Opinion ID: 1688969
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: were stewart's riparian rights violated by the actions of the secretary of state and the hoovers?

Text: ¶ 19. Stewart asserts that the Hoovers' construction of the pier and the State's assertion of ownership of the subject property violated his riparian rights. However, he is in error in asserting that riparian rights have been violated. Riparian is defined as Belonging or relating to the bank of a river or stream; of or on the bank. Land lying beyond the natural watershed of a stream is not riparian. The term is sometimes used as relating to the shore of the sea or other tidal water, or of a lake or other considerable body of water not having the character of a watercourse. But this is not accurate. The proper word to be employed in such connections is  littoral.  Black's Law Dictionary 1327 (6th ed.1990)(emphasis added). Littoral rights are those [r]ights concerning properties abutting an ocean, sea or lake rather than a river or stream (riparian). Littoral rights are usually concerned with the use and enjoyment of the shore. Watts v. Lawrence, 703 So.2d 236, 238 (Miss.1997) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 934). The rights at issue in this case are littoral rights. ¶ 20. In Watts, the plaintiff, Watts, was an adjoining landowner of the defendants, the Lawrences. 703 So.2d at 236. The Lawrences constructed a pier and planned to construct a boathouse at the end of it. Id. at 237. The Bureau of Marine Resources, the state agency responsible for wetlands regulation, granted the Lawrences a permit to construct the boathouse. Id. Watts had no problem with the pier but argued that the boathouse should not be constructed because the Lawrences had no littoral rights. Id. ¶ 21. We held that littoral rights are not property rights per se, but are merely licenses or privileges. Id. at 238 (citing Mississippi State Highway Comm'n v. Gilich, 609 So.2d 367, 375 (Miss.1992)). Once the Lawrences had established their littoral rights by obtaining their permit, authority was vested by the Legislature in the Bureau of Marine Resources to administrate all activity associated with those rights. Id. at 238. We expressly stated that the construction of the boathouse by the Lawrences was subject only to regulation by BMR. The Lawrences received a permit to build their boathouse in accordance to certain specifications and adhered to it. Id. Such being the case, we affirmed the chancellor's finding that the Lawrences had littoral rights. Id. ¶ 22. Since we are of the opinion that the subject property in this case which is beyond the calls of the Hoovers' deed is public trust tidelands, their property abutted public property. Just like in Watts, the Hoovers obtained the requisite permits from the Bureau of Marine Resources, therefore, the Hoovers, and not Stewart, have littoral rights to the subject property.