Great Lakes Shoreline Rights in Michigan: Public Trust, Private Ownership, and Local Regulation

By: W. Dane Carey

Michigan’s Great Lakes shoreline is one of the state’s most important natural and legal resources. It is also one of the most misunderstood.

Owners of property on Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake Superior, Lake Erie, and Lake St. Clair often assume that the rules are the same as those that apply to inland lakes. Members of the public may assume that the entire beach is open for public use. Local governments may assume that they can regulate Great Lakes waterfront activity the same way they regulate inland lake activity.

These assumptions are often wrong.

Great Lakes shoreline law is different from inland-lake riparian law. It involves a unique combination of private property rights, public-trust rights, state regulatory authority, shifting water levels, ordinary high-water marks, accretion, reliction, erosion, bottomland permits, and limits on local regulation.

This article provides an overview of how Michigan law treats Great Lakes shoreline ownership and public access.

Great Lakes Property Is Different from Inland Lake Property

Michigan law draws an important distinction between inland lakes and the Great Lakes.

On many inland lakes and streams, riparian owners generally own submerged bottomlands adjacent to their property, subject to public navigation rights and the rights of other riparian owners. Those rights often extend toward the center or thread of the waterbody, depending on the shape of the lake or stream and equitable apportionment principles.

The Great Lakes are different. The Michigan Supreme Court has drawn the line clearly: title to the submerged lands under the Great Lakes is held by the State in trust for the public, while title to the subaqueous land under other navigable waters, including the rivers connecting the Great Lakes, is in the riparian owners. Peterman v Department of Natural Resources, 446 Mich 177 (1994). A Great Lakes shoreline owner generally owns only to the ordinary high-water mark.

Michigan has long recognized that the State holds Great Lakes bottomlands in trust for the public. This public-trust doctrine protects public rights in the Great Lakes and their shores, including navigation, fishing, hunting, and related public uses. Private owners along the Great Lakes have important littoral rights, but those rights exist alongside the public trust.

In this context, the word “littoral” technically refers to property bordering large bodies of water such as seas or lakes, while “riparian” refers to property bordering rivers and streams. Michigan cases sometimes use the terms interchangeably, but the distinction is useful when discussing Great Lakes shoreline rights.

The Public Trust Doctrine

The public-trust doctrine is the foundation of Great Lakes shoreline law.

At its core, the doctrine means that certain waters and submerged lands are held by the State in trust for public use and enjoyment. The State may regulate and manage those resources, but it cannot simply eliminate the public’s protected rights.

Michigan courts have recognized that, upon statehood, Michigan acquired sovereign authority over the beds of the Great Lakes within its boundaries, subject to the public trust. Cases such as Nedtweg v Wallace, 237 Mich 14 (1926), and Hilt v Weber, 252 Mich 198 (1930), explain the distinction between proprietary title and sovereign public-trust obligations. The State may manage, regulate, lease, or convey certain interests in bottomlands under proper circumstances, but it may not destroy the public’s protected rights in navigation, fishing, hunting, and related uses.

The practical result is that private shoreline ownership on the Great Lakes is not absolute in the same way as ownership of an inland parcel far from water. A Great Lakes owner may hold valuable private property rights, including the right to exclude others from upland areas, but those rights are subject to the public-trust rights that exist lakeward of the ordinary high-water mark.

Glass v Goeckel and the Public’s Right to Walk the Shoreline

The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in Glass v Goeckel, 473 Mich 667; 703 NW2d 58 (2005), is the leading modern case on public walking rights along the Great Lakes shoreline.

In Glass, the Court held that members of the public may walk along the shore of the Great Lakes on land lakeward of the ordinary high-water mark. The Court reasoned that walking along the shoreline is inherent in the exercise of traditional public-trust rights such as navigation, fishing, and hunting.

That holding is significant. A private landowner along the Great Lakes generally cannot prevent a member of the public from walking along the shore below the ordinary high-water mark. At the same time, Glass does not give the public a right to cross private upland property to reach the beach. Nor does it allow the public to use private stairs, decks, lawns, dunes, driveways, or other upland areas without permission.

The right recognized in Glass is a shoreline-use right below the ordinary high-water mark. It is not a general right to treat private beachfront property as a public park.

What Is the Ordinary High-Water Mark?

The ordinary high-water mark, or OHWM, is one of the most important concepts in Great Lakes law.

Unfortunately, it is also one of the most confusing.

