Reader comments
Utah justices rule riverbeds must be open to the public

change in the way we think neede | 6:10 a.m. July 19, 2008

So much for the private property rights of the land owners. With this ruling and the definition of waters of the US, I can gain access to many areas of the state. The landowners are losing any control of the land that they have paid for. This is a great example of judges that are so far removed from the basics they make very poor decisions. It also shows that if you have money you can ï¿½buyï¿½ your way anywhere (get a lawyer). We all need to respect others property and rights.

Ultra Bob | 7:56 a.m. July 19, 2008

As an avid fisherman and hunter, I cheer and applaud this most liberal rulling.

Good Call | 8:14 a.m. July 19, 2008

Good call by the supreme court, lets hope that people using this newly recognized right do so in a manner which will not cause the legislature to want to recind the right.

Good call supreme court.

Comments continue below

Bruce | 9:12 a.m. July 19, 2008

Well, the law here in Montana is a little more enlightened. Our stream access law says that the river bed up to the usual high water mark (and no judge/game warden would dare challenge where that is) is public property....NO fences into the rivers and no private land owners trying to restrict river access.
It works well for everyone and keeps greedy people from the sick idea that they somehow "own" a section of a river or creek.

O.R. Davis | 9:15 a.m. July 19, 2008

That's the best news since sliced bread! Should have been done at Statehood.

just me | 9:19 a.m. July 19, 2008

The ruling just makes sense - plain and simple. Land owner's don't utilize the river beds and users must not harm it or surrounding land. Sensible ruling.

Kev | 9:36 a.m. July 19, 2008

it says rive bottom not shore what are people loosing if some one walks in the river bottom you can not grow crops there tyou cant build a house there and the water above it is public I don't get the problem you have with it

paid for? | 9:37 a.m. July 19, 2008

Many land owners feel they own the river. This clarification brings Utah closer into line with other states on access to rivers.

samhill | 9:50 a.m. July 19, 2008

This seems like a perfectly reasonable ruling. The only reason there is even a question is because the state’s water flows, as it must at times, over private lands.

If there is already a statute stating that citizens are entitled the use of state waters, then it devolves to a question of eminent domain in which, as always in such cases, the state has precedent. Therefore, citizens, while using the waters, are entitled to trespass the private land over which it flows. That does NOT entitle the water users to enter or exit the water on private land.

The really tricky cases in these kind of water/land disputes, especially when the river is described as a boundary to property, is when the course of the river changes.

Old fisher man | 9:53 a.m. July 19, 2008

This is a great ruling. Many other states have similar rulings. Why should a property owner be able to limit who uses the public waters?
Of course this does not allow any one to cross private property to reach the water with out permission.

Croc | 9:58 a.m. July 19, 2008

This ruling is common sense. If you do damage to a landowner, then yes, that is bad. But if you don't, then there is no problem. This is not a decision that will suddenly allow people to make claims to land or usurp ownership. Thanks Supreme Court for clarifying what is public and what is private. This makes both parties safer and more secure.

Ing | 9:59 a.m. July 19, 2008

What this goes to show is that the law was applied fairly. It makes sense to me that someone who owns part of the land over which a river flows can't bar people from traveling the river or stepping on the bottom of it--the water doesn't originate in their property, just flows through it, and owning part of the land the river flows over doesn't give someone the right to prevent people from using the river.

To me, this seems similar to the law Oregon has with their beaches; nobody owns access to the beaches. You can have private property on (or next to) the beach, but the beach itself has to remain open to the public. It's a good ruling that will help keep property owners from unfairly locking the public out of areas that should be accessible.

Mahonri | 10:29 a.m. July 19, 2008

Of course they ruled this way. Any other way is asinine. Public lands and watercourses are open to the PUBLIC. Now prosecute those like the Provo Canyon folk who string barbed wire fencing across the river at neck height.
Also, get the Legislature to pass laws that ALL private property owners are free from liability to all who come on their land, invited or uninvited, absent a deliberate attempt by the landowner to harm them. The public has a right to be on streams and whatnot but it should be 100% AT YOUR OWN RISK. No landowner should be liable when some fool falls down, drowns, or goes into an 'abandoned' building or gets run over by a horse or cow.

