I belive you are right I have had the same conversation with a certain (Hedland)company regarding fishing to close to a water intake and was told by a ranger that I was within my rights to access this area (but I should have stayed in the boat)I have lokked for information on the net but have not come up with much.

salty

I thought that they only owned the land down to the high tide mark.

found this on the web, I have always believed it is the high tide mark.

http://www.cromer-partners.com.au/

SIMPLY
The following comments are general in nature and are an opinion only.

Where lands are bounded by tidal waters, the common law rule is that the boundary is the mean high-water mark, i.e. the mean of all high tides including the spring and neap high tides taken over a twelve month period. Unless a contrary intention appears, this rule is almost invariably the case - ie a high water mark boundary of a title is understood to be the mean high-water mark at any given point in time. The foreshore (i.e. the shore between mean high-water mark and low-water mark) and the land below low-water mark belong, at common law, to the Crown.

If it is not reasonably practicable to determine an inaccessible or irregular or indeterminant high-water mark, a surveyor may determine the high-water mark approximately by reference to regular or approximately regular curves or to right lines or to any combination of curves and lines. In most instances, it is not necessary to place marks on the mean high-water mark. The description of a boundary by reference to the high water mark is a metes and bounds description indicating an intention rather than a precise spatial location - this means that the visible tide line may not be the mean high water mark boundary line.

High-water mark boundaries may move from time to time, and title boundaries generally move concurrently with “slow and imperceptible” changes of the high water mark so that change is not visible, week to week, month to month, or year to year. However, there are many examples of accretion and erosion which have been held to fall outside the definition of gradual and imperceptible. In A-G v. Reeve (1885), there was evidence that the process of accretion was visible day by day; on some occasions the sea had been observed to recede and acrete by as much as 10 to 12 feet in a single tide. The Court held that the land so formed remained Crown land and did not become part of the land which formerly adjoined the sea. Equally in such circumstances, land eroded from freehold does not become Crown land but remains in the freehold owner. It was held in Pearse v. Boulton (1902) that a sudden increase in land caused by an earthquake which moved the high-water mark out to sea did not constitute accretion. Likewise, avulsion or a sudden and evident change in the course of a river, caused through flooding, did not divest title from the owner deprived of the use of his land on the other side of the resultant new channel of the river: Humphrey v. Burrell (1951). Nor was there any change of riparian boundary in Boyle Concessions Ltd v. Yukon Gold Co. (1917) where a river eroded 30 metres of land, the loss occurring each year at springtime over a period of three years.

If a Crown grant contains a reservation along a foreshore or tidal river (say for example, 30 metres) , the reservation operates as an exception of this strip from the grant and so the landward boundary of that reservation remains at 30 metres from the high-water mark as it was at the date of the grant. Thus, if the high water mark gradually changes position, the land so gained or lost is added to or taken from the reservation; it would not, however, affect the land granted, as the landward boundary is an artificial boundary rather than a riparian boundary. If instead of a reservation the affected parcel is not Crown but freehold, the same principle applies - it is theoretically possible for the high water mark to move inland to such an extent that the land owner, either Crown or private, ends up with no land remaining - ie the sea inundates the whole of the parcel. Of course, in such instances the ocean floor remains in or becomes the Crown, albeit now underwater.

It would appear that the nature of the foreshore adjoining the land in question is such that it is likely to be quite volatile, and may well move significantly in both directions on almost a daily basis, depending upon the direction and intensity of the sea at the time. Almost certainly, any rough weather would result in erosion or avulsion of the high water mark. The case quoted above, A-G v. Reeve, would suggest that in such a circumstance neither the high water mark nor the title boundary is deemed to move, and in fact remains in its mean position. This means that a surveyor when asked to survey the high water mark boundary would do so by determining that position by the best means available and marking that alignment on the ground.

The original title describes the properties as being bounded by, inter alia, High Water Mark, which description means the line of the median high water mark between the spring and neap tides.

Lands Titles Office circular 1/1999 states that the High Water Mark boundary of a property is the line of the medium high tide between the highest tide each lunar month (the spring tides) and the lowest each lunar month (the neap tides) averaged out over the year.

The location of mean high water mark is a matter capable of clear definition, as it has a definite relationship with the Australian Height Datum (AHD) for a given location. For the case in question (Hobart) +0.45 AHD can be considered to be Mean High Water Mark.

It is my opinion that subsequent survey plans incorrectly established the high water mark boundary of the properties. Given this the description of the properties as recorded in the register is based on erroneous and imperfect information. Section 142(1)(b) should be used to rectify the registered description of the boundaries.

Brad

I think it is 15m from the highest tide point or 15m above the 100yr record flood level in rivers. I used to live on the Harvey river and marroners always had access to the land near the river and there was nothing that anyone can do. trying to check.

Cheers

Neels

Need some white out to correct my errosr!!!

Mate

now I think it is 30m. Try calling Peter Joyce at Langate regarding this info, especially if you are talking about a particular property. His number is 9273 7317

Neels

Need some white out to correct my errosr!!!

