Originally Posted by ChemEAngler
I believe that there was a similar discussion regarding Little River in Townsend, and Byron stated that in Townsend some property owner's do actually own the river bottom.
I don't see how this amendment affects a set of laws regarding property ownership, those of which are completely unrelated.
The deeds may in fact state that the property line goes to the middle of the stream. In the Murfreesboro case I posted above, the courts ruled that the deeds description didn't matter, because the land in question was on the Stone's river, and was declared navigable, just as LR from elkmont on down has been, and thus the stream to the high water mark belonged to the public. The issue in the case was the city was purchasing a strip of land along the river for a greenway, the owner wanted to be paid for the acreage of the land + 1/2 the river, but the city said the river wasn't his to sell and the courts agreed.
The main issue when dealing with this is that even when the law is on your side, it may require going to court to prove it. And I doubt anyone wants that hassle. I think the real issue with regard to the property intent of the amendment is hunting. It is saying that even though you have the right to hunt, you can't just hunt on anyone's private property.