property

Can a private person own a river? Or as I was " The land under it." I was told that it was alright to float on the river in boat. But that if I walk in the river in waders then I would be trespassing. The river borders the property, it dose not cut thru it. If the makes any difference. If this is true, is there a place I could look up me info. on it. I would hate to have to buy a boat. Thanks for any help you could offer.

I'm trying to find the case that answered your questions. It is:

Quote:

---

East Bay Sporting Club v. Miller, 118 Ohio St. 360

---

If I remember correctly, you can do whatever you want on or in the water and even are allowed to portage a boat passed unnavigable portions of the waterway in certain circumstances. Since I can't find it right now, all I have is my memory and since hitting 50, it hasn't been so great so hang on.

here is an excerpt that includes direction in this matter from

"A Q

UICK-AND-DIRTY GUIDE TO THE EASTERN PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINES:
BASIC ISSUES, CLASSIFICATIONS OF STATES, AND STATE SUMMARIES

by Robin Kundis Craig*"

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcon...xt=robin_craig

Quote:

---

Definition of “Navigable Waters”: Ohio law treats rivers and Lake Erie differently.
Early Ohio cases construed the England-derived common law strictly, as to give the state title only to tidal
waters – those influenced by the ebb and flow of the tide. Gavit’s Adm’rs v. Chambers, 3 Ohio 495, 496-97 (Ohio
1828); Blanchard’s Lessee v. Porter, 11 Ohio 138, 142-43 (Ohio 1841). Nevertheless, for purposes of the public
trust doctrine in streams and rivers, Ohio courts adopted the “navigable in fact” test fairly early. Hickok v. Hine, 23
Ohio 523, 527-28 (Ohio 1872).
While the courts’ interpretation of “navigable in fact” initially tracked the federal navigation test, id., the
Ohio courts have also been comfortable with a “gradually changing concept of navigability. Coleman v. Schaeffer,
126 N.E.2d 444, 445 (Ohio 1955). As a result, since at least 1955 the Ohio courts have progressively expanded that
test so that now, any river or stream that supports recreational uses will be considered navigable. Id. at 445-47
(indicating that recreational boating makes a river navigable); Mentor Harbor Yachting Club v. Mentor Lagoons,
Inc., 163 N.E.2d 373, 375 (Ohio 1959) (noting that “naturally navigable” waters are public waters and that boating
for recreation and pleasure count); State ex rel. Brown v. Newport Concrete Co., 336 N.E.2d 453, 455-457 (Ohio
App. 1975) (tracing the evolution of the test from federal law and determining that because the Little Miami River
was in fact used for recreational purposes, “the state of Ohio holds the waters of the Little Miami River in trust for
the people of Ohio.”). Moreover, rivers made navigable by human effort and declared to be navigable by the
legislature will be treated as “navigable” rivers. Guthrie v. McConnell, 1859 WL 4442, at *2-*3 (Ohio Com. Pleas
1859); Mentor Harbor, 163 N.E.2d at 375.
In contrast, Lake Erie is treated as though it were a tidal water. East Bay Sporting Club v. Miller, 161 N.E.
12, 13 (1928); Winous Point Shooting Club v. Slaughterbeck, 117 N.E. 162, 164 (Ohio 1917); Bodi v. Winous Point
Shooting Club, 48 N.E. 944, 944 (Ohio 1897). The establishment of the public trust doctrine in Lake Erie followed
naturally from the Supreme Court’s decision in Illinois Central R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892). State v.
Cleveland & Pittsburgh R. Co., 113 N.E. 677, 680-81 (Ohio 1916). “It is clear that the trust doctrine of state control
over the submerged lands of Lake Erie and its bays from the beneficial ownership of the public, which originated in
England and has been reinforced in this country by judicial decision, has existed in this state since Ohio was
admitted to the Union in 1803.” Thomas v. Sanders, 413 N.E.2d 1224, 1228 (Ohio App. 1979).

Rights in the “Navigable Waters”: Because inland “western” rivers were not affected by the ebb and flow of the
tide, riparian landowners hold title to the middle of navigable rivers. Gavit’s Adm’rs, 3 Ohio at 497-98; Blanchard’s
Lessee, 11 Ohio at 143-44; Lamb v. Rickets, 11 Ohio 311, 315 (Ohio 1842); Walker v. Board of Public Works, 16
Ohio 540, 543-44 (Ohio 1847); Day v. Pittsburgh, Youngstown & Chicago R.R. Co., 7 N.E. 528, 534-35 (Ohio
1886); State ex rel. Anderson v. Preston, 207 N.E.2d 664, 666 (Ohio App. 1963); State ex rel. Brown v. Newport
Concrete Co., 336 N.E.2d 453, 455 (Ohio App. 1975).
Nevertheless, the public has rights in navigable rivers and lakes even though the beds are privately owned.

