riparian owner . ...” Id. at 226. Although the riparian owner has the exclusive right to utilize such land while it remains dry, because it once again may become submerged, title remains with the state pursuant to the public trust doctrine. Id. This is so because a riparian owner cannot interfere with the public’s right to the free and unobstructed use of navigable waters for navigation purposes. Id. As the foregoing demonstrates, the Hilt Court placed Michigan riparian law, as it pertains to navigable waters, back in conformity with the common law as it existed in Michigan before the Kavanaugh cases. Courts since then have recognized that under Hilt, a riparian owner has exclusive use of the dry land to the waters’ edge and loses the exclusive right to use that same dry land 0 (1933) (<HOLDING>); Boekeloo v Kuschinski, 117 Mich App 619,
recognizing that in hilt it was held that the boundary line of riparian owners along the great lakes is the waters edge and not the meander line the riparian owner has the right to accretion recognizing under hilt that a riparian owner has use of the land to the waters edge including any new land occurring through accretions or reliction recognizing that hilt held that the riparian owner owns the land beyond the meander line to the edge of the water recognizing a life tenants power to lease not only her present interest in the land she occupies but also a future interest she owns in the same land holding that the owner of the land could not bring a 93a action against a prior owner of the land who was not the seller because there was no business connection between the two parties