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

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 �buy� your way anywhere (get a lawyer). We all need to respect others property and rights.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

news I've heard in a while!

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.

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

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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