Comments about ‘House re-kills bill that declares streams over private land open’

How difficult is it really to declare a boundary width on each side of a stream?

Controversy will continue? How?

Look, there is a pubic easement in your front yard. Anyone can use it. It is called a sidewalk. But they don't have the right to damage your property. They don't have a right to access the sidewalk by crossing the rest of your yard. They have to stay on the easement as they travel until they reach a point of public access.

Utahans have a right to fish and recreate on Utah's streams and rivers. Anyone who damages property should be charged to the fullest extent of the law. And landowners who string barbed wire across streams, thereby endangering boaters and fisherman's lives can be charged as well.

The way I see HB187 is that up to now it's been an effort to take away rights that the Utah Supreme Court stated, Utahans have always had. I'd suggest that Gov. Huntsman put together a committee of public, landowners, DWR, anglers, stock growers, rafters and so on. And that he charge them with coming up with a bill for next year, that will be a compromise for all involved. Something that defines what stream access means and where it's legal. Can the public access rivers at roadway edges? How about bridges that cross rivers? What trespass is as it relates to rivers. If the line between public and private is the "high water mark", then define what that is so everyone can see it for themselves. And define what happens to anglers AND landowners when they trespass or deny legal access to rivers and streams. In doing so, the public will cease to be suspicious that landowners are just trying to take away their right to access rivers. But at the same time landowners need to forget going back to the old way when they "owned the stream bottom". Those days appear gone.

in montana,a person has to get permission from a landowner or use public access to get on the river, once on the river a person has to stay below the high water mark of the river or stream. above this mark and they are trespassing.
the high water mark law encludes river and streams that pass through all private property and reservation lands. the biggest cause of law suits is using access from a bridge &/or road easements.
this law works good in montana

Fishmontana makes a good point. One of the old fashioned values that made this Country great is wholesome recreation. However, we must not forget the other values: honesty, loyalty, and respect for the property rights of others.

The interesting thing about these comments, thoughtful as they are, is that all of these questions were addressed in Rep. Ferry's bill. As stated in the article, he made an honest attempt to balance the interests based on a work group that had been at the attempt all summer. Maybe it needs another year to find the right balance.

I don't think Rep. Ferry made an honest attempt to balance interests.

That work group that had been working all summer on the issue was done privately and did not include river users. He did not include river users until the very last minute, when he was forced to, due to public outcry, and by then it was too late. The first version of the bill was so favored to land owners that it actually included provisions where PUBLIC rivers could be off limits to river users. The second version of the bill had the same thing, although a little less so.

Land owners deserve to have their voice heard, but so do river users. Very small private stream ought to be off limits, but not larger streams. Idaho's law states that if a log can float down the river then it is usable by the public. That definition has worked well for them, and Utah should adopt it.

To Frontier,
I understand your supporting Rep. Ferry's bill as you view it as an honest attempt at balance. But from the public's perspective look at it this way. The Supreme Court said the public has access to legally accessable rivers and streams. Rep. Ferry wanted to limit the public to just portions of 30--later he made it 40 I guess. So it's not surprising that the public would think "why should I give up access to all in return for just portions of a few"? And that's where Rep. Ferry went wrong. I believe a better approach would be to say "OK the public has access to rivers and streams, if they can get to them without trespassing. Now in what certain cases is that not appropriate". Rep. Ferry's bill came at it backwards with a foregone assumption that the public had no legal right to be in a river, but the legislature will give them that right, however only in these few waters. In my opinion, that's what the public objected to most about HB187. Come at it differently and I think compromise can be found.

The Supreme Court ruled to clarify the waterowner/user's coexisting yet dominant right to *USE of*, rather than *ACCESS to/from*, public waters incidental to recreation over the servient right of private streambed ownership. 187 mistakenly complicated and poorly defined the issue as *ACCESS to/from*, which is off point of the ruling. A new, clean and simple bill further clarifying only the definitions, phrases and other *USE of* clarifications found in the Supremes' ruling is all the difference and compromise that's needed.

As my understanding goes, the rivers belong to the state. If they belong to the state, then we should have a right to use them. However, I have also been a landowner. I never minded people using the streams if they used good sense. I do not think that there is a great conspiracy to lock up all rivers and streams. I realize that we need clarification. I think that the thing that gives ammo to groups that want to restrict access is often the disrespectful indivdual who disturbs livestock, walks through a farmers crops of hay and grain etc. I also believe that there are well meaning individuals that don't know how to cross fields of crops, pastures with livestock or climb over fences without damaging the fences. Granted that their are always selfish indivduals who want to lock everyone out but for no reason but selfishness. But, I think the high water mark to high water mark and define where the public access can take place should work well.