Anybody involved with survey on this? Interesting case. http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/after-investors-built-dollar1-million-dam-wisconsin-says-it-owns-lake/ar-AAoLShf?li=BBnb7Kz
It appears to me that the DNR would have no claim based on estoppel. Does estoppel apply to the state government?
Interesting.
James
"O'Connor, the Row Boat lawyer, said the dozens of recorded deeds and other instruments in the recorded chain of title have errors.
"We hope to avoid a complicated and esoteric battle over interpreting the deeds, based on longstanding actual possession of the property in question," he said. "You have probably heard the saying, possession is nine-tenths of the law."
That lawyer would be laughed out of court in Mass. The state is protected against adverse possession claims on lands owned for a public purpose. I would think that all states have some similar provision for sovereign immunity.
Play nice, ******* , or I'll drain my dam and you won't be able to do squat. You can put THAT in your *** and smoke it.
Holy Cow, post: 438715, member: 50 wrote: Play nice, ******* , or I'll drain my dam and you won't be able to do squat. You can put THAT in your *** and smoke it.
That was my first thought. If the guy owns the dam, and the water touching the DNR land is the issue, I would pull the drain plug. Once it is drained, then they can enter into an agreement with the DNR about non-motorized use, and non-advertisement, and he can fill it back up.
Storage of water is different from state to state.
Texas owns the water stored in private lakes of 10 acre feet and more.
The land owner pays a modest permit fee to the state and must maintain the dam to prevent any epic event that would flood downstream and can use the water for whatever reason.
Water rights has always been a big issue in Texas.
When any part of neighboring land is a part of a lake, they have use of the whole lake.
They simply do not have any rights to be on the dry land of their neighbor.