On September 14, 2011, a dispute between beachfront property owners and the State of Ohio was resolved after an extensive legal battle. The conflict involved the exact location of where the Lake Erie shoreline began, and who legally possessed the rights to use that specified land.

               The case began in May 2004, when Robert Merrill, a trustee for the Diane N. Merrill Living Trust, the Ohio Lakefront Group, Inc., (a nonprofit corporation representing 7,000 lakefront-property owners) filed a complaint in the Lake County Common Pleas Court defending the position that Lake Erie beachfront property owners hold title to the land "between the high-water mark and the actual legal property defined by their deeds." The high-water mark is considered to be "the line that denotes where public jurisdiction ends under the Clean Water Act for navigable waterways such as most lakes, ponds and rivers."

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers defines the ordinary high-water mark as "that line on the shore established by fluctuations of water often apparent due to a physical line or change in shoreline debris or vegetation."   In 1985, the United States Army Corps of Engineers deemed the area in between the actual water of Lake Erie and the high-water mark to be available for the general public for their use as well as to the state of Ohio for the purposes of commerce, navigation, national defense and international affairs. The complaint made by Merrill also urged the Lake County Common Pleas Court to invalidate ODNR regulations that enforced the state's public trust authority up to the high-water point, which the ODNR identified as 573.4 feet above sea level. This measurement was determined by a survey conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

                Merrill contended that the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) violated the beachfront property owners' rights. The property owners argued that the descriptions of their rightful ownership of land in their deeds implicated their legal possession of the beach land going all the way to the shoreline. Many of their deeds had various descriptions including, to the "low-water mark", "to the water", "to Lake Erie", "to a distance of 290 feet", among others. The beachfront property owners were also contesting the State's attempts to enforce a lease program requiring landowners to pay fees for improvements such as docks or break walls on the property. The National Wildlife Federation and the Ohio Environmental Council then formed an alliance with the State and filed a joint motion for summary judgment against Merril. Seeking summary judgment, the parties asserted that the State holds the lands and waters of Lake Erie in trust for the public to the ordinary high-water mark. They argued it was the State's right to protect this land for both public use and environmental protection.

               After review in 2009, the trial court determined that the boundary of the public-trust territory is "a moveable boundary consisting of the water's edge, which means the most landward place where the lake water actually touches the land at any given time." This ruling would prohibit use of the beach for walking or recreational activities by the public and only allow it to utilize the water for personal use. The ODNR and State of Ohio appealed this ruling and the matter continued to escalate on both sides. Supporters and opponents for both positions rallied together to dispute this long-standing issue.

The case eventually made it to the Ohio Supreme Court for review. 

               The Supreme Court ruled "that the territory of Lake Erie is held in trust for the people of Ohio and extends to the natural shoreline, the line at which the water usually stands when free from disturbing causes." The Fleming Act of 1917, which enabled the State of Ohio and local governments to have improved regulation to encourage the wise use of Lake Erie, inspired the basis for the court's decision. Local communities began issuing submerged land leases to prospective owners wishing to build along the coast of Lake Erie. The passage of this Act was considered a significant addition to Ohio guidelines and marked the first time coastal policies regarding the Lake Erie Public Trust were written into Ohio law.

               This was a huge win for property owners as it implied that their ownership of the land extended to the actual lake water, and not a line made by high tide, or high-water mark. Anything actually submerged by water was property to the State and available for public use. The Court went on to announce that their decision also rested on the notion that "Ohio has always considered property rights to be fundamental" and the court concluded, "the bundle of venerable rights associated with property is strongly protected in the Ohio Constitution".

Informational Articles 

"Most Boomers Don't Have Living Wills"