No that isn't what eminent domain was for. It was intended to be used to claim property so that a courthouse or a public school or similar can be constructed on the site. If the courts have ruled that those property rights are valid than how can you claim that Virginia says the river is public? Weren't they Virginia courts? Personally I'd rather see all rivers owned this way. No need to make them public.

What do you mean by "original owners"? I doubt anyone is still alive that originally owned the land when those king's grants were given.

 

Originally Posted by Milo

I think he means deeds passed on to following generations, rather than parcels bought up piecemeal by developers. ymmv

The problem is there should be no difference in the transfer of property rights by inheritence or by purchase. If one owns the fishing rights due to a King's Grant then that right should be transferable. If not then you don't really "own" the fishing rights since ownership implies the right to trade said ownership to another party.

 

Originally Posted by Milo

I think the idea of a King's Grant surviving as a legal concept beyond 4 July 1776 is pretty humourous, myself.

It was guaranteed by statute. Why wouldn't it survive? All land was granted by a King at some point and its not like everyone lost all their property to be doled back out by the government after we got our independence.

 

Originally Posted by Milo

That being the case, why would it not just become private property, rather than property deeded by an overthrown King?

It did. They just use the "King's Grant" as basically a legal term to denote the difference between that and normal property. Note that even if you own the river you must allow "right of way" to waterborne vehicles. That is different than standard property rights.

I don't understand the legal distinction you are trying to make between one who purchases property or one who has it given to him through inheritence. I also don't understand what you mean by "developer's grants". The legislation that you claim came into effect after the King's Grants specifically exempted any property that was already privately owned. The state is supposed to represent the people but you are asking it to pick sides between two groups of people.

 

Except this developer bought the land after the statute

That is irrelevant. That's what you don't understand. If a property included a King's Grant for the waterway on or bordering it then the property includes such a grant no matter how many owners it passes through. There is no difference in transfer of property rights whether it is by exchange or by inheritence.

 

How is ANY of that section of the river, that we as taxpayers have paid to increase the recreational use of, going to survive any landowner being able to make claim to the bed of the river and the fish in it?

It will survive if those who own it want it to survive. Can't see those with these fishing rights and such not protecting their property just as they would if it was land.

 

The taxpayer of Virginia has paid for many works that have improved this section of the river. As I said before, most importantly the dam, but also boat landings and riverside parks.

That's the fault of the taxpayers for not making sure it wasn't private property prior to making improvements on it. If I find some land somewhere and build a house on it that doesn't mean the land becomes mine if it was already owned. That just means I'm a dumbass for improving someone else's land.

 

Who defends the property rights of Virginian's who by state constitution have the right to fish and wade it?

Your state Constitution says this:

 

The people have a right to hunt, fish, and harvest game, subject to such regulations and restrictions as the General Assembly may prescribe by general law.

The relevant statute says this:

 

All the beds of the bays, rivers, creeks, and the shores of the sea within the jurisdiction of this Commonwealth, and not conveyed by special grant or compact according to law, shall continue and remain the property of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and may be used as common by all the people of the State for the purpose of fishing and fowling...

Looks to me like the people claiming ownership have a good case.

 

Originally Posted by cdmalgee

not the answer I wanted.

and by the area surviving, I meant the majority of the area continuing to be accessible to fisherman to both fish from our canoes and kayaks and wading. I'm sure the river will be maintained by any private owner. I have a hard time swallowing that a large portion that was previously considered public land (as shown by the Va Dept of game and fisheries), will now be considered private water; and how that opens up much of this section to continued and increased claims by land owners.

If people are smart what they will do is form some form of corporation or co-op or something to sell fishing rights. Just because it will be private waters doesn't mean you won't be able to fish. It just means instead of needing to be licensed by the state, you'll need to be "licensed" by the property owners. Private owners would also have an incentive to ensure that the rivers don't get overfished or polluted so they don't lose potential income from future fishermen. It isn't necessarily a bad thing. It will just require some adjustments on how business is done. It could quite possibly end up being good for conservation efforts.