Flood Plains Lakes Created by the government

[Raye7r]

Old fellow was telling me about several dams and lakes made by the government years ago to help prevent flooding. He stated that they were to remain open to the public as they were built with tax dollars. I know of one in our area, but while looking on google earth, I found a huge lake not far from here. It appears to be about 800 yards by 140 yards. It appears to have 3 good looking gravel roads going too it. The people that live at the access points are just common lower middle class folks, they could have not afforded this. The one fellow I know who lives out there has a no trespassing barricade at his entrance. My question is how do I find out if it is supposed to be open to the public or not. I looked at DNR and could not find anything. Any help from one of you smart guys?

 

[rausch51]

The DNR maintains a list of public access sites. Just google "Indiana DNR where to fish." Its not a perfect resource, but its a good place to get started.

 

[UncleNorby]

Lots of counties have GIS sites that allow you to identify property owners. A lake the size that you mention could easily be private. In such a case, the same laws that apply to dry land apply to the water.

 

[CountryBoy19]

Lots of counties have GIS sites that allow you to identify property owners. A lake the size that you mention could easily be private. In such a case, the same laws that apply to dry land apply to the water.

However, correct me if I'm wrong, if a single part of the shoreline connects with public property (or property you have permission to be on) then the entire body of water is open to use. I.E. Your neighbor has a 400 acre lake but when he damned it off he didn't realize it would flood partially onto your property. You have 1/4 acre of your land that is now part of the lake. Because the shoreline is on your property you have access to the entire body of water but cannot tie off on any of your neighbor's shoreline...

 

[IndyGunworks]

However, correct me if I'm wrong, if a single part of the shoreline connects with public property (or property you have permission to be on) then the entire body of water is open to use. I.E. Your neighbor has a 400 acre lake but when he damned it off he didn't realize it would flood partially onto your property. You have 1/4 acre of your land that is now part of the lake. Because the shoreline is on your property you have access to the entire body of water but cannot tie off on any of your neighbor's shoreline...

I don't believe this is correct, or at least not entirely correct as it may apply differently to still water than moving water.

My example. The property I own out east has a creek that runs through it. I can get in the creek on my property, but just because the water goes onto the neighbors does not mean that I can go there even if I don't touch the shores or bottom. This is because its not been declared "navigable" . Had that been declared navigable, like the blue river is, then as long as where I access it is permissible, I can have access to the whole thing up to the high water mark.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

However, correct me if I'm wrong, if a single part of the shoreline connects with public property (or property you have permission to be on) then the entire body of water is open to use. I.E. Your neighbor has a 400 acre lake but when he damned it off he didn't realize it would flood partially onto your property. You have 1/4 acre of your land that is now part of the lake. Because the shoreline is on your property you have access to the entire body of water but cannot tie off on any of your neighbor's shoreline...

Where I grew up in west Tennessee, there were a number of what we called water shed lakes around. This was Tennessee, so I'm sure the laws were different but it was my understanding the water shed lakes were public property but if the surrounding land owners did not allow access, you were screwed. We were kids back then and some folks had "public" drives, some folks had a deal where you paid a buck to access the ponds on their drives, and some folks would run you off if they caught you on their property.

I don't believe this is correct, or at least not entirely correct as it may apply differently to still water than moving water.

My example. The property I own out east has a creek that runs through it. I can get in the creek on my property, but just because the water goes onto the neighbors does not mean that I can go there even if I don't touch the shores or bottom. This is because its not been declared "navigable" . Had that been declared navigable, like the blue river is, then as long as where I access it is permissible, I can have access to the whole thing up to the high water mark.

There's another thread on this type of discussion that happened last year. There are some rules/laws regarding this, I'll see if I can find that thread.

 

[poppy]

I just wonder if this is a Public Law (P.L. 566) 566 watershed project. This law allowed smaller lakes to be constructed on public or private land for the purpose of flood control. The lead agency to administer this program is the Natural Resources Conservation Service which answers to the Unied States Department of Agriculture. The NRCS is a federal agency. If the lake you found is within the Little Raccoon watershed, it may be one of these structures. You can check with the Little Raccoon Conservancy District as they would be the legal entity that would have maintenance responsibilities if it is in their jurisdiction. A lil google action should get you contact names.

The elected/appointed members are local members within the watershed and are primarily farmers.

Hope this helps.

 

[AGarbers]

I remember being told about a program where the state would build the landowner a private pond but the pond would have to be open for public use for a period of time. When I checked into that many years ago the program had ben cancelled a long time. If that were the case on the lake/pond in question I would think the public period would have been over decades ago.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

This is the thread I was thinking of in that post above.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/break-room/303093-public-right-way-indiana-streams.html

 

[CountryBoy19]

This is the thread I was thinking of in that post above.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/break-room/303093-public-right-way-indiana-streams.html

I read through that... and I read a couple of old IU law documents in their school of law repository...

I have to say "no conclusive evidence to support either side".

There seems to only be a single case in IN history that could have potentially settled this matter but the way it went through the system didn't really settle it.

Landowner 1 (LO1) has large lake that partially spilled onto landowner 2's (LO2) property. LO 2 was anchoring on LO 1's property, and pulling his boats up on the shore of LO 1's property. LO 1 took him to court. LO 2 admits to anchoring his boats and pulling boats onto shore of LO 1's property and gracefully "bows out" from what I understood of the "legaleeze" that was being talked about. The issue of use of the water surface was not discussed. There is, however, a lot of case law on that subject if you expand out to the rest of the US. It seems there is "more" case-law supporting the fact that if the normal high water mark crosses your property then you can use the surface of the water and the resources contained within the water (fishing). Most of that case law does say (to some extent, with some variations) that you cannot use or take from the land that lies beneath the water unless it is on your own property.

There are some states that have gone the other way though. Even a couple that have gone far enough to say you can "fence off" your portion of a private body of water that is held by multiple adjoining land owners.

As far as IN law, I suspect that it will fall in the category of, "if the shore is on your property you have access to the surface of the body of water in it's entirety". That is based upon what is "common" or commonly understood & practiced in Indiana. I have always heard this was the case and have never heard the opposite so I feel as if the courts would fall in the "commonality" side.