Pierrepont Pond

Today while fishing Pierrepont Pond in Ridgefield. A guy came out of his house. And told me that where I was fishing on the pond was private property. He said that he was on the pond association. He said that anything past the island was private property. I told him that as far as I knew,the pond is one single pond. Not 2 separate ponds. And as long as I launch legally at the state launch. I have the right to fish the entire pond. Am I correct?

Yup - you're 100% right.

http://www.ct.gov/deep////////cwp/view.asp?q=323792&deepNav_GID=1635

Tell Mr. Pond Association to ... next time.

Years ago, I was on Quassy. As I'm passing a dock, a woman comes out to tell me, along with a wave of her hand, that everything in front of her dock is 'private'.

I ignored her, and fished that area very thorough. That really ticked her off. I got the impression that she was use to getting her way.

I know they used to bust balls when we would fish in front of the beach. Unreal I think you are 100% OK.

You can't fish in a permitted swim area - but really only town swim areas have the proper permits and marker buoys. Everything else is just ignorant yuppies running their mouths.

Should have gotten his name and address and file a complaint under the sportsman harassment law. If the state has a launch there you are fine I believe.

I just searched around a bit and didn't see any kind of restriction on portions of the lake.

Jerry I forgot about that. I'll have that in mind the next time I see him.

I talked to the Deep and it appears the area after the island is private. And was told the Public Trust Doctrine only pertains to Salt Water. But the're still looking onto it. So after fishing this pond for almost 23 years. Now I can't go past the island where most of the fish are. A sad day indeed.

And there is nothing about this in the Angler's Guide or posted at the launch.

I would ignore it if it's not posted or in the guide.

All water is owned by the state. If you launch at a state launch or from private property with permission from that owner then you can go anywhere on the body of water that you can without touching land, the shoreline or the bottom.
Think about the river rules for a moment. A river can flow through private property and you can't fish from shore since you are trespassing or wade the river by standing on the bottom since the bottom is private property but you can float through the private property in a boat as long as you don't touch the shore or anchor on the bottom.
Call the Ridgefield Police dept. and ask if they would issue a ticket for trespassing on that piece of water within the pond and if they would, under what law would you be violating by being in a boat on that water. Ask the same of Encon and see what their answer would be.
Candlewood Lake has nearly 100 parcels of private property under the lake which is owned by a Canadian pension fund and managed by First Light. These parcels were never title transferred when the land was condemned for the hydro facility. They are still to this day privately owned. So can they claim that the water above them is private and you can't boat over it? I don't think so.

I agree with Buck, went through this exercise a couple of years ago querying whether there was an issue with floating a stream/river/pond with posted shorelines. If the land under the water is privately owned, you cannot anchor or otherwise touch bottom. Avoid that and you are free to traverse the waterway. Another facet to this is to inspect the actual property parcels in town records to see if the land under the water is private or public. Tried for Pierrepont Pond but Ridgefield parcels are not available online. Found by examining town property records the Shetucket and Farmington riverbeds are public land, so you can wade or float through posted areas so long as you stay off the edges of posted parcels and enter or exit via public road crossovers.

To me that is insane your floating in a boat and not on anyone’s property and you launched at a state launch. How can a part of a lake be considered private I just don’t understand.
This state really sucks.

Looked at overhead map, also known as Lake Naraneka, it make no sense to me that with a state boat launch on these lake and no mention of private portion in CT DEEP listings, this makes no sense at all. Has anyone in town checked the actual land parcels in town hall to see the actual property lines on a map? Worth a try, many a landowner has assumed ownership of water they do not actually have. With this land title information, someone should press for a formal written ruling on the issue by someone qualified, not just the local constable, and if private CT DEEP references should so note that and if not there should be access to a formal positive ruling anyone can refer to.

The person I talked with at the Deep was Bill Forman. Have at it guys.I told him pretty much what you are saying. And he said that every thing past the island was private.

Well I guess they will have to arrest me to prove it to me then because I WILL be on that end of the lake.
I've been there twice this year with no problems and once was on the weekend.

