# River users should know their rights



## NationalRivers

River users should know their rights

Canoeists, kayakers, rafters, fishermen, and other river users should know their rights to use rivers in all fifty states, under federal law. Many lawyers and state government officials claim that public rights on rivers have to be decided by state legislatures or state supreme courts. However, under the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal law is the supreme law of the land, and all the states are bound thereby. The most recent federal court decision on the subject is Atlanta School of Kayaking v. Douglasville County (981 F.Supp. 1469, N.D.Ga.1997). Citing previous U.S. Supreme Court decisions, it confirms that public rights on small, shallow rivers that are navigable in kayaks are constitutional rights, and are a matter of federal law, not state law. The decision is now 17 years old, yet it has not been contradicted by any federal or state court.

River users who want to help spread the word about these rights can download a new free one-page poster or handout, "Public Rights on Rivers in Every State", at nationalrivers.org, and post it on bulletin boards in coffee houses, college campuses, community centers, outdoor equipment stores, and other public places.

The poster-handout is backed up by the new short book, Public Rights on Rivers in Every State and through Federal Lands, which explains the subject in 72 concise pages, with over 200 footnotes citing federal statutes and court decisions. River users can get an inexpensive batch of 5, 10, or 20 copies for holiday gift giving. Sample pages are available at nationalrivers.org.

People who doubt the message of the book can attempt to find federal law that contradicts it, although they will find that there is no such federal law or court decision. Because of the financial and political stakes involved, numerous lawyers and state government officials will continue to claim that public rights on rivers in their state are restricted to only certain large rivers, but such claims are politics, not law. From the time the states ratified the Constitution in 1788, to today, federal law has confirmed that rivers navigable in canoes and similar craft must remain “forever free” to public use, including walking along the beds and banks of rivers through private land while boating or fishing.
---------
Regarding rivers through federal lands such as the Grand Canyon and the Middle Fork of the Salmon, the new book explains why the present noncommercial permit situation on these rivers is unlawful, and how river users can work through local offices of their Congressmen to obtain the permits to which they are lawfully entitled. People who pay to enter the Park Service lottery for Grand Canyon permits year after year, without contacting their Congressman’s local office, are literally funding and supporting the continuation of the present wrongful situation. Rather than persistently applying to the lottery, it would be better for people to persistently work through a constituent caseworker at their Congressman’s local office. Nobody should be paying to enter the lottery, year after year, without also working with their Congressman’s office, to obtain space for their own trip and to help get the present situation corrected.


----------



## QuietHunter

This makes me think of so many questions.

Can you give an example of what a letter to a Congressman might look like regarding the Grand Canyon?
Is there concern that by removing all forms of regulation on the Grand Canyon that everyone with means would be allowed to go?
Does this apply to any other permitted river? Could I, for example have a party of 50 of us head down Lodore in June with no permit and be within my rights as long as we don't camp?


----------



## richp

Hi,

This organization and its representatives periodically post along these lines. They just as periodically stimulate a significant number of Buzzard responses along the following lines.

"While we applaud your goals, if the law was so clear on this point, why has the current status of regulated rivers not been successfully challenged in court?"

And...

"What exactly is your legal status, since there is some reason to question your claimed categorization as a non-profit?"

And predictably, the answers are nebulous, evasive, and/or un-useful in any practical way. The other thing the answers predictably do is point people toward providing financial support for the ongoing activities of the group. 

They may have worthy goals, and everyone is free to make their own decisions on that point. But a lot of Buzzards continue to want clear, crisp answers to the questions QuietHunter and others ask before they sign on unreservedly.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## glenn

Fuck off NationalRivers. You are going to get someone arrested with your third rate bullshit legal advice. When they are arrested you and your organization will not be footing the bill for their legal services. Further when they lose it won't be skin off your back. If you think your legal argument is so air tight go put on the grand canyon without a permit.


----------



## BrianK

As Glenn said following your advice will get people ticketed/arrested (or shot depending on who owns the land). Now as many have said before - you have set forth a good defense for those who get arrested - your argument very well may win the day in court. Given how confident you are in your analysis, I think it only fair, that National Rivers volunteer a legal defense for those arrested following your advice. 

Or better yet - you should practice what you preach. Go out and get arrested while adhering to your framework. As you outline, you have nothing to worry about as you would be arrested under an unconstitutional system. Then, in the subsequent legal matter, you can use your knowledge to establish a legal precedent that invalidates these unconstitutional laws/regulations forever. 

The case you site is a district court case in Georgia. That case has persuasive value in other Federal Courts, but it is not binding precedent that any other courts have to follow. It's a step in the right direction, but it isn't the smoking gun you make it out to be. 

I've said this before: I think your analysis is correct, I think these laws are unconstitutional and should be invalidated upon review, but I don't think the law is any where near as settled as you claim.


----------



## NationalRivers

*Replies to the above*

Whether for the Grand Canyon or Lodore Canyon, it’s not a matter of sending a letter to your Congressman. It’s a matter of making an appointment to go see a constituent caseworker in the nearest office of your Congressman. This step comes _after _you have applied for a permit and been turned down, verified that space is readily available by paying a concessionaire, and appealed to the highest levels of the Park Service. At the appointment, you show your documentation and ask the caseworker to help you get a permit. The goal is not to launch on the river without a permit, but rather to obtain a permit. The goal is also to hold the Park Service accountable for issuing noncommercial permits to people who apply for them, rather than telling people to keep applying to an annual lottery, while access is readily available by paying a concessionaire. The new short book explains this process in detail.

Regarding NOR legal status, it is a nonprofit organization incorporated in the state of Colorado. It had 501(c)(3) status with the IRS from 1978 until a few years ago, when we turned to researching river law rather than publishing. Now that the books on public rights on rivers (short version, long version, and one-page handout) are completed, we will turn our attention to updating the bylaws, assembling a new Board of Directors (consisting of directors from the states where river rights are most disputed), and renewing 501(c)(3) status. If there’s anything else you want to know about it, just say so.

Following NOR advice won’t get people ticketed or arrested, because NOR materials advise river users to educate law enforcement officers, government agency leaders, elected representatives, and riverfront landowners about the public easement, rather than getting ticketed or arrested. The goal is to avoid unnecessary confrontations or arrests. For example, when a riverfront landowner shot a river user on a gravel bar along the Meramec River in Missouri in July 2013, the landowner had previously harassed other river users on a number of occasions. If local river businesses, river users, and law enforcement officers would have advised the landowner that his harassment was unlawful, the shooting would never have occurred. The river user would not be dead, the landowner would not be spending the rest of his life in prison, and the taxpayers would not be spending roughly a million dollars to prosecute and incarcerate him. Preventing these needless situations is the goal of NOR materials.

It’s true that the _Atlanta School of Kayaking_ decision is a federal district court decision from Georgia. It’s also true that there are no federal court decisions from elsewhere that conflict with it, even after 17 years, and it is consistent with over 200 years of U.S. Supreme Court decisions. We are not claiming that state law is settled in every state—if it were, there would be no need for us to publish things on the subject. We are acknowledging that state court decisions in Georgia and a number of other states conflict with federal law. There are also a number of states that require candidates to pass a religious test before they can hold public office. Such laws are “still on the books,” but they are “without effect” because they conflict with federal law, so they cannot be lawfully enforced. (See _Torcaso v. Watkins,_ 367 U.S. 488, 1961.) State laws denying the public easement on rivers that are physically navigable in canoes or kayaks are like that. We are telling river users how to help improve the situation rather than standing by helplessly. NOR materials give river users the background they need to discuss these things intelligently, rather than merely believing what they have heard from landowners, their lawyers, and government agencies.


----------



## richp

Hi,

Well that helps a lot. All that has to happen is for Eric Leaper to personally carry out the instructions outlined in that last post. Then he can report to us on how well it worked to get a permit for the Grand by working through congressional channels. Even if it wasn't Eric, even a single specific example of how this actually worked would do wonders!

And when NOR's web site says, "NOR is a non-profit organization..." it certainly is implying something that may be misinterpreted by casual readers. I seem to recall you've been posting that stock language about having/losing/trying-to-regain your tax-exempt status for a long time. 

As I've said more than once (in response to earlier posts by NOR and its several representatives) I and many others applaud any legitimate strategy that ensures/increases access to our rivers. NOR could -- repeat, could -- be a vehicle to achieve that. But unless and until more persuasive and conclusive evidence presents itself, these posts continue to look more like a fund-raising effort than a practical guide to actual access improvement at the individual boater level.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## soggy_tortillas

Just a copy and paste so that it's attached to both relevant threads... for me, there's just too much left up to interpretation to want to push the matter in the heat of the moment with a disgruntled landowner. Do you really think if I shoved some piece of paper under his nose citing laws that may or may not uphold in court, he'd relent?

So.... this brings me back to my original question. I read the Emmert case, and though it was a while back when I first started this thread, I do remember why I was so confused in the first place. 
How is navigable/non-navigable defined? Navigable by whose standards and by what type of craft? What's navigable in a kayak may or may not be navigable in a raft or fishing boat or whatnot. What's navigable in early Spring may or may not be navigable in late Fall.... You may be able to navigate through a creek that with my set of skill I cannot. So how is this actually defined and how can we make it applicable to our access argument, if indeed we are confronted by an aggressive landowner or law enforcement?
Is there a database of navigable/non-navigable waterways, or is it just something simpleton, non-law-knowing folk like me have to guess on?

The river user that National Rivers cites as being shot in Missouri was shot because he was doing just what you are suggesting we do... pushing the limits. I, for one, do not want to be a dead guinea pig in this experiment.


