Final answer:
The term for an owner living near but not directly on a waterway, to gain access to the water is called the doctrine of necessity. This legal concept can sometimes provide necessary access to resources governed by various rights-based systems formalized in treaties or titles. Issues of eminent domain and fair compensation for property appropriation often come into play.
Step-by-step explanation:
The term for an owner who lives near a waterway but not abutting it, to have access to the water is called doctrine of necessity. This legal principle is sometimes used to grant a right of access to resources like water for landowners whose properties do not directly border a waterway, but who require access to the water for their livelihood or for reasonable use.
Rules governing access to natural resources like waterways can differ widely depending on context and jurisdiction. Some countries strictly regulate access to private property, limiting certain civil liberties, such as freedom of movement. When these laws come into effect, they can restrict the ability to freely move and access certain areas, which can include publicly or privately-owned natural resources. Many rights-based systems are formalized in treaties or titles, which protect tenure and resource access and ensure a stake in governance over these rights.
Controversies may arise when private property is appropriated for public use, such as maintaining navigable waterways, under the rights of eminent domain. Fair compensation and debates over property rights can become central issues in such cases.