I did a little research on this topic and the laws differ by state. Some states rule that if you own the bottom of the water body then you control the water too including fishing. Other states rule that the water is in the public domain and owned by the state such that if you can legally get on the water you can go anywhere the water takes you and you are ok as long as you don't touch the bottom if it is private or any of the private shoreline. Ct. was originally a state that granted water rights to whomever owned the land around the water or under the water. This comes from English common laws pre-revolution. Ball Pond Brook originally had its water deeded by the King of England to the lowest standing dam and grist mill on the brook which was down by Candlewood Corners. The other three upstream grist mills had to pay water rights to use the flowing water to run their grist mills. My property is the upper most dam on the brook but I no longer have to pay water rights, lol.
In modern times this issue has come up often and the last ruling that came out of an appeal to the Ct. State Appellate Court says that owning the bottom of the water body does not give you ownership/control over the water itself and therefore fishing is the domain of the state as long as you got on the water legally. Pierrepont Pond has a state boat launch so that settles that issue. The following is a reprint published on the Internet from the Ct. Law Tribune.


"Public Access to Private Lakes?"

"In the first precedent-setting decision on the issue, the Connecticut Appellate Court has adopted the rule that recreational use of a pond or lake has nothing to do with ownership of the underwater land -- and everything to do with owning some part of the shore. If left to stand, a April 27 opinion could give fishing and sports clubs potential new avenues to access privately-owned bodies of water."

By Thomas B. Scheffey | May 03, 2004 at 12:00 AM

In the first precedent-setting decision on the issue, the Connecticut Appellate Court has adopted the rule that recreational use of a pond or lake has nothing to do with ownership of the underwater land — and everything to do with owning some part of the shore.

The April 27 opinion is a victory for Thomas Buccino, who in 1962 purchased an old water-powered thread mill adjacent to Hall’s Pond in Willington. If left to stand, it could also give fishing and sports clubs in Connecticut potential new avenues to access privately-owned bodies of water.

“This decision will come as a surprise to the hundreds and hundreds of private land owners affected,” said Robinson & Cole land-use lawyer Dwight Merriam, who is not involved in the case. “… It’s a far-reaching rule that will have a significant impact.”

Buccino owns the dam that creates Hall’s Pond, but not the land under the pond. The 20-acre body of water lies on a 200-acre parcel of land owned by the locally prominent Becker family, which holds the property as Ace Equipment Sales Inc.

Purchasing the land in 1996, Ace Equipment Sales leased the fishing rights to the Willington Fish and Game Club. Buccino, in turn, extended fishing rights to Hall’s Pond Fly Fishing Club Inc., and Ace sued to have Buccino’s fishermen banned as trespassers, on grounds that the 530 feet of shoreline owned by Buccino does not entitle him to the “riparian rights” of reasonable recreational use.

In 2002, Rockville Superior Court Judge Samuel F. Sferrazza ruled that, regardless of who owned the pond bottom, Buccino was entitled to fishing and boating rights on the whole pond, due to his shoreline ownership.

At the state Appellate Court, former Chief Judge Antoinette L. Dupont, sitting by designation, wrote the majority decision, which adopts the recreation-friendly approach followed in Minnesota, Michigan and Oregon, among other states. But in a strong dissent, Judge Barry R. Schaller argued that the bulk of Connecticut cases have followed the common-law rule, which is “more widely used and produces a more sensible and fair result in situations like the present one.”

Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Illinois, Ohio, Florida and Alabama have held that for non-navigable lakes and ponds, like Hall’s Pond, no riparian rights attach to properties that merely border the water. In 1938, Pennsylvania’s top court proclaimed that a lakefront property owner’s attempt to exercise surface-water rights “by invading the water is as much a trespass as if an unauthorized entry were made upon the dry land of another.”

Schaller’s dissent noted that, after World War II, several western states, where hunting and fishing have become major industries, adopted the “civil law rule” championed by the majority. That rule favors owners of the shore, rather than owners of the underwater land.

“We think that Judge Schaller’s dissent is consistent with the caselaw in this state, and protects private property owners,” said Farmington lawyer Kirk D. Tavtigian Jr., who represents Ace Equipment Sales. Tavtigian said he plans to request an en banc rehearing of the case.

The majority decision, he noted, leaves many questions unanswered, such as the rights of a private pond or lake owner whose shoreline includes public forest, or roadways. Whether such private lakes would be opened to public use is, at least, a possibility under the ruling.