----------



## upshitscreek

good lord, the delusional, windbag fuckstick is back.

Has the IRS caught up with you yet, dipshit?


----------



## NationalRivers

True, you should not “push that matter in the heat of the moment with a disgruntled landowner.” You should leave and continue down the river. After completing your trip, you should give local law enforcement the poster and short book, and ask them to tell the landowner to stop unlawfully harassing river users. You can also talk with the landowner yourself at some calmer time. If local law enforcement is uncooperative, you should ask your elected representatives to intervene. Such measures would most likely have prevented the Missouri shooting.

What is navigable, for Commerce Clause purposes, is defined by U.S. Supreme Court decisions and other federal decisions. It includes rivers and creeks that are usable by canoes, or kayaks, or logs, or shingle bolts (sections of logs, about a foot in diameter and about two to three feet long). It only needs to be navigable in spring, not fall. There can be numerous portages. If you can reasonably kayak a waterway, it was almost certainly usable to transport shingle bolts in the past, so it is legally navigable under federal law. 

There is no database. It’s something that people can observe for themselves. Rivers that are navigable in fact, by canoes or kayaks or shingle bolts, are navigable in law—they are legally navigable, with no official designation or database registration needed. The new short book cites many federal court decisions confirming these things.

As the profanity indicates, there are people who get furious when public rights on rivers under federal law are defended. Likewise, there were people who got furious when segregation was first outlawed by federal law. The two issues are quite different, but they do have something in common.

I have worked successfully through a constituent caseworker at my Congressman’s local office in the past (in a dispute other than the Grand Canyon), and I plan to do so again. There is no doubt that doing so has real impact. The Park Service does not have magical immunity from Congressional inquiry. People who want to help change the Grand Canyon situation should talk to a constituent caseworker at their Congressman’s local office. They should not wait for a new court decision, nor should they file a lawsuit themselves (unless they have already appealed to the highest levels of the Park Service, and worked through their Congressman’s office, for quite a while). The new short book explains the process in detail.

It does take some time and persistence. It’s not instant gratification. But nobody should be applying to the lottery, year after year, without meeting with a caseworker at their Congressman’s office.

There are many nonprofit organizations that are not 501(c)(3). There’s nothing wrong with that. NOR will be 501(c)(3) again soon enough.

People who want to better inform themselves, and help improve the situation, should join NOR and/or get the new short book, _Public Rights on Rivers in Every State and through Federal Lands._ Those who don’t want to contribute don’t have to—they can still use the poster-handouts, which are free to anyone.

Eric Leaper.


----------



## Andy H.

Even if NOR decided to foot the bill for a test case, one thing to consider is that if the case fails because the architects tried to use a half-baked legal argument, that failure can actually set back the general cause of improving access when the judge nails down the decision so it will be more likely to survive any appeal. I'm not sure but I think Emmert may have worked like this. I've also heard a recent lawsuit challenging the Grand Canyon Management Plan was rebuffed so badly in court and on subsequent appeal that the decision may actually diminish the ability of citizens groups to challenge government agency management decisions in the future.

The analogy I've used before is that it's like NOR wants to marshal the private boating community to charge straight at our adversaries with weapons he's supplying. NOR is offering us sticks and rocks, and telling us our adversary has nerf balls and rubber dart guns. But in actuality, the adversary has 50-caliber machine guns and Howitzers. Would you follow NOR in that charge?

Furthermore, the misinformation NOR is spreading undermines efforts of legitimate river access organizations like AW. Uninformed boaters are lulled into complacently thinking it will be easy to overturn riparian access and trespass laws by simply using the tactics and precedents NOR advocates. At best those uninformed boaters may think we don't need AW or other groups to work for access, at worst uninformed boaters may conclude the inability of legitimate river access organizations to easily win a riparian access panacea means an organization has "sold out private boaters to the outfitters and landowners."

I agree with NOR's goals and their arguments sound great at first blush. What boater or fisherman wouldn't want what they're offering? Yes, Colorado and lots of Western states have screwed up riparian access laws, and we WANT to believe someone can lead us to a promised land easily. We want to believe we can just use these precedents, talk to the Sheriff, that navigable in fact is navigable in law in Colorado, and the other stuff. Unfortunately, merely wanting to believe something doesn't mean it can happen the way NOR is telling us.

A year ago you told us that a review copy had been sent to lawyers in post #8 here. We've been looking forward to hearing the review by people that actually practice law. 

If boaters want to improve river access, support AW, they've been gaining river access for boaters for over a half century. If the tactics NOR advocates worked, AW would take NOR's playbook to court, mine it for the precedents Eric cites, and we'd all be better off. And AW, CW, and other river use advocacy groups have had attorneys who specialize in riparian access working on these issues for a long time - if it was so easy and clear cut, we wouldn't have trespass arrests on the Lower Blue. This whole thing is a diversion from the real issues, which are much more complex than NOR makes out. 

-AH


----------



## NationalRivers

Perhaps the best way to understand the situation is to look at American Whitewater's "Georgia Navigability Report" (American Whitewater - access:ga) There you will find Georgia state law cited, with the conclusion that "public access to waterways for the purposes of fishing, hunting, and boating is a complex issue" because there is "no clear-cut standard for navigability in Georgia." (Note how Andy H. echoes this "complex" claim.)

What you won't find is any mention of the federal court decision in _Atlanta School of Kayaking v. Douglasville County,_ 981 F.Supp 1469 (N.D.Ga.1997), although you can find it elsewhere on the Internet by googling it. That decision confirmed that public rights on shallow rivers and creeks in Georgia "are determined by federal law," not state law.

You also won't find any mention of U.S. Supreme Court decisions confirming that shallow rivers, with portages, that are physically navigable, in canoes and similar craft, are legally navigable for Commerce Clause purposes under federal law, in any state, including Georgia--and Colorado.

So AW has something in common with the landowners and lawyers in Georgia (and Colorado) who oppose public rights on rivers. They both claim that these rights are determined by state law, and in both cases their claims conflict with federal law.

If that's the claim that you want to support, go ahead, but in our view, no river user should be supporting such claims. We hope AW will update its website soon.

Eric Leaper


----------



## paulk

If there is one thing I'm looking for in a nonprofit to support, it is openly bad mouthing an organization that the majority of their donor base supports. That's a recipe for longevity.


----------



## Phil U.

This!



paulk said:


> If there is one thing I'm looking for in a nonprofit to support, it is openly bad mouthing an organization that the majority of their donor base supports. That's a recipe for longevity.


----------



## gunnerman

Unfortunately, this is a case were everyone is right, and where we the people have lost many of our constitutional rights to an ever complex legal system. There are so,so many confusing issues all over the place that it,s no wonder that many law enforcement agencies simply don't know what to do anymore. But in this case I would humbly suggest that we all work together on solutions instead of division. So Eric and NOR, I would simply suggest that all your lawyers get together with all the lawyers at AW and work on a concrete plan as to how to win this battle for the boaters. The biggest problem is going to figure out how to combine federal and state law to get to the desireable outcome. This boating community is going to need a bigtime politician and some bigtime money to win this battle. Maybe, then just maybe we can get some water back in the Dolores River Canyon. Until then, I agree that we just not make foolish choices!!!


----------



## upshitscreek

NationalRivers said:


> ..........not 501(c)(3). There’s nothing wrong with that.


BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And YOU are FUNDRAISING!!!!!!!!!!!!



Not once have you ever made mention here that your donations are NOT tax deductible when you *were* claiming to be a legit, long standing NPO. Just leaving that little turd for the donor and IRS to sort out, eh? And you will happily let someone leave you their estate in their will too, huh?

Any dumbass sending this lying,delusional piece of shit $$$ ....well, a fool and his money are soon parted. No truer saying here.

The asswipe can't even take care of the most basic business let alone accomplish anything that's going to help river users. 40+ years of nothing. 

Send your money to AW.

Go fuck yourself, Eric.


----------



## marko

NationalRivers said:


> What you won't find is any mention of the federal court decision in _Atlanta School of Kayaking v. Douglasville County,_ 981 F.Supp 1469 (N.D.Ga.1997), although you can find it elsewhere on the Internet by googling it. That decision confirmed that public rights on shallow rivers and creeks in Georgia "are determined by federal law," not state law.
> 
> You also won't find any mention of U.S. Supreme Court decisions confirming that shallow rivers, with portages, that are physically navigable, in canoes and similar craft, are legally navigable for Commerce Clause purposes under federal law, in any state, including Georgia--and Colorado.



And, yet, in _PPL Montana v. Montana (2012)_, Chief Justice Roberts stated in regards to the public trust doctrine that "the public trust doctrine *remains a matter of state law*... subject as well to the federal power to regulate vessels and navigation under the Commerce Clause and admiralty power.... Under accepted principles of federalism, *the States retain residual power to determine the scope of the public trust over waters within their borders*, while federal law determines riverbed title under the equal-footing doctrine." (emphasis mine)

The state's residual power that Chief Justice Roberts is speaking about is what is known as the dormant commerce clause - to which I already clearly stated to you last year ==> http://www.mountainbuzz.com/forums/...to-recreate-on-rivers-51020-3.html#post342524 and do not wish to continue discussing with you because you are not interested in hearing anything other than your own voice and selling memberships to your organization.


----------



## restrac2000

This again, huh?

