Michigan riparian rights give a waterfront owner the ability to make reasonable use of the lake, river, or stream bordering the property, ownership of the submerged land out to the ordinary high-water mark on inland waters, and a shoreline that in many places is open to public use below that mark. Those rights come with real limits. Michigan’s common-law “reasonable use” doctrine keeps any one owner from dominating shared water, and Part 301 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA) requires permits for most physical changes at the water’s edge, with penalties reaching $10,000 per day for violations.
What Counts as Reasonable Use
Michigan’s riparian framework rests on a simple rule with a demanding application: you can use the water next to your land as long as your use doesn’t unreasonably interfere with other owners doing the same. The Michigan Supreme Court cemented this standard in Thompson v. Enz (1967), a dispute over artificial canals that would have expanded one owner’s Gun Lake frontage by roughly 800 percent.
Courts weigh three groups of factors. The waterbody itself comes first: its size, character, and natural condition. A large lake absorbs uses that would overwhelm a small stream. Next, the proposed use: its type, extent, necessity, and effect on water quantity, quality, and level. Finally, the benefit to the owner proposing the use is weighed against the harm to others. The Thompson court rejected the canal project partly because it would have added roughly 3,000 acres of drainage to the lake and permanently altered the shoreline character for neighboring owners. A 1971 follow-up decision confirmed reasonable use as the controlling rule in Michigan.
In practice this means no single owner gets to overwhelm a shared waterbody, and disputes come down to a fact-specific balancing rather than a bright-line rule.
What You Own Beneath the Water
On inland lakes and streams, a Michigan riparian owner generally owns the submerged land, called bottomland, adjacent to the property. MCL 324.30111 confirms that a riparian owner controls any temporarily or periodically exposed bottomland out to the water’s edge wherever it sits on a given day, and can defend that ground against trespass the same way as dry upland.
The critical dividing line is the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM). On the Great Lakes, the OHWM is set by specific elevations in Part 325 of NREPA, referenced to the International Great Lakes Datum of 1985. On inland waters, the natural OHWM is typically identified by physical evidence, such as a change in soil type or the line where shoreline vegetation stops. The two measures don’t always meet at the same spot on the ground.
The OHWM marks where private ownership meets the public trust. Above it, you hold full private rights. Below it on navigable waters, the public holds certain rights described in the next section. Any construction, dredging, or filling below the OHWM on the Great Lakes requires a permit from the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE).
Shorelines shift, and Michigan law recognizes that. When soil gradually builds along your waterfront through accretion, or when water permanently recedes through reliction, the property boundary generally moves with the water’s edge, and you can gain usable land over time. Sudden changes from storms or artificial manipulation don’t carry the same effect, and you cannot build permanent structures on newly exposed bottomland without proper authorization.
What the Public Can Do on Your Waterfront
Michigan’s public trust doctrine preserves the public’s right to use navigable waters for fishing, hunting, boating, and related activities. Two decisions define how far those rights reach.
In Bott v. Commission of Natural Resources (1982), the Michigan Supreme Court adopted a broad test for navigability. Any water capable of being navigated by oar-powered, paddle-powered, or motor-powered small craft is navigable. As long as the public can reach those waters without trespassing on private property, people may boat, fish, and exercise other lawful uses up to the high-water mark. The narrow exception is a truly private lake with no navigable inlet or outlet, completely surrounded by privately owned land with no lawful public access point.
In Glass v. Goeckel (2005), the court held that walking along the Great Lakes shoreline is inherent in traditionally protected public rights of fishing, hunting, and navigation. A person does not interfere with a riparian owner’s property rights by walking lakeward of the ordinary high-water mark. The ruling applies specifically to the Great Lakes, and it means lakefront owners there cannot fence off or block foot traffic below the OHWM.
The practical takeaway is straightforward. You own the waterfront, but on navigable waters your ownership below the OHWM is subject to public use. You cannot block access to the water from public roads, public boat launches, or other lawful access points. On the Great Lakes, you cannot stop people from walking the wet sand below the OHWM.
When You Need a Permit
Most physical changes at the water’s edge require an EGLE permit under Part 301 of NREPA. Under MCL 324.30102, a permit is required before you:
- Dredge or fill bottomland by removing sediment or adding material to the lake or stream bed.
- Build or place structures on bottomland, including permanent docks, piers, seawalls, and boat hoists.
- Construct, expand, or reconfigure a marina serving the public or members for docking recreational watercraft.
- Create, enlarge, or shrink a lake or stream, including digging ponds or channels intended to connect with an existing waterbody within 500 feet of the ordinary high-water mark.
- Interfere with natural water flow through any structural change that alters how water moves through the system.
The Seasonal Dock Exemption Most Owners Rely On
Not every waterfront activity triggers the permit process. MCL 324.30103 exempts several common activities. The most important for residential owners is the seasonal recreational structure exemption: you can place a seasonal dock, pilings, mooring buoys, or other mooring structures on bottomland without a permit, provided the structure is used for private noncommercial recreation and doesn’t unreasonably interfere with other people’s use of the water or water flow. If you previously received a permit for a dock, annual reinstallation of that same dock is also exempt.