Robert B. Cohen, of Farmington’s Levy & Droney, represented Buccino on the appellate brief. He said the decision, and its inevitable review on appeal, is bound to stir great interest from landowners, as well as fishing and boating enthusiasts. Buccino’s current counsel is Francis Miniter of Hartford, who could not be reached by press time.

A Massachusetts organization representing pond and lake owners asked to submit an amicus brief in Ace v. Buccino, but were denied by the Appellate Court, Cohen said.

There are over 2,000 lakes and ponds in Connecticut, according to the DEP. Robinson & Cole’s Merriam said, if the case is reheard, the courts should welcome amicus briefs from title companies, utilities and real estate conveyancers, among others.

In his brief, Tavtigian cited s 1965 Wisconsin case that held an “artificial lake located wholly on the property of a single owner is his to use as he sees fit, provided, of course that the use is lawful ….”

The majority opinion relied in part on the Restatement of Torts, Riparian Rights, � 843, which states that a landowner who owns up to, but not under, the water “has a right to use the surface in common with other riparian owners in any way that is not a trespass on the bottom of the water ….”

Some states that trace rights from the lake bottom property lines have authorized fences to divide lakes and ponds. But allowing people to use the surface, so long as they don’t trespass on the bottom, presents problems of its own, making “ingress and egress very difficult,” Schaller noted in his dissent.

I sent a copy of the above post to Bill Foreman.

Thanks George.

I received a reply from Bill Foreman and he gave me some new info I did not find in my search and that had to do with the ruling I posted above that had the decision from the Appellate Court granting whats known as Civil Law interpretation which is "if you can get on the water legally you are free to use the water in its entirety including fishing". As the article above notes, Ct. has been a Common Law state in the past which means "if you own the bottom of a water body you also control the water above and can regulate its use such as fishing". The Appellate Court ruling vacated that definition but a later appeal to the Ct. Supreme Court reinstated the Common Law interpretation in this case. Below is the Supreme Court ruling.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ct-supreme-court/1118225.html

So it remains extremely complicated. If a land owner can prove that he owns a piece of the bottom of a water body, particularly if it is man-made and not navigable, then that owner can control the water above and its fishes. But who knows if the person is telling the truth or if it is true.
You have to go to town hall and look at the records. I can say with some level of confidence that if the lake is natural there is no private ownership of land beneath the waters. Natural lakes were considered the property of the local governments in pre-revolutionary times and deeds were not normally granted though water rights were granted by the King of England.
Navigable waters also may come under the Riparian Rights laws. And then there is the concept of Prescriptive Easement where if the public has common access to waters over private lands unencumbered by the owner of those lands for a period of 15 years or more then there is in evidence a case for Prescriptive Easement. When Mayor Boughton of Danbury unilaterally declared Lake Kenosia to be a Danbury Reservoir and no one could ice fish there anymore which happened about five years ago I wrote him telling him he could not do this because Lake Kenosia was not a lake but an Ox-Bow in the Still River and it was an undeeded piece of land that Danbury did not own and in any case, public access through a state boat launch and 300 years of common access had established a Prescriptive Easement over Lake Kenosia and it was not his to confiscate. Ice fishing resumed after that. See Prescriptive Easement below.

"In Connecticut, there- fore, a prescriptive easement is established by proving an open, visible, continuous and uninterrupted use for fifteen years made under a claim of right.'' ... an easement by implication may arise based on the actions of adjoining property owners. . . .Jun 10, 2008
Sanders v. Dias - Connecticut Judicial Branch"
https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP108/108AP291.pdf

So it is complicated and in these situations it probably goes no further than a jawboning episode unless the fisherman wants to take the time to check the town hall plot plan records to see if the bottom of that portion of the water body is actually deeded and private with an owner's name.

I agree, the only reasonable path forward is to next look at those land deeds. I have done this online in several towns and have found both public domain watercourses and ponds and private deeded watercourses and ponds. So who is going to town hall? I would go just out of curiosity but I live at a great distance. Step lightly if you do, some politically connected landowners have considerable local political clout, we want a state government ruling, not a town ruling or opinion.