For public-trust purposes, Glass described the ordinary high-water mark as the point on the bank or shore up to which the presence and action of the water is so continuous as to leave a distinct mark, such as erosion, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, or another easily recognized characteristic.

For regulatory purposes, Part 325 of Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act uses statutory elevations for the Great Lakes ordinary high-water mark. MCL 324.32502 sets those elevations at Lake Superior, 601.5 feet; Lakes Michigan and Huron, 579.8 feet; Lake St. Clair, 574.7 feet; and Lake Erie, 571.6 feet, all referenced to the International Great Lakes Datum of 1955.

That means there can be a practical distinction between a natural OHWM observed in the field and a statutory, elevation-based OHWM used for Part 325 permitting. In some locations, the two may not be the same. Great Lakes water levels also fluctuate substantially, sometimes extending above both marks.

This is why Great Lakes shoreline questions often require more than simply looking at where the water happens to be on a particular day.

Burleson and Part 325 Regulatory Jurisdiction

Burleson v Department of Environmental Quality, 292 Mich App 544; 808 NW2d 792 (2011), addressed the scope of state regulatory jurisdiction under Part 325.

In Burleson, the Court of Appeals examined the relationship between the fixed statutory-elevation ordinary high-water mark in MCL 324.32502 and the natural, field-observed ordinary high-water mark. The case is important because it underscores the distinction between physical shoreline conditions on the ground and the statutory, elevation-based ordinary high-water mark used for Great Lakes submerged-lands regulation.

For property owners, the practical lesson is that work along the Great Lakes shoreline may require careful analysis before construction begins. A project may implicate Part 325 even if the owner believes the work is being done on “dry” beach. Shoreline armoring, seawalls, revetments, filling, dredging, docks, and similar projects can trigger state permitting requirements.

Construction Permits and Bottomland Conveyances

EGLE administers Michigan’s Great Lakes submerged lands program under Part 325.

A Part 325 permit is generally required for construction activities on Great Lakes bottomlands below the statutory ordinary high-water mark. Common examples include filling, dredging, seawalls, revetments, docks, boat lifts, and other structures.

In some circumstances, a project may also require a bottomland conveyance from EGLE. Conveyances are used for certain occupations or uses of state-owned public-trust bottomlands, such as marinas, commercial docks, harbor facilities, yacht clubs, private boat harbors, historically filled lots, or other significant long-term uses. A conveyance may take the form of a deed, lease, or agreement, depending on the circumstances.

A property owner should not assume that a building permit, zoning approval, contractor recommendation, or local permission is enough. Great Lakes shoreline projects often require review under multiple layers of law, including state submerged-lands regulation, federal permitting through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, local zoning, critical dune regulation, wetland rules, floodplain rules, and private restrictions.

Private Ownership, Accretion, Reliction, and the “Movable Freehold”

Great Lakes shorelines are dynamic. Water levels rise and fall. Storms reshape beaches. Sand moves. Shorelines erode. Land may gradually build up through accretion or become exposed through reliction.

Michigan courts have used the concept of a “movable freehold” to describe how shoreline ownership can shift with gradual and imperceptible natural changes. In Hilt v Weber, the Michigan Supreme Court recognized that when land gradually accretes or is exposed by reliction, the littoral owner’s rights may follow the changing shoreline.

This concept is important because Great Lakes properties often include descriptions tied to meander lines, water’s edge, government survey lines, or older patent descriptions. A meander line is not always the same as the actual boundary. In many cases, it was used as a surveying tool to approximate the shoreline and calculate acreage, not to establish a fixed ownership boundary forever.

At the same time, Great Lakes shoreline ownership remains subject to the public trust. A private owner may have title or littoral rights in areas affected by accretion or reliction, but those rights may coexist with public-trust rights and regulatory authority.

Klais and Patented Lands

Klais v Danowski, 373 Mich 262; 129 NW2d 414 (1964), illustrates another important Great Lakes concept: the difference between patented and unpatented lands.

In Klais, the Michigan Supreme Court addressed filled land along Lake St. Clair and the State’s claim that the land was part of state-owned submerged bottomlands. The Court held that the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act, as it then read, applied only to unpatented bottomlands belonging to or held in trust by the State, and it ruled in favor of the landowner, emphasizing the significance of patented lands and the property rights traceable to federal patent descriptions.

