June 25 , 2003 Testimony

HB 218 Testimony given before the Energy & Environment Committee

By Former State Representative J. Tom Lendrum, PE,   June 25, 2003

Chairman, members of the Committee, I thank you for this opportunity to present testimony for this Bill which concerns Coastal Management and individual Property Rights.

The background for this legislation dates back to my first year in the Legislature, 2000, when I was approached by a group of my constituents advising me that the State of Ohio was confiscating private shoreline property without due process and was then leasing the property back for a rental fee. Quite frankly I thought this was some type of misunderstanding but upon investigation I found the allegations were true.

As a result of the investigation and the work of many good people including the Ohio Lakefront Group chaired by David Carek, PE; HB 583 was entered. Unfortunately the constraints of time did not permit it to get a proper hearing and it died at the end of the session. The Bill before you today is based on HB 583 and I sincerely hope it will meet a better fate.

The situation which we hope you will correct is quite simple. Unlike the Ocean, the great Lakes do not have measurable tidal action. What the Lakes do have however is a Low water mark and a High water mark, the difference between the two is nominally six feet. If the property is on a cliff the ownership of the difference is mute but if the property is on a sloping beach the difference can be large, possibly several hundred feet.

For as far back as we could ascertain lakefront property has been defined from a fixed point on land to THE LOW WATER MARK OF LAKE ERIE. Attached to my testimony you will find a copy of a deed which dates back to the 1800's which clearly defines this limit. Most of the deeds for Lakefront property are so defined.

At some point in the early 1990's when individuals would request permission to improve their property ODNR would lay claim to the land below HIGH WATER MARK, and require the landowner to sign a submerged lands lease for his/her property and lease it back from the State for an annual fee.

This to my mind represents illegal confiscation of private property.

I would comment that the Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction of coastal water below low water mark.   My dealings with them as a Consulting Engineer and as a property owner have always gone well, their requirements have been reasonable and their handling of most matters very efficient.

To show further how this confiscatory process can disrupt the lives of our citizens, you will also find attached a copy of a story from the Sandusky Register telling the problems of Lowell and Janet Knittle. Following a fire which destroyed their boathouse they requested a permit to rebuild and were advised that they no longer owned the property, it now belonged to the State!!!

I find this action by ODNR to be unconscionable, illegal, and certainly not in the best interest of the citizens of the State. During my preparation of the original Bill I attempted to discuss the matter with ODNR but did not receive a valid answer. I strongly urge prompt affirmative action on this Legislation.

An interesting sidelight to this situation might be the effect on property taxes; certainly the loss of shoreline would significantly reduce the value of property on the Lake? Your County Auditor and Treasurer might be interested in the thought!

I will be pleased to attempt to answer any questions you may have and I am certain over the next weeks you will hear further stories abut the actions of the State.

Back to Top

HB 218 Testimony given before the Energy & Environment Committee

By State Representative Timothy Grendell, June 25, 2003

Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to present testimony for HB 218. As former State Representative Tom Lendrum has already given a detailed introduction to the bill, I would like to explain why I have decided to carry this bill for the 125 th GA.

Having established my career as an attorney dealing with property rights, I believe that the situation before us needs to be addressed by the Ohio Legislature. The State of Ohio needs to reaffirm, recognize, and restore property to lakefront property owners. I want to make very clear that HB 218 does NOT change the law to give public property to private owners and it also does NOT diminish ODNR's ability to meet federal coastal management requirements. Rather, it provides that the Coastal Management Office to respect the deeds and property to which lakefront private owners hold title.

I am a long time supporter of the ODNR and will continue to support the many good functions of the ODNR, but I do not agree with their policies regarding this issue. This is not a matter of eminent domain; rather, it is the unfair seizure of land without just compensation. ODNR decided to change the property line to give any property below the High Water Mark to the State of Ohio. It is not exactly clear how the Coastal Management Program has this authority, particularly because it nullifies the landowners' property deeds which define their property as extending to the Low Water Mark. [display] As Tom mentioned, once ODNR "claims" land below the High Water Mark, they force these deed holders to pay a lease to continue use of the land. Essentially, the state has taken lakefront landowner's property and then charged the landowners for using that property. The revenue gained from these leases then pays for the Coastal Management Program.

Property rights must be respected, which is why we need legislation that clearly delineates the property line between the State of Ohio and the deed holders along Lake Erie. The time has come to clarify this issue. With modern survey techniques, we can determine the correct boundary lines and eliminate the current uncertainty. I look forward to working with the Committee on this property rights issue.

Thank you for your attention and I will be happy to answer any questions.

Back to Top

Page updated 1/10/04 ; R.Pindor