Comments about ‘Landowners get a victory in fight over water access’

Don Peay has made a lot of money using his organization, when there are real wildlife supporters who volunteer their time and money.

This is one of the most bias oneside stories I have ever read. Do you want someone coming into your back yard if you have water running accross your yard. This is what a lot of land owners are facing.

Disturbing lack of balance and/or fact checking in this article. To claim that HB 80 had broad public appeal is misleading. It appealed to anglers, because they got everything they wanted and gave up nothing. Yet property owners had land given away as an easement, with no compensation as required by the Constitution. Grass also doesn't point out that all streams are still accessible by asking permission. Something that has been done for decades. Surprising how the SL Tribune editorial board can get that idea, but a writer here cannot.

Also, McIff's bill was debated at much the same time as Fowlke's. You say 3 hours, but that was just re-introducing a bill that had an amendment that senator's had asked for.

Come on Ray. Is that really the best you can do? The only similarity to health care is the number of misrepresentations in your article. Listening to you explain HB 80 and HB 141 reminded me of listening to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid explain the health care bill.

HB 80 was not a compromise! The only party conceding were the landowners! The supposed compromise was, "I'll come use your property, and I won't even sue you when I hurt myself." You call that a compromise??? Or, "we'll only take your property up to the ordinary high water mark." You call that a compromise?

You also conveniently left out the Utah Constitution, just like the supreme court did, that says "there shall be no taking of private property for public use, without due compensation." Ray, could you please show me where the landowners were compensated for the taking of their private property for public use? No, you can't.

The only comparison between health care and stream bed access is that both health care and the supreme court ruling represent a taking from one group and a handout for the other.

Great job, Ray! Finally a honest piece from the D.News.

WOW... the comments here are less than impressive, half truths and partial facts. These are text book accusations radical conservatives spun and are being spread by their sheeple...baaa?

To claim that the landowners conceded is a shameful lie. The FB wanted wet-boot and 3 feet, which in fact, broadens the scope set by the Utah Supreme Court. OHWM factually narrows the scope set by Conaster, so in fact, is a concession by the public. One of the many.

And please remember, HB-80 was about public water users, not an angler bill.

See you in Court ; )

Unanimous Supreme Court decision overturned - essential nullifying Utah's Judicial Branch of government and, since the governor stands hand-in-hand with the legislature, this turns Utah's supposed-to-be-balanced government into a one-branch tyranny of the legislature.

Land owners keep bringing up the Constitution. The right to use waters is also in there - how conveniently they forget. The land owners can't claim the Constitutional supremacy when they turn around and claim the Constitution wasn't brought up in the 2008 Supreme Court ruling. If the Supreme Court really didn't address it, nobody should claim the Constitution on their side - especially since both sides are represented in the Constitution.

Also, since when has the public been compensated for the taking of the easement to access the rivers? (Which has always existed - and it isn't the river users' fault that some land owners weren't aware of that fact.)

WE WILL PUSH THE DWR TO SHUT OFF ALL FISHING BY FOOT ON UTAH'S PRIVATE WATERS - INCLUDING THAT OF THE LAND OWNER. If the public cannot fully use that which it owns (the water), neither should the land owner.

Kudos Ray! It has happened in other states where access to streams is allowed by court rulings.
The Farm Bureau claims on 5th ammendment are bogus!

Most states had clauses in their constitutions setting up water as a public trust. The concept of landed gentries,lords and kings owning the waters,timber, fish, and game was a concept left behind in Europe!

The LDS arriving here, had their leader Brigham Young comment on avarice forming, and posturing for advantage of controlling resources. In Gordon Hinckleys book, Truth restored: A short history of The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints, Bro. Young is quoted,"There is to be no private ownership of of water, and wood and timber shall be regarded as common property,walk faithfully in light of these laws and you will be a prosperous people."

There are huge returns to our economy from tourism, and related recreational opportunities.

I can't understand why the Farm Bureau and their minions in the legislature and throughout Utah would impede other economies apart from their own especially when this would also negatively effect themselves. I know of few farmers who don't rely on other income outside the farm!