One important update: shortly after Klais, the Legislature amended the act to extend its regulatory reach to patented lands lying below the natural ordinary high-water mark as well. As a result, the patented or unpatented character of submerged land today often matters more for questions of title and ownership than for whether a state permit is required, since regulatory jurisdiction can reach both.

Klais remains a reminder that Great Lakes shoreline disputes can be highly title-specific. The answer may depend on the original federal patent, legal descriptions, plats, surveys, historical water levels, accretion, reliction, avulsion, fill, and whether the land is patented or unpatented. The point for property owners is simple: do not assume that every Great Lakes bottomland issue is controlled by a single rule. Title history matters.

Local Authority to Regulate Great Lakes Bottomlands

Another important distinction between inland lakes and the Great Lakes involves local government authority.

Michigan townships often regulate inland lake activity through zoning, police-power ordinances, riparian-access regulations, keyhole or funnel-development rules, dock regulations, and related local controls. That authority works in the inland lake context because the regulated riparian land itself lies within the township’s boundaries. See Township of Yankee Springs v Fox, 264 Mich App 604 (2004) (it is the location of the riparian land, not the location of the lake, that determines the township’s authority).

The Great Lakes present a different jurisdictional problem.

Michigan authority has long recognized that township boundaries along the Great Lakes generally do not extend indefinitely into the water. In People v Bouchard, 82 Mich 156 (1890), a prosecution under a liquor-tax statute, the Michigan Supreme Court held that a township organized by reference to government survey lines did not extend beyond the shore line of Saginaw Bay, so the statute did not reach sales made from a vessel anchored offshore. The Court explained that the boundaries of a municipal corporation are fixed by law and do not depend on the fact that owners of land within the limits hold rights appurtenant extending beyond those limits. In other words, the riparian or littoral rights of shoreline owners do not pull the township’s boundary out into the lake. Decades later, the Michigan Supreme Court restated the rule in People v Jondreau, 384 Mich 539 (1971), agreeing that under Michigan law the boundaries of a township do not extend into the Great Lakes.

Two related points reinforce why local regulation of Great Lakes bottomlands is limited. First, the bottomlands of the Great Lakes are owned by the State and held in trust for the public. They are not owned by the adjoining township or by the private upland owner, and they are subject to EGLE’s submerged-lands authority under Part 325. Second, where the Legislature has wanted local units to reach lakeward activity, it has said so by statute. Michigan law gives cities, villages, and townships bordering the Great Lakes limited authority to enforce criminal laws over the water extending up to one-half mile lakeward of their boundary. See MCL 780.51 to 780.52. That kind of specific, limited grant is itself a recognition that the ordinary territorial boundary stops at the shore, the same reasoning the Court used in Bouchard.

If township boundaries generally end at the shoreline, a township may have limited authority to regulate activities occurring lakeward of that point on Great Lakes bottomlands held by the State in public trust. A township may still regulate upland activity within its boundaries, including zoning of private property, access points, parking, noise, and structures on land. But regulating State-owned Great Lakes bottomlands is a different question.

This limit also appears in the statutes that grant local zoning power in the first place. The Michigan Zoning Enabling Act delegates zoning authority only within a local unit’s “zoning jurisdiction,” which the act defines as the area within the unit’s legal boundaries. See MCL 125.3201(1); MCL 125.3102(x). On the Great Lakes, those boundaries run to the ordinary high-water mark, so the delegated zoning power does not reach the State-owned bottomlands beyond it.

This distinction can become important in disputes involving mooring, keyhole or funnel access, private association use, commercial waterfront activity, or the number of boats using a particular shoreline. A regulatory approach that is valid for an inland lake, where riparian owners own the bottomlands, may not apply the same way to the Great Lakes, where the bottomlands belong to the State in public trust.

The practical point is not that local governments lack a role along the Great Lakes. It is that local authority over Great Lakes bottomlands must rest on a valid jurisdictional source. Townships, property owners, developers, and associations should be careful before assuming that an inland lake regulatory model can simply be applied to Great Lakes waters and bottomlands.

What the Public May and May Not Do

The public has important rights along the Great Lakes shoreline, but those rights have limits.

Under Glass, the public may generally walk along the shore lakeward of the ordinary high-water mark. Public-trust rights also protect traditional uses such as navigation, fishing, and hunting.