The internet is an awesome tool for discovery. NOR was not just claiming "non-profit" status but 501(c)(3) status through 2013 when they knew that was a defunct claim. Here is the link, from their 2013 rebranded website:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131021041357/http://www.nationalrivers.org/donate-to-nor.html

For those that don't know of it, this is a link from October of 2013 when NOR began posting here on the Buzz. The Wayback Machine is a great tool for catching people in dishonest claims. For someone interested in law it should be obvious that inaccurately claiming a legal status that is easily verified might not be a strategy for developing trust within a community.

But don't forget....Eric Leaper will also provide a free initial consultation to become your paid expert witness, beg for money when he has no rapport in the community and spam your forum so you will visit his site and buy his book. He will also solicit people in his organization to post as random users here to rally support for his ideas (aka sock puppets). And my personal favorite, he will piggyback issues like segregation and Nelson Mandela Day to push his agenda (from their FB site " ‪#‎NelsonMandelaDay‬ ‪#‎ForeverFree‬ ‪#‎RiverAccess‬). You can't say they don't have their fingers on hot button issues.

Buyer Beware....especially for books that have been around for a year and still show no sign of being vetted by reputable third parties not seeking fundraising money.

Phillip


----------



## NationalRivers

Regarding NOR claiming 501(c)(3) status in 2013, that paragraph was copied from the old website, along with many other paragraphs, by the website developers. Once we discovered that it was no longer true, we deleted it. There are many nonprofit organizations that are not 501(c)(3), including lobbying organizations, chambers of commerce, etc. If anyone has a tax problem because of it, we’ll make it right.

Regarding supporting AW, of course it’s fine to support AW generally, but their web pages saying that public rights on navigable rivers are determined by state law are incorrect, and need to be fixed (contrary to Andy’s assertion that they are correct as is). Of course, AW is not alone in this—the websites of other river organizations make similar misstatements.

Regarding working together on solutions, that is the purpose of _Public Rights on Rivers in Every State and through Federal Lands_—to get lawyers, river organization leaders, and river users to read the Supreme Court decisions and discuss their meaning, and work together to restore public rights under federal law, rather than simply believing what they have heard from lawyers who claim that public rights are a matter of state by state discretion. Unfortunately, there is no way to do that without pointing out that the usual claims (about state by state discretion) are wrong.

Regarding _PPL Montana v. Montana_ (2012), that was a Supreme Court decision confirming that states cannot belatedly charge retroactive rent for hydroelectric dams that they approved many decades ago, on the theory that states own riverbeds. The decision was not relevant to public rights to navigate on rivers, which apply “regardless of who owns the riverbed,” as the U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed. If public rights to navigate were based solely on the public trust doctrine, then Marko would be correct that they are determined by state law. However, they are based on the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (and the relevant Supreme Court decisions) so they are determined by federal law, not state law, as federal court decisions have confirmed.

Regarding being interested in Marko’s claims, we are actually quite interested in hearing what he has to say. If anyone can make the case that navigation rights are up to state governments, it’s Marko and the constitutional law scholar he works with. Marko, if you are claiming that the federal court decision in _Atlanta School of Kayaking_ is no longer good law, please explain why. If you are claiming that states can block navigation on some rivers but not others, please explain the dividing line between the two. If you are claiming that Supreme Court decisions about labor relations, or the length of trains, mean that states can deny navigation rights on navigable rivers, please explain how. In other words, please explain how decisions on other subjects, unrelated to rivers, overturn the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions about public rights on navigable rivers, such as _Gibbons v. Ogden, Martin v. Waddell, The Daniel Ball, The Montello, Economy Light and Power, United States v. Appalachian Electric,_ and _Montana v. United States._ Of course we agree that it would be _helpful _for the Colorado legislature to reconfirm public rights, and for the Georgia legislature to do likewise, but if you are claiming that public rights on navigable rivers under federal law are “unresolved,” explain how they went from being commonplace and well confirmed by federal law since the 1700s, then somehow became “unresolved” in recent years. What federal court decision (or Act of Congress) are you citing to support your claim that these rights are now “unresolved” under federal law?

If other readers can cite a relevant federal court decision, or a law journal article or other source, we would be interested in seeing that too. What we have found over the years is that the lawyers who claim that public rights on navigable rivers are up to state governments are simply hoping that their audiences are unaware of federal law on the subject (as most audiences are). Once you point out to them that federal law confirms public rights even on steep creeks with portages, they can no longer defend their claim of state by state discretion. Even so, we are always open to review such claims yet again, so if you have anything along those lines, just post it.


----------



## richp

Hi,

The solution to this is so simple -- it defies explanation as to why such a dedicated person as Eric Leaper hasn't used it.

Eric, personally apply for a GC permit, and tell us that in real time. If you're denied, go to your Member of Congress and seek help there to get a permit issued. Again, update us at every stage of that maneuver. If you are granted a permit through that method, you may have shown a possible avenue for others to get permits. (Or, you may not prevail, and stimulate unforeseen adverse consequences.)

However, let's suppose you are unable to get a permit in the way you so confidently urge others to use. Then Plan B is available, and simple for you to deploy. Using the legal theories you equally confidently proclaim here and elsewhere, initiate litigation. Tell us about that as well, and keep us updated as it proceeds to a conclusion. (And in doing all this, beware of the possibility of achieving a court decision that strengthens -- not diminishes -- agency discretion in managing rivers.)

In other words, put up or shut up. With the exception of us awaiting the (long-pending) book review by independent legal experts, the rest of this is just a re-hash of a re-hash from past Buzz discussions. 

(Eric, for the life of me, I don't understand how you think you help your reputation and your organization by coming here and being hammered -- never seeming able to reply in a manner useful for achieving your goals. There have been many expressions of potential support if you were to clean this all up, including from me. Why keep offering yourself and NOR up to what is essentially a very public humiliation?)

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## marko

NationalRivers said:


> . Marko, if you are claiming that the federal court decision in _Atlanta School of Kayaking_ is no longer good law, please explain why.


The fact that you even have to ask this question shows you do not understand how the federalist system actually functions: the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia is only legally binding for that district, and is NOT legally binding precedent for the rest of the country. A person could certainly try to use this district court's ruling in Colorado (like BrianK already suggested above) and hope that it becomes binding here, but that is not guaranteed. Hence it is still an unresolved issue...



> If you are claiming that Supreme Court decisions about labor relations, or the length of trains, mean that states can deny navigation rights on navigable rivers, please explain how.


Again, if you don't understand why the States, in Chief Justice Roberts words, you know, the highest law of the land, have "residual powers" to regulate the "waters within their borders" then maybe you should take the time to learn about how the federalist system actually functions.

I've written enough on this topic in the past here, and I stand by every word of it. Thus I will not be replying to you and your illegitimate organization's posts anymore. I simply do not have the time to argue with a person who has the logical reasoning and argumentation skills of a 1st grader.


----------



## elkhaven

richp said:


> (Eric, for the life of me, I don't understand how you think you help your reputation and your organization by coming here and being hammered -- never seeming able to reply in a manner useful for achieving your goals. There have been many expressions of potential support if you were to clean this all up, including from me. Why keep offering yourself and NOR up to what is essentially a very public humiliation?)


It's almost like he takes lessons from Orto.....


----------



## BrianK

The biggest problem is that any real life situation where this will come up will be a state issue - either a Criminal Trespass Action or a Tort (Civil Trespass). So it will be state courts applying state laws first. 

While state courts are beholden to federal laws - in practice they are much more responsive to state statutes and decisions.


----------



## Andy H.

Eric / NOR,

It's heartbreaking to spend this time arguing with you, as we're both on the same side and I very much wish that things actually worked the way you say they should. Some will laud your passion and commitment to a cause we both espouse, however passion and commitment won't get the results we're both hoping for if you use a fundamentally flawed premise of how the system works.

You are spreading misinformation and incorrect legal theories. Your theories will sound great to the uninformed who wish them to be true and provide a solution, but they are flawed theories nonetheless. And if river users don't know any better and believe your theories and follow your prescriptions, your misinformation actually undermines the work of legitimate groups that have been working on these issues for decades. 

I know because I once embraced some of the arguments you espouse, however I've learned since that things are much more complicated than the very appealing statement: "a river that is navigable in fact is navigable in law." 

Like Rich P says, go and use your methods and test the system as you so enthusiastically recommend others do. You've got a roadmap, go use it and then tell us how far it gets you.

If you get to Lee’s Ferry by the method you espouse, you'll garner a lot more support when you post video footage of yourself earnestly stating your case and handing Ranger Dave an autographed copy of your book as you launch. 

In the meantime, please quit spreading your misinformation here. You are in violation of the MB community rules by spreading misleading information and also using this board to try to get people to buy your book and support your organization. A convincing argument that you aren't spreading misinformation would be getting that Grand launch using your methods.

-AH


----------



## soggy_tortillas

*Just for the sake of clarity...*

Quote:
Originally Posted by *NationalRivers*  
_In the Emmert case, the defendant (David Emmert) claimed a right to fish on a non-navigable stream, based solely on the passage in the Colorado constitution saying that the state owns the water flowing in streams. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled against him on that point. He did not claim a right to canoe, kayak, or raft on rivers under federal law, and the Colorado Supreme Court did not deny that right (nor could it have lawfully done so). Of course certain landowners and their lawyers try to create the impression that the decision denies the public easement on physically navigable rivers in Colorado, but it does not do that. It only denies the public easement on waterways that are not physically navigable, such as ankle-deep creeks. River users can help improve the situation by educating landowners and law enforcement officers about the difference between these two types of waterways, and about public rights, under federal law, to walk along the beds and banks of rivers that are physically navigable._

I know you're probably already getting enough shit for this, but your statements about the Emmert case don't seem valid. Not only did this case occur on the Colorado River (which by most standards would be considered "navigable"), in this situation the river was considered "non-navigable" and Emmert and company were indeed in a raft. Turns out most rivers in Colorado are actually deemed "non-navigable."

