I get it- wasn’t trying to be a “well…actually” about it.
But one of the virtues of our existing law is that it is fairly clear, which is why I wanted to point that out.
A loss for the PTD
- Thread starter seeth07
- Start date
But one of the virtues of our existing law is that it is fairly clear, which is why I wanted to point that out.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 2,700
I dont think you really understand the issue. There isnt a real relevant historical OWHM if a storm surge is regularly exceeding it. Plant life will begin to grow and what was easily identifiable with obvious ecology simply isnt anymore. ONX river and island boundaries arent great - probably because they arent actually surveying it.
Its hard to imagine for a lot of western folks, i think, because our rivers are much different.
seeth07
Well-known member
Do you think Fred in the corner crossing case was actually upset and pursuing this because it was "devaluing" his property value or do you think it was about the public being able to access the land around his property and thus hindering is ability to hunt and sell elk hunts?
This is the exact same thing except replace elk with ducks.
I understand. I grew up in SE Wisconsin. River floods were/are very common. I get it.
To take advantage of someone’s private property because the river is flooded is wrong.
Buffs35
Well-known member
It’s the difference of PUBLIC sections vs PRIVATE land. Which you’re on.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 2,700
Please define flood for me - if it's flooded 100 days of the year, is that considered "flooded" to you? How do you know where your access begins and ends in a situation like that - especially not having been there previously?
Respectfully, you are making this very simple. And it isnt. I feel for the landowner and public user here - the landowner is losing his land and its access and the public has poorly defined access.
seeth07
Well-known member
Not per the WI constitution. Only the land under the water is owned by the private party. The water itself is "forever free".
seeth07
Well-known member
How about on this particular river where there are numerous dams to help control water levels and handle sudden bursts of rain like we received last week?
Correct…which the judge is saying they need to fix.
Is it not the users burden to know where they are at all times? I think you’re over-complicating this issue.
Remember this probably wouldn’t have been an issue if people had some decency to not run an airboat across someone’s property.
seeth07
Well-known member
an example of what it looks like right near this spot:
The boats aren't running across his front lawn. They are cruising past in the cattail marsh behind the island (like the group of trees you see in the island here).
Just my personal opinion, but there is almost 0% that is what this is actually about. Someone wants to protect/build a duck spot.
Speaking of, and totally off topic I’m sure… but it looks like the judge is quite the avid hunter (in the area).
seeth07
Well-known member
This is a total red herring by the way in this case. You all saw past the BS of Fred Eshelman. I don't understand why its so hard to see past this BS.
Flooding on these small rivers/streams recedes very quickly. Just on Saturday we received a crazy amount of rain and due to some blockage on the rock river in Waupun, the entire city went underwater.
Waupun Mayor declares disaster due to flooding throughout the city - KFIZ News-Talk 1450 AM
At 7:50 p.m. on June 22, 2024, Mayor Rohn Bishop issued a Disaster Declaration due to significant rainfall and flooding across the city. Most streets within the City of Waupun […]
kfiz.com
Streets were flooded as the river was up over 8' from where it was prior to the event. The very next day, it was only 2'-3' high and most of the flooding in the city was gone.
This case is the result of normal fall conditions on the river and a guy not wanting people to be able to use the marsh behind his place. 20 years ago, My dad an I couldn't access a lot of the marshes along the river and this owner very likely had sole access to it due to lower water levels on the river. Now due to more water flow on the Rock and higher typical water levels along the river, its very accessible on an annual basis.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
None of that defines the constitutional term which I had been asked about.
Looks like a good duck spot.
I still think if I purchased a piece of property, and I pay taxes on that property, and that property holds something that I enjoy, I will absolutely fight for my right to use that thing. Perhaps that includes a lawsuit questioning a law that I think is unfair.
This is 100% different than corner-crossing. If you think this is the same fight, you are completely mistaken. Free and clear public land vs public land only if/when flooded.
To think something becomes public just because it's flooded is WILD.
I'm glad they are revisiting this.
If I bought a good duck spot, I'm protecting that good duck spot.
I hear you dude, wouldn’t blame you for it either.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
No, your constitution says “navigable and boundary waters remain free. A flood is not typically considered “navigable”.
This is the type of thing I tagged you for. Words matter, and this is where it will get interesting.
The flood water being navigable isn’t relevant (or wasn’t, prior to this ruling) as far as I can tell- so long as it is connected to a navigable waterway. Just have to keep your boat afloat or feet in the water.
seeth07
Well-known member
Gellar
Well-known member
I think the judge being an avid hunter could have huge implications.
