Sharlow - those zoning regs apply to use, not ownership interests, unless of course they somehow grant an easement. Regulation of use is differentiated from determination of who owns the land.
Mayo - I don't recall mentioning terrorism anywhere...? I agree that it would be really hard to get a law passed clarifying things, but not impossible. The MSLF would bring in the biggest guns they have, though. I don't think it would be necessary for the state to take title to anything -- the state controls the water until it is removed from the streambed, no? You would know that better than I would. The bed can still be owned by the private citizen. I just want to see the gray area clarified -- a law to say that the use of the river by boaters includes, by necessity, a right to reasonable use of the air above the water. No transfer of title would mean no need to redefine boundaries, so I think that's easy to get around. A law permitting portages would be harder to get, and more likely to invoke a takings issue.
But like I said before, the real stinker is whether you have a privilege to tresspass when you knew beforehand that you would have to portage. Don't know about you, but I don't wanna run the first drop in Four Falls anytime soon, and right now, we are at the good graces of the landowner (a very nice guy, for the record).
Why don't they turn on Bailey so I don't have to think about this stuff????
The landowner DOES NOT own the air above their. The Federal Government owns it and IT IS regulated by the FAA. They maintain absolute eminant domain over it with regard towards hovering, climbing through, and/or transiting.
This does not mean however that you can just take say a helicopter and hover over someone's house. You could do so without violating FAA regs or any trespass laws over their open land, provided you are not endangering their property, buildings, livestock, or people.
Class G Airspace is unregulated all the way down to the ground. That being said, few pilots will fly nape-of-the-earth, it is very risky, especially in mountainous terrain.
The county has absolutely no say in rural areas over airspace. In fact, the only other agencies that can request through the FAA are agencies which deal in issues of national security.
Counties think they can do a lot of things, when in fact they cannot. We are unfortunately or fortunately regulated by the Feds, for good or ill, it's simply a fact of life.
"We have said that the airspace is a public highway. Yet it is obvious that if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run. The principle is recognized when the law gives a remedy in case overhanging structures are erected on adjoining land. [fn]9 The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land. See Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport, 9 Cir., 84 F.2d 755. The fact that he does not occupy it in a physical sense - by the erection of buildings and the like - is not material."
This was the benchmark case as of three years ago, I doubt much has changed, as the case is from 1946 and was still valid law in 2002/3. This is why I say we would benefit from a clarification from the State that the right to float the water in the river includes the right to make reasonable use of the airspace directly above the water. I personally think that this right is implicit in the existing laws, but I'd like to see it explicit.
yo mvhyde!
Thanks for the flight info on the Buzz!!!! It just so happens that a good friend of mine has an experimental airplane and could use info like this if he doesn't already have it.
Hey mvhyde!!!
Jusat read your post on airspace regulations, and it just so happens that a good friend of mine is an experimental airplane pilot. I printed your info on this to give to him (he may already know it but...). Thanks!
re: land owners do not own the air above their land anymore than they own the stream that may flow through their property.
Thanks for the info! It jus so happens that a good friend of mine is an experimental airplane pilot and could use this info (if he already doesn't already know this).
a landowner owns the air above his property for a reasonable space, period.
You can't build on adjoining property and create a structure that extends over your neighbor even if it does not touch his land. That is very old, and very settled law.
I wonder if by floating certain stretches of streams for the past 20 years kayakers haven't created a "prescriptive easement" for such stretches, regardless of property ownership.
Just wanted to say great job on your editorials latenightjoneser and kentv! Too bad the paper chose to print them in the Sunday Pilot....should have been in a one of the weekday issues for more exposure.
Linear Mode