This is an excerpt from the Colorado Bar Association's assessment of the case along with the link to download and read.

"[1] The validity of the conviction depends upon our determination of the following question: Did the defendants have a right under section 5 of Article XVI of the Constitution of Colorado to float and fish on a non-navigable natural stream as it flows through, across and within the boundaries of privately owned property without first obtaining the consent of the property owner? We answer this question in the negative and therefore affirm the conviction.

Trial was to the court. The evidence was not in dispute. The facts were stipulated. Some testimony was presented in explanation of the stipulated facts. The record shows that on July 3, 1976, the defendants entered the Colorado River from public land for a float-trip downstream. The Colorado River flows westerly and bisects the ranch of the Ritschard Cattle Company. As it passes through the Ritschard ranch, it varies in depth from twelve inches to several feet. The rafts on which the defendants floated were designed to draw five to six inches of water, and had leg-holes through which the occupants could extend their legs into the water below the rafts. This enabled the defendants as they floated down the river to touch the bed of the river from time to time to control the rafts, avoid rocks and overhangs, and to stay in the main channel of the river. They touched the riverbed as it crossed the Ritschard ranch. The defendants did not, however, leave their rafts or encroach upon the shoreline or the banks of the river or islands owned by the Ritschard Cattle Company.

The defendants had not asked for nor received permission to float on the river through the Ritschard ranch, and the defendants Taylor and Wilson had previously been warned that they had no permission to float through the ranch.

Upon being notified that a party of floaters was approaching, Con Ritschard and his foreman extended a single strand of barbed wire across the river at the location of the Ritschard private bridge. The strand of barbed wire was from eight to ten inches above the surface of the water and was placed in this position specifically to impede the defendants. Ritschard and his foreman remained on the bridge to tell defendants they *140 were trespassing on private property. Defendants Taylor and Wilson were stopped at the bridge and told they were trespassing. They denied this and floated their rafts under the barbed wire and remained under the bridge for a period of time until defendant Emmert, and others in the rafting party caught up with them. Shortly, a deputy sheriff arrived and placed the defendants under arrest, and they were subsequently charged with third-degree criminal trespass.

The parties stipulated that the river is non-navigable and had not historically been used for commercial or trade purposes of any kind. Accord, Stockman v. Leddy, 55 Colo. 24, 129 P. 220 (1912). However, the river had been used in the past by recreational floaters using rafts, tubes, kayaks and flat-bottom boats, despite the express objection of the Ritschards. At the time of this incident, the river had been posted with no-trespassing signs.

Also, it was agreed that substantially all of the Ritschard ranch land was deeded land with no exclusion of the bed of the river, and that the area where the defendants were stopped was such an area, with the land on both sides of the river owned by the Ritschard ranch.
[....]
It is clear, therefore, that since the section of the Colorado River here involved is non-navigable the title to the stream bed is owned by the riparian landowner, the Ritschard Cattle Company. Defendants do not dispute the ownership by the Ritschard Cattle Company of the riverbed in question."


Turns out I actually can do a little bit of my own research...

So that being said, if the Colorado River wasn't considered to be navigable in this case, then I would assume many other rivers commonly floated are also deemed unnavigable.


----------



## upshitscreek

NationalRivers said:


> Regarding NOR claiming 501(c)(3) status in 2013, that paragraph was copied from the old website, along with many other paragraphs, by the website developers..


I just looked through the previous version website via restrac's web-archive site and actually found no mention of your defunct "non profit" 501c3 status let alone any text resembling what is on the new site from that page. It's a small site but if I missed it then show me. Once again though, you appear to be full of shit. 

National Rivers: NORS Membership, for canoeing, kayaking, rafting, paddling, whitewater, fly-fishing, river conservation, river protection, river access, river rights, and river navigability law.

Also, how is that an excuse anyway even if it was there? You had been out of business since at least '02. This archive is from 2013! 

And a Amen! to AH's "Put up or shut up." Since you seem a tool, the latter is best though.


----------



## Wiggins

I am not going to comment on the legal opinions rendered by NOR. I would be way outside of the depth of my legal training in doing so (as I believe Eric Leaper to be as well).

What I will comment on is what is likely to happen if you test these legal waters, so to speak.

Law enforcement agencies do not enforce the law as interpreted by some unknown "legal expert" citing questionable claims and theories that have been untested in the jurisdiction where the incident is taking place. Trespass law is nothing new. I seriously doubt there is a law enforcement agency anywhere in this country that has not had to hash out these issues with their own prosecutors and legal counsel. Giving a sheriff's deputy a copy of Leaper's book is not going to get you anywhere but in a courtroom facing trespass charges.

A few years ago a group of people decided to challenge this by floating some non navigatable waters (and I mean by any standards) in my agency's jutisdiction. The group included a self proclaimed legal expert/college professor, and they defiantly told the responding officers that they could not be arrested due to a very similar arguement to the one provided by NOR. One call to the prosecutor confirmed what the deputies suspected and the group was told to clear out or face charges. They choose to leave.

Most people here seem known that NOR is giving bad advice already. This post is for those who don't.

While I am on the subject international drivers licenses do not trump your suspended state drivers license, you still have to register your vehicle even if you are a "free man travelling upon the land," dilomatic plates don't grant any special privilages unless you are a member of a foreign diplomatic corps, and there is no way to get out of paying taxes by declaring your autonomy from the US.

Sorry to disappoint.

Kyle


----------



## NationalRivers

The authors of the previous posts keep saying that NOR materials will get people ticketed or arrested, or shot, but here is what the new book actually says: (You can see the cited cases, represented here with asterisks, on the sample pages posted at nationalrivers.org.)

"There are several ways in which river users in any state can restore public rights on rivers that are navigable by canoes or kayaks. First, it is a violation of federal law to obstruct rivers, or public walking along the banks of rivers, with fences, cables, or “No Trespassing” signs. River users should report these unlawful obstructions to local authorities, and follow up to make sure that such obstructions get removed.

"Second, it is a crime for landowners to threaten river users, especially with firearms. River users should likewise report such crimes to authorities, and follow up to make sure that the crime gets prosecuted.

"Third, rivers that are navigable in the ways described earlier are navigable “in the constitutional sense” (under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution),* and public rights to navigate these rivers, and walk along their beds and banks, are constitutional rights.* Federal courts have confirmed that river users have the legal right to sue government officials who interfere with these public rights, under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act, and to receive reimbursement for their attorney’s fees under Section 1988.*

"In most circumstances, however, it is better for river users to work with government officials and elected representatives to settle disputes based on current law, rather than filing further lawsuits. The purpose of this book is to help all parties better understand existing law regarding the public easement. Therefore the following pages further explain federal law regarding the public easement on physically navigable rivers, what state and local governments can and cannot do regarding this easement, and how to resolve disputes about this easement.”

Regarding the permit system on the Grand Canyon and other rivers, what the book actually says is this:

“Congressmen want the public to vote for them. The Congressman’s party affiliation does not matter. (Republican or Democrat, most Congressmen will help a constituent get on a river.) Congressmen call this “constituent casework,” and every Congressman has several staff members dedicated to doing it.

"Congressmen don’t expect constituents to be articulate or scholarly. A constituent simply needs to make an appointment with a staff member at the local office of his Congressman, take copies of his previous rejections from the Park Service, and spend a few minutes summarizing the situation: (1) He or she applied to the lottery and was turned down (and did not join someone else's trip.) (2) He confirmed that space is readily available by paying a concessionaire... (etc.)"

In summary, NOR is telling river users how they can dialog with their elected representatives, as well as law enforcement officials and landowners, about existing Supreme Court decisions that confirm public rights on rivers usable for canoes or kayaks or shingle bolts. That’s all. NOR is specifically telling river users to not get ticketed or arrested, and to not launch on the Grand Canyon or other permit rivers without a permit.

In effect, the authors of the previous posts are claiming that this dialog process will somehow lead to arrests, that talking to elected representatives about these things won’t help, and that expensive litigation is needed to improve public rights on rivers.

This, of course, is what the landowners who oppose river access want river users to believe—that river users have no rights unless they win them in state courts, state by state, after expensive litigation. As long as people believe that, landowners can exclude kayakers from numerous smaller rivers with portages, and they can charge fishermen expensive "rod fees" to fish along the banks of rivers.

It’s also what the Park Service at the Grand Canyon wants river users to believe—that noncommercial river runners have no right to get a permit except by repeatedly applying to the lottery. As long as people believe that, commercial operators can continue to fill most of the space on the river (during the summer) with commercial customers paying them about $320 to $450 per person per day.

It is still a mystery to me why the authors of the previous posts think that river users should not talk to elected representatives, law enforcement officials, and landowners. Why discourage that? I am particularly puzzled about why Rich Phillips thinks I need to prove that it's worthwhile for river users to talk with their Congressman's staff about Grand Canyon permits. Why would any river user want to discourage people from talking with their Congressman's staff about that situation? 

To those of you who are reading this thread rather than posting on it, here’s a question: Which advice makes more sense to you? The NOR advice to dialog with elected representatives, using existing Supreme Court decisions, to restore public rights on rivers in every state and through federal lands? Or the opposing advice to remain silent, and wait for expensive state by state litigation, and a possible new management plan, some day, on the Grand Canyon?

I’ll let you decide.

--Eric Leaper.


