View Single Post
Old 02-24-2015, 09:45 PM   #73
I bear therefore I am
timberghost's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by Glenn MacGrady View Post

My context for analysis is what I perceive to be the historical general meaning of the navigability-in-fact criterion: Was the water body in question, in it's natural state, a practical highway for the public to engage in commercial travel or personal convenience travel -- as of the date the State entered the Union, which was 1788 for New York. This last requirement seems to be ignored in this litigation, but it's in many U.S. Supreme Court opinions defining the federal "title test" for navigability, which says that waters not navigable at the time of statehood were not subject to the Public Trust Doctrine when they were conveyed by the federal to the state government.
Thank you for the explanation. It gives perspective to your legal analysis (even though not everyone agrees with it).

On the separate question of navigability of Beaver River, I've read that there's documented history of log driving down from Lila. Which would place it in a different legal category. (with very little if any bearing from Shingle Shanty decision)
Also, there are no cables (that I'm aware of) or gates or deliberate impediments down that route. The signs along the bank state something to the effect that Nehasane Lake is private with no state land and asks persons not to trespass (which I thought was perfectly reasonable)
timberghost is offline   Reply With Quote