Brad and for anyone else then land access is as follows;

any station land is generally crown land which the station owner(s) lease (leasehold land).  most lease are for 99 years and WA government will renew current agreement in a few years. leasehold station land is government land; station owners actually pay the government to lease the land. under the lease agreement they are required to comply with certain obligations (wont detail those). there is very limited freehold land as "station land". obviously freehold you need permission. if it is crown then essentially it is government onwned and as a citizen you have access rights. technically the station owner can ask you to leave but you can take/come back in 24 hours. most people just observe the 3 golden rules when accessing station land.

station lands that advertise tresspassers will be prosecuted really have no right to; but it does scare the tourist and keeps them away. i lived in Alice for many years and whenever a station worker approached my car and then saw local plates would just drive off and leave me alone (i never interupt their herds.water. gates etc).

station owners don't have strong ability to deny access as they only lease government land, which does not include coastal waterways. if you own the land freehold then the high tide mark applies.

from my days fishing freshwater we used to use the 7 chain lengths rule. 7 chain lenghts refers to old survey standards (7 meters from memory). the governemnt essentially owners the land surrounding rivers up to 7 chain lenghts either side. whenever a cocky approahed if we were fishing and if he ever told us to leave then we threw this at him and they had no choice but to leave us alone. very few new about it so those that didn't know would leave.

but the aboriginies in NT have know claimed land rights that incorporate the waterways. they own the sea.... still unsure of exact details but they say fishermen should not fret yet. Not an issue in WA though.

my advise to access the water up coastal creeks is;

if you fish coastal creeks on/within station land (crown lands) then as both are government land/waters then you have access rights. if freehold/private land you can access creeks and at least high tide mark (in any tidal section) but should be at least 7 meters from non tidal waterline.

dont let em bluff you...... 

Your almost right for WA, it is actually called State land not crown land
Just got off the phone to the DPI, all water, marine areas etc to 3nm including islands etc are state land and the public has the right to access state land
However, if you pass through a station etc you have to obtain permission from the station
however2.
If you access via the coast you don’t technically access their property as the water access does extend to the high tide mark in all tidal conditions i.e. springs, neaps, so technically if you don’t go ashore (access from the coast) then you are ok

Here are some answeres to some FAQ's

http://www.dpi.wa.gov.au/stateland/15586.asp#recreationalpurposes

Brad,

good quick link, should provide people with a reference. but alas state and crown is one and the same. point 8 from the links says so also. they just use the different type depending on depth of legislation they are refering to (i administer legislation for a Gov department).

just for your info the previous station owner for Mardi station (Fortescue river) used to fly over his station and if he saw any private vehicle on his property he would swoop them with his plane and throw rocks and bricks from his plane onto the car.....even threathen with his rifle....he has moved on though

had a squatter once admit to me that he had no right locking gates which gave people access to the sea/creek. I think he said that only Aus Customs had the authority....unless the land was administered by CALM ....

it's the same as stock watering points.....if you look at land titles some exclude fresh water holes....especially if close to a road where the old boys could rest and water their horse. The south west is full of these reserves, its just not talked about for fear of native title....some farmers have applied to dola to have these reserves included into their holdings....

we tried to gain permission to camp on Mundabullangana several years ago - rang with references from other station owners but got a forcefull P.... O..! Rang DOLA and were told we had right of access as it was leasehold but too many issues to make it worthwhile. A clarification would help but perhaps a minor change to the regulations on Pastoral leases could allow limited public access in agreement with the lease holder - say numbers limited at so many per k of coast or creek line with a small fee to cover track repair etc.

there is provision under the land Act for pastural leasee's to suppliment there agribusiness with tourism $$. they just need to get a permit. they could make easy money. maybe suggust it to them next time you call them. economic diversity is in their best interest.....

persoanlly I'm interested to see what the Gov does when the pastural lease is renewed along ningaloo coast in a few years.... see how they divi it up.

had a few conversations with a few lawyers and a few DPI reps over the last few days just for information sake. If you want to access state / crown land through a leasehold or freehold station you must still obtain permission from the leaseholder / freeholder if you pass accross the property. However if you access from the ocean then it is a whole different ball game, because technically you dont access there property you can gain access to those rivers / creeks as long as they dont form parts of the waterboard up to 40meters landward side of the high water mark. The high water mark is that of the highest spring tide, sweet, i'm going in!

40 m is way enough for a pretty decent camp.

Neels

Ps what do you think about jays Twinfisher

Need some white out to correct my errosr!!! See what i MEaaan

You can understand station owners getting angry about tourist......some people have no idea about how harsh the environment can be and over estimate their's and their  vehicle abilities .....they then get stuck or breakdown, seeking assistance from the squatters....

one place I worked on years ago (1980's) charged $100 for a tow out....that was in the days a tin of baccie cost $5.00 and a stubbie of Swan Gold $1.20