For Free Access | 10:57 a.m. July 19, 2008

I am delighted that the Utah Supreme Court ruled in favor of free access. The greedy property owners do not own the river and were out of line in fencing the river. In Hawaii, there is free access to all beaches and property owners cannot put up fences.

Moriancumer | 11:04 a.m. July 19, 2008

We already have the UTAH LANDOWNER LIABILITY LAW which gives landowners 100% protection against liability if they don't charge admission to their land.

Best | 11:25 a.m. July 19, 2008

news I've heard in a while!

Good Call | 11:47 a.m. July 19, 2008

Not everyone is rich enough to be able to afford nice things. Its good the state recognizes this and allows regular people to enjoy nature.

This said, if people are not respectful or damage property, they ought to be sued by the land owner.

Fairness needs to be on both sides.

NICK | 12:58 p.m. July 19, 2008

I agree with the Montana law that Bruce has written about! I am excited!

Jeanine | 1:30 p.m. July 19, 2008

Dear change in the way we think. The major rivers, streams, and lakes belong to the people of this state. No private property owner has the right to close off access to public waterways. You may own the land, but you do not own the public waterway. That's why they are called public waterways. If you own a piece of oceanfront property does not mean you own the ocean!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Utah | 2:16 p.m. July 19, 2008

Quite clear you have a Justice Court Judge that should know State Laws. The Utah State Constitution says to be a Judge, He must know the LAW
Ok Federal Water Way where water reaches the Ocean at some point in time
However the water ways are protected for the public use, At every roadway should be room for the public to cross land to the river say at the Bridge
Most roads have a public right of way
Short of cutting a fence is not damages.
Then you have a ding dong Cop that arrested someone for tresspass in a BOAT in public waters is a cop that does not know all the laws as well
Let's start with Civil Liberties
How about the Prosecutor that did no investigation of the matter and prosecuted ?????
It is sad Utah is 100 years behind the times and the Supreme Court still has not made a decision on so many things, How about some common sence
You can not trust the Justice Courts or the District Court when the Prosecutor does not do his duty.
He is the deciding factor in the prosecution.
He will ruin your life

Louis E. | 2:40 p.m. July 19, 2008

This is socialism.The right to PRIVATE waters must be protected against government confiscation in the name of "the people".No one can own land from which he can not exclude the uninvited.If you own a stream in Utah,it's time to surround it with concrete walls.

RBC | 3:57 p.m. July 19, 2008

I agree with this ruling. How can the public own water without being able to access what they own? To me it's no different than a public roadway. Public roads exist because ultimately the needs of the many are more important than the desire of the one. My friend lost his entire front yard to a new roadway. He didn't like it, but the need of the public superceded his desire to protect his property. Part of our struggle as citizens in a democracy is the necessity to continualy balance the needs of the public against the desires and rights of the one. One way to look at this ruling is to see it in light of original ownership. It appears the Court held that the public has always owned access rights to the streambed over which thier water flows. So private landowners are not losing a right. Rather the publics right has only now been afirmed.

Dingalings | 6:20 p.m. July 19, 2008

To the people calling this "socialism." A river or a creek is a public thoroughfare. Just as I can't stop people from walking on the sidewalk in front of my house (or in lieu of that, the road) I cannot stop someone from walking or floating down the river behind my house. To quote John Donne: "No man is an island entire unto himself."

True to Form | 7:37 p.m. July 19, 2008

This Supreme court has stayed true to form in their inconsistency. But fortunately on this issue they nailed it. I don't understand the thinking or lack there of coming from some people when it comes to issues. The first post is a prime example.