----------



## pinemnky13

I've decided. AW gets another yearly donation, and I'll take another calendar. Sorry NOR but I'll donate to the tried and true.


----------



## Wiggins

I am not saying that people should not attempt to have a dialogue with local officials. There is a time and a place for that. I am telling your audience what they can expect if they attempt to have that conversation with law enforcement during a criminal trespass investigation. Civil disobedience and forcing arrest to force issues into the courts is a valid tactic for changing the law, but those who would practice it need to go in with their eyes wide open. Your rhetoric sugar coats the legal realities in most, if not all jurisdictions by making these issues sound as though they have been settled in court to the satisfaction of all agencies having jurisdiction. They have not.

Again this is posted for the people who may be buying into the NOR argument. 

The reality is that no law enforcement agency is going to tell a property owner they cannot post their property, or let you trespass on private land in violation of state law just because you think you can. 

You can try to sue the cops for enforcing the law, but you are going to first have to show in court that your interpretation of the law is correct (and thus far NOR has been unable to find a legal expert who agrees with them enough that they are willing to post a review of their work). Even then since this would be dealing with a change in case law and the police would have been enforcing the law as the pertinent courts understood it at the time of the incident. As such they would likely be granted qualified immunity. In other words the tort goes nowhere.

Again, I don't claim to be a legal expert on property rights, but I know enough to see the flaws in NOR's arguments. If you have cop telling you to leave or be arrested understand that is what will happen if you do not leave. Also understand that you may just be cited for being there without first being asked to leave. The dialogue that NOR is advocating may never even get a chance to happen, and Eric Leaper won't be able to stop it. You may face a uphill battle in court so you should be prepared to lose.

Kyle


----------



## richp

Hi Eric/NOR,

"I am particularly puzzled about why Rich Phillips thinks I need to prove that it's worthwhile for river users to talk with their Congressman's staff about Grand Canyon permits. Why would any river user want to discourage people from talking with their Congressman's staff about that situation"

As you full well know, nothing I posted said or implied anything close to the above synopsis. 

What I said boiled down to, "Eric, if your methods are so effective and legally sound, why not first demonstrate them yourself, and tell us -- step by step in real time -- how the process worked? " 

Quote me on that. And answer it in a way that persuades Buzzards it's not just blowing self-promoting, evasive smoke.

Look, given all the skepticism you've garnered here over the years, there are only two routes for you. Demonstrate you can get actual river permits using your methods, and win actual significant court cases with your legal theories. That's particularly true since you seem to be unwilling to provide review copies of your "book" to folks who could provide the rest of us with an informed assessment.

Rich Phillips


----------



## Andy H.

Eric,

I don't think anyone is dismissing the potential benefit of speaking with elected representatives, and by implying so you are twisting our words. 

You have stated before that you would provide your book to legal experts for review, and no review has appeared. Furthermore, you are expounding on the law yet I have no memory of when you have informed us or your qualifications to do so. 

Marko has provided your book to a constitutional scholar who found a critical, foundational flaw within one minute. 

As Rich P. says:



> Eric, personally apply for a GC permit, and tell us that in real time. If you're denied, go to your Member of Congress and seek help there to get a permit issued. Again, update us at every stage of that maneuver. If you are granted a permit through that method, you may have shown a possible avenue for others to get permits. (Or, you may not prevail, and stimulate unforeseen adverse consequences.)
> 
> However, let's suppose you are unable to get a permit in the way you so confidently urge others to use. Then Plan B is available, and simple for you to deploy. Using the legal theories you equally confidently proclaim here and elsewhere, initiate litigation. Tell us about that as well, and keep us updated as it proceeds to a conclusion. (And in doing all this, beware of the possibility of achieving a court decision that strengthens -- not diminishes -- agency discretion in managing rivers.)
> 
> In other words, put up or shut up. With the exception of us awaiting the (long-pending) book review by independent legal experts, the rest of this is just a re-hash of a re-hash from past Buzz discussions.


Please do the following: 1) use the roadmap you have laid out in your book and keep us posted in real time with the results, 2) provide us with your qualifications to expound on the law, and 3) provide an independent review of your theories by a qualified expert. 

Until then, please respect the Mountainbuzz Community Rules and do not spread misleading information and your flawed legal theories on Mountainbuzz or mine the Mountainbuzz membership for your organization's benefit. We have the same goals, to improve access to river users, however your prescription overwhelmingly appears to be based on flawed concepts as understood in context of the legal system we have.

-AH


----------



## NationalRivers

Based on the above, it seems that we are reaching agreement on several things:

1. River users should talk regularly about public rights on rivers with government agencies, law enforcement officers, and their elected representatives.

2. River users should not use themselves as guinea pigs. For example, if a landowner says he will shoot river users, people should not run that river at present. Instead, they should talk about public rights on rivers with landowners and law enforcement officials. They should ask the sheriff to tell the landowner that shooting river users would be a crime leading to a long jail sentence. They should only run the river again after the sheriff has talked to the landowner, and the landowner has agreed to not shoot river users.

3. Likewise, if the sheriff says he will cite or arrest river users, people should not run the river at present. Instead, they should talk about federal decisions regarding public rights on rivers with the sheriff. If he won’t change his mind, they should ask their state legislator to intervene. They should only run the river again after the sheriff has agreed to not cite or arrest them.

4. I, Eric Leaper, should “practice what I preach.” For example, the next time I want to obtain a Grand Canyon permit, I should apply to the lottery. If I don’t get a permit, I should check to make sure that space is readily available by paying a concessionaire, then discuss the situation with a constituent caseworker in the Colorado Springs office of my U.S. Representative. I should meet with the caseworker several times over the course of several months, as the caseworker sends letters to the Park Service and receives replies. (Note that someone who has not run the Grand Canyon several times before would be in a somewhat better position to do this than I would.)

5. As another example, if I want to run the Taylor River through Harmel’s Resort and Wilder Ranch, I should first ask the local sheriff whether landowners are attempting to block river running or not, and whether the sheriff considers river running to be trespassing or not. Based on what I hear, I should follow steps 2 and 3 above.

6. As soon as one of the lawyers who now have copies of NOR books writes a review, NOR should publish that review.

7. If a lawyer writes a better book about public rights on rivers than the present NOR books, NOR should distribute that book instead of the present books.


----------



## Ole Rivers

NationalRivers said:


> Based on the above, it seems that we are reaching agreement on several things:
> 
> 7. If a lawyer writes a better book about public rights on rivers than the present NOR books, NOR should distribute that book instead of the present books.


"The Public Trust Easement

In the case of an easement, the public retains access over private property to enjoy a public trust resource."

From the book
"Nature's Trust: Environmental Law for a New Ecological Age" --- U of Oregon Environmental Law Professor Mary Christina Wood. Chapter 14, page 328

Our river rights that protect our public trust use of, interest in and control of our public trust assets such as air, water and wildlife are derived from the Public Trust Doctrine and its predecessors, such as the Justinian Code from Roman times. Professor Wood is a well known national authority who has written a book that may also prove to be integral to the ongoing Colorado Water Plan and current Oil and Gas Task Force about fracking in which water has a major role. Public protection, use of and access to our common waters is a fundamental part of our rights.

No offense, however, it simply encompasses a broader scope in raising our awareness about these types of rights.


----------



## Ole Rivers

*Sign at Emmert Ritschard/Lazy 7 Ranch*



NationalRivers said:


> The authors of the previous posts keep saying that NOR materials will get people ticketed or arrested, or shot, but here is what the new book actually says: (You can see the cited cases, represented here with asterisks, on the sample pages posted at nationalrivers.org.)
> 
> "There are several ways in which river users in any state can restore public rights on rivers that are navigable by canoes or kayaks. First, it is a violation of federal law to obstruct rivers, or public walking along the banks of rivers, with fences, cables, or “No Trespassing” signs. River users should report these unlawful obstructions to local authorities, and follow up to make sure that such obstructions get removed.
> 
> --Eric Leaper.


Pic from May, 2013 but I've seen the sign this year.

This pic of the sign/river/banks/upland, which has been there for years, was taken at the upstream eastern boundary of Emmert's Ritschard Ranch, now known as the Lazy 7, if I'm correct, on the Colorado just west of Parshall.

Any reader… is this a violation? Is this an obstruction? Should it be reported to/discussed with law enforcement/ranch owners?


----------



## gunnerman

Well here you go Eric, this is your test spot. This should be a rather easy job for NOR if this sign indeed is still there. With all your concrete case laws lets get this sign removed. And if the sheriff doesn't listen, call up AW and have them file the legal brief and see were it goes. Pretty simple test and no-one should get shot. Really,cause if your group can't get this done then don't ask us buzzards for anything!! Kapeesh!!


----------



## soggy_tortillas

Part of it will be reversing the non-navigable designation that section of the river was given.

By the way, Ole Rivers, good job finding that pic.


----------



## NationalRivers

gunnerman said:


> Well here you go Eric, this is your test spot. This should be a rather easy job for NOR if this sign indeed is still there. With all your concrete case laws lets get this sign removed.


Yes, excellent example, now we’re talkin’. Of course, the purest case would be an actual fence across the river, physically obstructing it, with a sign hanging on the middle of the fence. In this case, by contrast, there are at least three factual issues to resolve before taking legal action: Is there actually high voltage ahead? If so, does it actually pose a significant safety hazard to people who continue down the river? If so, was the high voltage thing, whatever it is, lawfully installed, or is the high voltage thing itself an unlawful obstruction on a physically navigable river?

