## Facts

- John A. Bott owned all of the land surrounding a small inland lake located entirely within his property.
- The lake had no inlet, but it drained through an outlet that connected to a larger lake with many riparian owners and a public access site.
- The outlet was shallow (about two feet at its deepest point), and Bott sought to prevent members of the public from using the outlet to reach his lake.
- Local authorities told Bott he could not block public access, prompting Bott to file suit for a declaratory judgment that his lake and its outlet were non-navigable private waters from which he could exclude the public.
- The trial court ruled for Bott, finding the lake to be a private, non-navigable body of water and permitting Bott to exclude the public.
- In a separate dispute, William and Caroline Nicholas owned property on both sides of a creek whose status was contested.
- The creek connected to a lake at one end that had no public access; testimony showed the creek’s average depth was less than ten inches.
- The Nicholases built a footbridge across the creek that blocked passage by small craft.
- The Nicholases sued certain individuals for trespass and sought a declaration that the creek was private and non-navigable, plus an order stopping others from using it.
- The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (through related proceedings) sought a declaration that the creek was public because it was “boatable” by small craft.
- The trial court in the Nicholas dispute found the creek navigable on the ground that small boats could travel through it.
- The Michigan Supreme Court considered these related disputes together to resolve the proper standard for navigability and the scope of any public right of passage.

## Issues

1. What is the proper Michigan test for determining whether inland waters and connecting creeks are “navigable” in law: the traditional commercial/log-flotation test or a recreational small-craft “boatable” test?
2. If a connecting creek is shallow and cannot float logs, do the public or neighboring owners have a right of passage based solely on small-craft use?
3. May courts expand public use rights in these waters by redefining navigability without affecting settled private property rights and raising constitutional taking concerns?

## Decision

- The court kept Michigan’s traditional log-flotation (commercial capacity) test for navigability and rejected a “boatable for recreation” standard.
- Applying that test, the court concluded the shallow connecting waters at issue were not navigable in law, so they were private as against the general public.
- The court upheld the result in Bott that treated Bott’s lake (and the connecting outlet) as private waters from which the public could be excluded.
- The court rejected the Nicholas trial court’s ruling that “boatability” by small craft, standing alone, makes a creek navigable and open to public passage.
- The court reaffirmed prior Michigan property-water doctrines, including that a single owner surrounding a small, inland, dead-end lake may have exclusive use rights even where there is a water connection to other waters, consistent with earlier precedent.

## Legal Principles

- In Michigan, a waterway is “navigable in law” only if it is capable of commercial use, historically measured by whether it can float logs (Moore v. Sanborne); recreational small-craft use alone does not satisfy this standard.
- Riparian or littoral title generally extends to the center (thread) of non-navigable waters, subject only to a limited public servitude on waters that meet the commercial/log-flotation standard.
- The public servitude recognized by Michigan decisions is limited; prior cases had treated fishing as a recreational use incident to the servitude, not general pleasure boating on waters that are not commercially navigable.
- Longstanding Michigan decisions defining riparian/littoral rights and the public servitude are treated as “rules of property,” and the court applies stare decisis strongly because owners have long relied on those rules in acquiring and using land.
- A judicial change that converts previously private waters into waters open to public travel and recreation can significantly impair settled property rights and may amount to a taking that requires compensation, making broad changes better suited to legislative action.
- Michigan precedent also recognizes that, in certain settings, a small inland lake entirely surrounded by one owner may remain subject to that owner’s exclusive use despite a water connection, reflecting limits on any claimed access right through connected waters.

## Conclusion

Bott held that Michigan determines navigability by commercial capacity (the log-flotation test), not by whether small recreational craft can pass, and that shallow connecting outlets/creeks failing that test remain private waters; the court also treated these doctrines as settled property rules and warned that expanding public passage rights by judicial redefinition could impair established ownership rights and raise taking problems.


Bott v. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 415 Mich. 45, 327 N.W.2d 838 (1982)