Despite no trespassing signs, many still coming to 'The Cove'

If you are on the water and not on land is it trespassing. Several canals on the Elizabeth, N. Landing, Back Bay and all over the country are posted. If you can't ride on the water in the canal or backwater does that mean when the tide goes out the landowner owns the whole river. Don't think so. I like to think the water is public domain but property is a different story. Even if the canal is man made I'm fishing / floating on public water.

Lores - In Virginia private property extends to the mean low water line. See Section 28.2-1202 of the Code of Virginia.

If these boaters are pulling their boats up onto private property and the property owner doesn't want them there, then he has every right to call the police and have tickets issued. Not sure why that's confusing for some people....

As far as riparian area goes, you can't exclude boaters from riding around in your riparian area. You don't "own" the riparian area adjacent to your property.

Since this is tidal water the owner owns the land to the medium high water mark.

IT doesn't matter if they DUG it out or not!! I am 46 yo, I went there with my parents when I was a kid! Now I have been a proffesional capt for 24 yrs! NEVER, have I seen anyone dig something out into a navagable waterway and still own it, NEVER! IT IS PUBLIC BOTTOM!!!!Pirates Cove in Manteo, dug out the basin put docks in there, they own the docks, slips but they don't own the bottom. That too was was land at one time! VMRC is pushing hard to be sued and I hope they do and get stroked, HARD!

The article is referring to a small island in the waterway/cove next to the I64 high rise bridge. The island is mostly wooded with a narrow strip of sandy beach along the water's edge. People do pull their boats up on the shore, play, bar-b-que and catch the rays. I have driven over the high rise bridge after dark and see the boaters having camp fires on the beach. It is private property and the owner does have the right to post the property. The land is not suitable for development as suggested in an earlier post.

This location is known to be a place where people come to party. Now I'm not one to define how folks should have a good time (within the confines of the law), but anyone who knows anything about that location has heard the stories of wild pot smoking and loud music. Drug use does not lend itself to making responsible decisions on land or on water. Therefore, I am not surprised that litter citations have been issued as well. Someone said, "fight the citations," well o.k., but that sounds a bit like the Beastie Boys "you've gotta fight for your right to Party!" I am amazed that this particular topic has drawn more interest than say the upcoming presidential election. No wonder we get stuck with village idiots from Crawford, Texas as president.

This is about people going on land.

"The Cove" area - are people staying in their boats in the water, or are they actually pulling their boats up onto the shore and getting out of them onto land?

The article doesn't make it clear and where exactly the boaters are "trespassing" makes a difference.

Who wants to swim in the Elizabeth River in the first place? yuck !!

If a boat sinks in the cove, who is responsible for removing it? Is it the responsibility of the private land owner to ensure that it is removed? Or, is it more accurately the responsibility of VMRC because the boat sits on State lands underwater?

Who dug out the cove, or is this a natural part of these waters? Who should be responsible for the bus and construction debris in the woods next to the cove? Should this solid waste be removed from the cove adjecent to state waters?

Who is responsible for allowing dirt roads adjecent to the cove? Does this not cause sediment to runoff into state waterways?

The public has been utlizing the cove for decades and should have a right to access to this area. Here we have a wealthy land owner claiming ownership, but the State looks the other way at the abuse of the land adjecent to the cove!

People will always violate these signs at this cove,have boat,will travel,I can do what I want,its public land,you will hear those comments and more,THIS owner should be decleared free from being sued,just like the city and government protects itself,use at your own risk,and let it ride,its noones business why he owns that land,he bought it,its his,if someone uses it,it will and should be at thier own risk,not the owners,at least in this case.There is only one way to keep people out and off the all too popular spot,and it cant be done legally,so accept the fact that there will always be someone there,just like roaches,they will always be there...........Safe Boating America.....

"What if the current property owner's deed reads to the middle of a river, or seems to surround and include the river? If the physical characteristics of the river are such that it meets the federal test of title navigability, it is public land up to the ordinary high water line. "

Exactly. You can't OWN the river if it's navigable. Private citizens shouldn't 'own' the rivers anyways. You can own a pond, you can own a stream, etc..but large rivers should always belong to the public.

ANYONE who got citations fight them... This is JUST LIKE the article not too long ago about people from North end of VA Beach blcoking public roads and parking spaces in front of their house and not getting into trouble.. The people with money and political pull will always get their way until everyone fights back!!!

Which rivers are owned by the public?
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the bed and banks under all rivers, lakes, and streams that are navigable, for title purposes, are owned by the states, held in trust for the public. Title in this context means ownership. This public-trust ownership extends up to the ordinary high water line, (or ordinary high water mark,) encompassing what is commonly referred to as the submerged and submersible land, as opposed to the upland. This type of navigability is called title navigability.

What if the current property owner's deed reads to the

Someone saying boaters may not float on the water because they own the land under it is like me calling the FAA and telling them to re-direct jets from flying over my yard. STUPID!

For those that ask how can someone own land under water or claim that it is part of the intercoastal waterway; should read and understand Riparian Rights. It's not part of the waterway, it is a borrow pit where sand was mined and floated out on barges to build nearby I-64. The public has no claim to this area and the riparian rights laws protect the land owner.

The article states that the persons were cited for trespassing "on the land." If you are just sitting in your boat on the water, you should be ok. Beach your boat and start a fire, you get a ticket.

You can bet the owner is trying to protect his rights for when he develops the property.

Look what happened to the Sandlers. They were nice enough NOT to fence off their property by the Lesner bridge and allow people to enjoy it. Then when they tried to develop it, they public cried like they owned it.

Its very dangerous for private owners to allow the public to access their property.

As for owning underwater property, a lot of people own property off of Chick's beach. they owned it before it went underwater...

Didn't we have this same thing with the land off Willoghby Spit a while back? I was under the impression - as I'm sure these boaters are - that the waterways of the Commonwealth are public access. The "Cove" is just a little hole off the Dismal Swamp Canal, part of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. How does one "own" the water? And, if they own the land, how does one buy land that is underwater? Old Virginia common law declares that all land under the water belongs to the state, not to an individual.

People act like they just don't care if they are in violation. They want to have a good time, no matter who owns the property, and they get very angry if they are asked to stop. To them I'd ask what they'd do if they came home one day and found me having a bar-b-que in their back yard...using their things. Usually they say, "Well that's different!"....no it's not! I'm sure if someone was seriously injured....that person that was trespassing would sue the pants off the owner of the property......for not having it clearing marked.....as an attractive nuisance!

Could there be a better place to put in a bar/restaurant?

It's kinda' like hunting for deer. They tend to return to areas where they have previously been feeding.

It's a navagable waterway! Please someone tell me how someone can own land underwater and is part of the river!!!!