After confirming that there is, in fact, no actual hazard to warn river users about (or at least nothing that was lawfully installed,) it will be time to contact the sheriff and the landowner to get the sign removed (as well as the unlawful thing downstream, if any). If they don’t respond, it will be time to contact state legislators. If they don’t respond, it will be time to have a lawyer contact all parties again to say that the sign must be removed as a matter of law. If they still don’t respond, then it will be time to file suit.

I know this takes time. On the other hand, the Missouri Supreme Court held in 1954 that a canoeist lawfully “pushed down” a landowner’s fence across a shallow river, when he shoved his canoe over the top of it and proceeded down the river. In this case, if a river user were to remove this sign at some point, and in the event that he got caught, perhaps he could cite that case _(Elder v. Delcour)_ as part of his defense, although there is no guarantee that a Colorado court would agree, and we are not suggesting such a procedure—we are not suggesting that river users put themselves at risk in the process of restoring public rights on rivers; we are suggesting ways of restoring rights _without _putting oneself at risk.

There is no actual “non-navigable designation” to overcome, but in the event of a lawsuit, it would indeed be necessary to show that the_ People v. Emmert _decision does not mean that the river is non-navigable, because in that case, lawyer David Emmert agreed with the prosecuting lawyer that this section was non-navigable, so the courts never ruled on whether it was navigable or not—courts don’t rule on issues that the two sides in a case don’t contest.

We will add this sign to our list of signs to complain about to the sheriffs and legislators in various places, and to the offending landowners. Since we can’t handle everything ourselves, it would also be helpful if someone living in that Granby-Kremmling area would coordinate with us. Let us know at [email protected].

Again, thank you for posting the photo. Excellent progress.


----------



## NationalRivers

Ole Rivers said:


> From the book "Nature's Trust: Environmental Law for a New Ecological Age" --- U of Oregon Environmental Law Professor Mary Christina Wood.


Yes, excellent book, we’ll add a discussion about it and a link to it from nationalrivers.org (or perhaps include it in our book selection). Professor Wood describes the overall failure of environmental agencies to protect fish, wildlife, and other elements of nature, and the failures of courts, in many cases, to hold those agencies accountable. Public rights on rivers are one tiny part of that big picture.

Historically, river conservation law grew out of river navigability law: The ancient public right to boat and fish on rivers was the original source for the legal requirement to conserve the water and fish in rivers. So our work regarding public rights to boat and fish on small waterways is a sort of underlying foundation for environmental law protecting the water, fish, and habitat on those same small waterways.

So yes, Professor Woods is far more qualified to write about overall environmental law than we are, and her book is far superior to our books regarding overall environmental law, and yet our books about public rights to actually use rivers play a tiny role as a sort of background or undergirding of the parts of her book that deal with environmental law on rivers and creeks. And our books focus on this one aspect, public access rights, which directly affect current paddling and fishing, on whatever water is still flowing down rivers after agencies allow damming and so on.


----------



## NationalRivers

marko said:


> The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia is only legally binding for that district, and is NOT legally binding precedent for the rest of the country....


Yes, that is indeed the question, for marko and whomever else would like to argue it. There is a steep creek in northern Georgia. It is entirely surrounded by private land, except where a county road crosses it near its headwaters. That crossing could serve as a put-in, but the creek has been entirely closed to the public for decades.

So suppose I’m in court as an expert witness testifying that the creek could be used for advanced kayak classes that would teach students how to run waterfalls, boof rocks, and catch micro eddies to portage around unrunnable drops (based on my twenty years of experience as a kayak instructor and guide on similar rivers and creeks). The lawyer I’m working with cites _Atlanta School of Kayaking_ and _United States v. Appalachian Electric_ to argue that since the steep creek was usable in the 1800s to transport short sections of logs, and is usable today for kayak classes, it is navigable for Commerce Clause purposes and must be open to kayakers under federal law. (He also argues that kayakers as well as fishermen have the right to walk along the privately owned banks.) You are the lawyer for the State of Georgia, or the landowner, arguing that the state has authority to keep it closed. The judge indicates that the “residual power” phrase from _PPL Montana v. Montana,_ and general concepts of federalism, will not be enough for you to win the case, since _Atlanta School_ and _Appalachian Electric_ specifically support the public easement under federal law.

So what’s the rest of your argument? How would you show that _Atlanta School of Kayaking_ is no longer good law, in northern Georgia? What else would you cite to show that the State of Georgia can keep the creek closed?

Now we move to Colorado. Grape Creek flows out of a reservoir near Westcliffe and flows for over ten miles down to Canon City, where it joins the Arkansas. Just below the reservoir is a good public access spot, but a mile or two downstream from that there is a barbed-wire fence across the creek, with a sign saying to not proceed past that point, because the creek is entirely surrounded by private land for the next several miles, and violators will be prosecuted.

So I’m in court as an expert witness testifying that the creek could be used for advanced kayak classes that would teach students which of the many steep, rocky rapids on Grape Creek can be run, and which need to be portaged (walking along the privately-owned banks of the creek to do so). Again, the lawyer I’m working with cites _Atlanta School of Kayaking_ and _Appalachian Electric,_ citing _Atlanta School_ as good law that is not controlling in Colorado, but is persuasive, especially since there is no other federal decision that is contra, from anywhere in the nation, and it has now been 17 years since the _Atlanta School_ decision (and also because it matches up with_ Montana v. United States_ from 1981). He argues that Grape Creek is navigable for Commerce Clause purposes so it must be open to kayakers and fishermen under federal law. You are the lawyer for the State of Colorado, or the landowner, arguing that the state has authority to keep it closed. The judge indicates that _PPL Montana_ and general concepts of federalism won’t be enough for you to win the case.

Again, what’s the rest of your argument? How would you argue that Grape Creek is not navigable for Commerce Clause purposes? How does a state have authority to close a waterway that is navigable for Commerce Clause purposes under federal law? If states do indeed have authority to close such waterways, is there any legal principle stopping states from closing every river in the nation? Do kayakers have any legal rights to kayak down rivers and creeks through private land, or can all such kayaking be terminated at the whim of state courts or legislatures?


----------



## soggy_tortillas

NationalRivers said:


> There is no actual “non-navigable designation” to overcome, but in the event of a lawsuit, it would indeed be necessary to show that the_ People v. Emmert _decision does not mean that the river is non-navigable, because in that case, lawyer David Emmert agreed with the prosecuting lawyer that this section was non-navigable, so the courts never ruled on whether it was navigable or not—courts don’t rule on issues that the two sides in a case don’t contest.
> 
> Again, thank you for posting the photo. Excellent progress.



Yes, but how do you get around the fact that on two separate occasions the Colorado Supreme Court has stated (not written) that the majority of streams/rivers in Colorado are non-navigable?


----------



## upshitscreek

NationalRivers said:


> We will add this sign to our list of signs to complain about to the sheriffs and legislators in various places, and to the offending landowners. Since we can’t handle everything ourselves, it would also be helpful if someone living in that Granby-Kremmling area would coordinate with us. Let us know at [email protected].
> 
> Again, thank you for posting the photo. Excellent progress.


Real world translation of Eric bullshit speak: nothing is going to happen that comes from NOR. 


Still awaiting your response on your latest blatant lie too, Eric. Or still need some more time to come up with another windbag, untruth answer?


----------



## NationalRivers

soggy_tortillas said:


> Yes, but how do you get around the fact that on two separate occasions the Colorado Supreme Court has stated (not written) that the majority of streams/rivers in Colorado are non-navigable?


The Court actually wrote that there are no navigable rivers in Colorado in two water rights cases in 1912 and 1913, but both cases were about water rights, not navigation rights, so the remarks were only _dicta _(remarks about issues that were not litigated in the case.) Remarks in decisions that are dicta do not set precedent, as you can verify for yourself elsewhere on the internet. Even if the remarks had not been _dicta _(i.e., even if the Court would have ruled that there are no navigable rivers in the state after hearing factual testimony about navigation on rivers, and legal argument,) such a decision would still not affect which rivers in Colorado are navigable for Commerce Clause purposes under federal law, which is determined by federal law, not state court decisions.

The U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed that rivers that are navigable in fact are navigable in law, i.e., if they are physically navigable they are legally navigable, with no official designation needed. Federal courts have confirmed that rivers are physically and legally navigable if they are usable for canoes or kayaks or shingle bolts. So the rivers in Colorado that are usable in these ways are already legally navigable now, under federal law.


----------



## paulk

Is grape creek runnable? I was under the impression that it is one of the worst runs in Colorado. Then again, this was from a sandbagging author who happens to work for... dun dun dun American Whitewater!!! 

It's all coming together now.


----------



## upshitscreek

NationalRivers said:


> We will add this sign to our list of signs to complain about to the sheriffs and legislators in various places, and to the offending landowners..


Please post your list here too. I'd like to see it. Thanks.


----------



## mikepart

*SPAM*

Why don't folks on the buzz just ignore this guy and treat his posts for what they are: SPAM.

I ran into an exact duplicate of his original post on another forum, so I Googled "river users should know their rights" and got several pages of other forums with copy and paste identical threads.

I think that river users should have a conversation about access issues, but this is just a guy posing as a non-profit, promoting a book and soliciting donations.


----------



## SKeen

I have lost sight of the point of this whole thread. What is national rivers trying to convince everyone to do? Go out and independently challenge touchy river access issues by putting on the water in "restricted" sections to start some kind of grass roots protest campaign? Buy a book? Waste a bunch of time reading crap that gets us nowhere because there are no good rivers to run in Colorado's painfully long off-season?


