Some Wisconsin cases have also addressed the theory of accretion and provide an example of how the rights of accretion relate to the adherence of that state to the public trust doctrine. In one case, the court held that a coal company's riparian rights entitled it to a parcel of land that was created from accretion along the shores of Lake Michigan, even though the state held title to the beds of the lake under the public trust doctrine. Historically, riparian rights were determined by the natural flow theory.
Under this theory, riparian owners had a right that ensured the water would continue in its natural course of flow or natural existence. The riparian owners were allowed use of the water, as long as it did not hinder other riparian owners' rights to maintain the water in its natural course of flow or natural existence. Essentially, each riparian owner was guaranteed the water would be maintained in its natural integrity or, in other words, would continue to remain as the owners had found it, specifically in the quantity of water present.
The focus of this theory was that the riparian owners were guaranteed that the volume of water available to them would remain the same. Most jurisdictions have moved away from the natural flow theory, especially in the eastern half of the country, and have adopted the reasonable use theory. Under this theory, a riparian owner is guaranteed the reasonable use of the water. The focus of this theory is not the guarantee of water volume, but rather that the riparian owner is guaranteed the reasonable use of the water.
A use is reasonable if it doesn't substantially interfere with the use of another riparian owner. Basically, each riparian owner's use must be balanced with the other riparian owners' reasonable uses, without a focus on guaranteeing any specific volume to any riparian owner. The basic premise and underlying goal of this theory is to encourage and promote the beneficial use and allocation of water resources. Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin have all adopted some form of the reasonable use theory, with various minor modifications.
NOTE: Western states, because of the aridness of the region and the problems stemming from the struggle to secure adequate access to water, have adopted some form of the prior appropriation theory. This theory grants the first riparian owner to make a beneficial use of the water, a right superior to the riparian rights of subsequent users. This theory has very different implications for riparian owners, but is relevant only in the western half of the country. Ultimately, a riparian right allows riparian owner to make reasonable use of the water.
A question still remains, however, and brings us to the next section. As stated above, under the reasonable use theory, a use is reasonable if it doesn't interfere with the reasonable use by another riparian owner.
Of course, that definition sheds no light on what exactly a reasonable use is. Unfortunately, there are very few, if any, concrete rules that dictate what constitutes a reasonable use. In most situations, the determination of reasonable use requires a careful analysis of the fact pattern to determine whether the use is reasonable in light of the circumstances.
Factors that are considered are many, and include custom, climate, the size of the water body, the season of the year, the size of the diversion, the place and method of diversion, the type of use and its importance to society, the needs of other riparian owners, the suitability of the use of the stream, and the fairness of the use in relation to the cost the use will impose on other riparian owners.
The preceding list is by no means exhaustive and the factors considered vary in each jurisdiction and case. If your riparian rights are being violated, most often the remedy is an injunction to halt the violating use. The injunction will restore the riparian rights to the owner, and if the violation has severely diminished the value of the riparian right or completely eliminate it, then compensatory damages will be awarded.
Now, each situation is different, but navigable water is ultimately owned by the state. In the United States, there are two types of water rights.
This means that the first person to use the water has the right to it, and to qualify for this protection, the user must make beneficial use of the water source for industry, agriculture, or the home. Littoral rights : Concern properties abutting an ocean, sea, or lake rather than a river, stream, or creek.
Correlative use : Allows a property owner the use of underground water or water from a river for irrigation purposes. Accretion : Occurs when soil is deposited by the natural action of water and may increase the size of the property. Reliction : The gradual change of the water line on real property, which gives the owner drier land. Erosion : The wearing away of land or soil by the action of wind, water, currents, or ice. Avulsion : The sudden tearing away of land by violent action of natural causes, such as a river or other watercourse for example, a damn breaking.
In the end, riparian rights all come down to being reasonable. Also, please feel free to leave us a comment if you have any additional questions. For more information on buying, selling, or investing in vacant land, check out our other resources below. Additional Resources If you are looking to buy affordable land , you can check out our Listings page. If you are looking to sell land , visit our page on how to Sell Your Land. Subscribe Now. Disclaimer: we are not lawyers, accountants or financial advisors and the information in this article is for informational purposes only.
This article is based on our own research and experience and we do our best to keep it accurate and up-to-date, but it may contain errors. Please be sure to consult a legal or financial professional before making any investment decisions. Hello Roger, this depends on the regulations in your state. My general understanding is that you can prevent people from passing through your land, but the stream is likely public water, so you could not stop someone from, say, boating down the river.
This is very informative. Are riparian rights the same as groundwater rights, such as drinking water? Thank you for your comment, Tony. The rights are automatically inherited, are passed on to any future owners, and do not need to be expressly granted. The rights are also unlikely to appear on your Land Registry title, which is a danger in that owners are often unaware of the rights and responsibilities they have in relation to the land.
In addition, certain considerations arise when dealing with the land during a transaction which the relevant parties may not have thought about. This is especially the case when a landowner is selling part of their land that abuts a watercourse or has a watercourse within, and the seller is retaining other parts of the land.
The legal advisers should expressly address the various issues that may arise in the legal documentation to avoid potential future disputes. A watercourse must be natural, i. In Maryland, the state controls ownership of the land beneath the water. This is very common in neighborhoods that do not have a lot of waterfront access. For example, we can sometimes see community access cut in front of another landowner's property even though it would appear that the landowner has the exclusive access since the house or land abuts the water's edge.
We can also see community piers in front of a landowner's property. This landowner would be said to have non-riparian rights. In certain situations, there is a portion of land in front of a subject property that is connected to the riparian rights this land may not be able to be accessed without trespassing across a landowner's private property.
However, in the State of Maryland since the state owns the waters an individual may be allowed to access and use the land beneath the water by way of water. Yet again very unlikely but a possible scenario. The owner of the fast land, however, has a common law right to land formed by accretion adjacent to the fast land and has the right of access to the navigable part of the river in front of his fast land, with the right to make a landing, wharf or pier in front of his fast land, subject, however, to general rules and regulations imposed by the public authorities necessary to protect the rights of the public.
The use of the land is typically outlined in some fashion by the riparian owner. A common misconception
0コメント