a snapshot of a few deeper pools does not allow the river to be ruled navigable.
But this strays from the original question. Op wants to be able to access the water in an area where they now have to cross private priority from an easement that was adjacent to Luxton Lake. I can find no support that extends access rights to a now non existent lake to the waterway that was the feed-water for that non existent lake. I cannot even create an argument the rights could be argued based on intent of the servient tenant because the servient tenement and the property they want to cross are not under a common deed or common ownership.
I think the op’s group missed a great opportunity when they didn’t purchase that property at the tax auction.
Here is something I found that might allow me to change my mind.. I understand this is due to spring thaw so it might not be representative of TMR in a typical condition and the “norm” is what determines navigability
that’s a lot of water
would love to find something in the middle of a typical summer.
Of course this all deals with navigability and as such the right to float the river. It still doesn’t allow one to trespass to access the waters and that is the concern at hand.