----------



## 2kanzam

this certainly seems relevant to the discussion...

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/fishing/waterbodies/reports/2013-jackson-river-tailwater-map.pdf


----------



## chiapet74

Keep your toes wet and youre good. At least here in Cali


----------



## restrac2000

His last post showed a hint of receiving feedback, that is a start. NORs social media and internet strategy is problematic and unsophisticated, that is for sure. Their spamming of multiple forums with PR messages for their website is causing them a lot of grief here. I think the benefits of their approach gets completely lost in the process they have chosen to deliver the message. That and the over-reaching claims they present. I think many of us understand one avenue of change can be cross-stakeholder and agency communication. But it has proven itself to be historically limited as it assumes all parties act in good faith. That doesn't always happen, on either side of the access issue.

Phillip


----------



## Paddle_like_Hell

I’ve been following this discussion here and on Boatertalk with considerable interest. As an avid paddler, that lives in Texas, I have seen my fair share of angry armed landowers and had plenty of run-ins with police over such incidents. In fact, we (a small group of paddlers in Central Texas) are currently party to a criminal investigation of a particular landowner that has harassed us for years on my backyard run. We have had warning shots fired and on a latest occasion been watched through the scope of a deer rifle from a nearby bluff (trust me nothing makes you second guess your boof stroke like knowing you’re in the cross hairs). The sheriff’s dept. has verified our right to be on that particular river and have given him verbal warnings but he has not backed down in the slightest. Additionally, my wife has a master’s degree in legal studies and wrote her Master’s thesis on a spring fed Class IV creek in Texas named Crabapple creek that has long been the scene of landowner harassment, trespassing tickets, and even arrest. In our opinion, both drainages are clearly navigable under the State’s navigability statute. 

Long story short, this discussion has created a lot of back in forth in our community as we discuss the merits of NOR’s legal theory, and believe me it’s not flawless. But at the end of the day that’s what it is, a theory. And as untested as you may think it is, I can’t wrap my head around the hate and vitriol the buzz is throwing Mr. Leaper’s way. I live in a state where the law is on my side but I remain accosted by armed landowners and I, personally, welcome every voice on this issue regardless of what my armchair evaluation of his legal theory is. What do you think his objective is? Getting rich off his book ? Are you kidding me? You can’t even make kayaks and sell them to this crowd and make a decent living. On what planet do you think he’s looking to produce a best seller on navigability rights? Or maybe, he’s just as concerned as those of us who actually have to deal with this shit and thought he’d let his voice be heard, as the 1st amendment allows. The accusations that he’s taking support away from AW, trying to get people shot, etc. are way more ludacris than his argument for federally validated navigability rights. He’s done research, he’s written his theory, and he’s made an effort to get it in front of a community that he thinks it could help. What’s so wrong with that?

Flawed or not, NOR is providing an opportunity for a productive conversation about how to make sense of a highly debated set of standards from state to state and an avenue to discuss a unified front for National paddler’s rights. One thing I do know, the Fed. gov. has not been silent on the value of state's obligation to hold public lands in trust and that philosophy is the historic driving force behind each state's statutes as they pertain to river access. Would a state to state focused approach be more applicable? Damn Straight! Does that mean that these efforts are "more harm than good", No it doesn't. What harm is there in a Federal argument for river rights? Any right that has ever been challenged, developed, given, or defined has seen both a state and a federal front. 
I entrust the state of Texas to protect my rights to enjoy navigable waterways and if they fail that trust the violated party should push the issue with everything they can muster and every word toward awareness is a word in the right direction.


----------



## restrac2000

Fair enough.

I can only explain my approach. First, my skepticism largely comes from the first impression he made last fall. He used a major issue that affected the western whitewater community to bolster his rebranded organization. It was an attempt to market themselves off an issue in which they had no currency, no short-term resolution and highly questionable long term approach. NOR has shown poor judgement in that regard several times.

Two, his organization has failed to vet the material in any fashion. That is beyond poor form when it comes to something as historically controversial as river law. He has been writing this book for a long time, which provided ample time to have a third party not biased by his worldview to review the material in an open way. As well, we have confronted him about this for more than a year. His response? To continue to spam our forum with the same material that is largely click-bait for his own website and fundraising. 

Three, the haphazard way he has handled criticism to his ideas and website. Their is little to no accountability to how he handled the claims of non-profit and 501(3)(c) status which rightfully leads to skepticism regarding any legal claim he may make. As well, if the goal is conversation and dialog, then he has failed to lead by example. Until recently he showed no vulnerability to the scale of his claims and how untested they remain. The certainty by which he exclaims the simplicity of the issue has raised red flags for many of us.

No one is claiming that his fundraising and marketing are to make tons of money. No one in that field of work makes much money. Its obvious his passion is lifelong and he has spent a lot of personal time investigating the issue. But we can't forget organizations like this are driven by a persuasive style of communication that is meant to convince us of the validity of their claims and goals. He has utterly failed to do so on this forum. Have some comments gone too far? Yes, and I could have been one of those last autumn (haven't read the thread in a while but I know I spent a lot of time questioning how I could better communicate on the internet without becoming too combative). But he spent no time developing any rapport in the community and has engaged in habits that are shady and problematic (like sock puppets and spamming). He continues to spam the forum despite criticism. 

If the goal is facilitating conversation and not driving traffic to his organization, website and sales of his obscure book than I would recommend he consider a completely different approach as the current one is failing. He might start by not always linking his organization in his threads; no longer mass dumping the exact same message to multiple forums; and spending time interacting in the community in threads that aren't solely about his personal ideas. IMHO.

Phillip


----------



## upshitscreek

Paddle_like_Hell said:


> What’s so wrong with that?
> 
> .


Well, dude, every time I look into something he says, I find another straight lie or puffed up bullshit.

That may work for you but not for me. 

If he was here just as Eric Leaper with no spam, selling useless books or plugging/fundraising for his crock of shit NOR then I'd just write him off as clueless, naive, windbag type of person with no idea how the real world works and pay him no mind. 

But he's not so I'm doing my part to see that people are aware and not wasting their money with him vs sending it to a more deserving organization like AW, for example.


----------



## soggy_tortillas

I don't always agree with Texans (joke, I like most Texans), but I definitely agree with Paddle Like Hell. I started the other thread asking about Colorado private property access laws, and in the very first response I got back, National Rivers was mentioned... maybe not in a super negative way but it has certainly progressed from there... Whether the legality of his statements and theories is correct or not, I don't think it gets any of us anywhere when we target Eric Leaper personally. Comments like this are realistically not productive in any way, shape or form... it actually just comes off as pompous and close-minded. I've tried to at least be respectful about the questions I've asked and the responses I've given. I was really just looking for helpful answers... anything relevant. I didn't realize I was opening up such a big can of worms.

"Waste a bunch of time reading crap that gets us nowhere because there are no good rivers to run in Colorado's painfully long off-season?" 

"Why don't folks on the buzz just ignore this guy and treat his posts for what they are: SPAM.

I ran into an exact duplicate of his original post on another forum, so I Googled "river users should know their rights" and got several pages of other forums with copy and paste identical threads.

I think that river users should have a conversation about access issues, but this is just a guy posing as a non-profit, promoting a book and soliciting donations."

"Real world translation of Eric bullshit speak: nothing is going to happen that comes from NOR. 


Still awaiting your response on your latest blatant lie too, Eric. Or still need some more time to come up with another windbag, untruth answer?"

"Fuck off NationalRivers. You are going to get someone arrested with your third rate bullshit legal advice."

"good lord, the delusional, windbag fuckstick is back.

Has the IRS caught up with you yet, dipshit?"

"Any dumbass sending this lying,delusional piece of shit $$$ ....well, a fool and his money are soon parted. No truer saying here.

The asswipe can't even take care of the most basic business let alone accomplish anything that's going to help river users. 40+ years of nothing. 

Send your money to AW.

Go fuck yourself, Eric. "

Maybe I'm being a hypocrite... I don't know... maybe I wasn't as respectful as I thought... maybe I'm a pansy and I just wish we could all get abong... I just don't feel comments like this are going to get us any farther than where we are, which is just arguing. 
Come on guys, let's progress by having real discussions, not just ragging on National Rivers, who has clearly put more research and effort into finding a resolution than the majority of us have. As I said before, I think Eric is trying to do a good thing, maybe he is going about it in the wrong way but I still appreciate that somebody is out there trying to find answers... yeah, maybe (actually definitely) American Whitewater is way more effective in their ideas and procedures... but at least National Rivers is trying... 

So before anyone else posts some shitty comment about Eric Leaper, as yourself:
WHAT ARE YOU DOING TODAY THAT'S PRODUCTIVE AND USEFUL???


----------



## Ole Rivers

restrac2000 said:


> His last post showed a hint of receiving feedback, that is a start. NORs social media and internet strategy is problematic and unsophisticated, that is for sure. Their spamming of multiple forums with PR messages for their website is causing them a lot of grief here. I think the benefits of their approach gets completely lost in the process they have chosen to deliver the message. That and the over-reaching claims they present. I think many of us understand one avenue of change can be cross-stakeholder and agency communication. But it has proven itself to be historically limited as it assumes all parties act in good faith. That doesn't always happen, on either side of the access issue.
> 
> Phillip






There are 4 stream access, use and/or protection procedural avenues through which change may be created, amended and/or confirmed:
1. Litigate
2. Legislate
3. Initiate and/or
4. Educate (Learn, Raise Awareness)

Each has pros and cons.

There's a big difference between "access" and "use". 
There's access *"to and from"* water. 
There's use *"of"* water.

