Reader comments
Utah justices rule riverbeds must be open to the public
32 comments | Read story
Get today's headlines via email
Good morning edition
Deseret News Family Deals
In News
Across Site
- Colliding causes: Gay rights and...
- Woman charged in Rasmussen death...
- Photos: Salt Lake Main Library...
- Powells, Coxes put differences aside...
- Amendments to gutted sex education...
- Requests to alter online news...
- Salt Lake City celebrates 2002...
- 'Wicked' tickets on sale May 11
- Sweethearts in real life also share...
- Despite data, Lyme disease sufferers...
In News
Across Site
- Powells, Coxes put differences aside...
- Colliding causes: Gay rights and...
- View live stream of services for...
- Focus returns to Powell children today
- Battling misconceptions: Faced with...
- Father-in-law dragged deeper into...
- Josh Powell had 'incestuous' images...
- LDS bishop ordered to stand trial for...
- Committee will explore new '22...
- Romney's 'Horrible Tuesday' signals...
In News
Across Site
- Prop. 8 declared unconstitutional
181 - LDS Church, others respond to Prop 8
88 - Gay rights and religious liberty
57 - Families at odds over Powell's actions
54 - LDS bishop ordered to stand trial
41 - Utah House blocks Sandstrom bill
39 - Powell call:'I'm afraid for their lives'
33 - Photos: Year of the Dragon
26 - Bill would cut auto safety checks
24 - Should SLC bid again for Olympics?
23







Good call supreme court.
It works well for everyone and keeps greedy people from the sick idea that they somehow "own" a section of a river or creek.
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.
Of course this does not allow any one to cross private property to reach the water with out permission.
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.
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.
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.
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