I posted this on the "slow" forum and only got one response so over here it comes.
I posted it as "Water rights...." but that may have come off wrong and led someone to believe it had to do with farming or irrigation.
Hopefully this will get some hits and start a good discussion. I don't have an opinion (yet) one way or the other as I'm reading bits and pieces of law when I get time. Here's the post C&P'd:
Here's an interesting discussion that I thought I might bring up after camping this weekend. I'll try to do a Cliff Notes version but bear with me.
Went to Hells Canyon this weekend to do some water skiing and general fun with the family. (BTW, my 5 year old son got up on water skis for the first time:-D . My BIL got chastised for powering his boat too close to the no wake zone at the camp ground by a F&G officer who happen to be driving by on the upper road. This is not the story I'm after but though I would bring up why F&G was in the area.
Anyway, near the end of their conversation, the officer suggested that my BIL not let the kids tube near a privately owned dock (0.5 miles up from the campground) because the land owners have taken boaters to court because of damage to the dock and items by passing by recreational boaters. Boats do create a hell of a wake when tubing because of the low speed and waterline.
I asked the officer if the owners had prevailed in any of the cases and he didn't know. My thought was that the owners of said dock would not have any ground to stand on since it was a public waterway for the enjoyment of the public. Who's to say that it wasn't cause by an act of God? It's a floating dock on a reservoir created by Hydroelectric dams on the Snake. This was on the Oregon side of the reservoir/river.
I don't have the ability to search court cases on line in Idaho and don't suspect I would go to the Law library and I also stuck out in Oregon (on line). The bulk of the original surveys for Idaho took place from 1906-1916, well before the dams were created so typical navigability would generally suggest the OHWM to be the boundary according to Idaho law. I don't know Oregon law in regards to waterways but the originals were surveyed in the early 1900's and the meanders around the "owners" land were resurveyed in the early 1980's, after the construction of the dams. It appears that the didn't change much, but I cannot locate the special instructions described in the introduction of the notes.
Ultimately, does the owner have a leg to stand on in a court case?
Rob
I do not know the cite to direct you to
Every area I have encountered along waterways at specific locations of interest have posted signs in view from land and water that state "NO WAKE ZONE ? mph MAXIUM"
Of course state and local laws apply for all boaters and these areas are listed in pamphlets that usually come with boat tags or on the state licensing websites and those concerning special concerns.
From a legal standpoint, if you have a car accident, the damages accrue even though the car is not on your property, right?
I'm thinking this is a matter of personal property rather than real property....property rights may not matter.
Are there any posted signs regarding "no wake" etc.,? Those may be more of a controlling factor here.
I asked the officer if the owners had prevailed in any of the cases and he didn't know. My thought was that the owners of said dock would not have any ground to stand on since it was a public waterway for the enjoyment of the public.
IMHO Anyone who damages a dock is liable even in a public water way. A dock is no different that a boat. If someone damaged your boat don't you think you would have a claim? Of course the question would always be whether or not the defendant actually caused the damage or whether or not the claimant had any contributory negligence in the event.
I just looked up Idaho and Oregon boating regulations and they are very broad. The stretch they were in is not a "No Wake Zone" and is used primarily for skiers, wake boarders and tubers.
I would suspect that under Idaho law, they were well within their rights and being safe and prudent boaters. Oregon, on the other hand, has a statement that could get nearly anyone in trouble. "Speeding in no-wake zones, boating in areas marked as restricted, or creating a wake that endangers persons or property." A typical comp ski boat creates a hell of a lot more wake at 5-15mph than at 40mph. A boat could be 500' away but if an owner were in a bad mood that day and spilled their beer on the dock because of a slow boat wake, a person could get cited.
Very interesting.
I'm still trying to figure out this stacked thread thing. I posted after Angelo and Merlin but my post was above.:-P
Angelo, there are no posted "no wake" zones in this particular area.
Merlin, I would tend to agree with you on the damage part. The conversation was in passing and of course, I have no idea what kind of damage was being reported or if the owner even prevailed.
Good discussion non the less.
Rob
What right does the adjoining landowner have to install a dock in the public waters? I think that is the key question. What if he installed a dock 1000 feet long out into the river/reservoir? Somewhere there must be a statute addressing such rights.
You know, I didn't bring that up, but it is a floating dock. I would think they would be using the same "easement" as everyone else. Even if it was attached to their property.
IMO, if the boaters are safely operating the boat in a public waterway with no posted speed regulations, and the dock is damaged, then it's probably a case of the guy building a crappy dock. He should have recognized that the dock was not being built in an area with speed restrictions and built a dock that can withstand wake.
As for permitting, in Florida there a lot of regulations as to dock length and location, etc.