There's "*up*lands" and there's "*bed*lands". The line that separates the uplands from the bedlands is the "ordinary high water mark".

There's the "high water mark" and there's the "*ordinary* high water mark". Big difference between the two terms.

There are 4 combinations of private and public access over private and public uplands to/from private and public bedlands but only 2 combinations that require, rightfully, private interest permission:

1. Private uplands to private bedlands (private permission)
2. Private uplands to public bedlands (private permission)
3. Public uplands to private bedlands and
4. Public uplands to public bedlands.

National Rivers, or anyone, may want to clarify how #3 may or may not need private interest permission having to do with navigable or non-navigable waters.

Under Colorado State Constitution Article XVI, Section 5, waters are publicly owned in common to be used for beneficial use (language doesn't say "access", it says "use").

Many, many ancient, Common and Federal laws, rulings, regs, etc, confirm, create or amend to protect the public trust interest in, control and use of our public waters *and make contact with the bedlands whether public or private* when doing so.

Essentially, the primary authorities used to maintain that you can't "touch bottom" are the Emmert CO Supreme Court case, CO Criminal Trespass statute that was amended in 1977 (1977 SB 360 - I have the incredibly misinformed, mistaken and misunderstood legislative committee hearings' discussion and testimony, including testimony from the Lower Blue's Jim Yust) in direct relationship with the Emmert case to define "premises" to include "banks and beds" and the 1983 CO Attorney General's Opinion.

Upon much research, it's my belief that, if challenged, Emmert would be found to have erred, the criminal trespass "premises" definition amendment would thus be unconstitutional and the definition's repeal would ultimately result and, lastly, the AG's Opinion is just that... an opinion and, therefore, has no legal weight.

This gray area of law continues, since 1977, to allow the private interest to bully and intimidate the public interest (you) to do nothing and maintain the status quo to their benefit. Remember, while the private interest enjoys private "usufructory", or "use" rights, the public trust interest has use AND common "ownership" rights. The private interest has "*property"* rights but the public has *"property"* rights, also.

IMO, the 3 most important bases to successfully proceed in one, some or all of the above mentioned procedures are:
1. Organization
2. Funding and
3. Media

The most important base to effectively clarify substance is:
1. Language, whether to litigate, legislate, initiate or learn and which must be clear, concise and confirming.

From what I've read in both National Rivers' books and online posts, it seems they advocate to assist private, public and govt folks to learn public trust interest rights. NR, correct me if that statement's in error. My procedural approach is "Learn First Then Legislate...or Initiate...or Litigate".

To activate any of these processes to get to the substantive language part, there needs to be a flashpoint. In 2010 here in CO, that flashpoint was the Wilder On the Taylor developer's attempt to privatize a Taylor River section that resulted in the failed private interest commercial business "rafter's bill", 2010 HB 1188 (which was a bad bill from the get go).

Presently, there are 2 flash points now going on in CO which impact your river rights, the Colorado Water Plan and the fracking, which involves water, discussion by the Oil and Gas Task Force, both of which boaters, fishers...any and all water users and public owners in common should, but have not Commented (I have) to protect our public's interest in, use and control of our public trust natural resource assets, such as air, water and wildlife, for the public's benefit. Search both for info, learn and then act to stand up for your public river rights.

It's a choice, folks. Sit down and maintain the status quo of being scared to even scrape a rock with your boat or Wooly Bugger, or stand up for your public trust interest.


----------



## soggy_tortillas

Then again, I guess I didn't get a chance to read the above responses before I posted mine. I also haven't been on the Buzz for that long, so I don't really know the background of the situation.


----------



## Andy H.

Paddle_like_Hell,

I really don't care about NOR's non-profit status or website, nor do I think Eric's trying, or even thinking, he'll get rich off his book. 

As I've stated several times before, I think we share the same goals as NOR, and it's gut-wrenching to argue against someone who's on the same side as us. However, NOR is expounding incorrect legal theories on how laws governing river access and riparian trespass, at least here in Colorado, work. 

We'd all love to see success in what NOR's preaching, but Eric is expounding on the law as if he's an expert, and in doing so, is spreading misinformation (that we would love to believe) among the boating community about a very complex and confusing issue. What I consider dangerous is that if uninformed boaters believe and act upon what he's saying, those actions and beliefs can: A) get people who believe him arrested for trespass, B) reflect poorly on the majority of law-abiding boaters, C) make people think changing laws can be done by telling the sheriff and local authorities they don't understand the laws, and citing some court cases, and D) undermine the efforts of legitimate and skilled groups such as AW in working toward improving river access.

This last one is really significant to me because misinformed boaters that believe NOR may wonder why AW or CW hasn't been more successful when NOR makes the issue seem so clear cut and as if there is an overwhelming body of law in favor of access. The conclusion some may draw is that AW or other legitimate groups are at best, a bunch of incompetent fools, and at worst, "selling out" private boaters, because these groups are not delivering the river access gains he's told them can be had simply by citing the right court cases. Court cases that NOR's researched and put right there in his "new short book."

NOR even went so far as to say (Post #12):


> AW has something in common with the landowners and lawyers in Georgia (and Colorado) who oppose public rights on rivers. They both claim that these rights are determined by state law, and in both cases their claims conflict with federal law.


In effect, NOR may as well be saying, "even after working for over a half century on river access, American Whitewater has been buying the landowners' BS and STILL hasn't even figured out that these rights are NOT determined by state law!" 

Another way NOR can undermine efforts of legitimate groups is to launch a half-baked lawsuit that gets beaten down so badly it actually _*strengthens*_ the position those opposing river access.

I've made a few different analogies to what he's doing so far, and here's another one: Imagine a broup of us get off the river, only have a few bucks between us, and we go into a grocery store to get some food. And Eric is telling the rest of the group, in a very confident manner, that we don't have to pay for bottled water in the store because since that water is from Colorado, it's considered "waters of the State" and the constitution says it belongs to the people of Colorado, and that's us! So we can just take it! If you knew better, and saw the trouble coming, how would you react to the guy that's giving bogus advice?

Is NOR passionate and committed about something we'd like to see happen? There's no denying it. But it doesn't matter how passionate and committed you are, if you're trying to find your way across Colorado using a road map from New Hampshire, you're not going to get where you want to go. And you're going to lead others astray who follow you.

-AH


----------



## marko

I previously wrote: "The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia is only legally binding for that district, and is NOT legally binding precedent for the rest of the country.

NOR responds with:


NationalRivers said:


> Yes, that is indeed the question, for marko and whomever else would like to argue it.


It is not a *question* of whether a US district court's holding on a specific issue is legally binding on other districts and states; it is a *fact* that a US district court's holding is NOT legally binding on other federal districts and states. In other words, this is not an arguable point; it is the current reality of how the federalist system functions. 



NationalRivers said:


> Again, what’s the rest of your argument? How would you argue that Grape Creek is not navigable for Commerce Clause purposes? How does a state have authority to close a waterway that is navigable for Commerce Clause purposes under federal law? If states do indeed have authority to close such waterways, is there any legal principle stopping states from closing every river in the nation? Do kayakers have any legal rights to kayak down rivers and creeks through private land, or can all such kayaking be terminated at the whim of state courts or legislatures?


This whole hypothetical scenario you have created shows, again, how little you know of how the system actually functions. You are like the guy who knows the entire history of baseball and all of its stats. And, yet, you have never bothered to learn the rules of the game, nor have you actually stepped up to the plate to play the game. What is worse is that you then have the fucking audacity to tell the people who know the rules, and who have actually played the game, that they are all somehow playing the game wrong - while conveniently suggesting that they should then buy your book to see why everybody is wrong and you are right. 

So rather than follow you down your foolish rabbit hole of fallacies and hypotheticals, I'll suggest one last thing to you: step up to the plate with your theories, your money, and your ass on the line and see how it goes.


----------



## Ole Rivers

*Free. Freebo. Zilch.*

Free.

For those of you who want to learn more, for free, about your stream access, use and protection rights, go to Google.com/alerts --> create Alerts for subjects such as:
"Colorado Stream Access"
"Victoria's Secret Models"
"Navigable Waters"
"Emmert Trespass Colorado Supreme Court"
"Angelina Jolie"
"Colorado Public Trust Doctrine"
"Lyrics to 'I'll Be Drinking Christmas Dinner This Year'"
"Montana Public Land and Water Access"
"Utah Stream Access Coalition Law Suits Legislation"
"Colorado Water Plan"
"Colorado River Oil and Gas Task Force Water Quantity"
"Beer"
"Colorado Obstruction of Highways Waterways Statute Fences"
"Public Bridge Access Law Montana"
"American Whitewater Recreational Historical Use Weight Evidence"
"Beer"
Etc.
"Beer"

Then organize the alerted articles, pdf's, etc you want to Save for future reference in Folders in your browsers, get the IOS app "iBooks" or Android counterpart to organize the pdf's and, violins!, you're an expert!


----------



## Tom Martin

In this, the 60th year of river permitting to float through Grand Canyon, I too would like to thank Eric for his attempts to educate river runners about their rights to access rivers. 

Folks who take shots at the messengers are aplenty. Folks working on the vexing issues of equitable access, like Eric, few. If you haven't gone out and gotten a copy of Eric's paper, read it and understood where he is coming from, trying to shoot his arguments full of holes is most curious. 

There is still a lot to do, and I am happy to see at least a few folks are willing to keep working on the issue. What is happening in Colorado and on the Grand Canyon in Arizona is illegal and illogical, with much work remaining to be done. 

All the best, Tom


----------