If he assumes that property owners own the water on their land then reason dictates that the water coming to their land from some other property owner in the mountainous areas from which the water originates should be able to charge the lower property owners for the water or restrict them from touching it at all. And following the same logic, by what right does the higher property owner lay claim to the water that falls from the heavens on his land without compensating the rightful owner of the precipitation which was picked up from another oceanfront property owner.

This letter of the law society is killing the spirit of the law.

The Creator owns it all and we are just stewards over it. The Supreme Court ruled according to the spirit of the law and got it right.

Not socialism | 7:37 p.m. July 19, 2008

Sounds consistent with the law of easements which is hundreds of years old and a fixture of US law from the beginning. Similar rulings have been made in many states

FINALLY | 8:20 p.m. July 19, 2008

This finally brings us to where we should be in Utah. Any landowner who disagrees with this ruling should look up the "Equal Footing Doctrine". This rule, that has always applied basically says that the States cannot sell or give away land held under the Public Trust Doctrine. Instead these lands must always be held for public use and those holdings superseed any title or other landowner rights.

Landowners are still allowed to put up their fences to protect their land but I am glad to see our courts finally put the Public Trust Doctrine back on top. What a grand step in the right direction.

What if? | 9:23 p.m. July 19, 2008

Does this mean that if a river is flooding through my home it is then open to the public to do what every they want?

Yes About Time! | 9:49 p.m. July 19, 2008

This about time that normal folks can enjoy the out doors too and not be pestered by some country vermit.

average joe | 4:39 p.m. July 20, 2008

Change in the way we think said "if you have money you can buy your way anywhere" I agree. I am an average joe, I don't have millions of dollars to buy river front property, maybe he does. But for the rest of us, this ruling gives a chance to enjoy an afternoon of fishing in God's wonderful creation. I agree with others, that we all have a responsibility to care for the lands. It is really annoying when people leave beer cans and trash laying around. So, lets be good neighbors to the land owners, be polite, clean up after yourself, be neighborly, even thank them for taking good care of the land (assuming that they are taking good care of it). Let's all be good stewards. Don't spoil this nice opportunity.
Good job supreme court.

GBM | 11:01 a.m. July 30, 2008

Excellent ruling. To the land owners crying foul...who own land around PUBLIC lakes and streams.. Get over it. I'm taking full advantage of this supreme court ruling tonight in my neighborhood!

K2 | 9:53 a.m. Aug. 2, 2008

Fooling around with Mother Nature; kind of like those who moan when the dwelling they purchase is at the base of a mountain and part of it cascades downward (look up "gravity" in the dictionary) on "their" property. Or recently when the folks in southern Utah moaned because the stream became a swollen river and washed away "their" yards. Learn (dare I say, educate yourself?) more about the earth and its peoples vis-a-vis its nuances rather than just "owning" it. Don't forget about the Native Americans who were overcome by fences and the cavalry to back up the sod busters. They were willing, in most cases, to allow unlimited access to all, But then we had "manifest destiny" which has morphed into modern-day greediness. Lessons learned? Be wary of Mother Nature and her whims and also, be wary of man-made laws that trample upon fairness to all, which includes users and owners. Respectfulness and respect are key elements here - exercise them.

Davy Boy | 8:52 a.m. Aug. 5, 2008

Yeah Baby!
This is a great ruling. All of the greedy landowners beware! I'll be in your backyards armed with a fishing pole, my redneck friends, a video camera, the law, and a case of beer! I look forward to catching the fish you greedy landowners have been hoarding, shooting the ducks and geese floating in where they thought they were protected. If I have a landowner give me any hassle I will make it a point to fish in his backyard every night. I'll bring my floating barbecue pit and a bunch of hotdogs for my friends!
I can't wait to catch more fish. I think I will quit my job and just live on the riverbeds in private backyards. I'll set anchor on my homeade raft and fly my rebel flag.
God bless America and God bless UTah.
Look forward to seeing ya'll landowners in ya'll's backyards!

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.