maxim, de minimis non curat lex, or that since the riparian owner may lose soil by the action of the water he should have the benefit of any land gained by the same action.” 45 C. J. p. 525. [Hilt, supra at 219-220 (emphasis modified in part).] Hence, under Hilt, a riparian owner has the exclusive right to the use of relicted land subject to only the state’s navigational servitude, and therefore “it has been held that the public has no right of passage over dry land between low and high-water mark but the exclusive use is in t 7; 324 NW2d 104 (1982); Turner Subdivision Prop Owners Ass’n v Schneider, 4 Mich App 388, 391; 144 NW2d 848 (1966) (“Hilt established that a riparian owner owns land between the meander line and the water.”); Nordale v Waxberg, 84 F Supp 1004, 1006 (D Alas, 1949) (<HOLDING>). The Hilt conclusion that a riparian owner has
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 holding after analysis of tiffany and other similar cases that well over a century of common law adjudication has established the riparian owers right to reasonable access holding that petitioners construction of commercial dockage over more than anacreandahalf of public waters  exceeded the reasonable scope of the common law rights it has acquired by virtue of its owership of a small parcel of riparian land