State ex rel. Brown, 336 N.E.2d at 455-457 (noting that even though beds f navigable rivers are privately owned, the
public has a right of navigation in the waters). Moreover, the public trust doctrine applies to “all legitimate uses, be
they commercial, transportational, or recreational.” Id. at 457-58; see also Thomas v. Sanders, 413 N.E.2d 1224,
1231 (Ohio App. 1979) (holding that the public has the traditional rights, including fishing and navigation, in
navigable lakes). The riparian owner’s title to the subaqueous soil under a navigable stream is subject to these
public uses. State ex rel. Brown v. Newport Concrete Co., 336 N.E.2d 453. 455 (Ohio App. 1975). However, the
public is not entitled to access the water over private land. Pollock v. Cleveland Ship Building Co., 47 N.E. 582,
583-84 (Ohio 1897). Moreover, the public has no rights to boat upon or fish in nonnavigable lakes and rivers.

Akron Canal & Hydraulic Co. v. Fontaine, 50 N.E.2d 897, 901 (Ohio App. 1943) (citing Lembeck v. Nye, 24 N.E.

---

Quote:

---

686 (Ohio 1890)).

---

So what it gets down to is; is this waterway considered a navigable waterway. If I remember correctly (remember the age thing) Ohio actually lists the waterways it considers to be navigable. You can cruise the internet for that if you would like.

Let me just quote Gavit on the ownership topic:

"He who owns the lands upon both banks, owns the entire river, subject only to the easement of navigation, and he who owns the land upon one bank only, owns to the middle of the river, subject to the same easement."

Surveyors here in Ohio follow Gavit, as in the rest of the states formed from the old Northwest Territory, as it explains the ownership relative to the Act of 1796.

As to the issue of navigability, jk has that developing concept covered. In Ohio, a "surface water of the state" (not an intermittent stream) which can be traversed by a canoe is probably navigable. But things can change. In Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Akron , 2006-Ohio-954, an impounded stretch of the Cuyahoga River (Lake Rockwell) was declared non-navigable. So your mileage may vary.

The water way in question is the Astrabula River located in Astrabula Ohio and it appears that it is an navigable water way. Or at least portion of it are refereed to as navigable. I understand this to say I have an right to be there. But I can not tell if I can get out of a boat to fish. Or if the term "navigable" only needs be met to allow me just to be there and if the boat is not required? I was told that the sheriff and ODNR have been writing tickets for trespassing. We have been fishing this area for years and now I can't fish it any longer? All the tax dollars to clean the area up and fishing permit funds to stock the fish. It would seem unfair not to be able access the fish. Thanks for your help.

Quote:

---

(1) Waters are navigable in law (and hence subject to the use of the
general public) when they are used or could be used in their
ordinary condition as highways for commerce (pecuniary profit).
East Bay Sporting Club v. Miller, 161 N.E. 12 (1928).
Consideration may also be given to the availability of the water for
boating or sailing for pleasure and recreation. Coleman v.

---

Quote:

---

Schaeffer, 126 N.E.2d 444 (Ohio (1955).

---

Quote:

---

iii) Rights of Public. When a watercourse is designated as navigable, a
public water right is created and riparian use is limited by the resulting
public easement. In other words, a riparian owner has the right to
make use of a navigable watercourse, but he does not "own" the water
itself and must share the resource with the public. Salem Iron Co. v.

---

Quote:

---

Hyland, 77 N.E. 751 (1906)

---

.

Quote:

---

(1) In addition to the right of navigation, the public has the right of
bathing, fishing, taking ice, and sometimes taking soil from the bed
of navigable waters. State ex rel. Brown v. Newport Concrete Co.,
336 N.E.2d 453 (Oh. Ct. App. 1975). The public's right to use a
navigable watercourse does not include a right to use the shore
land, except for mooring necessary for the repair of vessels. The

---

Quote:

---

use of lands adjacent to the watercourse is actionable in trespass.

---

I am not having any luck finding the actual case summaries but I continue to read things such as above that would allow you to walk the bottom of the river.

I think you will need a boat or permission.

From: http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Home/Fish...6/Default.aspx

Quote:

---

There are many public access areas on Ohio streams. If you are on private property, you must have landowner permission. Don't trespass! Private landowners have the right to restrict access on their property. In Ohio, you can gain access to the stream from public access points, but the private land ownership includes their land under the stream. The streams listed above are navigable streams, meaning you can float a boat through them to fish; however, you cannot get out of your boat and stand on private property to fish unless you have the landowner's permission.

---

One of the streams referred to is the Ashtabula River.

that is what I was looking for. I believe it is in contrast to what I had read earlier including the possible belief from the Ohio Att Gen (I think) that even portaging your boat around a non-navigable portion may be legal.


So, who owns the property on the other side of the river?

I was told that the other side was owned by a family member. I have not seen the sheriff writing the tickets. And it is possible that the local guys are trying to keep a few good spots for them self. But I would rather not have to pay a ticket to find out that it was all true. And if the sheriff is writing the tickets, but I have a right to be there... Well.... I will just say I still believe in justice.

Quote:

---

Quoting LandSurveyor

---

I think you will need a boat or permission.

From: http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Home/Fish...6/Default.aspx




One of the streams referred to is the Ashtabula River.

---

Ok, I see you can boat it, but do not walk it. But this Quote/statement is from ODNR. Were can I find the Ohio code that supports it?

The riparian rights in Ohio derive from the common law, not statutes.

Gavit v. Chambers and Coats 3 Ohio 496 (1828) explains the concept.

For a more complete explanation of the concept see:

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/water/pub...8/Default.aspx