Other exemptions include maintaining legally established drains, emergency reconstruction of recently damaged structures, and minor drainage work identified by EGLE rules. The seasonal dock exemption has real limits. If your dock stays in year-round, or if it serves a commercial purpose, the exemption doesn’t apply and you need a permit.
EGLE processes waterfront projects through a joint permit application and categorizes routine, low-impact activities under general permits and minor project categories that streamline review. General permits cover activities similar in nature and causing only minimal environmental impact, don’t ordinarily require a site inspection or public hearing, and are valid for no more than five years. Fees vary by project type and marina size, and the schedule changes, so confirm the current fee with EGLE before you submit.
What Unpermitted Work Costs
Working without a required permit is where riparian owners get into the most expensive trouble. Part 301 gives EGLE and Michigan courts several enforcement tools, and the penalties make retroactive compliance far costlier than applying for the permit in the first place.
EGLE can file a civil action in circuit court to force compliance, stop ongoing violations, or order removal of any unpermitted structure and full restoration of the affected area to its prior condition. The court can also impose civil fines of up to $5,000 per day for each day of violation.
Criminal penalties are harsher. A person who violates Part 301 or the terms of a permit faces misdemeanor charges carrying fines of up to $10,000 per day. Minor offenses carry fines up to $500 per violation. Falsifying information on a permit application is a separate misdemeanor, also punishable by up to $10,000 per day. In emergencies where unpermitted work threatens public health, safety, or natural resources, EGLE’s director can issue an emergency order requiring immediate removal or repair. If the owner fails to comply, the state can do the work and recover the costs.
The restoration requirement is the part that catches people off guard. Removing an unpermitted seawall or dock and returning the shoreline to its natural state can cost far more than the fines. That’s usually where the real financial pain lands.
Federal Permits May Also Apply
Michigan’s permit requirements don’t stand alone. If your property borders waters that qualify as “waters of the United States” under federal law, you may also need a federal permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act before discharging dredged or fill material. That permit is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The federal jurisdictional definition has shifted repeatedly. Following the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Sackett v. EPA, the agencies narrowed it significantly. Certain activities remain exempt from the federal permit requirement even in covered waters, including normal farming and ranching, maintenance of existing structures such as dams and levees, and construction of farm ponds or irrigation ditches. Any work that converts a waterway to a new use, or that impairs water flow or reduces the reach of navigable waters, requires a Section 404 permit regardless of those exemptions. For any significant waterfront project, check both state and federal jurisdiction before starting.
Disclosure When You Sell
Michigan’s Seller Disclosure Act requires sellers of residential property to complete a disclosure statement covering known defects and conditions, and several items apply directly to waterfront property. You must disclose whether you carry flood insurance, whether you know of environmental hazards such as contaminated soil or underground storage tanks, whether the property has experienced flooding, drainage problems, or major damage from water events, and whether there is evidence of water intrusion in basements or crawl spaces.
The legal standard is that sellers must disclose known latent defects a buyer could not reasonably discover through inspection. On riparian property, that can include a history of seasonal flooding not visible during a summer showing, erosion patterns that have been temporarily stabilized, or permit violations for existing waterfront structures. Failing to disclose a known material defect can expose the seller to liability after closing.
One other note for buyers and sellers: waterfront property in a designated Special Flood Hazard Area with a federally backed mortgage requires flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program. Standard homeowners policies do not cover flood damage, regardless of what the flood map says about your parcel.
Resolving Disputes With Neighbors
Disputes between neighboring riparian owners follow predictable patterns. One owner’s dock blocks another’s view or access. A seawall redirects wave action onto a neighbor’s shoreline. Upstream use reduces flow to downstream properties. The reasonable use factors from Thompson v. Enz remain the framework, and courts apply them case by case.
Mediation and arbitration often work better than litigation. A neutral third party helps the owners negotiate, and the process is faster and cheaper than court. Michigan courts sometimes encourage alternative dispute resolution in riparian cases, especially when neighbors will continue to share a shoreline long after the dispute ends.
When cases do go to trial, courts have several tools. An injunction can order a landowner to stop an activity that infringes on another’s rights, or require removal of an offending structure. A declaratory judgment can establish the boundaries of each owner’s rights for future reference, which helps when the underlying question is who owns what rather than who did what wrong. Courts can also award monetary damages to compensate an owner whose rights were violated. Injunctive relief and damages can be combined, so the remedy fits the specific situation.
If you’re facing a dispute, or planning a project that might trigger one, document your shoreline conditions early, check whether the work needs a state or federal permit before you begin, and confirm the location of the ordinary high-water mark on your parcel. Those three steps head off most of the problems that end up in a courtroom.