Originally Posted by bassin_bug
Wow, a challenge: I bet $5 that Rich can get in and out and sneeze before the attorney can get his secretary to even call to schedule the initial court hearing.
Seriously, I don't think anybody was singling anybody out.
To help all understand, most courts resolve this issue using two distinct rules. A majority of jurisdictions follow the common law rule which states that owners of land underlying the surface waters of a man-made, non-navigable lake are entitled to control of only that portion of the lake lying over the land they own. So B-Bug, you are completely right as you own the whole she-bang by owning the land under and all around the lake. I agree with that.
The civil law rule states that an owner of land abutting or extending into portions of a lake, navigable or not, is entitled to the reasonable use and enjoyment of the entire lake. Me thinks this may be where Rich was coming from, or atleast that's how I took his comments, more in a mind set of "Littoral Rights" that aren't readily applied to waters where the owner owns all land around the non-navigable lake.
I'd get into raparian right, but I need another beer.
