Balance property rights, recreation

J. Duke Edwards (My View, March 5) fails to recognize important facts and principles in the Conatser ruling. The 2008 Utah Supreme Court's decision came as a shock to property owners whose lands had been protected for more than 100 years. The court decreed recreational easement on private property established a burden on landowners that lacked historical foundation and has adversely affected landowners across our state.

Article I Section 22 of the Utah Constitution says, "Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation."

The Supreme Court noted its decision places a burden on landowners when it admonished anglers and other recreation interests that their injury to private property interests should be no "greater than necessary for the effective public enjoyment" of the easement. The result is clear; the property owners are expected to absorb some undefined level of public injury related to the court-decreed recreational easement. This interpretation is difficult to understand and even more difficult to defend under the "no damage" provisions of our Constitution.

For nearly two years landowners have been looking to the Legislature for some remedy to a court decree that has led to trespass, escalating disregard for private property rights and declining property values.

House Bill 141, Recreational Use of Public Water on Private Land, provides constitutional protection to landowners while recognizing legitimate recreational easements do exist on some non-navigable Utah streams based on historical use. Similar to current Utah statutes establishing road and irrigation ditch easements, HB141 incorporates reasonable and sound principles for establishing recreational easements on Utah's non-navigable, privately owned streambeds.

More than 75 percent of Utah is government owned and open to public access. More than 17,000 miles of streams are open and available for recreating. In this open access setting, policy makers must be careful of excessive entitlement and needs to defend Constitution protections on our limited private property. Approximately 5,000 miles of non-navigable streams cross Utah's farms and ranches.

Many of these waters do not even sustain fish. On the other hand, there are some great fisheries on private property, because landowners at personal expense have developed fish habitat.

The court noted that the water belongs to the citizens, but the court failed to recognize that farmers, ranchers, municipalities and others obtained their water rights in the marketplace. Over time, they have had to purchase their water rights and prove that they can put their water to beneficial use.