¶ 43. {concurring). I agree with the majority opinion that the case should be remanded to the circuit court. The language in the deed creating the easement is silent about the purpose and scope of the easement, leaving a factual dispute that warrants further proceedings.
¶ 44. The majority remands the matter to the circuit court because "it is not clear from the deed whether the parties intended the easement holder to have riparian rights, including the right to construct and maintain a pier." Majority op., ¶ 41.
¶ 45. In my view, the focus on remand should be not on whether the easement grants riparian rights, but on determining what rights or interests the easement was intended to grant. An easement expressly granted by deed conveys only those rights or interests that the parties intended to convey.1 I would therefore remand the matter for the circuit court to ascertain what rights or interests the easement was intended to convey and specifically whether the right to install and maintain a pier was intended. The majority opinion at ¶ 2 and passim focuses on the bundle of riparian rights rather than on the intent of the parties. The majority opinion (¶ 2) states: "This case presents the following issues: (1) whether this lakefront easement, created by a deed that is otherwise silent as to the easement's use and purpose, grants riparian rights, including the right to construct and maintain a pier . . . ."
¶ 46. The circuit court declared that the easement "is a lake access easement which allows [the Konnekers] access to the lake including the right to construct a pier upon that easement." The Konnekers' brief here asks *297this court to "reinstate the trial court's Order and Judgment granting summary judgment. ..
¶ 47. An easement conveyed to a non-riparian owner [the Konnekers] does not confer riparian ownership to the non-riparian landowner.2 The easement may convey one, several, or all riparian rights to a non-riparian landowner.3
¶ 48. "Riparian rights" are generally defined by common law. The phrase "riparian rights" is expansive, referring to a vast array of water-related rights. Riparian rights include the right to reasonable use of the waters for domestic, agricultural and recreational purposes; the right to use the shoreline and have access to the waters; the right to any lands formed by accretion or reliction; the right to have water flow to the land without artificial obstruction; the limited right to intrude upon the lake-bed to construct devices for protection from erosion; and the right, "now conditioned by statute," to construct a pier or similar structures in aid of navigation.4
¶ 49. The only mention the Konnekers make of any potential riparian rights other than egress and ingress and the right to install a pier is in arguing that Beyer's Cove is not conducive to various water uses other than boating.5
*298¶ 50. Although the Konnekers' filings refer to "riparian rights" generally, including the right to install a pier,6 their affidavits on the summary judgment motion, their position before the circuit court and their arguments on appeal all center solely on access to the lake and the right to install and maintain a pier. Before the circuit court, the Konnekers' attorney stated that "the question I think for the Court is . .. whether or not as a matter of law it can be determined that that easement contained the riparian right to install and maintain a pier." For a narrative supporting my summary of the record, see majority op., ¶¶ 11-18.
¶ 51. Considering the expansive nature of "riparian rights" and the focused arguments of the Konnekers, I conclude that the proper inquiry for the circuit *299court is to determine what specific rights or interests are included in the terms and purpose of the easement, rather than to state the inquiry broadly as a question of whether the easement conveyed other unspecified riparian rights.
¶ 52. This case is very similar to Wendt v. Blazek, 2001 WI App 91, ¶ 14, 242 Wis. 2d 722, 626 N.W.2d 78, in which the court had to interpret an expressly conveyed lake access easement and review a summary judgment record to determine whether the easement was intended to confer the right to use and maintain a pier. There the court of appeals focused its determination simply on whether "the easement was intended to confer the right to use and maintain the pier." 242 Wis. 2d at 732, ¶ 18.
¶ 53. As presented to this court, the instant case is very similar and I would similarly focus the determination to be made on remand. The majority determines that the parties' competing affidavits have raised a genuine issue of material fact. I agree, but the issue raised centers on the right to install and maintain a pier, not on riparian rights more generally.
¶ 54. For the reasons set forth, I write separately.
¶ 55. I am authorized to state that Justice ANN WALSH BRADLEY joins this opinion.See Hunter v. McDonald, 78 Wis. 2d 338, 343, 254 N.W.2d 282 (1977).
Stoesser v. Shore Drive P'ship, 172 Wis. 2d 660, 669-70, 494 N.W.2d 204 (1993).
Stoesser, 172 Wis. 2d at 668-70. See Wis. Stat. § 30.133 (overruling Stoesser and prohibiting the conveyance of riparian rights effective Apr. 9, 1994, as discussed in ABKA Ltd. P'ship v. DNR, 2002 WI 106, ¶¶ 57-61, 255 Wis. 2d 486, 648 N.W.2d 854).
Stoesser, 172 Wis. 2d at 666 n.2, citing Cassidy v. DNR, 132 Wis. 2d 153, 159, 390 N.W.2d 81 (Ct. App. 1986). See also ABKA Ltd. P'ship v. DNR, 2002 WI 106, ¶ 57, 255 Wis. 2d 486, 648 N.W.2d 854.
In his affidavit in support of his motion for summary *298judgment, Robert Konneker stated: "That Beyer[']s Cove is an access area into Green Lake and consists of large amounts of vegetation. The water at Beyer[']s Cove is not conducive to swimming and there is no beach area for sunbathing. The only use for the access area at the end of the easement at Beyer[']s Cove is to enter Green Lake by boat." The implication appears to be that the Konnekers are not seeking rights other than access to the water and the right to install and maintain a pier.
The Konnekers' Complaint asks for judgment "declaring that [they] have an easement, which include [sic] riparian rights" and "[t]hat with those easement rights, [they] have the right to erect and maintain a pier on said easement."
The Konnekers' motion for summary judgment sought judgment "declaring [their] rights as easement holders to have unobstructed access to Beyer's Cove on Green Lake including the right to install and maintain a pier"
The Konnekers' brief in support of their motion for summary judgment argued for judgment "declaring their interest and rights as lake access easement holders; specifically their right to install, use and maintain a pier" at the end of the easement.