But the public does not have unlimited rights to use private Great Lakes property. The public generally may not:

• cross private upland property to reach the shore without permission
• use private stairs, decks, lawns, driveways, walkways, or structures
• camp, lounge, or occupy private upland areas
• interfere with the owner’s lawful use of property
• damage vegetation, dunes, fences, or improvements
• leave trash or personal property behind
• create a nuisance
• engage in conduct prohibited by local, state, or federal law

Likewise, a shoreline owner generally may not interfere with lawful public-trust uses below the ordinary high-water mark. Signs, fencing, landscaping, beach grooming, and erosion-control measures should be evaluated carefully if they may restrict public-trust rights or require state permits.

Common Great Lakes Shoreline Disputes

Great Lakes shoreline disputes often arise in several recurring situations.

A member of the public walks along a private beach, and the owner believes the walker is trespassing. A landowner installs a fence, boulders, or landscaping that blocks passage along the shore. A neighbor claims the right to use the beach for sunbathing, picnicking, or launching small watercraft. A property owner wants to install riprap, a seawall, or other shoreline protection after erosion. A local government or association claims control over a beach access point. A township attempts to regulate mooring or funnel access lakeward of the ordinary high-water mark. A buyer discovers that the apparent beach area may be subject to public-trust rights or state permitting requirements. A contractor proposes work below the statutory OHWM without first confirming whether EGLE or federal permits are needed.

Each situation requires careful analysis of the location, ownership documents, physical shoreline conditions, water levels, applicable statutes, local government authority, and the nature of the proposed use.

Practical Guidance for Great Lakes Property Owners

Great Lakes owners should treat shoreline work and access disputes carefully.

Before building, filling, dredging, armoring, grooming, fencing, placing structures, or altering a beach area, owners should determine whether the work is below the statutory or natural ordinary high-water mark and whether EGLE, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or local approvals are required.

Before confronting members of the public walking along the beach, owners should understand the scope of public-trust rights under Glass. A person walking along the shore below the ordinary high-water mark may have a lawful right to be there, even if the dry sand appears to be part of a private parcel.

Before assuming that a local ordinance controls activity lakeward of the shoreline, owners and local officials should evaluate whether the local government has jurisdiction to regulate the specific activity at issue. This is especially important for Great Lakes bottomlands, mooring, docks, funnel use, and other lakeward activities.

Before assuming that a beach area is privately controlled, buyers should review title, surveys, plats, meander lines, prior conveyances, recorded restrictions, and any EGLE bottomland conveyances or permits.

And before relying on a contractor’s view of what is allowed, owners should obtain legal and regulatory guidance. Great Lakes shoreline violations can become expensive quickly, especially if unpermitted work affects public-trust bottomlands, wetlands, dunes, neighboring properties, or public access.

Key Takeaways

Great Lakes shoreline law is different from inland-lake riparian law.

The State of Michigan holds Great Lakes bottomlands in trust for public use, including navigation, fishing, hunting, and related public-trust rights.

Under Glass v Goeckel, members of the public may generally walk along the Great Lakes shoreline lakeward of the ordinary high-water mark.

The public’s walking right does not include a right to cross private upland property to reach the shore or to use private upland areas as a public park.

Great Lakes shoreline owners retain important private property rights, but those rights are subject to public-trust rights and regulatory authority.

The ordinary high-water mark can refer to different concepts depending on context, including natural field indicators and statutory elevations used under Part 325.

Great Lakes shoreline construction, dredging, filling, seawalls, docks, and long-term bottomland occupations may require EGLE permits, federal approvals, and sometimes a state bottomland conveyance.

Accretion, reliction, erosion, meander lines, and historic patents can significantly affect ownership analysis.

Township boundaries along the Great Lakes generally end at the shoreline, and Great Lakes bottomlands are owned by the State in public trust, so local authority to regulate those bottomlands is limited, unlike inland lakes where riparian owners own the bottomlands.

Great Lakes shoreline disputes are fact-specific and should be evaluated carefully before construction, confrontation, or litigation.

Michigan Great Lakes Shoreline and Public-Trust Disputes

Carey Jaskowski PLC represents property owners, associations, businesses, and other clients in Michigan real estate, water law, riparian-rights, littoral-rights, public-trust, lake-access, easement, zoning, and shoreline disputes.

If you are dealing with a Great Lakes shoreline issue involving public access, beach walking, erosion, shoreline protection, bottomlands, permitting, accretion, reliction, township regulation, mooring, keyhole access, or private ownership, the first step is understanding which legal rules apply to your specific property.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Great Lakes shoreline rights are highly fact-specific, and anyone facing a specific issue should consult qualified legal counsel.